The End

Technically this assignment has come to its end.
Due date: tonight Midnight Eastern Standard Time.

I am sure this blog will be revisited before the end of this certification process, heck I might even keep it so that I can have a semi-intellectual place to post things...most likely not.

What does Douglas Adams have to do with DE anyway?

In Modes of Interaction in Distance Education Anderson discusses 6 types of interactions.
Including human/computer interactions. Sorry but I still think that human/computer interaction is human reaction to the computer interface. The computer is a source of information, I have certain ways of providing input, the computer has certain ways or reacting to the specified input. I do not expect the computer to randomly respond to a random input. If I choose an input the computer does not readily understand, I expect a "ping" or an error message. I do not expect my machine to reply at random.
Its purely a one sided relationship. I may be interacting with the computer but it is not interacting with me.
I immediately think of Douglas Adam's Starship Titanic. This is an interactive CD-Rom game where the computer randomly appears to generate a response. The computer appears to actually react to the user. This gives all of the appearance of true human/computer interaction. In reality its brilliant programming, and several very smart people anticipating what the user may actually input in order to provide well over 16 hours or recorded responses.

Heck, Douglas Adams was just brilliant to the point that with out trying too hard I can apply his writings to all sorts of fun stuff! I used examples from Long Dark Tea Time of the Soul when writing about Shango the Nigerian thunder god. After all the Dirk Gently book revolves around Thor, the Norse thunder god. And that really was not the stretch it sounds like it was. In Salmon of Doubt Adams discusses that personal computers started out as fancy calculators and in a short time became fancy typewriters, and then became a model for things we hadn't even thought of yet. He even mentioned that we could be able to use the computer to help model experiences that we could otherwise have no realistic ability to experience first hand. See with out much effort Adams is applicable to a discussion about Second Life! I miss his wit, and I never had the chance to meet him in person and say "thank you for being brilliant and impacting our lives so much." --Ever have anything translated on the web? do you use babelfsih.com? Do you know what a babel fish is? Its an Adam's creation from the Hitchiker's Guide. Seriously.

Ok back to course design and other fun bits....

I found it interesting that Anderson again brought up the content less interactions is not a desired learning methodology, yet student to student interaction produced the highest satisfactory levels in learning. Thus showing students already think they know what it is they are learning about, and don't really give a toss about actually learning, as long as the appearance of learning is satisfactory.

I really felt that Ch 10 from Anderson's book and Ch 5 from Moore & Kearsley were painfully redundant to each other and to them selves. I am aware that where my brain is while I read this stuff is part of it. But I can't help but wonder how much am I getting in my own way? I had been in a classroom once for an anthropology project before I began my M.Ed. Once. So I was fresh and able to absorb all of the theories. I could not understand how some of the teachers who were getting their master's degrees had conceptual issues with these concepts. I get it now. Some of the information being written is just not applicable to me, specifically, and I have a hard time seeing how to extend it beyond theory. Are these researchers in the field? Ever?
Yes having a team design a course would be peachy-keen, but really? Who is going to get all of these experts to subdue their egos long enough to produce a quality product within the time constraints? AND what institution is going to fund all of this? The author-editor and Lone Ranger models seem to be the most realistic options when developing course material.
Sure there will be limits based on the instructors media capabilities, but....with easier user interface in LMS software, the limits are going to not be so limiting.

Mea Culpa!

I am completely guilty of putting off this sections assignments until close to the end of the time period. Sheer laziness on my behalf. Its horrible of me, especially since I request time and time again of my own students to not do this when they have to rely on another student to provide comment fodder. I have not provided adequate comment fodder in a timely fashion.

Having owned up to my slacking on the home work, here is my beginning commentary on the course readings:

These are totally random thought I jotted down as I was reading, they will be meshed into a coherent and articulate response to the questions addressing the similarities and differences between designing and delivering DE courses and f2f courses, and the change in the instructor's role.

(Bates and Poole Chapter 7)
• I wonder how much of the course design is influenced by the software? would the UMUC course be structured differently if it was not using WebTycho but using D2L instead?

• So if my course designer was a "Lone Ranger" before I was hired to take on his courses does that make me "Tonto?" Do I really even want to contemplate calling DW "kemosabe?"

•Fear of lower qualified instructors, lower pay?
Ok I am very much concerned about this one. I do MORE WORK for my online course than I do f2f. I check on my students every day. They get more one-on-one than my f2f students do.
This does bring up a concern I have as an instructor. I had a discussion with my dean at the art school. He wanted some information about taking classes on line, and since I teach online he was interested in my point of view. He was very surprised to hear that I get paid just as much for an online course as I would for a live course. He had not expected that. I also told him that the online students get more of my time He was also taken aback when I told him I understood that developing courses were paid the same as teaching a course for a semester, and that it took roughly a semester to get a course online and ready to go.
I also said that it takes a person who knows the material to put a course together (design) and that it is best if they do know the material if they are running the course (teaching it).
This was a great chapter to read right now, especially since I am hoping to do some course design and to assist in course design over the summer for the art school

•Content free courses that become only the students' and instructors' opinions.
Ha! this is a good point. Actually it came up in class this week. Again my f2f class in art history, we had our poster discussions. This allows us to have 5 different "conversations" that relate to class, and the discussions cannot be dominated by one or two students. Well, one of the dominating students again asked why this format, and he said its takes away the fun of seeing where a discussion goes. I said no, it keeps the discussion on topic. Apparently there is a course where all they do is show up and discuss, what they "think" about something, and the section of that class I taught they were required to actually read the text book. And they wished the other guy taught art history! Whatever happened to going to school because you wanted to learn?

•Yet again the issue of course material in one class being of use to another class. I could have used some of the information in this chapter when I was working on the evaluation plan with the group in the other class.

Support

Here I am sloggin away on my first academic paper in months ( ok its been 3 years) and finding it difficult to get into the swing of things. Review this read that, take notes. I am to incorporate from the assigned course readings to show that I have considered the ideas presented. 1200 words is a bit more of a challenge than I care to admit. Not the generating 1200 words, thats easy, but limiting to 1200 words. Also the bit with incorporating the reading. I've had to go thru and reread. Im including bits and pieces, but with all papers I wonder: am I producing what the professor has requested?

So I am happily drafting away when I realize that in the pedagogical review section of the paper I can lean heavily of the Reeves and Harmon paper. After all is all about weighing and measuring pedagogical "dimensions" of IMM. Then after a cite or two I remember: the Reeves and Harmon paper is not one of the readings for this course. Oye! I'm still using it, it still is a valuable source, and it is a reading from the program.

So far in this program I have had more cross-over information than I can remember ever having done before. Its so nice to see the program support itself information wise. What is also nice is this is not a program where I will encounter this information at some distant point in my future, but this is applicable now. I am teaching in an asynchronous environment. I am teaching via mobile communications. I am so doing what I can to ensure this is how I continue teaching professionally.

Random Observation

Avatars.
I do not use images of myself.
In my various course workspaces, blogs and Skype interaction I use an avatar that is not me.
I am noticing on a lot (not all) of the class blogs we get to see who the person is.

Just a random observation.

Excuse me, my education is showing

Wow. I can definitely say that my previous degree is finally coming in handy. I can say I have applied learning theories in how I have conducted a class. But I'm using the information far more in this round of courses than I think I have in practical application.
Discussions are interesting, and I will say I sometimes wonder if we (everyone in class) all read the same paper. Maybe since I (sort of) know what I am looking for in regards to educational theory and pedagogies I have a slightly different focus when I read.

In Moore's editorial: Web 2.0 Does it really matter? I was reading a commentary warning about getting carried away with new technologies. To me he was taking a very Clark stance, that media does not influence learning. He was saying that teaching methodologies, and course design influence learning. To me Moore was saying keep your focus, and then let the technology fit in as it will.

This is how it makes sense: Ok, lets add a blog to class projects. Why? On the surface it seems that throwing in a blog is simply throwing in a blog. Looks like using a technology just because its there. A lot of the responses to using a blog in class are at this level. Now, lets take a look back at course development and design. Cognitive learning theories that are constructivist and social in nature need some form of interaction in addition to the main lesson, that support the main lesson. In DE, participant interaction in limited, and needs to be "encouraged." A lot of educational encouragement is called an assignment or project, since many students will only do the minimum required of them. So the blog assignment is actually a means of "encouraging" additional interaction between students. So now the blog is a tool to encourage social interaction. By limiting the blog topic to reflections on course work, it becomes a tool in social cognitive learning.


Then again, did I "read" the same paper as everyone else from Duffy?

Duffy states "Such socially-based technologies sit well with the understanding of learning as socially constructed, which has been a cornerstone of recent pedagogical theory. Blogs, YouTube and wikis provide a means to
encourage and make visible the social construction of knowledge which such theory postulates, and it is
incumbent on teachers to embrace such tools where their use is beneficial to learners and teachers alike."

Yes this is in support of social constructivist theories. But I don't think that supporting these learning theories needs to necessarily mean that educational design needs to change to cater to twitchy students.

Yes by all means we need to take into account the learning styles of students. Not all students learn the same way. When Duffy claims the students "absorb information quickly" I see that as extremely limiting. Students from the net generation may expect to receive information in quick bite-sizes bits, but it does not mean they absorb and maintain that information. I feel that Duffy is missing something when he points out what Prensky (2004) described as "twitch speed" in the "net generation." I sensed that Duffy is claiming that these students "absorb information quickly" and they expect ease of access and constant communication as a good thing.

Students who expect instant information have the attention span of a gold fish. If information is not instant they dismiss it as not necessary. They definitely are "twitchy," and after having been in classrooms with this generation I feel this is not a good thing. Students who fit within this generation have not learned how to absorb information that does require lengthy explanations. They have not learned patience. They practically do not know how to function with out being plugged into some device. And act as if they are going through addiction withdrawals if they are not allowed access for a prolonged period of time (2 hours).

Encouraging bad social skills in an educational environment, to me just seems like a bad idea.


Anderson tied social constructivist learning in nicely with social networking: "Each of these pedagogies stress the value of social interaction in motivating, modeling, validating, supporting, challenging and providing new perspectives throughout the learning process. These theories also acknowledge the central role of technologies in supporting human communication and in finding, retrieving and distributing information."


Social networking may turn out to be the next best thing for social constructive learning theories. But I will still believe that MySpace was developed by the Evil League of Evil.


Anderson, T. (2009) Social Networking in Education. A draft paper to STRIDE handbook for The Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU). Retrieved: April 27, 2009, from http://terrya.edublogs.org/2009/04/28/social-networking-chapter/

Duffy, P. (2008) Engaging the YouTube Google-Eyed Generation: Strategies for Using Web 2.0 in Teaching and Learning.The Electronic Journal of e-Learning 6(2) pp 119 - 130. Retrieved January 3, 2009, from http://www.ejel.org/Volume-6/v6-i2/Duffy.pdf

Moore, M.G. (2007). Web 2.0: Does It Really Matter? American Journal of Distance Education, 21(4), 177-183. doi: 10.1080/08923640701595183

The geek in me

Second Life as an educational tool? Really?

Im not exactly sure how I feel about that. I mean The benefits are really geeky cool, but the other implications...They can weigh pretty heavy in the scales.

I didn't look up any studies, and really dont feel like doing the research at the moment, but what are the health risks in long term video world immersion? Are people even looking into this? Glasses are only the tip of the iceberg, and "gamer's butt" or "standard internet body" usually come with a host of other physical health issues. And what about epileptics? Does long term computer usage effect them? I seem to recall hearing something about that when I was a kid regarding epilepsy and video arcade games.

I have other reactionary emotions regarding RPGs, the least of which involve I do not think the same as the programers, and therefore perform horribly at these games.

But thats the cranky me, the geek in me really wants to dive in. Granted I was very upset with my personal Diablo gaming results, but maybe taking this virtual world out of a game, and using it for something else, maybe thats what will lure me in.

I am beyond intrigued with visiting ancient Greece, or Rome or Egypt or Mesopotamia. And I wish there were Renaissance Fairs that were more themed to those cultures. Also at this point in my life, and the world political crap, what are the odd of me getting my wanna-be art historian self over to Bagdad? Will Americans ever be able to safely travel to Persepolis again? I have a student who was stationed in Iraq. He has discovered my weakness and keeps telling me about the art, and the structures. He got to see things I will only ever see in photos.

If Second Life can "take me there" maybe I really want to go with Second Life. Fact is I can really see how this can be used as it directly relates to me. I don't have to project and think, well yes I can see positive implications of using this as a hands-on learning tool for dealing with toxic waste. Thats just intellectual talk. I can really see how this would work in an Art History environment. Yes looking at art in a museum is great. But looking at art where it was made, how it was made, when it was made; looking at art where and when it was for, now thats a learning tool.

Mediaeval Christian art is interesting to learn about (for some) but what if a student could walk into a scriptorium and see what was involved in creating illuminated manuscripts, what conditions the monks were working in? How much more information would be retained? Looking at Gothic cathedrals, sure they are interesting buildings, but how is a student supposed to really understand about the importance of the height of the ceilings, and the stained glass windows, and the sounds of the choir, when they are mostly exposed to lecture and book. But, now, put those students into Chatre, into Saint Chapelle, they will experience it on a whole different level, and their testing over the subject would show improved scores.