Sunday, October 17, 2010
Saturday, October 9, 2010
Mashup. Vs Framework
I may be taking liberties and using the term 'Mashup' a little liberaly here but below is an e-mail I sent to a colleague 'Chris' after a discussion around the concepts of 'Frameworks'.
Hi Chris,
I think what you've been working towards looks real good. I've kind of got a bind but am working through it.
It's almost retrospective to be discussing "Frameworks" when the new order is more of a 'mashup'
Using WWW wherever whenever whatever. Frameworks determine parameters. I recognise that what they are after is a pedagogical construct that they can point at
as evidence that we know what we are doing but....
The following quote from (J.Harding,2004) "Using safety nets: flexible learning and operational change"
one of her references is:
Cairns notes:
Change is the only constant, knowledge and information is open, plentiful and incomplete. The reality of the new-style organisation is characterised by chaos, complexity, uncertainty and paradox.
The rate of change is such that we can no longer even pretend that we can know what is going to happen next. (1998:26)
(Cairns.M. 1998) "Approaching the Corporate Heart" Simon and Schuster, Australia.
So.... mashup indeed.
I think the real tenet we must incorporate in our teaching/learning framework is to be learner-centred, this avails a huge and mixed range of recognisable framweworks. Personally I prefer to look at process then try to fit which framework this might be called/ aligned to.
To try to do otherwise may be missing the point and leave untried possibilities unexplored.
Regards
Merf
Friday, October 8, 2010
"Eureka shared"
Couldn't wait to share my new knowledge.
DISCOVERY
A good day.
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Reflecting on "Eureka"
Since my "moment" last evening, I've been reflecting on 'WHAT' it was in particular about this reading that made such an immediate connection with me. I mean, I'd read several texts about constructivism and other frameworks, but this time.....I re-read my gushy intro from last night, here in lies the answer, I said "the subject matter transported me". This indicates that I (on a subconscious level) bought into the "story". The reading had a small example of a 'real world' situation with 'real people', I entered that world, I recognized the similarities with my own teaching style and aims. But was that all...what then changed this experience from being another head nodding exercise to being an epiphany of sorts?
I strongly remember the last book that had this effect on me, it was in 1980 and it was "Gougeon Bros on Boat Construction", that time it set me on a journey of discovery that gives us the boatbuilder you see today. The precursor to the "Gougeon" book was mucking about in boats, reading trade/ boating magazines and the odd tale of seamanship, I was also, at the time, living in Australia and the KZ7 Americas Cup excitement was upon us. These things (societal you'll notice) allowed me the freedom and language to recognise a passion that has sustained me as a person for many years. Was I actively looking to become a boatbuilder? No not actively, I was a draughtsman for an engineering firm. Can I see parallels with where some of my students 'come aboard' with their studies? absolutely.
So...what happened?
Firstly; it challenged and made me recognise the relevancy of prior reading and my witnessing of examples of other peoples work with students, sometimes physically, sometimes from recorded exemplars.
Secondly; this recognition brought with it the understanding of where I was weak in application of this technique in teaching, namely, being brave enough to let construction happen within the knowledge and skills students already possess, in other words to stand off more, to "Facilitate-not Regurgitate". The ideas for lesson and activities plans have taken a dynamic shift within me. I can't stop smiling-it is a key.
Thirdly; the realisation that the culmination of a plethora of bite sized information and learning alighned to perhaps not give me knowledge per say, but to develop that knowledge into a inspiring deliberate actions to move forward with.
Finally; behind all this was a slowly remembered concept that I often mistakenly overlook. I often see frameworks as something 'I' need to fit into. "WRONG" I just need to recognise which framework I assimilate to naturally.
Again this realisation harks back to prior knowledge from a GDipHE course around L&N frameworks and interventions. For me I have to start with 'what I do now' that is good, then, see where it fits a framework. NOT! here is a framework now change yourself to suit it.
Thanks Trisias Halifran for a one liner that had that particular penny drop for me. Once I understood this, I felt that I had been "Dumb" for quite some time, but... so be it.
In effect then, I am more aware of the very processes that constructivist learners should go through. It may be the very first time I've been able to see a true overview of the processes I myself experience 'as' I experienced it. (uuoooohh spooky possums)
Where did the learning final happen? was it in a societal environmental?
You bet it was, the daily collegiate banter between colleagues in the SLT group and staff that just get into it, with lunchtime discussions, items of interest being distributed freely, online bog posts from a variety of educationalist and tutors, suggested readings that then promoted surfing wider topics and views, all had a hand in it. Has web 2.0 tools played a role. Of course. So...
Thirdly; the realisation that the culmination of a plethora of bite sized information and learning alighned to perhaps not give me knowledge per say, but to develop that knowledge into a inspiring deliberate actions to move forward with.
Finally; behind all this was a slowly remembered concept that I often mistakenly overlook. I often see frameworks as something 'I' need to fit into. "WRONG" I just need to recognise which framework I assimilate to naturally.
Again this realisation harks back to prior knowledge from a GDipHE course around L&N frameworks and interventions. For me I have to start with 'what I do now' that is good, then, see where it fits a framework. NOT! here is a framework now change yourself to suit it.
Thanks Trisias Halifran for a one liner that had that particular penny drop for me. Once I understood this, I felt that I had been "Dumb" for quite some time, but... so be it.
In effect then, I am more aware of the very processes that constructivist learners should go through. It may be the very first time I've been able to see a true overview of the processes I myself experience 'as' I experienced it. (uuoooohh spooky possums)
Where did the learning final happen? was it in a societal environmental?
You bet it was, the daily collegiate banter between colleagues in the SLT group and staff that just get into it, with lunchtime discussions, items of interest being distributed freely, online bog posts from a variety of educationalist and tutors, suggested readings that then promoted surfing wider topics and views, all had a hand in it. Has web 2.0 tools played a role. Of course. So...
Eureka !!!
EUREKA!!!
I do believe... I've found it.Actually Chris threw me into this particular bath in which I discovered my true displacement value. (Thanks Chris I'll buy you a doughnut)
I'd been investigating "constructivism" as a model to frame my teaching style, delivery and classroom activities around when... "WHAM" Chris sent me a paper he'd come across that opened the door. (must have been a breeze blowing 'cause the door nearly came off its' hinges)
Contructivist Teaching and Learning
By: Audrey Gray
http://saskschoolboards.ca/research/instruction/97-07.htm
This reading may very well change my life. It encompasses 'ALL' that I've come to believe over several years of teaching and helped identify for me the one particular area that I'll personally need to focus on developing within my 'self'.
I've been teetering around the edge of this development for some time but...a sample of this paper, that switched me on:
(A.Gray,1997) A constructivist teacher and a constructivist classroom exhibit a number of discernable qualities markedly different from a traditional or direct instruction classroom. A constructivist teacher is able to flexibly and creatively incorporate ongoing experiences in the classroom into the negotiation and construction of lessons with small groups and individuals. The environment is democratic, the activites are interactive and student centered, and the students are empowered by a teacher who operates as a facilitator/consultant.
and:
Constructivist classrooms are structured so that learners are immersed in experiences within which they may engage in meaning-making inquiry, action, imagination, invention, interaction, hypothesizing and personal reflection. Teachers need to recognize how people use their own experiences, prior knowledge and perceptions, as well as their physical and interpersonal environments to construct knowledge and meaning. The goal is to produce a democratic classroom environment that provides meaningful learning experiences for autonomous learners.
The difference in tone with Audrey Gray's writing and the reality of the subject matter transported me into the settings and discussion perfectly, shockingly.
I'm very much a pragmatist, as it turns out, and until I could envisage the 'HOW' I couldn't take the next step. Well... "clear the stoop, I'm comin' through".
I'll need to spend quite a bit of time developing methods to "Let go". But I'm starting to see 'HOW' I can facilitate this 'absolute' in my teaching.
(A.Gray,1997)A constructivist student-centered approach places more focus on students learning than on teachers teaching. A traditional perspective focuses more on teaching. From a constructivist view, knowing occurs by a process of construction by the knower. Lindfors (1984) advises that how we teach should originate from how students learn.
and:What is essentially involved in constructivist strategies and activities is a process approach to learning. Applebee (1993) remarks that "rather than emphasizing characteristics of the final products, process-oriented instruction focuses on the language and problem-solving strategies that students need to learn in order to generate those products" (p. 5). And as students interact with their teacher and with each other as part of either whole class activities, small group activities, or individual activities, they practise using language in a variety of contexts developing and honing many different skills as they do so.
All these statements fit perfectly well with, my personality (with some work) my beliefs and the settings of the discipline in which I teach. I don't pretend that I'll get it running on rails any-time soon. In fact off the rails is part of the ideal, rails being confining in nature. I do think however that a constructivist approach to my teaching and my students' learning has, with this paper, been given a push to help propel my leap of faith.
Below is the one area where the ability to prepare to Let Go of teacher control is perhaps the most difficult part of the whole constructivist approach. It is essential, there are still parameters around which there is little if any room for negotiation, but there is still a large area where freedom to mould assessments, timing of content coverage, alignment between practical hands-on sessions and theory content absorption/recognition. Inventive and versatile activities and resources are a must and time developing these may be interactive with students to some extent. Preparation of resources for days when things get a bit "pear shaped" may also need to be available as a pull back position without loosing too much momentum.
(A.Gray,1997)Negotiation is an important aspect of a constructivist classroom. It unites teachers and students in a common purpose. Smith (1993) confirms that negotiating curriculum means "custom-building classes every day to fit the individuals who attend" (p. 1). Boomer (1992) explains that it is important when negotiating for teachers to talk openly about how new information may be learned and about constraints such as obligatory curriculum. He comments on the meaning of negotiating the curriculum:
Negotiating the curriculum means deliberately planning to invite students to contribute, and to modify, the educational program, so that they will have a real investment both in the learning journey and the outcomes. Negotiation also means making explicit, and then confronting, the constraints of the learning context and the non-negotiable requirements that apply. (p. 14)
and:
Students actively involved in their own learning is a vital reality in a constructivist classroom. Students may participate in the construction of the curriculum by negotiating the themes that will be the focus of their work along with the selection of literature from a predetermined range of literature. Students may also participate in the design of their assignments, although the parameters for these may be established by their teacher. Finally, students may have some involvement in the way their assignments are evaluated.
Work Cited:
Audrey, Gray. "Constructivist Teaching and Learning." Saskatchewan School Boards Association ». 1997. 07 Oct. 2010 <http://saskschoolboards.ca/research/instruction/97-07.htm>.
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
"Value Added is Value Recognised?"
We must have the implementation our students' learning to develop themselves using on-line tools as a creditable achievement aside from the achievement possible in the use of these tools within other course work where the use of the tools is simple a part of the communication process etc...
This is a concept very close to my heart. I see it as imperative that students get the recognition for Web 2.0 tool capabilities that they can take forward with them. Simply embedding may be the catch phrase of choice at present , but it doesn't go far enough.
To which end I have canvassed the students' both verbally and in some cases using an online "google form" survey in order to gauge responses.
Here is the survey questions:
https://spreadsheets.google.com/viewform?formkey=dExhWXAtc2ZtcG10ODFiQTJpNXNWZXc6MA
Here are the results thus far:
https://spreadsheets.google.com/gform?key=tLaYp-sfmpmt81bA2i5sVew&gridId=0#chart
It is clear to me that this little sample is not enough, my next step has been to ask students' to build questions for their own survey around the same topic matter. This is (in-progress) and showed some good questions being developed.
This is a concept very close to my heart. I see it as imperative that students get the recognition for Web 2.0 tool capabilities that they can take forward with them. Simply embedding may be the catch phrase of choice at present , but it doesn't go far enough.
To which end I have canvassed the students' both verbally and in some cases using an online "google form" survey in order to gauge responses.
Here is the survey questions:
https://spreadsheets.google.com/viewform?formkey=dExhWXAtc2ZtcG10ODFiQTJpNXNWZXc6MA
Here are the results thus far:
https://spreadsheets.google.com/gform?key=tLaYp-sfmpmt81bA2i5sVew&gridId=0#chart
It is clear to me that this little sample is not enough, my next step has been to ask students' to build questions for their own survey around the same topic matter. This is (in-progress) and showed some good questions being developed.
Reflections on reading #9 "Personal Alignment"
A framework model is a difficult choice. as I've heard said "Your personal teaching style does come into it".
I'm favouring a constructivists model but liked what I saw on the (Laurillards) link as well, and then there was...
It may be a case of look at what I naturally see as lesson tasks, e-devices use, etc... and recognise from these which model I'm actually developing towards. I like to think it is a Constructivist Model but...
Here I'm going to add an example of the type of exercise I'm developing to promote and provide a means for students to build collective knowledge from their own spaces.
The premise is to have students research and review from given subject matter. This task is done in an application available online, with all students invited into the document. I've chosen to use Google presentation for this end. I know what you are thinking... just another blooming MS Powerpoint snore.
As this task cycles through, over many weeks, we review "What" has been added each week in a face-face discussion. This is when critical thinking and group building of understanding can happen. If a student feels he can do a better job, I ask that he duplicates the slide he feels able to redevelop (with the assistance of the first slide attemptee) remove first renditions on the duplicated slide and we may review the second (revised) "Term" descriptor in due course. It is important that the student group feel safe in having their work discussed and critiqued, this I believe is where I can moderate and guide the session, not as an answer machine.
As a means to start each "Theory" session with students it is a good student centred activity.
I thank Scott Gallagher for expressing his "One Fact a Day", a regime he has with his students, for getting my creative juices going for this one. (Scott! I now do a verbal "So... what little gem of knowledge have you been learning since we last met" every day, great to start our practical sessions. They get a giggle and I don't relent 'till I get something. They are slowly learning to expect this little greeting.)
Lastly I believe this approach is (eventually) student led, collaborative, prompting of enquiry and research, multi mediae, transparent and knowledge building in a similar way to the ideals held up as good pedagogical examples in (C.McLoughlin, 2008) "The Three P's of Pedagogy.....Appendix A, bottom p25 where a group of law students' build a wiki with the same ideal as "wikipeadia" and with similar possibilities.
Many other systems of student-centred activity are being used/explored, "Blogbooks of learning" (Journals to you) google doc assessment portfolios both individual and collaborative in nature. recording theory debates in smartboard scribble. (not tidied up to aid recall) the start of review videos as training, iterative, access anywhere tools. etc...
I can clearly see the pedagogical relevancy and feel it is right on target.
BUT!
The question remains: "What framework does this represent?"
I'm likely to phrase my framework in a schematic form in order to express my ideal. Not sure yet how to present this.
Below is my "invitation to you" to view this work. Please be mindful that this is student work (in-progress) so 'view only' is the rule for visitors.
Work Cited:
McLoughlin, Catherine, and Mark J.W. Lee. "The Three P’s of Pedagogy for the Networked Society: Personalization, Participation, and Productivity." International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education. Http://www.isetl.org/ijtlhe/index.cfm, 27 Oct. 2008. Web. 15 Sept. 2010.
I'm favouring a constructivists model but liked what I saw on the (Laurillards) link as well, and then there was...
It may be a case of look at what I naturally see as lesson tasks, e-devices use, etc... and recognise from these which model I'm actually developing towards. I like to think it is a Constructivist Model but...
Here I'm going to add an example of the type of exercise I'm developing to promote and provide a means for students to build collective knowledge from their own spaces.
The premise is to have students research and review from given subject matter. This task is done in an application available online, with all students invited into the document. I've chosen to use Google presentation for this end. I know what you are thinking... just another blooming MS Powerpoint snore.
"But wait there's more."
By giving students access to the presentation document, I only input into two slides myself.- A slide for the directives and rules of engagment within this collaborative document, and
- A second slide set up as an exemplar.
As this task cycles through, over many weeks, we review "What" has been added each week in a face-face discussion. This is when critical thinking and group building of understanding can happen. If a student feels he can do a better job, I ask that he duplicates the slide he feels able to redevelop (with the assistance of the first slide attemptee) remove first renditions on the duplicated slide and we may review the second (revised) "Term" descriptor in due course. It is important that the student group feel safe in having their work discussed and critiqued, this I believe is where I can moderate and guide the session, not as an answer machine.
As a means to start each "Theory" session with students it is a good student centred activity.
I thank Scott Gallagher for expressing his "One Fact a Day", a regime he has with his students, for getting my creative juices going for this one. (Scott! I now do a verbal "So... what little gem of knowledge have you been learning since we last met" every day, great to start our practical sessions. They get a giggle and I don't relent 'till I get something. They are slowly learning to expect this little greeting.)
Lastly I believe this approach is (eventually) student led, collaborative, prompting of enquiry and research, multi mediae, transparent and knowledge building in a similar way to the ideals held up as good pedagogical examples in (C.McLoughlin, 2008) "The Three P's of Pedagogy.....Appendix A, bottom p25 where a group of law students' build a wiki with the same ideal as "wikipeadia" and with similar possibilities.
Many other systems of student-centred activity are being used/explored, "Blogbooks of learning" (Journals to you) google doc assessment portfolios both individual and collaborative in nature. recording theory debates in smartboard scribble. (not tidied up to aid recall) the start of review videos as training, iterative, access anywhere tools. etc...
I can clearly see the pedagogical relevancy and feel it is right on target.
BUT!
The question remains: "What framework does this represent?"
I'm likely to phrase my framework in a schematic form in order to express my ideal. Not sure yet how to present this.
Below is my "invitation to you" to view this work. Please be mindful that this is student work (in-progress) so 'view only' is the rule for visitors.
Work Cited:
McLoughlin, Catherine, and Mark J.W. Lee. "The Three P’s of Pedagogy for the Networked Society: Personalization, Participation, and Productivity." International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education. Http://www.isetl.org/ijtlhe/index.cfm, 27 Oct. 2008. Web. 15 Sept. 2010.
Reflections on reading #8 "Out on the Borderline"
The 'live' on-line discussion between @Scuzi66 and @clovegro is, I think, pretty much where 'we all' feel at present.
Well done Chris and Scott (a.k.a Steve)
That is, "WE ALL" that are 'buying in', and see possibilities. Many staff, including our illustrious leaders, seem to be waiting for someone to 'do it all for them' so they can just tick the box and move on. Many staff don't or won't even try to work in this mode of communication internally (without student involvement).
Well, "Sorry folks", the living curriculum initiatives are going to steam-roll over that notion, and rightly so.
If it doesn't the next generation of students' most definitely will.
We're not alone. In the process of the readings I've contacted several educationalist in Australia. I find, in particular, their site http://www.flexiblelearning.net.au/ is very good for VET community papers and discussions. I initially had the feeling that we where WAY behind other countries in on-line initiatives and open learning. Now however I believe we are not hopelessly behind at all. Our own Wendy Baker, I see, has presented latterly in USA and wowwed them (as she does anyway). I think that the need for more staff generally is going to be a necessity. One I can only imagine what may happen were we to 'all sing from the same hymn sheet'.
Will that happen?
Well done Chris and Scott (a.k.a Steve)
That is, "WE ALL" that are 'buying in', and see possibilities. Many staff, including our illustrious leaders, seem to be waiting for someone to 'do it all for them' so they can just tick the box and move on. Many staff don't or won't even try to work in this mode of communication internally (without student involvement).
Well, "Sorry folks", the living curriculum initiatives are going to steam-roll over that notion, and rightly so.
If it doesn't the next generation of students' most definitely will.
We're not alone. In the process of the readings I've contacted several educationalist in Australia. I find, in particular, their site http://www.flexiblelearning.net.au/ is very good for VET community papers and discussions. I initially had the feeling that we where WAY behind other countries in on-line initiatives and open learning. Now however I believe we are not hopelessly behind at all. Our own Wendy Baker, I see, has presented latterly in USA and wowwed them (as she does anyway). I think that the need for more staff generally is going to be a necessity. One I can only imagine what may happen were we to 'all sing from the same hymn sheet'.
Will that happen?
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Reflections on reading #7 "Bearing Witness"
In an attempt to find academic literature that approached my initial findings and frustrations with Web 2.0 tools, I started reading with an eye to examples of trials from other educators. One of my main aims apart from working to encourage ownership and self reliance within my students' experience of Unitec, is to create a reliable and repeatable pathway in which to develop trust and insight for other staff to follow in exploring e-Learning tools when developing a 'Living Curriculum' mentality of delivery (pedagogy) for their courses.
Much rhetoric exists expounding the virtues or supposed virtues of Web 2.0 tools in education, but little reflective dialogue as to the observed stages one might witness as students, or teachers might experience, when applying these tools in a real situation. I was therefore delighted to find a soundly written, informative and balanced paper that approaches just such an aim.
A paper "Blogging to Learn"(Anne Bartlett-Bragg, 2003) gave a very good account of the stages one might expect to witness when students' undertake work in a 'Learning Journal' (e.g. "Blogbook of Learning"). This in turn helps educators to develop carefully considered lesson activities over a full course/programme experience.
Expectations in early courses should therefore allow the building of e-learning competencies for students, Later courses should show these competencies have developed exponentially.
In her paper Anne has recognised a 5 stage process taking place.
She states:
"For the past eighteen months, incorporated into four e-Learning subjects, across nearly eighty students, blogging has been a component of my basic pedagogical approach. The structure that has evolved from the introduction of blogging can be most effectively represented as a five-stage process: stage one – establishment; stage two – introspection; stage three – reflective monologues; stage four – reflective dialogue; and stage five – knowledge artefacts.
The process has been informed and developed from practice and not theory. Although not anticipated to follow Salmon’s (2000) Computer Mediated Conferencing (CMC) model, closer examination has revealed an initial similarity and will be the focus of closer investigation in my future research."
My experiences this year in trialling e-learning tools with my student groups has had its' "ups and downs". I felt at times I was loading the students' with too much 'techno-bable' at the expense of content. This I realise is a common feeling when letting go, and challenging adult students' to ultimately take responsibility for their learning journey. The fact I was learning new tools only a fraction of time ahead of them was a mistake on my part, but somewhat unavoidable. too which end I'm committed to building a series of review videos that allow students' to review the "How To" of setting up different Web 2.0 tools in their own environments and if need be in an iterative fashion. I know some similar video explanations exist on youtube etc... but I believe 'in-house' productions point more directly to our students' in that the 'flavour' of delivery and language used is of their environment and not imported.
Even with only a small sample of my own to draw from I can see the "5 stages" (Anne Bartlett-Bragg, 2003) as being correct and something to use as a tool in future.
Anne also contends that:
Learning journals:
"Individual ownership of the content differentiates this form of knowledge publishing from other electronic forums like discussion boards and mailing lists. The content becomes the sole responsibility of the author. Their objective regarding what to write and how to engage their readers is entirely in their control."
This in turn is promoting student lead knowledge building and responsibility.
I endorse these views.
Works cited:
www.flexiblelearning.net.au/knowledgetree/.../pdf/Blogging_to_Learn.pdf
Much rhetoric exists expounding the virtues or supposed virtues of Web 2.0 tools in education, but little reflective dialogue as to the observed stages one might witness as students, or teachers might experience, when applying these tools in a real situation. I was therefore delighted to find a soundly written, informative and balanced paper that approaches just such an aim.
A paper "Blogging to Learn"(Anne Bartlett-Bragg, 2003) gave a very good account of the stages one might expect to witness when students' undertake work in a 'Learning Journal' (e.g. "Blogbook of Learning"). This in turn helps educators to develop carefully considered lesson activities over a full course/programme experience.
Expectations in early courses should therefore allow the building of e-learning competencies for students, Later courses should show these competencies have developed exponentially.
In her paper Anne has recognised a 5 stage process taking place.
She states:
"For the past eighteen months, incorporated into four e-Learning subjects, across nearly eighty students, blogging has been a component of my basic pedagogical approach. The structure that has evolved from the introduction of blogging can be most effectively represented as a five-stage process: stage one – establishment; stage two – introspection; stage three – reflective monologues; stage four – reflective dialogue; and stage five – knowledge artefacts.
The process has been informed and developed from practice and not theory. Although not anticipated to follow Salmon’s (2000) Computer Mediated Conferencing (CMC) model, closer examination has revealed an initial similarity and will be the focus of closer investigation in my future research."
My experiences this year in trialling e-learning tools with my student groups has had its' "ups and downs". I felt at times I was loading the students' with too much 'techno-bable' at the expense of content. This I realise is a common feeling when letting go, and challenging adult students' to ultimately take responsibility for their learning journey. The fact I was learning new tools only a fraction of time ahead of them was a mistake on my part, but somewhat unavoidable. too which end I'm committed to building a series of review videos that allow students' to review the "How To" of setting up different Web 2.0 tools in their own environments and if need be in an iterative fashion. I know some similar video explanations exist on youtube etc... but I believe 'in-house' productions point more directly to our students' in that the 'flavour' of delivery and language used is of their environment and not imported.
Even with only a small sample of my own to draw from I can see the "5 stages" (Anne Bartlett-Bragg, 2003) as being correct and something to use as a tool in future.
Anne also contends that:
Learning journals:
"Individual ownership of the content differentiates this form of knowledge publishing from other electronic forums like discussion boards and mailing lists. The content becomes the sole responsibility of the author. Their objective regarding what to write and how to engage their readers is entirely in their control."
This in turn is promoting student lead knowledge building and responsibility.
I endorse these views.
Works cited:
www.flexiblelearning.net.au/knowledgetree/.../pdf/Blogging_to_Learn.pdf
Monday, October 4, 2010
Reflections on reading #6
Farmer & Bartlett-Brag strike again...(in-prog)
Works Cited
Farmer, J., & Bartlett-Bragg, A. (2005, December 4 - 7). Blogs @ anywhere: High fidelity online communication. Paper presented at the 22nd ASCILITE Conference: Balance, Fidelity, Mobility. Maintaining the Momentum?, Brisbane.
Reflections on reading #5
Farmer sure does make my head nod in agreement. (In -prog)
Works Cited
Farmer, J. (2004). Communication dynamics: Discussion boards, weblogs and the development of communities of inquiry in online learning environments. In R. Atkinson, C. McBeath, D. Jonas-Dwyer & R. Phillips (Eds), Beyond the comfort zone: Proceedings of the 21st ASCILITE Conference (pp. 274-283). Perth, 5-8 December. http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/perth04/procs/farmer.html
Reflections on reading #4
A great over view site that inspires a great deal of thought and discussion. (In-prog)
Works Cited
Raines, Deborah A. "Digital Storytelling Brings a Human Connection to Online Education." Faculty Focus | Focused on Today’s Higher Education Professional. 9 Aug. 2010. Web. 03 Oct. 2010. <http://www.facultyfocus.com/articles/instructional-design/digital-storytelling-brings-a-human-connection-to-online-education/>.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)