This may seem a bit limited, but much of what I do in terms of interpersonal communications is somewhat limited: I do not participate on social networking sites due to security considerations at work, so most of my online interaction is strictly within the Walden learning community and the associated resources. Within this subset network, there is a large amount of give and take, as the learning environment is very conducive to collaboration and cooperation.
On a personal level, my family communicates with me mostly from them to me (sometimes they listen, but not always). Ed does not listen at all, nor do the cats. Most of my conversations with all of this group are one-sided (although at least the cats are good listeners!).
In the workplace, I give out far more than I receive in terms of information...this is a culture thing and although many of us are working on changing this model, it's a slow go.
The give and take model also applies when dealing with friends: information goes in both/all directions.
Reflection:
My network as it exists now has significantly changed my learning processes, because I am much more "just in time" oriented. I'm not sure what I ever did before I had Internet access, a laptop, and a smartphone, but I most definitely do not want to go back there ever again! Search engines are my tools of choice--the ability to find almost anything online is both a blessing and a curse, but I have used some of my extant skills to apply a certain degree of skepticism to anything I find online. The phrase "Trust but verify" comes to mind here!
When I have a question, I will do an online search--I am likely to do multiple versions, using different search engines and rewording my query to provide some degree of accuracy and focus. Once this is done, I usually have a pretty good idea of what I need to know about this particular topic. To keep it sorted out if it is that kind of information, I use Zotero (a free online research tool worth having!). I am a visual learner, so I learn from reading and viewing. If it is worth knowing, I can integrate it into my memory (or at least know that I can always get back to it should that be necessary).
Not all data is worthy of this after being looked up: over dinner last Saturday night there was a discussion about nuclear materials that turned to Madame Curie, and then my memory was called into doubt because I pointed out that she named the element Polonium after her native country of Poland. I was informed that she was French by my husband. I could not let that go unchallenged, so I pulled out my phone and googled "Madame Curie"--the Wikipedia entry that came up cites her full name, Marie Sklodowska Curie, and states her Polish birth and upbringing. No need to bookmark that or flag it in Zotero--it is SO good to have this kind of resource available.
The topic for the module is whether it is part of human nature to share and collaborate. Howard Rheingold, in his video address, points out that collaboration and cooperation were what made survival possible for early humans...the ability to hunt and provide for the family was more than any one ordinary hunter could accomplish on his own. Consequently, humans began not only traveling in packs, but living in close proximity to one another.
As humans evolved to include agriculture and the raising of domestic animals for food, permanent settlements and villages developed (and people began to complain about the neighbors). This collective and social pattern has continued to develop and evolve into today's cities and communities (where there are still many reasons to complain about the neighbors). The workplace has also evolved somewhat--we no longer band together to go and hunt down a mammoth, but in today's knowledge-based workplace, the person with the right set of knowledge and experience leads their band of hunters to their objective.
Having these particular skills and knowledge is a good thing, but sharing knowledge is not always done well in the workplace. My own organization is known for its tradition of "information hoarding"--because the traditional rating system placed a value on an employee based on what they knew, it was simply understood that you did not share your particular knowledge because that diluted and diminished your value in the eyes of the rater.
Unfortunately, this behavior has had a long time to become ingrained, and changing the culture is going to take a while. Our new senior leadership has called for "a culture of collaboration and cooperation"--I will be there to welcome it whenever it finally arrives, and although I will not be alone, let's just say that we are not in the majority at this point in time.
The other encouraging trend that I see is that our new hires are accustomed to group projects and collaborative efforts and teamwork, and do so without being threatened, cajoled, begged, or directed to do so. As long as we can keep the senior management from undoing these good behaviors long enough for that generation of dinosaurs to become extinct, the culture will change under its own weight. The emerging technologies that make it easier and transparent to collaborate and share data and information and ideas, as well as to communicate with one another across organizational boundaries.
If we were industry, there would be economic and monetary incentives to change quickly: Rheingold cited Toyota and Eli Lilly as two examples of corporations that have collaborated and evolved to meet new challenges. I would hope that an update of this presentation would also include GM and Chrysler among the "thought leaders" of the automotive industry.
In short, I see that there is a basic human tendency to work together. That tendency can be overridden by self-preservation instincts and other environmental factors. I believe that human best behaviors will prevail over the long term--I've seen substantial change in my own career so far, and change is happening more quickly as technology drives it forwards. The light at the end of the tunnel may just be daylight.
OK--that title should definitely draw some traffic and interest! I just finished viewing Bill Kerr and Karl Kapp's respective blogs, and I have a few observations and ideas that emerged as a result of this "new data":
Kerr mentioned that there was a need for some theory to support new ideas and concepts in learning. If it weren't for theory providing a foundation, there would be nothing to keep schools and other learning organizations from joining the "Flavor of the Month Club" of educational/training philosophy. Having worked in a government organization that did that very thing some years back (anyone remember TQM?), I know firsthand the angst that gets produced in the workforce when the official view of "what should be" gets whipsawed around as senior managers with short attention spans read the latest literature (but only the abstracts).
As I see it, any good new idea about learning should still be grounded in some kind of theory or a combination thereof--I am a pragmatist! Ideas that spring half-baked and ill-conceived from the minds of consultants and defense contractors should be avoided at all costs.
Kapp brought up an interesting thought as well: what exactly DO we mean when we refer to learning? You can learn to walk, learn to dance, learn to play a musical instrument, learn good manners and social skills (although my husband skipped this particular area in its entirety), learn a language, learn calculus, learn to paint, learn to use the APA style in writing, and even learn to write a dissertation. These degrees of learning have different outcomes, and upon analysis, it's interesting to note that these learned skills span the broad spectrum of human knowledge. If you are familiar with Howard Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences (of course you are if you are reading this!), each of these areas of intelligence has aspects that can be learned (and therefore, taught).
As usual, I have far more questions than answers...however, I know that there is no single right answer to all of them (except "42"). There is a time and place for all different types of learning, so let's use the best practices and applications across the spectrum of -isms to teach what best fits the task at hand.
Another Walden course and another quarter along the way to the elusive PhD at the distant end of the Yellow Brick Road! This is Summer Quarter 2009, and the course in question is "Learning Theory and Educational Technology."
In a way (so far) this course has been like a homecoming...I have the first edition of Marcy Driscoll's book Psychology of Learning for Instruction, which was the textbook used when I took a Learning Theory course for my Master's degree so very many years ago. Additionally, the supplemental readings for this current class include one from Ertmer and Newby--Peg and Greg co-taught one of the courses that I took back when in my Master's program. As I said, it's Old Home Week this week.
For this first entry, I chose to address Siemen's characterizations of instructors: I definitely see myself as the Curatorial Instructor type--according to Siemens, this personification provides general guidance for learners, and then provides them with additional directions and ideas that they can follow up (or not). Because of where I work and what I do there (Department of Defense, Senior Instructor/Instructional Designer/Human Performance Technologist) I often teach from the standpoint of the Subject Matter Expert (SME). This can be a very dangerous position, because some SMEs will simply stand before a class and innundate the students with data on PowerPoint slides that are incredibly information-intensive. The value of this activity, in my opinion, is horribly over-rated and it is a practice that I am doing my very best to stop wherever I can.
I prefer to not lecture, and to ideally not even have a formal class, but to provide the students with a general roadmap of where we will be going, and for each significant item along the way, just like the AAA trip books, suggest a scenic (read informative) sidetrip that they can take. If there are any questions or issues, I am available to provide additional guidance and information. I find learning in this manner to be more rewarding from a learner's point of view because I have identified information that is relevant to me and my interests, and have followed up on topics that are of use to me now or in the future. As an instructor, I also find it rewarding, because the students come to me with their own ideas and interpretations of the subject at hand, which challenges me to find links and relationships that I might not have ever considered.
Resources
Driscoll, M. P. (2005). Psychology of learning for instruction (3rd ed.).Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.
This is the second iteration of my final video project for EDUC 8842, Principles of Distance Learning. The first version of the video is still my favorite one, as I believe it maintains the true message of Serious Games without additional distractions. However, since it did not meet the requirements set forth in the rubric for this project, I re-did it. The revision forced a change in the overall message, and it now includes a voice-over narration and some additional video footage of yours truly. There is a compelling reason that I do not appear in front of the camera: I am not photogenic, and cameras do not like me. Consequently, I have found that the most effective way to keep from being included in the photo or video is to be the camera operator!
The rationale for the re-do is that there is a requirement in the rubric for me to demonstrate that I know how to use a video camera. Let it be known that the camera in the footage at the end is one of mine (we actually own four of these), and I indeed am usually the one operating it! I own a video production company which specializes in location sound and video recording and sound reinforcement services, and have been doing video in one form or another since 1974! My company shoots more than 50 live events annually throughout the Baltimore/DC/Northern Virginia region. These range from corporate meetings and training events to community theater productions, professional and amateur dance company productions, school concerts and plays, graduations, sports events, and other community events. We do weddings for close friends and family only, as we don't need nor do we want the aggravation of wedding videography. If I want combat pay, I can get that elsewhere and draw far less fire in the process!
Yes, I know how to use a video camera (and editing tools), sound equipment, and many other technical toys. Everything you see in the video is owned by my company, Audio-Video Freelance, Inc.. There is a lot more that was not there on that particular shoot...she who dies with the most toys wins!
Anyway, let me stop the rant and start the video...here is the second version for your viewing pleasure:
This project has been very interesting for me, as I am in the midst of an organization that is very fond of its static traditions. The majority of our courses are still taught via platform instruction, with a live instructor standing in front of a class full of live(?) students using PowerPoint. There is some movement forward, however: the use of Centra software to conduct synchronous courses over the Intranet, as well as the use of BlackBoard for some of the standard mandated training courses is a small step forwards. The evolution from VHS tapes to DVDs represents a step sideways, as many of these are recordings of guest speakers who cannot be present, but whose presentation has been taped at some time in the past. It's still a talking head, but just at a slightly higher resolution. Sigh.
The evolution from the old computer-based training that gave us the term "page-turners" still lives, with the advent of web-based training courses that do the same thing, but also include some Captivate demos and Flash sequences just to liven things up. Still static. Still boring.
We also invested a huge sum of money into our video-conferencing network. Not only have there always been reliability issues with this system, but the quality still isn't that good, and the end result is slightly better than no training at all, but it can result in a frustrating experience for both instructor and students, It's fine for short meetings, but it isn't the best option for classes, but since we bought it, we must justify its continued existence by using it (the self-fulfilling prophesy of technology).
In almost all of our classrooms, the whiteboards have been either replaced, or are now supplemented by a SmartBoard (TM). As a student whose eyesight is not what it was 25 years ago, I find them hard to read, and when used as a display for PowerPoint, they are particularly challenging to me as they are very difficult to read, and complex diagrams are illegible. These devices replaced front projection systems that were much easier to read, although they were much more tempermental to use. The only read advantage is that they don't involve the use of smelly markers and don't have to be cleaned using vile substances whose odors linger in the room for at least 24 hours after the whiteboards are cleaned.
For the future, there is hope: a few weeks ago I attended a technology demonstration of a product called KZO (the company is called KZOInnovations http://www.kzoinnovations.com/ ). Their product represents the best combination of semi-static to dynamic products I've seen to date: they begin with an archive of videos, all of which have been indexed and cross-referenced for searchability. Users can request either an entire video clip, or just a specific portion thereof for viewing. If it is a presentation, the product supports a sychronous connection to visual products like PowerPoint or other images. Static so far, but here's where it gets good: KZO supports a text chat option that allows viewers to post questions about the video they've seen to the point of contact for that video. Unless otherwise specified, this becomes part of the permanent record of the video clip. Users can also add their own observations and comments, building a wiki for this item. Almost dynamic...or at least a good start!
Several major corporations use this product for their employee training activities, as standard content can be created for employees to access when it is convenient for them to do so from their desktops or homes. Once completed, the product transfers the record of completion to the Learning Management System used by the organization. For those of us in the training world who have to occasionally produce mandated training for large numbers of people and keep records, this is a VERY COOL feature!
I've recommended that we take a good look at this product and we are scheduling a demonstration in-house for later in the Spring. I see this as also a tool for the delivery of asynchronous training, and could be used in conjunction with Centra courses as well as independantly.
In addition to adding collaboration and multimedia tools, I am also looking at incorporating serious games, simulations, visualizations, and even virtual worlds to our training mix. Doing this with no budget and a staff of one is a bit of a challenge...however, I've asked for additional support and have developed a roadmap and business plan for integrating these new technologies, and so far no-one has told me "NO" nor have they said other discouraging words...I've learned that that is what passes for tacit support, so I am moving forward with several ideas that will incorporate games and simulations. Once one is done and in use, I predict that demand will spike as everyone sees it and wants that (or something similar) for their courses. That is how evolution happens in my workplace: motivated by greed and envy rather than by vision and creativity. Oh, well...it may be dysfunctional, but it's home.
Gunter, G., Kenny, R., & Vick, E. (2008, October). Taking educational games seriously: Using the RETAIN model to design endogenous fantasy into standalone educational games. Educational Technology Research & Development, 56(5/6), 511-537. Retrieved January 7, 2009, doi:10.1007/s11423-007-9073-2
This qualitative article provides the back story of the development of an evaluation rubric that can be used to provide standardized assessment of educational games.The evaluation model is based upon a synthesis of Keller’s (1983) ARCS model of learner engagement and Gagne’s (1985) Nine Events of Learning model.Using a one-shot case study research model, Gunter, Kelly and Vick use their model to evaluate two popular children’s educational software titles.
Their conclusions are not particularly surprising, given that their sample consisted of only two subjects.I also felt that the article focused mostly on the development of the rubric and not enough on its application.Although helpful, given the general lack of guidance on these matters, the researchers’ rubric does not prove to be an unimpeachable model, merely a useful tool that applies a good dose of common sense.
Lim, C. (2008, November). Spirit of the game: Empowering students as designers in schools?. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(6), 996-1003. Retrieved February 9, 2009, doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2008.00823_1.x
The companion article to Prensky (2008) cited below, this qualitative article uses a phenomenological method to examine the culture of gaming, and sets the stage by exploring the reasons that video games are so interesting to children.Among the factors cited are the elements of immersion into a new world, as well as the factor of engagement by the player(s) who use critical thinking skills to overcome increasingly challenging situations.
Lim also cites the fact that players are able to take risks and engage in new patterns of thinking and behaviors without the traditional consequences that doing so in a normal classroom setting would incur.He then points out the fact that games in schools traditionally do not work because the expectation of maintaining a standard power structure and an orderly and structured schedule tend to override spontaneous learning opportunities, such as those provided by gaming.
He ends with the conclusion that in order to have success in using games in schools, students should design the games that their peers will play in order to learn predetermined lessons and knowledge.
Liu, E., & Lin, C. (2009, January). Developing evaluative indicators for educational computer games. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(1), 174-178. Retrieved February 9, 2009, doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2008.00852.x
This article was interesting for a number of reasons, not the least of which was their mixed methods approach that included a Delphi study.Their Delphi panel incorporated a broad demographic of experts, ranging from game developers and educators to students.196 educational computer games were analyzed, and 43 evaluative indicators were identified by the Delphi experts.These were divided into five categories: game information, multimedia, interface design and structure, content, and feedback.All of these are factors that I would consider to be important in the creation and development of a game.
The conclusions of this article constitute a useful resource for developers of educational games, as the factors identified are all important characteristics of good games in general, and particularly good educational games.
Moschini, E. (2006, September). Designing for the smart player: usability design and user-centred design in game-based learning. Digital Creativity, 17(3), 140-147. Retrieved January 24, 2009, from Academic Search Premier database.
Another case study in the qualitative tradition, this article describes the creative process involved in creating a single serious game designed to teach information gathering, libraries and resources, bibliographic research, and discouraging plagarism to undergraduate and graduate students.The article explores the iterative process involved in the game’s development, as well as the changing demographics of game players.She points out that many gamers today are older, and a significant percentage of them are female, defying the image of the young adolescent male gamer.
Key to the iterative process Moschini describes is the use of target student audiences to playtest the game and provide feedback to the game designers.Each iteration of game development incorporates this end-user feedback, and the end product (still in the final development stages as the article was published) should be a serious game that engages the players and provides the underlying learning process in an effective and memorable manner.
Pannese, L., & Carlesi, M. (2007, May). Games and learning come together to maximise effectiveness: The challenge of bridging the gap. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(3), 438-454. Retrieved January 24, 2009, doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00708.x
This article was a mixed methods study, incorporating several specific case studies of using serious games to support corporate training initiatives.Learner outcomes and reactions were captured and quantified, and the results are presented for the reader.
Because their target audiences were all adult professionals, many of whom did not have a high degree of computer skills, several of the games cited were simply verbal branching scenarios that led the user down a decision tree path to the proper conclusion and result.As a practicing human performance professional, I was impressed at the level of analysis the researchers put into their training efforts, and was gratified to note that their results were positive and showed good outcomes.
Prensky, M. (2008, November). Students as designers and creators of educational computer games: Who else?. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(6), 1004-1019. Retrieved February 9, 2009, doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2008.00823_2.x
Prensky’s article picks up where Lim’s article left off: should students be designing games for other students?His take on this continues the qualitative phenomenological tradition of Lim, and concludes early and often that not only should they design games, but they have already done so in many cases, which he cites.Additionally, he points out that most games designed by adults tend to re-create the status quo of power, and “smell like school”.
Prensky continues with the thought that we should incentivize game development by students,
and gives a number of examples of different approaches and solutions for doing so. He ends with
an extensive series of guidelines for game design, as well as a host of possible scenarios to
provide students with incentives to develop games.
The busiest person in the world--I am currently trying to work full time, work on a PhD full time, finish building a house, and run a sound and video production company. Sleep is mostly optional.
I am owned by 17 cats, all shelter rescues, who live in a big, boisterous cat colony in my house. My learning assistant, Snowball, is featured as my photo (I don't have any recent photos of me that are any good). She supervises all learning activities in my home office, and refuses to allow a door to stand between us. She has excellent listening skills, and makes an outstanding lapwarmer.
In addition to Snowball, there are the Manx brothers, Harry and Andy, the tabby cats Ernie, Katie, and MacDuff, the Maine Coon cats Lena, Toby, Sydney, Adelaide, Jenny, Polly, and Timmy, and Lawrence (totally black except for eyes and lips), Scooter, Elsie, and Hoot (more toes tan should ever be allowed on one little cat, and an accomplished conversationalist). I go everywhere in my house with an entourage, and rarely lack for supervision.
Posts
