Saturday, April 24, 2010

Friday, April 23, 2010

Autopilot Mode

We live our life in Autopilot mode. This is when we allow our subconscious to take the lead. Some call it gut feeling. Other call it irrational behaviour. But most of us spend 90% of our life in the mode.

What is the other mode? The conscious mode. The reflective move. I call it, the Learning Mode. It is when our brain is analyzing and reflecting on a concept using brain power.

The autopilot mode is driven by controlling instincts. Like an airoplane that is in autopilot mode, is driven bu software and external triggers. Our learning should be a chance to program the drivers of the autopilot mode... what I call controlling instincts.

Thursday, April 22, 2010

Learning Desire

I was asked:
For learning to take place do we have to have a teacher? Customized teaching or customized presentation of information for student acquisition?

I replied:
No… we do not need a teacher to learn. Learning is an individualized process. Except for Pavlov approaches, there is nothing that can make us learn except us. This is why I believe that the only thing a teacher can do is ignite the desire to learn (i.e switch to learning mode) and offer the right environment for the individual to learn on their own (i.e the experience and information). Once the student becomes in the “learning mode”, she will interact with the teacher and other individuals to clarify the vague idea while building up her knowledge.

Igniting the desire to learn happens instantaneously when the topic aligns with the individual’s personal intelligence, talent and values. This is what happens with life-long learners!

Wednesday, April 21, 2010

Knowledge, Talent and Intelligence

In my last article, I mentioned that learning is the process of creating knowledge through personalizing information. Then I touched on talent and intelligence. This morning, I was thinking if the created knowledge persevere. I though not. Then, I started thinking about knowledge on demand which is creating the knowledge as needed and discarding it when it is not! This lead me to think: what is the knowledge that is retained. Reflecting on myself, I discovered that I retain the knowledge that interests me. I discard the other. Then I thought what interests me. I concluded that my talent (set of strengths) and the set of my intelligence (according to MI) determines my interest. Then I recognized that my values and controling instincts have roles to play. This made me come up with the following theory:
Learning is the process of converting information to knowledge. Retaining knowledge is another process that relates to intelligence and talent. It requires a name. Applying the retained knowledge requires a third process (that needs to be named!). Consistently applying the knowledge is the geniusity!

Data > Information > Knowledge > *retained knowledge* > *applied knowledge* > *the knowledge becomes controlling*

This theory needs more work. I need to find terms for the missing names from the literature. I need to relate talent/intelligence/values to it. I need more readings.

Monday, April 19, 2010

Customizing Teaching for Personalized Learning

Philosophy Statements about Teaching and Learning, v. 4.1


I. Abstract


In my opinion, the best instruction is the 1-1 approach. Not in the traditional sense where a teacher teaches one student. This is not feasible using traditional teaching methods. In an ideal teaching scenario, the learners need to have “customized”, “personalized” and “individualized” teaching that caters for their learning style and talent through the innovative use of technology in all its facets. This applies in the face-to-face setting as well as online teaching.


II. Concepts and Values


This post highlights the set of values and definitions that governs my philosophy about teaching and learning. It includes a set of practices I follow when designing as well as delivering my courses, whether face-to-face or online.


Role of Teachers: Following Entwisted (1990) line of thought, I believe that the primary professional responsibility of teachers, trainers and online courses is to maximise the learning opportunities of their learners. Some would use the term “facilitator” but I still like to use the traditional term, teacher, with added contemporary connotations.


Learning, Information and Knowledge: Information, knowledge and their relation to learning is one of the vaguest concepts in the literature (Fox, 1991). Harris supplied the definition which is closest to my heart:


“knowledge is private, while information is public. Knowledge, therefore, cannot be communicated; only information can be shared. Whenever an attempt to communicate knowledge is made, it is translated into information, which other learners can choose to absorb and transform into knowledge, if they so desire” (Harris, 1995, p.1)


According to this description, I believe that learning is the process of personalizing information and experience thus creating knowledge. Collective knowledge includes skills, attitudes and beliefs. Teachers’ role is to create the desire in the learner to absorb and transform the information and experience into their own knowledge.


Assessment: is defined as “the process of documenting, usually in measurable terms, knowledge, skills, attitudes and beliefs” (Wikipedia, Assessment). I believe that this definition mixes up between knowledge and information. In my courses, I like to define assessment as “the process of documenting, usually in qualitative terms, the incremental knowledge attained during the teaching process”. How to do this? I have few ideas that I hope will be firmed in version 5 of my philosophy.


Curriculum: I like to categories the curriculum into two types: the regulated curriculum where outcomes are clearly quantified and regulated (like army training, government regulated courses, professional tests) and free-form curriculum where the outcomes depends on the learners’ achievement within clear guidelines (example: art classes, architecture and medicine). I believe courses in the regulated curriculum address learning at the information level. Free form courses tackle the learning at the knowledge level. Each of these two types requires different teaching styles and methodologies. The difference is recognized in the design and delivery of each type, although, personally, I avoid handling regulated courses as an online course.


Learning Spaces: Brown (2005) used the term “Learning Spaces” to replaces the traditional classroom term. I like to use the same term to indicate any space that induces learning in individuals: a classroom, my office, a cafe, over the phone, on a forum, blog, wikipage, online, offline, and all the new medium of learning that is available.


Learning Styles: My teaching recognizes that individuals learn in multitude of ways. Consequently, the process of creating the desire in learners to learn should match the learners’ style. The literature offers at least 13 different schools of thought in this area (Coffield et al, 2004). Out of these schools, I find that Allinson and Hayes Cognitive Style Index to be the most suitable because it has “the best psychometric credentials” (Coffield et al, 2004, p139). I believe, to use learning styles as motivators to learning, I must include other factors like the set of intelligences acquired by the learner (Gardner et al,1995) and the set of strengths that determines their talent (Clifton & Nelson, 1992). My teaching should include drivers that ignite the learning desire based on the learners’ profile. Technology makes achieving this approach more plausible. I find the 4MAT approach to learning styles (McCarthy, 1990) the most suitable. This approach advocates that teaching should:


(1) Promote self reflecting, analysing, and experiencing.
(2) Inspire transitioning of information into knowledge
(3) Allow the individuals to digest and create content
(4) Encourage learners to express themselves


And I like to add a fifth one:


(5) Facilitate creation of knowledge through collective collaboration and network communication (Tapscott and Williams, 2010)


Learning Theories: As outlined by Anderson in his CIDER Webinar of April 2010, effective teaching should apply a mix of learning theories (behaviorism, cognitive, constructive and connectivism). I am a strong believer in this approach.


Generational Differences: Tapscott (2008) coined the term NetGen to describe individuals who were born in the digital age. I agree with him that NetGen learns in ways different than what traditional education is able to offer. Consequently, my delivery will recognize the different learning drivers dichotomies as presented by Coffield, (2004).


Parallel Education: As suggested by Brown (2010) and McGonigal (2010), new learning paradigms are emerging where the younger generation are building their knowledge outside the traditional educational systems. Some refer to this as the parallel education. The learning in this paradigm is naturally motivated and based on discovering personal talents through “virtual-real-life” experiences in areas not recognized in the traditional educational understanding. In my courses, I need to identify learners who are following this approach and encourage them to exploit it in the learning of the material. This is not easy especially that the concept is new. Maybe it will be the core driver for my philosophy version 5!


Technology in Learning: In my educational realm, technology helps to customize, individualize and personalize learning. For many thousand years, human learned based on one-to-one teaching (Toffler, 1980) until the industrial evolution came up with the idea of mass production that shaped our present educational system (West, 2001). This method is becoming obsolete to meet the new challenges (Tapsott & Wilson, 2010). With the advancement of the technology, we can go back to the natural way of human learning, i.e. one-to-one by customizing teaching to satisfy individualistic learning drivers through online courses and activities.


Continuous Improvement: My courses will always contain learners feedback to continuously evaluate means of improvement. This philosophy will continuously evolve based on new discoveries, emerging technologies, my acquired knowledge and interactions with my learners.


III. References


Brown, D., (2010), An Open Letter to Educators, YouTube Video.


Brown M., (2005), Learning Spaces, Educating the Net Generation, Educause eBooks.


Clifton, D. O., & Nelson, P. (1992). Soar with Your Strengths, Dell Publishing.


Coffield, F. J., Moseley D. V., Hall .E & Ecclestone, K. (2004). Learning styles and pedagogy in post-16 learning: a systematic and critical review. London: Learning and Skills Research Centre/University of Newcastle upon Tyne.


Entwistle, N.J. (1998). Improving teaching through research on student learning. In JJF Forrest (ed.) University teaching: international perspectives. New York: Garland.


Fox, S. (1991). The production and distribution of knowledge through open and distance learning. In D. Hylnka & J. C. Belland (Eds.), Paradigms regained: The uses of illuminative, semiotic and post-modern criticism as modes of inquiry in educational technology. Englewood Clifs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.


Gardner, H., Kornhaber, M. L., & Wake W. K. (1995). Intelligence: multiple perspectives, Wadsworth Publishing Company.


Judi H. (1995). Educational Telecomputing Projects: Information Collections, The Computing Teacher journal, published by the International Society for Technology in Education.


McGonigal, J. (2010). Gaming can make a better world. TED Presentation.


Tapscott, D. (2008). Grown Up Digital: How the Net Generation is Changing Your World, The McGraw-Hill.


Tapscott, D., & Williams, A. D. (2008). Innovating the 21st-Century University: It’s Time!, EDUCAUSE


Toffler, A., (1989). The Third Wave, Bantam Books.


West, E. G. (2001). Education and the Industrial Revolution, Liberty Fund Inc.


Wikipedia, Assessment, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assessment


Zukas, M., & Malcolm, J. (2002). Pedagogies for lifelong learning: building bridges or building walls? In R Harrison, F Reeve, A Hanson and J Clarke (eds) Supporting lifelong learning. London: Routledge/Open University.


IV. Appendix: History of the versions of My Philosophy


Version 1: articulated in 1981: The focus was on curriculum and teaching.
Version 2: articulated in 1992: The focus was student learning and success.
Version 2.5: articulated in 1996: The focus included the use of Technology.
Version 3: articulated in 2000: Constructivist concepts were adopted.
Version 3.5: articulated in 2008: Web 2.0 concepts were included.

Monday, April 12, 2010

It’s Here: Next Generation of Online Learning

Tomorrow is here now: Free courses with no instructors, no credits, no charge and from Carnegie Mellon University! The future of teacherless courses is emerging… not there yet, but I see the light at the end of a loooong and winding tunnel!


From their site:


Using intelligent tutoring systems, virtual laboratories, simulations, and frequent opportunities for assessment and feedback, the Open Learning Initiative (OLI) builds courses that are intended to enact instruction – or, more precisely, to enact the kind of dynamicflexible, and responsive instruction that fosters learning.


The URL is: http://oli.web.cmu.edu/openlearning/forstudents

Regulated Online Courses

This was my reply to a post about "difficulty in creating online courses for regulated courses and programs".
Doug: This is so very true. We have a dilemma. Trying to use the wrong tools for the solution. It is the curse of living at the verge of change.

This reminds me of an Australian movie about something that happened in 1920’s. The scene shows a farmer who owns a lot of horses and oxen that he use to plow and harvest his field. His young son, who just graduated, came back to the farm driving one of those newly invented cars. He told his father that this machine is the future and it will replace the animals in the field work. His father rode on a horse and told him “show me”. Obviously, the horse was much faster running on the field terrain and the car got stuck in the mud after few yards. The father sat triumphantly on his rocking chair and cynically asked his son: “It will never replace my animals. How do you feed hay to this machine?”

Obviously the car was the wrong tool for the period. Few years down the load, the car evolved into a tractor and replaced the animals and changing the farming industry and proved Malthus wrong. The son was right, but the father did not see at the time.

We are in a similar situation. Online courses and technology are not the solution for everything yet. We still have to use the horses until online courses and education evolves to become suitable. Until then, we have to use the “cars” where they are applicable. Like driving from the city to the farm and not more.

Dialogue about Subways and Mac's

The below is a dicussion that happened around my "Subways and Mac's" post on another blog. I thought to copy it over here for the records. Oxana commented:
Anas, I like your analogy. It shows some of your goals you are striving to achieve. Did you think of the “counter”/delivery people? Who will serve your course, you alone or other tutors ? Are you aiming to franchise it and give other people to run it with consistent quality and outcome? Cheers

Then Doug posted:
Anas: Its a daydream because like Oxana pointed out the servers will be in control. As you must realize the objectives and outcome system is to satisty government requirements and once the funding is in place the who knows what the assessment process will provide. Teachers like MDs are controlled by a government bureaucracy. Just calculate how much is paid to institutional Presidents for X universities in Alberta…why not have X-y and put the money into back into teaching and instruction? have fun Doug
PS its all about the beef.

Then I replied:
@Oxana: (1) no servers. Learners pick and choose. There will be the cooks who are usually invisible that prepare the material, and support staff who keeps cleaning stuff and answering odd questions. (2) no franchise. It GNU based.

@Doug: (1) Servers will never be in control. Look at our course, are our Facilitators in Control? They just ensure we adhere to goals and give us support if we ask for it. Beyond that, they are almost invisible… right? (2) This is the beauty of dreaming: You don’t have to worry about what would go wrong. I understand where you come from about regulated studies. This is why I believe there must be other “restaurants” to cater for these cases. I, myself, will always avoid creating online courses for them, although in my heart, I am sure we can use the Subway method as well… but it is headache… and as Dawnn suggested in her video, I want to be happy!

Oxen, cars and Education

This excerpt was a rely to one of my colleagues who shed some doubt about the effectiveness of online courses in regulated courses:

Doug: This is so very true. We have a dilemma. Trying to use the wrong tools for the solution. It is the curse of living at the verge of change.

This reminds me of an Australian movie about something that happened in 1920's. The scene shows a farmer who owns a lot of horses and oxen that he use to plow and harvest his field. His young son, who just graduated, came back to the farm driving one of those newly invented cars. He told his father that this machine is the future and it will replace the animals in the field work. His father rode on a horse and told him "show me". Obviously, the horse was much faster running on the field terrain and the car got stuck in the mud after few yards. The father sat triumphantly on his rocking chair and cynically asked his son: "It will never replace my animals. How do you feed hay to this machine?"
Obviously the car was the wrong tool for the period. Few years down the load, the car evolved into a tractor and replaced the animals and changing the farming industry and proved Malthus wrong. The son was right, but the father did not see at the time.
We are in a similar situation. Online courses and technology are not the solution for everything yet. We still have to use the horses until online courses and education evolves to become suitable. Until then, we have to use the "cars" where they are applicable. Like driving from the city to the farm and not more.

W1Q1: Assessment

I know that Question 1 asked for "the single most significant difference between teaching and learning online as compared to in a face-to-face environment"and I replied: Learning Ownership. But I believe there are more than one significant difference. So, in the name of "changing my mind and evolving my thought", I want to retract my initial answer and say that it is the "Assessment".

The Face to face assessment is reliable in the sense that we have certainty about who is doing the work. While, with online courses, there is no way to know who is the person doing the work. For example, I might be my son taking the course on behalf of my father so he can have advanced credential in a topic that he is not competent with it. Right?

This imposes a serious doubt about the validity of the online credentials. Your thoughts!


PS: Sorry I gave two "single most significant difference", but I could not keep my mouth shut!

Week 3, Q1 Revisited: Assessment

I know that Question 1 asked for “the single most significant difference between teaching and learning online as compared to in a face-to-face environment” and I replied: Learning Ownership. But I believe there are more than one significant difference. So, in the name of “changing my mind and evolving my thought”, I want to retract my initial answer and say that it is the “Assessment”.


The Face to face assessment is reliable in the sense that we have certainty about who is doing the work. While, with online courses, there is no way to know who is the person doing the work. For example, I might be my son taking the course on behalf of my father so he can have advanced credential in a topic that he is not competent with it. Right?


This imposes a serious doubt about the validity of the online credentials. Your thoughts!



PS: Sorry I gave two “single most significant difference”, but I could not keep my mouth shut!

References: 1, 2

Sunday, April 11, 2010

Subways and Mac's

Daydreaming...

I want my online courses to be like Subway sandwiches and not like MacDonald buns! I want the learner to choose the ingredients of the course. To choose the style of activities that makes them learn. They cannot choose the objectives nor the duration. Subway and Mcdonalds have the same objectives: to give you calories and nutritions. One style allows you to choose the ingredients that the you want. The other gives you limited alternatives to choose from.

At Subway, if you aim is to lose weight, you choose more vegies than bacon. If you want to put on weight, you double the cheese, bacon and mayo's. At Macdonald, you do not have this flexibility. I want my online courses to be the same. They should have clear objectives: (1) the learning outcomes dictated by the curriculum; a and (2) a fixed duration by which the learner should complete the outcomes*. The course will offer a variety of activities. Paced and self paced. Traditional sequential reading material and leaping hyperlinked reading material. Videos and handouts. Synchronous and Asynchronous interaction. Learning by doing and learning by observing. Self reflection and networked interaction. Mayonaise and Catchup. Peer learning and self-learning. The list need to be completed.

The one who chooses to learn using my online course should know what they want and how they learn. Like the Subway customer: they know what they like to eat and know how to choose. For the others, let them go to a Mac restaurant (i.e. packaged courses) or to a fancy restaurant (i.e the structured-constructivist-interactiving course) . Not mine. I want my student to "Learn Fresh". ... and I woke up!

Questions: Was it a daydream or something that I can really make? Do you think there must be more objectives? Like assessment? Any suggestions for more ingredients I need to add the "menu of the course"? I know McDonals is far more popular and profitable than Subway around the world! Do you think traditional online/distant course delivery will prevail over my styles?

TAP: Subways and Mac’s

Daydreaming



I want my online courses to be like Subway sandwiches and not like MacDonald buns! I want the learner to choose the ingredients of the course. To choose the style of activities that makes them learn. They cannot choose the objectives nor the duration.


Subway and Mcdonalds have the same objectives: to give you calories and nutritions. One style allows you to choose the ingredients that the you want. The other gives you limited alternatives to choose from. At Subway, if you aim is to lose weight, you choose more vegies than bacon. If you want to put on weight, you double the cheese, bacon and mayo’s. At Macdonald, you do not have this flexibility.


I want my online courses to be the same. They should have clear objectives: (1) the learning outcomes dictated by the curriculum; a and (2) a fixed duration by which the learner should complete the outcomes*. The course will offer a variety of activities. Paced and self paced. Traditional sequential reading material and leaping hyperlinked reading material. Videos and handouts. Synchronous and Asynchronous interaction. Learning by doing and learning by observing. Self reflection and networked interaction. Mayonaise and Catchup. Peer learning and self-learning. The list need to be completed.


The one who chooses to learn using my online course should know what they want and how they learn. Like the Subway customer: they know what they like to eat and know how to choose. For the others, let them go to a Mac restaurant (i.e. packaged courses) or to a fancy restaurant (i.e the structured-constructivist-interactiving course) . Not mine. I want my student to “Learn Fresh”.


… and I woke up!



Questions:

  1. Was it a daydream or something that I can really make?

  2. Do you think there must be more objectives? Like assessment?

  3. Any suggestions for more ingredients I need to add the “menu of the course”?

  4. I know McDonals is far more popular and profitable than Subway around the world! Do you think traditional online/distant course delivery will prevail over my styles?

Saturday, April 10, 2010

Week 3: Summary

This video is my summary to Week 3 activities. Watch it.


(the URL is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XwM4ieFOo…)


P.S.: I just noticed that Oxana have posted the same video on her post before me!

Friday, April 9, 2010

Week 3, Q4: Online Training

[This is my answer to W3Q4: Do you think that teachers who want to teach in online programs should be required to take some specialized training in the pedagogy of online learning and instructional design for online learning? If so, what should that look like? If not, why not?]

Good teachers who focus on learner’s success will be able to do well in classroom as well as online. They will not require a formal pedagogical training. They might require training on some technical tools. These teachers will always request the training themselves. In most cases, they will be happy with a self paced online course. They will prefer collaborative activities that help them discover their online teaching style.

The remaining teachers should be asked to attend formal training, on the pedagogy, andragogy, network learning, methodologies as well as the technology. The format of the training should have the following components:

  1. An online component.

  2. A face to face component.

  3. A component that addresses the the style shift they need to make.

  4. A compenent that help them master the online technologies, tools and methodologies.

  5. A component that exposes them to different activities and methods that applies to online learning.

  6. A self learning component.


The delivery style should have a mix between behaviorism, cognitivism and constructivism. They6 need to be exposed to connectivism though this will be for the advanced earners.

Detect language » Arabic


Week 3, Q3: Collaborative Participation

[This is my answer to Week 3, Q3: As a teacher of online courses, how do you (or would you, if you do not as yet have online teaching experience) encourage interactions between yourself and your students, as well as between students, and network building with participants outside of the “formal” course? Expand on your answers by saying why you would or would not encourage these interactions, and identify practices that have been successful. Also reflect on the practices of your instructors related to interactions in the online courses you have taken, or are taking.]


I am a strong believer in online interaction. Whether with the learners of the course, between the learners and the outside world and with with the course facilitator. Using the f2f terminology, this interaction is like teamwork and brainstorming that yield synergy. Luckily, this approach started to penetrate our educational system.


There are many methods to encourage collaboration among online learners. All of them will require well designed activities. At the moment, I want to suggest two approaches:



  1. Use of a scoring rubric that encourages and assesses positive collaboration.

  2. Use of peer evaluation activities.


I hope you can enrich my knowledge by suggesting more.



The interaction fails when the assessment of the course is based on testing the acquired information rather than measuring incremental knowledge. I.e., courses that rely on route learning. The collaboration in these courses become cheating. Example: courses related to Project Management Professional certifications. Personally, I avoid designing online course for such courses.

Some successful Examples: besides the methodologies followed in this course, I can quote the following two successful examples:

(1) The Intercultural Dynamics in European Education through onLine Simulation: In this course, learners acted as members of a virtual government and each were given specific responsibility and collectively they were supposed to come up with one government plan. Each learner was from different countries with different background. The learning in the fields of politics, languages, cultural difference, teamwork and synergy was outstanding.


(2) Wikipedia Articles: A group of students were assigned the task of writing certain Wiki-articles on Wikipedia. The interaction with the virtual members of Wikipedia was rich and engaging.


Both of the above examples used suitable rubrics.

Week 3, Q2: Synchronous Events

[This is my answer to W3Q2: "How important are synchronous events (where course participants and instructor interact in real time) such as a webinar or an Elluminate session in fostering an effective online learning environment?"]


The importance depends on the learners and the material of the course. I have worked with teams where Synchronous communication was a burden. For example those who work on compiling Wikipedia and other Open Source projects. At the same time, I have worked with individuals who need the real time synchronous interaction.


Following Universal Design concepts, every online course should have a provision to have one or more synchronous, recorded, events to cater for those who prefer the real time learning.


What is more important is to ensure the technology works well, that the facilitator has a good control of the technology and the session and that the participants can use it effectively.


Reference: IEEE Research Findings.

Week 3, Q1: Ownership of Learning

[This is the answer to EDDL514 W3Q1 question: What do you find is the single most significant difference (that actually impacts learning in either a positive or negative way) between teaching and learning online as compared to in a face-to-face environment ?]


The most significant difference between the f2f and OL learning is “who owns the learning”. In a f2f, the learners’ expects the teacher/facilitator to be the source of their learning. In an online course, the learner should own the learning.


An online learner who does not switch to this attitude will fail a well designed online course. On the other hand, the instructor who designs a course without facilitating the shift of learning to the students will face major challenges (I can list them if requested!)


I drew this image to illustrate it:





Owners of Learning



For example, in a classroom setting, the “learners’ mode of thinking” expects:



  1. Full and clear directions from the instructor on what they learn.

  2. Constant feedback on whether the learning is going in the right direction.

  3. Immediate response on the learners queries

  4. (who can add more! about collaboration, assessment, note taking, etc..)


While in an online course, the successful learner knows that  she owns the learning and she:



  1. does not expect full and clear direction. She expects clear written instructions about the outcomes. But not direction.

  2. does not expect constant feedback. She knows the feedback will be given whenever possible. But not always. (In this course, for example, I have published 16 posts and got feedback on few only!).

  3. does not expect immediate response. She expects that the response will come when it comes. She continues learning while waiting. She does not say: oh I was waiting for your answer to continue!

  4. (Contribute for more!)


So, in my opinion, the attitude of the learner to own their learning is the single crucial element between the success or failure of the learning experience.


P.S.: I truly believe that the ownership of learning should be delegated to the learner even in the classroom setting… but I believe most teaching styles still does not know how to apply it! Even the constructivist approach finds major challenges.

Week 3 - Question 1:

[This is the answer to EDDL514 W3Q1 question: What do you find is the single most significant difference (that actually impacts learning in either a positive or negative way) between teaching and learning online as compared to in a face-to-face environment ?]

The most significant difference between the f2f and OL learning is "who owns the learning". In a f2f, the learners' expects the teacher/facilitator to be the source of their learning. In an online course, the learner should own the learning.

An online learner who does not switch to this attitude will fail a well designed online course. On the other hand, the instructor who designs a course without facilitating the shift of learning to the students will face major challenges (I can list them if requested!)

I drew this image to illustrate it:

[caption id="attachment_199" align="aligncenter" width="300" caption="Owners of Learning"][/caption]

For example, in a classroom the "learners' mode of thinking" expects:

  1. Full and clear directions from the instructor on what they learn.

  2. Constant feedback on whether the learning is going in the right direction.

  3. Immediate response on the learners queries

  4. (who can add more! about collaboration, assessment, note taking, etc..)


While in an online course, the successful learner knows that  she owns the learning and she:

  1. does not expect full and clear direction. They expect clear written instructions about the outcomes. But not direction.

  2. does not expect constant feedback. They know the feedback will be given whenever possible. But not always. (In this course, for example, I have published 16 posts and got fedback on few only!).

  3. does not expect immediate response. She expects that the response will come when it comes. She continues learning while waiting. She does not say: oh I was waiting for your answer to continue!)

  4. (any addition you can contribute to?)


So, in my opinion, the attitude of the learner to own their learning is the single crucial element between the success or failure of the learning experience.

P.S.: I truly believe that the ownership of learning should be delegated to the learner even in the classroom setting... but I believe most teaching styles still does not know how to apply it! Even the constructivist approach finds major challenges.

Notes from Educause Webinar

These are the notes I captured from the Educause webinar about:

6 emerging technologies through 5 questions.

The trends are towards

- More into the Cluod and Decentralization

- More Collaboration

MetaTrends from 2007-2010:

  • More Collective/Collaborative/Team

  • More mobility and cloud technology

  • More gaming, virtual worlds


Challenges 2007-2010

  • Supporting Learn whenever and wherever they want

  • Engaging information from anywhere

  • Move from Print to Digital t0 Networked education


Mobile Learning

  • The trend to move into bigger than mobile phone to smaller than laptop (like Skyped laptop, iPad)

  • Used for short duration information (FaceBook, news, Twitting, Texting). Still, long duration information depends on laptop/PC.

  • Challenges: cost, ownership, spread (some students do not have it).


EBooks

  • Example: Kindle, iPdas

  • eBooks will become the new trend to read.

  • Allows rich contents to students

  • Reduce carrying heavy books.


Read the Horizon Report

Use CampFire discussion approach.

Thursday, April 8, 2010

TAP: Revised Rationale

[Based on what I have learned from you in the last few days, I revamped my rationale about the concept map]!


While developing the philosophy utilizing the concept map, I reflected on myself in different scenarios:



  • A classroom learner

  • An online learner

  • A classroom teacher and

  • An online teacher


I discovered that I react to the teaching and learning in different ways in each case. I use different set of skills, attitudes, values and methodologies in different settings. Thank God. I preserve my personality, identity, knowledge, experience and reality in all, otherwise I would have been a schizophrenic! Maybe I am. So I noted on my map that my philosophy should have the flexibility to treat the online course different than the f2f. At the same time, my teaching should be adaptable to change based on the facilitation medium.


When I went through your contributions I recognized that each one of us react in a different way in each of the above situations. Some of us have the split. Others treat online and classroom experiences as the same. I noted in my map that my classes will have the same diversity of individualities. Being a believer in the Universal Design approach, I made sure that my mind map recognizes this diversity in preparation to have a philospohy that caters for all types. Additionally, my philosophy should recognize the differences between K-12 education, adult education and lifelong learning requirements.


To understand the different types, I embarked on a research about the  traditional learning theories then moved to new emerging ideas and concepts especially the ones that the Internet has recently uncovered. I noted my findings on the map. Then, following the course requirements, I researched the different traditional learning philosophies where I discovered an additional emerging philosophy called Connectivism which I found intriguing. My research led me to believe that none of these philosophies is better than the other. Each one has its own merit when applied in the right environment. I noted that on my map. I noted as well that a new parallel educational society exist where learning happens without teaching. Mind boggling, but it is reality. This is for another post, maybe for another course.


Then I investigated the roles that IT plays in education… and checked ideas about emerging trendsline of thoughts and the future of Post Secondary Education: post secondary education. I noted them on my map. My previous experience drives me to include concepts of multiple intelligences, concepts of personal strengths, positive psychology and individualism in my philosophy. My map grew accordingly.


At this point, I discovered my map is so complicated that crashed my brain and needed a reboot. I thought of total reformat, but decided against it for I convinced myself I am a human and not a machine… yet! So, I took a couple of days to rest.


And my pursuit continues to simplify this complexity!


References:


Most of my references are noted in the body of the post. Below are links to “hardcopy” text I read:


Tuesday, April 6, 2010

Wordle

Today I discovered a site that summarizes the words used on a blog. it is wordle.com. I liked it. I took a snapshot of my blog and this is what I got:

The interesting find is that I use the word "needed" a lot... "last", "games" and "live" are next... is there a shrink out there who can figure out my personality through this observation?

Saturday, April 3, 2010

So, you use FaceBook

What's with games? In the last few days, I was exposed so much to games concepts and how it is far better than education. And today, I saw the below video which blow my mind off! Very funny, very true but I do not know if I will live in the predicted future. I always hated the point system in the first place!