Reading:
Good session again today. Who am I? sessions started. We had that pleasure to listen to:
Matej Jan – funny – here’s his rehearsal video
Colin – languages
MingMing – motivational
On the second half of the class we had the visit of EdCareers for some valuable information about internships, available resources and how to plan for post Stanford.
Class Notes:
Notes Followup:
Homework:
Think of 3 people and write about what they need to learn, why and how you propose they might learn it.
____, is a _____.
He wants to ___.
In order to do so, ___
To address this challenge I seek to ___ in a way that ___.
Last night we went to a party (9-12pm) at the Stanford’s Canto Art Center – music, performances, food – bike valet service – all free for students. The most impressive though, is the museum itself and its collection. Apparently it’s the largest Rodin collection outside of Paris – 200 original pieces including The Thinker and The Gates of Hell.
in the news and a short video
So after all the reading and note taking, I arrive at class and realize that one of the pieces I read was actually for next week!! And the two discussed in class I did not read!! So frustrating. Well – the discussion was broad enough and my group filled in the blanks for me : /
The project idea is coming into focus: James, Ana and I are thinking about doing:
Topos: EdTech adoption
Site: Classroom
Age: Teenagers
Class Notes:
Reading:
Wiggin & McTighe’s (1998) Understanding by Design Chapter 1
Notes:
Response:
The big ideas in this chapter are that you need clear and measurable learning objectives in order to create an effective curriculum. You should start off knowing how you are going to identify the desired outcomes and measure them not only at the end, but during the entire process. Once you know the desired outcomes and how to measure them, you can finally decide how you will deliver and engage the learners in your experience effectively.
The challenge the author poses for me in particular lies in thinking as an assessor when designing a course. It does not feel natural to share something I am enthusiastic about in a manner that I must test the knowledge transference as part of my delivery strategy. The natural impulse is to get to the most interesting part of the topic as quickly as possible, laying down only the essential pieces before hand. The risk is loosing those who are not understanding along the way.
To think about how we are going to measure the outcomes of our topic as the leading part of the design process seems counter intuitive to me yet makes complete sense as a strategy.
This approach would change completely the way designers design learning technologies in the sense that the cadence of content delivery would have to change. Instead of delivering content through direct-teaching and then testing, the content would have to be reordered to accommodate for continuous evaluation and eventual backtracking to reinforce needed content. The evaluations themselves would not need to be all encompassing final tests but more straight forward check-points along the way. The tools themselves would be adapted to best measure for the desired learning objectives.
For some reason I see this approach much more related to designing a game. My father is always amazed when he sees someone playing a new game on their smartphone. “How do you know what you have to do in those games? How did you learn!?” It just happens right? No. The game designers have to very carefully present information in a way that the gamer/learner will be able to perform the task of playing the game effectively, performing well and with clear and measurable objectives.
How could we incorporate game design practices into education?
In class activity:
Draw what Technocentrism means to you
So this was the reading for this week on the topic “The Nature of Qualitative Research”
And here are my notes:
Had to develop, in 10 minutes an app for K-12 children that incorporated Behaviorist principles:
Class Notes:
Pen leakage problem!
We were supposed get a quote from the reading which we found interesting, explain and post it for discussion online. Here’s mine:
“Programmed instruction, with or without machines, was quickly adopted by industry, but the education establishment was not impressed. It was as if the automobile industry had been shown how to build cars in half the time at the cost and had said, “No.” There were reasons for this, of course. The machines were crude, the programs were untested, and there were no ready standards of comparison. Teaching machines would have cost money that was not budgeted. Teachers misunderstood the role of the machines and were fearful of losing their jobs. Nor did a consensus in favor of adopting these machines exist among administrators, school boards, and parents.” (B.F. Skinner, Programmed Instruction Revisited)
It was fascinating to see that the fears and worries of those receiving educational technologies have remained the same for the past 30 years; the fear that the teachers would be substituted and that third parties try to tell schools how to do their job. Why hasn’t this fear been addressed. How come the educational technology industry has not worked towards reducing that impression?
I believe that a previous step is necessary to tackle the issue is to show the teachers and institutions how EdTech is here to aid teachers in process, not to substitute it. The statement at the end of the reading is very unfortunate saying that it is a teaching machine instead of a teaching-aid, since it implies that the machine really does it all and discards the teachers. Teaching-aid feels like a much more appropriate definition and use the “teaching-machine”.
Finally, to claim that the machine teaches is a stretch. It seems to be able to test users about some previously knowledge but not introduce new knowledge.”
The readings:
Notes on the readings:
Another great class – talked about teachers as designers, assessment, learning styles and the approach towards creating effective learning experiences.
