I wanted to know more about potential dilemmas designers might face and found this presentation from 2002. There are some interesting situations to chew on that I hadn’t thought of. Every career has a moral dim

ension, but I feel like those working in education are faced with so many more layers and complexity, especially when it comes to the education of children. One needs to factor in so many things when designing or evaluating instruction or performance–socio economics, cultural and ethnic backgrounds, vast differences in prior knowledge, learning (dis)abilities, etc.

The burden seems very heavy.

And who, ultimately, is the customer? Is it the end-user or the person writing your paycheck?

photo courtesy Flickr user Chris Suderman

I’m going to go with the end-user and hope I work for somebody that agrees with me. : ) Because even if instead of designing for those above I’m designing for what’s below, my job ultimately is to care about their experience and potential for learning.

photo courtesy Flickr user Jake Kitchener

I appreciated his distinction between mimetic methods of teaching (goal to transfer knowledge) and transformative methods (goal to change the way the student sees him or herself).

He seemed to support one of my favorite quotes that I mentioned in class a couple months ago:

“Students learn what they care about . . .,” Stanford Ericksen has said, but Goethe knew something else: “In all things we learn only from those we love.” Add to that Emerson’s declaration: “the secret of education lies in respecting the pupil.” and we have a formula something like this: “Students learn what they care about, from people they care about and who, they know, care about them . . .”

Barbara Harrell Carson, 1996, Thiry Years of Stories

As I was fortunate enough to interview Dr. Osguthorpe for a class assignment I can tell you that he believes this philosophy whole-heartedly. I knew this to be true even prior to reading his article. His concern for students is deep-seated.

I appreciated the five components of his moral dimension framework

1. Conscience of Craft
2. Conscience of Membership
3. Conscience of Sacrifice
4. Conscience of Memory
5. Conscience of Imagination

All of these spoke to me in one way or another. I most love conscience of craft. To think of one’s work as “craft” gives it an air of importance no matter how banal or rote. A craftsman is one who takes pride in his/her work and pays attention to every detail, not wanting it to leave his/her hands before it is perfected. I definitely want to be a crafts(wo)man in whatever field I find myself.

I thought back to this article when I had a few moments to watch an Independent Lens program entitled Objectified. This program discussed design of a different type–that of industrial design. But it’s amazing that they are asking themselves the same questions as instructional designers, “how can I change people’s experiences?” In fact one of the designers interviewed, Karim Rashid, actually asks the question.

It gets really interesting at 1:35 (for some reason I can’t get the deep link code to work so you’ll have to move the scrubber manually)

This might also sound familiar:

Those with a conscience of craft require their best work not only for themselves, but because they care about the people who will ultimately interact with their product.

I’m having a hard time seeing how a computer program can get beyond behaviorist ways of teaching and learning. In class someone suggested having native speakers involved or provide voice recognition. Both of those options, while ideal, do not appear to be in the realm of possibility at this time. The former because of cost, the second because of technology. I don’t know that voice recognition has advanced far enough to really be a viable option to gauge how a learner is progressing.

CALL is still a positive step in language learning and has a lot of potential. I see that some programs provide options for how information is presented so it can be tailored to a learner’s preferences. I’m assuming it can be programmed like some national tests like the GRE where as I get better the information gets harder (should I so choose to go this direction). I think a behaviorist approach to language learning coupled with situational learning is a good mix. Drill-and-practice some of the vocabulary but as soon as possible start using it in realistic setting.

My son is currently involved in a first-grade Spanish two-way immersion program. I actually sought advice to Dr. Graham’s father, Dr. Ray Graham, before placing him in the program. He was so helpful in deciphering research on immersion and encouraging us to have our son give it a try. It’s too soon to tell what the outcome will be, but my son is enjoying himself so right now that’s half the battle. His Spanish teacher has told us that he is a smart boy but needs to work on his vocabulary. Some of the students started this program in kindergarten so I think he’s behind in comparison. This tells me that a little drill-and-practice may be in order for the foundational words (things like colors, big/small, tree, house, school-words, etc). If he can get those then conversations he hears while immersed in Spanish may make a little more sense. I think he will be able to figure out words he doesn’t know hearing them in context with words he does know–that’s where the behaviorism coupled with constructivist (situational) theory may be a good thing.

Jak & Daxter, the reason I don't own a game console

As an instructional designer I do see value in instructional gaming. As a mother instructional gaming terrifies me. Let me qualify that. I beleive there is a distinction between educational gaming and simply identifying skills learned through gaming in general. In my mind there is a difference in quality between what you learn in Quest Atlantis and what you learn in World of Warcraft. One could argue that all games teach you something. It may be the appropriate ratio of chemicals in a scientific experiment or it may be how to blow up a virtual tank, but I suppose you could argue you’ve learned. In both cases you’re probably required to problem solve, think critically, and follow rules. But is there a trade-off?

I am concerned that to learn from WoW requires a serious commitment of time. Further I worry about the addictive nature of some of the MMORPGs. To be fair, I don’t have first-hand experience. I only have experience with platform games such as Jack and Daxter, Sonic, and Spyro. Total kid’s stuff and without the ability to collaborate like WoW and others. But even playing those games gave me a sense of accomplishment. Unfortunately as I mulled over what exactly I had accomplished I realized it was nothing other than wasting a colossal amount of time. So I think one needs to be careful in relying on games to teach skills that could be taught in other ways with less risk of the negative side effects. I’m not saying that games shouldn’t be used nor should they be discounted as a viable means of instruction, but to ignore potential unintended consequences is dangerous.

Ask me in a few years what I think–once my son starts to notice we don’t own a game console.

One of the most effective techniques for me to acquire new knowledge is through simile, metaphor, and analogy. In some cases could these be considered stories? Albeit very short story but a story none the less. In my work we often use the process of construction as a simile for software design. We tell each other short stories about home building to get across concepts, to explain where we are in the process. Last week we were discussing the best time to do a second round of testing. To come to a decision we mulled over a short story, “If we do bug tracking right now it’s like doing a second walk-through after only the dings in the paint job have been fixed. What about the missing light bulbs and outlet coverings? Do we want to come and do an inspection after each ding has been repaired and each light bulb is installed, or do we want to wait until the whole list from the first inspection is done?” We came to a decision to wait and test after further work was finished. Talking in “story” helped us all relate and better understand the issue before us.

Christijan, Jered, and Danny made a good presentation about the importance of story. Nearly everything they said resonated with me. One point that didn’t resonate with me was to refer to storytelling as a  technology. This may expose a basic lack of understanding on my part on something I should understand by now. Isn’t storytelling more a method than a technology? Is there really a difference? Is this question going back to the Clark/Kozma debate (not sure which side I’m on since earlier I talked about stories as a delivery mechanism. Hmmm, sounds familiar)? Better go refresh my memory with notes from the beginning of the semester.

I wish I was a better storyteller. I trip over myself. I could take advice from Ira Glass:

photo courtesy Flickr user moqub

I’m spending the week in Denver at the Educause annual conference. I’ve heard a number of things that relate back to what we’re learning in class. It’s great when I recognize a learning theory or instructional method that I might not have caught before. Here are a few of the things I heard from presenters that rang true:

Diane Sieber

- Real learners construct their own knowledge
- Successful courses depend on active community of learners
- Learning Affordances of collaborative tools: Participatory, Decentralized (folksonomy vs. taxonomy), Emergent, Network Effect

Gardner Campbell

- LMS tools are very instructor-centric. Info is pushed out. Students are very good at interacting with this as they’ve done it all their lives. But engagement doesn’t get at anything real–it’s a stimulus response. Need to get deeper and get in contact with each other.
- Even if you’re doing the automaticity drills the bigger picture needs to be in view, if not the student is too focused on extrinsic motivation (the grade).

Jim Collins

- The signature of mediocrity is not an unwillingness to change, but chronic inconsistency
- Good leaders are not optimists in that they don’t deny the brutal facts but they don’t lose the faith that they will prevail
- We need not only a to-do list, but also a stop-doing list
- We are not imprisoned by our mistakes, circumstances, setbacks, economy, cards we’re dealt or staggering defeats. We are freed by our choices, and the ones that nobody can see.

As I listened to her presentation the thought did come to mind that we need to be careful inserting technology where it is not wanted. If a country is doing fine without it why mess around with it? I heard this story long ago and was reminded of it today. It may have some application

The American businessman was at the pier of a small coastal Mexican village when a small boat with just one fisherman docked. Inside the small boat were several large yellowfin tuna. The American complimented the Mexican on the quality of his fish and asked how long it took to catch them.

The Mexican replied only a little while. The American then asked why didn’t he stay out longer and catch more fish? The Mexican said he had enough to support his family’s immediate needs. The American then asked, “But what do you do with the rest of your time?” The Mexican fisherman said, “I sleep late, fish a little, play with my children, take siesta with my wife, Maria, stroll into the village each evening where I sip wine and play guitar with my amigos, I have a full and busy life, senior.”

The American scoffed, “I am a Harvard MBA and could help you. You should spend more time fishing and with the proceeds, buy a bigger boat with the proceeds from the bigger boat you could buy several boats, eventually you would have a fleet of fishing boats. Instead of selling your catch to a middleman you would sell directly to the processor, eventually opening your own cannery. You would control the product, processing and distribution. You would need to leave this small coastal fishing village and move to Mexico City, then LA and eventually NYC where you will run your expanding enterprise.”

The Mexican fisherman asked, “But senior, how long will this all take?”

To which the American replied, “15-20 years.”

“But what then, senior?”

The American laughed and said that’s the best part. “When the time is right you would announce an IPO and sell your company stock to the public and become very rich, you would make millions.”

“Millions, senior? Then what?”

The American said, “Then you would retire. Move to a small coastal fishing village where you would sleep late, fish a little, play with your kids, take siesta with your wife, stroll to the village in the evenings where you could sip wine and play your guitar with your amigos.”

In Tiffany’s work I don’t think this is an issue. People seem to be asking for technology and finding positive ways of using it to increase their joy and happiness. In the case where a group of people is being subjugated and a technology such as a computer (or a ball-point pen) can help I say go for it.

I watched to a presentation by Catherine Ngugi at the most recent Open Education Conference. Ms. Ngugi is the project director for OER Africa. She touched upon some of the same topics Tiffany did. It may be worth watching.

First, the wiser captains of industry have never asked schools to emphasize “technology skills.” What they prefer, and are in fact dying for to better compete in a global economy, are graduates with skills in areas that increasingly get neglected: writing and reasoning; reliable work habits; the capacity for concentration and face-to-face communication; a sense of history, cultural anthropology, and – for jobs in the technology sector in particular – higher math and science. “Want to get a job using information technology to solve problems?,” a report from the Information Technology Association of America, once asked. “Know something about the problems that need to be solved.”

But in the higher grades there may be instances where technology can enhance a learner’s involvement in collaborative work. I appreciated hearing how Jered and Dan used technology in their classrooms and I thought back to my days in middle and high school. The class that stands out as a positive example of collaboration was  Mr. Siemankowski’s science class. Sadly I can’t recall the exact class–I think it was AP Physical Science or something like that.

photo courtesy Flickr user yuan2003

Anyway, he would explain a few concepts and then throw us into groups back in the lab area of the class and have us answer what I considered a really difficult scientific question. We would have to form and then test our hypothesis. I remember being thankful to be in a group because I was often unsure of where to start. Somehow we lumbered through the beginning and really started brainstorming and trying out our ideas. I thought this was pretty fun and felt a great sense of accomplishment when we finally arrived at what we considered a sound answer.  Left on my own I never would have gotten as far in problem solving as I did in a group.

I’m not sure how introducing collaborative technology would have changed this effort. We may have been able to explore ideas through simulations that we couldn’t have in class due to safety concerns, time, etc.  But I’m unsure how utilizing a collaborative technology such as a wiki or blog would have enhanced that experience. Perhaps it would have been easier to pick up the next day if we were posting things to a wiki/blog. Or homework may have been easier because we could asynchronously collaborate where we couldn’t really do that before.

Where I get really excited is in technology’s ability to break down barriers of distance. What if students were asked to collaborate with other schools in our country or even in another country? What if collaboration could take place with an adaptive expert? There are some exciting possibilities there.

unknown source

Debating the Clark/Kozma views of method or media was enlightening. They both have very good points to consider.

My takeaway from Clark is a warning not to become so enamored with gadgets and technology that we lose sight of good sound learning theory. To me he’s arguing the classic “form follows function.” First make sure you have an outcome in mind (a goal for your learners),  your content is sound, and that you have a pedagogically appropriate means to transmit the content (method). You ain’t got nothing if you aint’ got  good info and a good pedagogical approach.

Kozma, on the other hand, is saying that we don’t really need to separate the media from the method. He says that media can enhance our methods and influence the learners capacity to learn. I think he’s saying form and function go hand in hand to create an overall more enriching experience from which a person can more easily learn.

These are very simplified views of a fairly complex argument, but at this stage in my learning I need simplified views. I suspect I will better relate with and be better able to judge the nuances of each argument as I add more experience and understanding. But right now I tend to lean towards the “you’re both right” and “you’re both wrong” easy way out. I do think that media can influence learning, regardless of whether or not it is the final cause. But I don’t think media should be the first consideration.  Knowing your learner is probably the first step in the process of transmitting knowledge. Finding an appropriate method second, and a delivery mechanism third.

As a side note, I thought it was really cool that another class had a similar activity and Clark took the time to comment on a student’s blog.

I went looking for some definitions and found the following:

Learning Sciences definition from Janet Kolodner (Educational Technology, 2004).

Learning scientists harvest theories of active, constructivist, and participatory learning to design software and learning environments and ways of educating that promote deep and lasting learning. As a parallel activity, they study people’s interactions and behaviors and learning in these engineered environments to learn more about both learning itself, how to promote better learning, and how to promote learning more effectively.

AECT defines Instructional Technology as “the theory and practice of design, development, utilization, management, and evaluation of processes and resources for learning.”

Well, we’ve got a lot of theory going on, we’ve got design, and we’ve got learning. Sounds pretty similar to me. From reading the Kolodner definition I can now see why Dr. Graham proposed they identified themselves differently because of their roots. Learning Sciences emerged from the constructivist theorists while Instructional Technology appears to have developed during the time when theories of  behaviorism were most accepted.

I’ve thought quite a bit about what Dr. Graham mentioned in class when he said IT does research in the service of design while LS does design in the service of research.  I think what he was saying is that IT does research to find better ways to help people learn (design). LS, on the other hand, is looking to discover more concrete theories of HOW people learn so they design tools and environments in order to study how learners interact.

So while coming from different backgrounds and approaching things a little differently IT and LS share the same goal–to help people learn.