Something worth watching at the start of term…
Reply
Approximate Reading Time: < 1 minute
These are educational professionals, and they need to be compensated like they are.
The short answer is ADMINISTRATION.
But the hyperinflated price tag of college has funneled toward another aspect of the higher education system: driving funds into administrative offices—a pattern “reflected in increases in the numbers of administrative positions, increases in those salaries, and increases in the percentage of college budgets going to these functions.”
In Canada, it is also partly because the federal and provincial governments are providing less and less funding.
What none of these guys seem to understand (perhaps because they’re mostly lawyers and economists) is that education is one of the best investments they can make.
Source: Why Is College So Expensive if Professors Are Paid So Little?
Approximate Reading Time: 2 minutes
Anyone else see the irony in the fact that violence and video games prompts so much anger? This ‘debate’ (I hesitate to call it a debate because that implies civility, and we don’t really seem to have that here.) has been raging for years, and although it looked like it had settled down for a while, the recent proclamation by the APA has revved things up all over again.
Back in August the American Psychological Association (APA) released a new policy statement on video games in which they acknowledged video game violence can’t be linked to violent crimes, but asserted that such games provoke milder acts of aggression.
A recently published new meta-analysis once again indicates that there is no discernible causal relationship between playing violent games and being violent. Results indicate little evidence to suggest that playing video games, including violent games, influences negative outcomes in children including aggression, prosocial behavior, depression, ADHD and academics.
There was also evidence that problematic practices in some research studies are inflating effect sizes. These including publication bias but also citation bias…researchers who cite only studies that support their personal views find results with higher effect sizes, suggesting that researcher expectancy effects are at play.
The study is in Perspectives on Psychological Science (with commentaries and reply from other scholars) and can be found at: http://pps.sagepub.com/content/10/5/646.full.pdf+html
Ferguson, C. J. (2015). Do Angry Birds Make for Angry Children? A Meta-Analysis of Video Game Influences on Children’s and Adolescents’ Aggression, Mental Health, Prosocial Behavior, and Academic Performance. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10(5), 646-666. doi: 10.1177/1745691615592234.
Abstract:
The issue of whether video games—violent or nonviolent—“harm” children and adolescents continues to be hotly contested in the scientific community, among politicians, and in the general public. To date, researchers have focused on college student samples in most studies on video games, often with poorly standardized outcome measures. To answer questions about harm to minors, these studies are arguably not very illuminating. In the current analysis, I sought to address this gap by focusing on studies of video game influences on child and adolescent samples. The effects of overall video game use and exposure to violent video games specifically were considered, although this was not an analysis of pathological game use. Overall, results from 101 studies suggest that video game influences on increased aggression (r = .06), reduced prosocial behavior (r = .04), reduced academic performance (r = ?.01), depressive symptoms (r = .04), and attention deficit symptoms (r = .03) are minimal. Issues related to researchers’ degrees of freedom and citation bias also continue to be common problems for the field. Publication bias remains a problem for studies of aggression. Recommendations are given on how research may be improved and how the psychological community should address video games from a public health perspective.
Approximate Reading Time: < 1 minute
University World News did an excellent interview with HETL Chief Liaison and HETL Vice President, Professor Mandla Makhanya, Vice-Chancellor of the University of South Africa (UNISA), one of the largest universities in the world:
People from across the world have been collaborating to develop policies and actions that will chart the future for higher education, says Professor Mandla Makhanya, vice-chancellor of the University of South Africa. A high-level policy forum at next month’s conference of the International Council for Open and Distance Education, or ICDE, will apply regional lenses to help forge the way ahead for online, open and flexible learning.
The collaboration is sparking something great and innovative in the higher education environment, Makhanya told University World News. Also: “Technology is bringing about a rethink of the missions of universities, and of business models.
“We have acknowledged that the developments, the interconnections we have across the globe that bring about collaborations, are at the core of assisting us to have a different view of higher education. We are working far more together, in a closer fashion, than we ever have previously.”
The high-level policy forum will be one of three major activities around the 26th ICDE World Conference being held at the mega-resort Sun City, north of Johannesburg, from 14-16 October. There is also the conference itself and the ICDE Presidents’ Summit, which will focus on issues of leadership and governance.
The conference will be hosted by the University of South Africa, or UNISA, under the theme “Growing capacities for sustainable distance e-learning provision”.
Source: Global policy forum to forge future of online learning – University World News
Approximate Reading Time: 5 minutes
In a previous post, I outlined the difference between Learning Theory, Instructional Theory, and Instructional Design Model. In that post, I said that some theories/models seem to fit into multiple categories. Let’s look at a few.
Please note: Unless otherwise stated, all images were created by K.Becker. You must get permission from the author to use them.
These are all featured in my upcoming book where I connect them to video game design. In my book, I highlight 20 learning theories, 15 instructional theories, and 12 instructional design models. I grouped each set according to some common attributes. The thick grey arrows below indicate which ones appear in more than one list. I’ll talk about those.
As I’ve said before, learning theories are theories to describe how people learn, whereas instructional theories focus on how we should teach. Instructional design theory came out of synergies among learning theory, psychology, and media and communication studies. Instructional design theories are distinguished from instructional design models in that the ID theories attempt to explain what to do, whereas the instructional design models provide guidance on how to build it.
The group of instructional theories that is most often conflated with instructional design models is what I call the didactic group and may be part of the reason for the general confusion. The didactic group includes theories that provide a framework for instruction. They tend to be prescriptive in that they outline what needs to be done, often in what order, but they are still not design models in that they don’t provide the process for actually creating the designs. A few examples of the ones that fall into this category are:
Gagné’s Nine Events
Along with Bloom’s Taxonomy (Bloom, 1956) the work of Robert Mills Gagné ranks among the best known instructional theories in the field. It has the advantage of being straight-forward and easy to understand. His ‘nine events’ model decomposes the elements that make up a sound lesson, and suggests an ideal ordering for them (Gagné, 1977).
Reigeluth’s Elaboration Theory
Reigeluth credits Ausubel, and Bruner with laying the groundwork for his elaboration theory, where instruction should be organized in increasing order of complexity, and be both gradual, and graduated (Reigeluth, 1980). Many of the concepts identified in this model, such as the importance of selection and sequencing, instruction that progresses from simple to complex, and review strategies remain as relevant to modern teaching and instruction as ever.
Merrill’s 1st Principles
Merrill’s 1st Principles represents the culmination of a long and productive career in instructional theory and design. This theory synthesizes the key elements of all the other theories and models he has developed over the years and boils them down to just five fundamental elements (Merrill, 2002).
In my book, I listed this one as both a theory AND a model. I could probably have listed the others in both categories too, based on how they tend to be presented in educational technology courses, but I didn’t want to be repetitive. When this theory is used as an ID model it serves as a checklist to ensure the fundamental elements are all addressed. The other didactic theories can be used that way too. They still don’t cover the five phases that are normally considered to be requirements of an ID model.
Universal Design Model (UDM)
Most design models are variations in one way or another on what I call the ‘universal design model’ (UDM). In contrast with instructional design (ID), most instructional theories only encompass parts two or three of the universal design model and sometimes only the second. That is, the instructional theories focus on the specification and design phases of the UDM, and instructional design models typically include all five phases.
That brings us to the learning and instructional theories. I highlight three in my book that have applications in both lists. As learning theories they are categorized as social and constructivist theories. When viewed as instructional theories I classify them as what I am calling bricolage. Bricolage is a term borrowed from architecture and art. It refers to something that is built using whatever is at hand and is used here as a category of approaches rather than as a specific design theory. The theories / models in this group are here because they are strongly influenced by what is at hand.
Situated Learning
Jean Lave is generally credited with first describing this theory and it is a significant concept. According to Lave, learning is a function of activity, context, and culture – it is situated. Lave states that social interaction is a critical component of situated learning – participants build a “community of practice”. Newcomers or beginners start off at the periphery but eventually become encultured and can ultimately assume the role of expert through “legitimate peripheral participation .” Situated Learning (SL) is the first of two inquiry-based instructional approaches that are listed as both learning theories and instructional theories. When viewed as a learning theory SL offers a theory of the role of context and culture in learning. When viewed as an instructional theory it offers an approach to organizing instruction to facilitate learning opportunities (Lave, 1991).
Discovery Learning
There are now many different approaches to the basic idea behind discovery learning, which at its core is the idea that we learn by creating hypotheses about how things are and then experimenting. It is fundamental to most research in science, and is at the core of inquiry-based approaches to learning. Jerome Bruner is often credited with originating discovery learning (Bruner, 1961), but it was influenced by many, such as John Dewey (Dewey, 1916), Maria Montessori {Montessori, 1964), and even William James (James, 1915).
Discovery learning is sometimes mistaken to imply that learners should be allowed to follow their whims and learn through pure self-discovery, but that isn’t really what Bruner had intended (Mayer, 2004)
As a learning theory, it explains the learning that happens through experimentation, and as an instructional theory it lays out how we can facilitate such learning.
Activity Theory
Activity theory is not new and though its roots are elusive many have contributed to this line of thought, including Lev Vygotsky (Vygotsky, 1977), A.N. Leont’ev (Leont’ev, 1978), and A.R. Luria (Luriëiìa, 1976) in Russia. The main focus of this theory revolves around the interrelationship of the subject (the learner), the object (the goal which leads to the outcome), and the tools (both physical and conceptual) used to mediate between them. It suggests that the relationship between objects in the environment and people are mediated by culture and its rules, the community, and by labor and its roles and development.
As a learning theory, it explains how learning is affected by the interaction between the learner, the goal and the available tools, and as an instructional theory it lays out how we can organize environments to facilitate such learning.
There.
I hope I haven’t muddied the waters any further with these explanations. If you have anything to add, feel free to comment!
References:
Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives; the classification of educational goals (1st ed.). New York,: Longmans, Green.
Bruner, J. (1961). The act of discovery. Harvard Educational Review, 31(1), 21-32.
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education; an introduction to the philosophy of education. New York,: Macmillan.
Gagné, R. M. (1977). The conditions of learning (3d ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
James, W. (1915). Talks to teachers on psychology and to students on some of life’s ideals. New York: H. Holt.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning : legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge [England] ; New York: Cambridge University Press.
Leont’ev, A. N. (1978). Activity, consciousness, and personality. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
Luriëiìa, A. R. (1976). Cognitive development, its cultural and social foundations. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should There Be a Three-Strikes Rule Against Pure Discovery Learning?: The Case for Guided Methods of Instruction. American Psychologist, 59(1), 14-19.
Merrill, M. D. (2002). First Principles of Instruction. Educational technology research and development : ETR & D, 50(3), 43-60.
Montessori, M. (1964). The Montessori method (UPenn Digital Library http://digital.library.upenn.edu/women/montessori/method/method.html ed.). New York,: Schocken Books.
Reigeluth, C. M., Merrill, M. D., Wilson, B. G., & Spiller, R. T. (1980). The elaboration theory of instruction: A model for sequencing and synthesizing instruction. Instructional Science, 9(3), 195 – 219.
Vygotsky, L. S., & Cole, M. (1977). Mind in society : the development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge Harvard University Press.
Approximate Reading Time: < 1 minute
This is Part 13 in my continuing saga of this year’s gamified course.
Term has started.
The last day to change classes is tomorrow, so I’ll go through the discussion group, website, all the quest logs, etc. then to make sure only the registered students have access. I also need to link up their quest logs with their score cards and item inventories, as well as set up my master grade book. This part is way more time consuming than I’d like. I’m currently using gClassFolders and doctopus to set up the folders and files. Neither really give me the flexibility I want and so there is a certain amount of tweaking necessary.
I’d LOVE to have a plug-in I could use to do the set-up. This would make a HUGE difference.
So far this first week is going better than last year’s first week. I don’t know yet if it’s because I have a different bunch of students or if I’m doing a better job of introducing the course. Probably a bit of both.
I’ll try and compare the responses and scores from this year and last year as we go along.
If you are interested in following my course journal, watch for the “Gamification 101” heading.
Also, for more information on gamification, check out my website here.
Approximate Reading Time: 2 minutes
Sometimes, you just have take advantage of opportunities when they present themselves. Yesterday, the sun came out after several dreary days of rain, so I took the opportunity to go out and do a bit of yard work. There’s a fair bit of work that needs to be done around a farm to get ready for winter, and one thing I’ve learned in my nearly 30 years on a farm is that you need to take advantage of the weather when it’s in your favour.
So, there I was enjoying a bit of hard work on a gorgeous fall day, when the phone rang.
We still have a landline and we have a number of extension phones – one of which is in the barn (where I just happened to be at that moment). It’s really handy having that phone sometimes – especially since we can use any extension to call any other extension. This can be especially useful if you’re holding a squawking chicken or in some other kind of tight spot and need to call the house for help.
Anyhow, guess who was calling? It was one of those nice Microsoft service people from “Technocare” calling to “fix” my computer. Now, normally I simply try and get them to tell me WHICH of my computers is having the problem.
They never seem to be able to tell me.
However, this time, since I was in the barn, and since every time I open the door of the barn, a bunch of the chickens I hatched this year come running into the barn to see what’s up, AND since I had just done exactly that, I decided to do this phone call differently.
The chickens, you see, like to make a lot of noise when they first come in the barn, and I had trouble hearing the lady on the phone because of them. So, I did the only thing that made sense…. I said…..
“I’m sorry lady, I don’t have any computers here. I live in a barn.”
….but we have detected a problem with your computer…..
“Nope, sorry – no computer here (amidst lots of squawking and clucking).
Like I said, I live in a barn. ….. I have chickens though, listen……
(as I hold the phone up to one of my hens, who obliges me by letting out a wonderful GAWK!)…….
……….
Need any chickens? (more squawking).”
…..ummm…. I’m here to fix your computer……
“I TOLD you lady, no computers here,… only chickens. Oh, and a turkey,…. need a turkey? He’s quite friendly. Maybe you’d prefer a rabbit or two? I have those too.”
….ummm… well,…. thanks for calling.
“YOU called ME. But thanks anyways. You have a great day now, K?”
Made my whole day.
The ‘girls’ seemed to like it too.
Approximate Reading Time: 3 minutes
This is Part 12 in my continuing saga of my current iteration of a gamified course. Time to talk about the grading and submission system. I’ve already said that the existing course management systems aren’t up to the task of a truly gamified course. I’m not talking about adding badges or a website theme that looks like World of Warcraft. There are a few systems out there that support that sort of gamification, but I have yet to find something that is customizable in the way I want, has servers in my country, AND doesn’t cost me anything.
As a result, I have created two spreadsheets to handle quest submissions and keeping track of grades. It isn’t automated, but it does work pretty well.
This is the place where you can make your own workload manageable or impossible, and with a larger class (I’ve done this for a class up to 50) adding a few clicks here and there and having to wait for yet another page to load can add up to a substantial overhead in terms of my time. This is typical for Blackboard – and one of the reasons I hate it so.
The two spreadsheets are these:
- A Quest Log – each student gets one. It is editable by them (and me) and this is where they are to record every quest they want me to assess. The basic rule is that if they don’t log it, I don’t mark it. The quest log has a line for every possible item they can submit. In order to submit something, they need to enter the date of submission, what type of item it is (document, image, folder, etc.), and a link to the item. Since all the quest logs are in one folder, I can easily see which ones have been modified. A modified quest cards means they submitted something so I can open it up and see what’s changed. Then I mark it using the score card, and record that it’s been marked in the quest log.
- A Score Card – each student gets one of these too but they can only read it. I edit this one. It is where I record the details of their assessment. Each major quest has a sheet describing all the criteria used to assess that quest. The students can look at it any time they like, but they can’t edit it.
Currently, these take some time to set up at the start of term, but once set up, marking is quite easy. Given that everything (except presentations and such) is submitted using Google Drive & Docs, I can also mark from anywhere.
This year, I’m trying something new – one of the first quests they are given asks them to put links to their scorecards and item inventories in specified locations in their quest log. I’ve also asked them to tell me the name they prefer to go by. They’ll get 10XP for this if they do it by Friday. This serves several purposes:
- It prompts them to access their quest log, scorecard and item inventory.
- It will uncover any issues they may have with access.
- It’s an intro to using spreadsheets (as both the scorecard and quest log are spreadsheets).
- It lets me know how they prefer to be called (their names on the class list may not be what they want to called).
- Let’s them get some ‘points on the board’ so they can feel they are on their way. It’s rare in a class that a student gets marks for something this early in the term.
- It establishes my assessment relationship with them – more on that in the next post).
- It also alerts me to students who may need more support than others (i.e. those that don’t do this.)
Next time, we’ll find out how the assessments can be set up so that it is both efficient for me and still provides meaningful feedback for the students.
If you are interested in following my course journal, watch for the “Gamification 101” heading.
Also, for more information on gamification, check out my website here.