Reflections on the Course Design (Final Post)

Well, this is it.  My final post...

In this post I am reflecting specifically on the course design of my Principles of Learning course.  I will start by saying that this course, while sharing some things in common with other grad courses I have taken, was different.  Yes, adobe connect was used, yes there was group work, yes there was peer feedback, yes there were tutorials, and and and.  But what was different was THE WAY these tools were used.  I can honestly state that I have not expereinced a course this student-centered and this purposeful in its design since my undergrad days in AEDT.

For starters, this course was my swan song.  The last of my 6 courses required before I embark on the challenge of my graduate thesis.  There was some excitement in taking this course, but some nerves as well.

Here are some observations about what I have learned and about the course design:

• The presentations were amazing.  The educational artifacts produced in this course are astonishingly powerful.
• I love group work in this course.  Collaboration was ever-present - emphasizing that learning can be student-centered and personal but still collaborative.  In fact, that learning is MORE powerful when group work is combined with individual reflection and study.
• Learning theories were front and centre in BOTH the design and delivery of the course. We didn't just learn about learning theories, we learned through them.  The impact on students wasn't a tabletop exercise with hypothetical students.  WE were the students discussed in the theories.
• The emphasis on theories was terrific.  Learning theories have often felt like an obligation in my learning.  By having us present on them, incorporate them, blog about them, and experience them firsthand, we (students) were able to look at them critically as essential to the course. Rather than the superficial "who, what , when where" type of info, we dug deeper - using case studies, examples, research, and our own context to deepen our understanding.  I especially enjoyed seeing the overlap between the theories -I was not aware there was so much overlap.
• The students drove the bus, but the bus driver never left.  A poor analogy intended to demonstrate that while our knowledge was still growing we nonetheless felt empowered to exert a fair amount of influence over the process.  This empowerment, in my case, translated into a very high level of engagement and satisfaction.  It also ensured that the learning was personally relevant.
• There was a significant amount of reflection and meta-cognition in each class, as evidenced by this learning blog.
• There was A LOT of feedback in this course.  Peer feedback (formal via the forms and informal via the Adobe chat box and discussion) was augmented by strategic professor feedback.  All of this feedback led to reflection and meta-cognition - two powerful learning tools.
• the professor used the design of this course to not just teach us (students), but to also give us real example of how learning can be student-centered.  We were the subjects of our own learning.
• The HPL framework, - while not always explicitly stated - was clearly evident in all aspects of this course.  While big ideas were shared, the small steps to understand the big ideas were made equally important.  The learning was an organized process as opposed to a content download.
• Class time was flexible but never disorganized.
• Learning was not limited to class time of even the classroom environment.  I was learning in Google Docs, group meetings, self-study, and blog writing.  My learning didn't stop when tutorial was dismissed.  This was made possible by the way the course was designed.  the tutorials grounded the learning with a foundation and allowed the learners to build their knowledge.
• I liked my output in this course.  My presentations were thoughtful and engaging.  I didn't overdo it with the engagement using too many interactive/multimedia tools.  Participation is not the same as engagement.
• I definitely internalized my learning.  I framed the new knowledge I was creating to the context of my own teaching and learning.   I constantly thought about what I liked and didn't like about a theory, whether or not I could apply it to my own teaching (for example, how could I make my classrooms more student-centred?).  
• I was able to identify the theories and practices that resonated with me as a leaner - what I liked and didn't like, how I would like to be taught, which elements of the design I benefited from and which ones I found challenging.  I internalized the new information to make it relevant to me - it was not abstract or irrelevant.
• This was the first course I have taken where the challenges and gaps with a theory were as relevant as the tenets of that theory
• I gained a deeper understanding of what I valued in a group member and in a classmate.  In the past, the classmates were something I had no say over or influence on, but identifying in people the things I value (hard work, intelligence, creativity, and humour) has helped me ensure that I form better groups as well as try to be a supportive group member.

Simply put, this was the perfect course to end on.  It leaves me with a sense of optimism, excitement, and confidence for the next stage of my teaching career.

Bring on the thesis, but I will really, really miss courses like this one.

Have a blessed day, week, and life.  Hug the ones you love.  And never, ever be afraid to try something new - who know what you might learn?


James Robertson

Week 11 - PBL Presentations

My. Mind. Is. Blown. This week's tutorial was all PBL presentations.  I am beyond  impressed at the artifacts created by my peers and their presentation skills.

I have enjoyed the focus on group work and presentations in this class.  Life is a collaborative exercise.  No one lives in a vacuum or a bubble.  Human beings are social creatures - were were created that way.  The Lord designed us to live and love and laugh and be joyful.  You work with people, you live with people, you learn with people.  Most of what we do for most of our days involves people.  So why has learning traditionally been treated as an individual exercise?

I learn a lot by working in a group.  Working alone I can learn content, but working in a group I learn so much more.  Group members will challenge ideas and present alternatives.  They will remind me of things I forget, help me to be accountable for deadlines and to produce quality work.  They validate me when I do a good job, and I return the favour.  They pick me up when I fall or stumble and together we create something far better than anything we could create alone (and in half the
time).

I am clearly not alone in my pro-group position.  This POL class has almost 30 students - each of them part of a group - and all learning not just from the professor and the content but from each other as well.  It is absolutely a community.  The results speak for themselves.

As with every presentation in this course, there was a need for peer feedback on the rubric provided by the professor.  There was also encouragement to provide SPECIFIC, TARGETED feedback in the chat box.  While cheer leading and support are nice in creating a safe/trusted environment, there also needs to be feedback that students can use to improve.  The fact that it is coming from peers adds value and diversity to the feedback.  I tried to provide feedback in the chat to each group.  I also made a point of asking critical questions about their process and/or product.  sort of a Do unto others are you would have them do unto you thing.  Each group appeared to welcome this type of feedback (as I would if our roles were reversed).

All group slides were posted in the class padlet, which is getting very full but has become a large repository of knowledge - very "connectivist" of Dr. Robertson to do that!

As for my group, we did well.  I had a hiccough that occurred minutes before we presented.  We were on deck and I was forced to switch computers.  I had only minutes to find a new laptop and orient myself.  Very stressful but my teammates pulled me through.  Our presentation started with a video I made.

Here's the link:  Our PBL Case Study (Video)

This video demonstrates my learning through the script.  I included many aspects of our course in my description of Kayla Chipman.  Notice what Kayla was not getting?  In this course I have learned to LOOK for these things in designing, understanding, and applying learning.  Our PBL presentation, like everyone else's was real evidence of our learning, high order thinking, and effort.

Learning Outcomes from this week:

It was a great class, and one in which I met all 5 learning outcomes, but a couple of the learning outcomes were especially prominent:

- LO#4 involves the creation and production of a "well-informed and rigorously researched educational artifact".  Check.  While I have met this LO already in a number of different ways in this course, I am pleased to be able to include it in this blog post.  

- Our PBL assignment also met LO#3 insofar as we approached a complex educational problem and applied theories to develop strategies.  Another check.

This week, like the rest of the course was really fun.  I will be VERY sad to end this term - especially since this is my last graduate course before I embark on my Masters thesis.  I will miss learning alongside my peers.  I will miss their friendship.  I will miss the professors.  I will even miss Adobe Connect (ok, that might be pushing it a bit..  LOL).

I want to end this blog post with a Bible verse from 2 Corinthians 13:14.  It is a popular verse in scripture but apt nonetheless:

"May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all."

James

Week 8-9-10 - "It's Fab to Collab"

Weeks 8 and 9:
 I have to give credit to my AEDT buddy, Laura Eng, for that this blog entry's title.  She would say that whenever we were in a group together (which was often - AEDT has a lot of group work due to the PBL-centric design).

Weeks 8 and 9 spent collaborating asynchronously on our PBL assignment, but that doesn't mean there wasn't learning to reflect on or HPL elements in play.  First and foremost was the collaboration (group work).  My group met several times in week 8 (we took week 9 off for March Break) in Adobe to work on our Google Doc.  We collaborated asynchronously as well via email, where ideas were shared, documents were fine-tuned, and decisions were made.

The process to arrive at a problem statement was convoluted - reinforcing to me how much learning is NOT a linear process.  Learning for me is rarely from A (not knowing) to B (learning).  Rather, learning is from A-Z, passing through all sorts of (seemingly) unrelated contexts, experiences, and knowledge before arriving at Z. And the best part about "Z" is that it may or may not be the learning required for the class, but it is guaranteed to be relevant to me.  Learning is a VERY personal exercise, which means learning HAS TO BE learner-centered.

We met twice before submitting our plan to Dr. Robertson.  The first meeting was to decide on the problem, which we did, and then we went away for 48 hours to individually consider and reflect on which learning theories applied to the problem.  This type of consolidation is so common by now that we almost overlook it or take it for granted.  The second meeting we proposed our theories and discussed which ones were most applicable.  Chad agreed to aggregate our findings and decisions into a mind map and share with us prior to submitting for feedback from the professor.  Click here for a copy of our Google Doc thus far.

As you can see from the document, I proposed the idea of Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) and 21st century learning.  I proposed the latter theory in part because it applied to our problem and in part because it was new to me.  I have discovered that I am drawn to topics that I do not understand very well - maybe I see it as a weakness?  But I suspect it has more to do with my love of learning and wanting to have the answers.  Yes, there might be some vanity there, but hopefully only a little bit.  :)

Our feedback from Dr. Robertson on our proposed PBL problem was very positive, as she stated that ours was one of the top submissions.  She liked the decision to use branches to connect the problem, the elements of the problem, the stakeholders, the theories, and even some possible solutions.  While this document was by no means a polished product, Dr Robertson was able to see our direction and general approach along with our ideas to tackle the project. This struck me as an excellent example of the Gradual Release of Responsibility we have been discussing in class.  the professor is slowly letting us take responsibility for our project (and our learning) while still remaining present to encourage and assist.  This approach would resonate with my adult students.

Here is an image of our mind map.  I apologize if it is hard to read - Blogs don't allow for much real estate!!

Learning outcomes from this week:
- LO#1 by way of considering our prior learning in the PBL project, and the implications to course design are discussed in the course design are discussed in the blog past above.
-LO#2 regarding demonstrating a critical awareness of learning theories by way of our PBL group discussions on which theories best apply and why
- LO#3 regarding approaching complex educational problems was addressed by the process of arriving at and composing our PBL problem statement.
- LO#4 (producing a well-informed and rigorously researched educational artifact) was met by the creation of the mind map.
- LO#5 was met by the group discussions and collaborative decision-making that occurred during both of our group meetings.

More meetings to come, Week 10 is next!


Week 10:
Collab Learning Theories, Assistive Tech, and Differentiation

This week in the tutorial we discussed collaborative learning theories, differentiation, and assistive technologies.  The last hour was devoted to meeting with our PBL groups.  This time was VERY well spent as our group had decided not to meet over the reading week.

Breakout groups this tutorial were fun.  We were given a scenario that involved collaboration and cooperation and our group chatted about these two concepts.  While clearly different, we ultimately arrived at the "let the students decide!", I realized that our professor, Dr. Robertson, was actually doing the same with us.  We were being empowered to choose our own method and Dr. Robertson was helping us understand the elements of each decision.  It was a meta-exercise for me as I was both the teacher (in the scenario) and the recipient (in real life).  Nicely done!

A very cool thing happened in the breakout group, in that I was asked to share the story of my daughter, Alexa.  We were talking about differentiated learning and I thought about my daughter, Alexa.  Alexa (not to be confused with Amazon's AI) is in senior kindergarten and is ambidextrous.  She writes, eats, catches, and so on with both hands.  The irony of this is that when Alexa was born we were told her brain had not developed in-utero and she would likely be challenged.  She is the smartest kid in her class.  I thought about differentiation because Alexa - who is exceptional - didn't WANT to be different.  She wanted to write with her right hand like everyone else.  She wanted to read like everyone else (she currently reads at a grade 2 level despite being in SK).  My point was that differentiation needs to allow instruction to be different but still INCLUSIVE.  My group loved it and I got to share that story with the whole class.

Upon reflection, I am struggling to differentiate (pun intended) between Differentiated Learning and Personalized Learning.  I suspect one is more student-centered than the other?  Maybe Diff Lrng is about the teacher identifying the different needs for instruction but personalized learning involves the student in the decision-making as well?   Not sure, but I will find out.

In breakout groups there were two students who had strong knowledge of differentiated learning.  After they shared their opinion they listed to the other group members struggle through a concept these two had already learned.  Despite the fact that we were all peers, those two were still "more knowledgeable others", who could guide instead of tell.  To their credit, that is exactly what they did - respectfully corrected me when I shared an incorrect statement about the theory, and guided the group to a clearer understanding.  My ah-ha moment was that peers - not just profs - can scaffold and use ZPD, and that collaboration among students is not always a group feeling their way around int he dark.  Every so often one of the students can be the light.


Ok, so Learning outcomes!!  L.O. #1 involves considering prior learning and its impact on the course design.  I mention in this blog post that I am enjoying the design of the course where we get the last hour for self-directed activity (such as PBL groups).  I continue to appreciate this practice for several reasons:
1. It is predictable and that kind of routine brings comfort
2. It is useful and I use this time wisely.  Students with less investment in their learning could misuse this time - I do not.
3. It allows the learner to sort of decrease and decompress from the cognitive load involved in tutorials (often new content being learned) and bounce ideas off peers while those ideas are still fresh in everyone's minds.

L.O. #3 surrounds the learning theories.  I paid special attention in this blog to the theories discussed in class because they were somewhat new to me (Diff Lrng and Collab) and I included a learning theory NOT discussed in class (Personalized Learning).  This theory stuff is great!!

Next week we will be presenting our PBLs.  I am very excited for this, especially after tonight's meeting.  My group is going to rock it.  We have (and continue to) work hard on this project.  I am creating a case study video based loosely on Kyle's wife (she is a teacher).  Her story inspired our PBL.



James

Week 7 "ngised drawkcab" (backword design spelled backward)

Class this week was all about backward design.  A neat concept I am familiar with from my AEDT days, but a deeper dive.  I continue to be amazed by the discussions that go on in tutorial  My peers have some fantastic ideas and ways of thinking about things.  I love it.  This reinforces to me the learning impact of discussion and diversity - definitely an element I plan to incorporate into my own teaching whenever possible.

We actually covered quite a bit in class this week.  We began with sharing visual images that explained backward design.  Dr. Robertson continues to make a conscious effort to provide alternative ways to share ideas.  Tonight it was images, other nights it is through discussions, or presentations, or academic literature.  And she always reinforces what we are sharing/learning with her own experience and opinion.

With respect to the HPL framework, this class was assessment-centered.  PBL and backward design were also part of tutorial.  The pre-class reading was the assessment-centered environment chapter in the course text.  As always, we turned theory into practice - this time by examining the rubrics for the PBL and Learning Logs.  We also read a PBL paper from the Stanford newsletter, where the elements and theory of PBL environments is described.  Fascinating stuff that goes beyond my AEDT knowledge of PBL.

I was in an engaging breakout group where there was a lot of challenging of ideas.   What a blessing it is when people are able to challenge each others' ideas with respect - the quality of the conversation goes way up.  Reminds me of this quote from Aristotle:  

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."

So, backward design (Wiggins and McTighe). In staying with tonight's theme of digital representations, I found this image that summarizes my understanding of BD:

I came to the realization the backward design is quite common. Every time you "design with the end in mind" you are doing backward design.    Check out this short video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Xzi2cm9WTg

We looked at rubrics as an example of backward design, and discovered that rubrics are not just for assessments, they can also guide creation!  I did not realize this about rubrics until this tutorial.

After BD we discussed problem-based learning (PBL).  While I had some understanding of PBL, I still learned more about this approach.  I knew quite a bit about the elements of PBL and how this approach is used in teaching and learning, but I did not know the theoretical basis for the student-centeredness.   That was an "AH HA" moment for me.

Another AH-HA moment for me came when Lorayne mentioned "enduring understanding - or, in other words, an understanding of something that is so central to an idea that it extends beyond the classroom.  Where simple concepts point to (and fit into) larger ideas.  This learning log is an example of this, where my reflections align with bigger ideas - especially when viewed in aggregate.

The students in the class requested a break from tutorials next week to work on our PBL assignments.  I am in a group with Kyle Chapman and Chad Mowbray.  Looks like we will be doing EITHER something on really next-gen technologies (AR/VR and/or AI and ML) or something on motivation theory.  Either way, it will be terrific.  The three of us all seem to be on the same page - I like our chances despite being a small group of three.  From a learning perspective the groups were asked to come up with a brief problem description and send it before the end of the week.  Just a preliminary document for Dr. Robertson to provide feedback and confirmation of our direction.  I am conscious of the scaffolding and ZPD happening here, and seeing it used so effectively is persuading me to incorporate these elements in my own teaching - especially now that I have examples of how to do so effectively!


Learning outcomes from this week:
Last but not least, I want to tie in some learning outcomes from this week. I continue to enjoy the process of rationalizing design elements of the course with the LOs.  What a great way to reinforce and consolidate learning!

This week there was a strong element of LO#1, which states: "Conduct an inquiry to determine prior learning and the implications for the design of this course".  I was frequently reflecting this week on what I already knew about PBL, BD, and assessment, and applying it to the course content and discussions.

LO#2 "Demonstrate a critical awareness of learning theories, their scopes and limitations, by participating in a culture of disciplined inquiry that includes independent work and collaboration."  The breakout groups this week and the blogs cover this outcome nicely.

James
 

Week 6 - Neuroscience and BBL

Some levity to start my blog post:

I really enjoyed tutorial this week. We started class by finishing the group presentations from last week. briefly reviewed some test questions (thankfully the test wasn't a formal one!), discussed our error analysis of assignment 2, and shared our learning logs in small breakout groups.

I am secretly glad we did not have time to take the mock test in tutorial. While I understand how test can help both teachers and learners identify knowledge gaps, I have always found high stakes tests to be a poor way to measure learning.  In my AEDT undergrad we read an article on high stakes testing by Wayne Au (2007) and I never forgot it.   Here is a link:

The 21st century learning group presented this week and include a video game video. And it was a game I actually played (being an old guy now, the new games are beyond me) called Megaman X.

Note: Why is it called 21st century learning and not "digital learning" or "technology-based learning"?  I need to research this theory further as I am not sure I understood all of the tenets of this theory...


I was introduced to "Grit" this week. I had always understood grit to be more of a personality trait or mindset than an actual learning style or learning theory. I shared this prior understanding with a classmate and we realised by the end of our chat that learning can and will happen when someone repeatedly tries after they fail. Not only does the student end up learning the task they set out to do, they also learn that they can succeed if they persevere.  Click here to take the "grit test" we took in class.

After the group presentations we discussed our individual error analysis exercise results. I initially struggled to understand how this task (conducting an error analysis) involved learning, but upon reflection realized that leaning can happen by having our errors pointed out.  Seeing our work through the eyes of the evaluator, asking the questions they would ask, seeing what they see (as opposed to what we thought we showed), AND THEN going back and considering their feedback objectively.  Do they make good points?  COULD you have incorporated their changes to make the paper better or more compliant with the objectives?  While I do not take feedback personally, students CAN get offended when an evaluator criticizes their submission.  Psychologically I suspect this is because when we produce - even CREATE - something, we feel like that something is an extension of us - so if it gets criticised, we feel criticised.  As a teacher I need to be aware of this and clearly challenge ideas with specific feedback. 

My initial reaction to my feedback was to disagree with the evaluator and defend my decisions, but then I realized that my justification was irrelevant.  I re-considered the feedback and saw that it had merit.  There WAS room for improvement and I probably should have made better decisions.  This exercise was eye-opening for that reason.




Lastly, the opportunity to share learning logs was very helpful. I got a chance to see the creative ideas of others and got useful feedback (and some validation/support) on my own learning log.  I really value peer marking and peer feedback.  I suggested learning logs be shared with the whole class so that we (students) can choose to provide feedback to whomever we wish, but this was denied by the professor.  i suspect the rationale for this is that small groups eliminate the chance of a person being left without any feedback.

Learning Outcomes from this week's tutorial:
- Demonstrate an aptitude for scholarly communication (LO#5) in group discussions on learning logs, error analysis, and presentations
- Use inquiry to tackle complex educational problems (LO#3) in the error analysis and LL feedback
- Produce a rigorously researched educational artifact (LO#4) the learning theory presentations were brilliant.
- Critical awareness of learning theories through individual or group collaboration (LO#2), through peer feedback and chat discussions following each of the learning theory presentations.

Next week is reading week, so there will be no tutorial class.  The week after will be spend on problem-based learning (PBL).  There are no required readings for next class, but suggesting topics include UDL, PBL, culturally-sensitive teaching, and assessment-centered learning.

See you in two weeks!!
James

Week 5 - Presenting Connectivism (and other Learning Theories)

One Word:

Class this week was really fun and engaging.  The entire first two hours of class time were devoted to learning theory group presentations.  A principal requirement for these presentations was that they needed to be interactive and engaging.  Every group met that requirement in their presentations - albeit in different ways and to different levels of effectiveness.


Quote of the day for me comes from Mark Twain, who paraphrased Blaise Pascal when he said:

"I didn't have time to write a short letter, so I wrote a long one instead"

Pascal actually said something like, "I only made this letter longer because I had not the leisure to make it shorter"

Why these quotes?  Because many of the groups (my own included) struggled with time during their presentations.  As a teacher, I know how easy it is to go over time, which is why the Mark Twain quote is so apt.  It is a skill to be concise - skill and practice and experience.  The mention of time also adds relevance to this quote, as each group only had a week to prepare their presentations.  In my own teaching, I will work to find that line between giving students enough lead time to be concise, but not so much lead time that they feel they can procrastinate.  I suspect Dr. Robertson intentionally gave short presentation time to teach us about the importance of time management and being concise.  If that was her goal then it certainly worked for me!

Our group did connectivism learning theory.  We had a great time despite only having a week to prepare.  I took on the task of creating the case study.  I chose to use an animated video to describe the case study.  It's short (it had to be) and open-ended.  Tell me what you think!  Here it is:

There was a requirement to provide targeted, explicit and specific peer feedback to each group presenting.  Much like being concise, the ability to provide useful feedback is a skill, and I like how Dr. Robertson is giving us the opportunity to practice this skill.  Further, the feedback is always diverse as it comes from different people, as opposed to a traditional classroom where just one professor provides all of the feedback.  Peer assessors were required to use a rubric to frame the feedback.  this not only ensures the feedback is relevant to an objective, it also allows students to see (and use) a rubric for evaluating work.  As a professor myself, the rubric is a very helpful tool that takes the subjectivity out of the grade, as the grade assigned is defensible.

Groups presented on:
- Behaviourism
- Constructivism
- Early Learning
-  Experiential Learning
- Connectivism
- Transformative Learning
- Brain based theories
- 21st Century learning
- UDL (Universal Design for Learning)
- Grit

Also this week I was asked to conduct an "error analysis" based on the feedback I received for my assignment 2 submission.  My evaluator made some good points - mostly around being concise.  Also, I didn't elaborate on a few things that, upon reflection, I probably should have.  While tempted to make excuses and blame the work count limitation, I have to own my mistakes.  I could have been more concise in some areas to allow me to elaborate on others.  Lastly, I am consistently amazed by my own refusal to consider the rubric before I work on an assignment.  This has hurt me in the past but I will learn from this for future assignments.

Learning Outcomes met this week:
The presentations met several learning outcomes, including creating well-informed and rigorously researched educational artifacts (LO#4), engaging in scholarly communication (LO#5), solving complex educational problems by using research (LO#3), and demonstrating a critical awareness of learning theories (LO#2).

There are two readings I have to complete for class next week, and apparently there will be a review test taken up in class that covers the first half of the course.  Should be fun!  ;)

James

Week 4 - What is this Bloomin' Taxonomy?

Terrific class this week! Highly interactive tutorial.  I prepared for class by reading Vygotski (Ch.4 - Interaction Between Learning and Development), and Bransford, Brown and Cocking (page 136-39 on knowledge centeredness).  I had a visual for Bloom's taxonomy ready to share with the class as well (see below).

It is a bit tough to read, but I found it here if you would like to look at the source image.  The requirement for finding the visual before class was a great way to be efficient with tutorial time, as well as it gives students the luxury of being able to select an image that is meaningful to them - which, of course, causes them to reflect on WHY the image resonates with them (reflection and metacognition).  The readings beforehand places the tutorial in context which also optimizes time while also accommodating the auditory learners (multiple intelligences already being used!).  As with most of the tutorials thus far, students were also encouraged to bring a digital moment to discuss before class.  I find this practice reinforces that we (students) as seen as people with lives and not just students - this subtle recognition of the fact that we are more than just her students really helps us to see Dr. Robertson as more than just a professor as well.  We are all people first, with feelings, lives, challenges, successes, and context outside of the classroom.  As an instructor I will need to ensure that I personalize my students and see them as whole people as well.

Class started with a poll surrounding our opinion on learning and development.  This used our prior knowledge as well as encouraging us to apply theory - both learning outcomes.

We discussed Vygotski and the Zone of Proximal Development, and how the theory papers we wrote utilize ZPD.  I continue to be amazed at the different elements of design I become aware of when I look through a different lens.  Then in groups we discussed Blooms and how HOTS were being used in this course.  This kind of synthesis was especially powerful when in breakout groups, as the students' diverse opinions changed and grew as we shared ideas.  Amazing how we had to use HOTS to explain how HOTS were being used!  I became the example that illustrated the concept.  This reinforced my learning in a powerful way.

Student interaction was also a focus in the course design  this week as the "speaker" who summarized each breakout group's findings needed to be someone who hadn't shared yet in class (on the mic).

The ZPD exercise was impactful for me as a learner who is also a teacher, as I saw both modelling (from a more knowledgeable other) and gradual release of responsibility in practice.  This is one way to allow students to build confidence and feel safe while learning - much like a dad who steadily holds his child's bicycle less and less as they learn to ride a bike.


The last hour of tutorial was fantastic.  During the last hour, students were grouped into teams based on the learning theory each of us wrote about in assignment #2.  I'm very fortunate to be in an awesome group with Kyle, Jennifer, and Shannon C.    We spent the entire last hour (and then some) working together collaborating in a Google Doc while using Adobe to discuss (audio only).  The combination of these two tools was very effective.  Essentially AC hosted an audio conference call, while GDoc, which allows for simultaneous contributions (AC does not), acted as the collab platform.

Learning Outcome covered in this week's class:
- Critical Awareness of Learning theories (LO#2) as we discussed Bloom and Browndford et al.
- Use of prior learning (LO#1) through the need to respond to polls and bringing digital moments
- Applying research to solve educational problems (LO#3) - through questions posed by professor as well as in-class discussion
- produce an educational artifact based on scholarly writing (LO#4) through the presentation of digital moments and breakout group findings
- engage in scholarly communication  (LO#5) through the breakout group discussions

Fantastic experience - looking forward to next week!

James