Week 3 - Jan 23rd - Effect size and M.I.

Week 3 was a great class!

I was locked-in during class tonight and definitely engaged.  The topic was fun and the pace was to my liking.  I am discovering the value of "pace" in learning.  Moving from element to element without swelling, and being able to recognize when a topic or discussion has run its course enough to either close it off or mark it for further discussion at another time.  Much like in a presentation, time management in the classroom is important.  No learner wants to feel like the professor has any objective other than your learning, and it has never sat well with me when a lecture starts with "we have a lot of material to cover".  A learner-centric environment matches the pace to the learners, and has to prioritize what (if anything) needs to be sacrificed or modified due to some component taking longer to learn than expected.  Dr. Robertson has an acute awareness of time in the classroom, and on two occasions already I have marvelled at how she shifts/modifies activities in the name of time.

Anyway, I especially enjoyed the two breakout group discussions.; The first was on multiple intelligences.  I had completed the "quiz" before class.  These were my results.

No surprises here.  I had high interpersonal (over 80%).  I found it interesting that the results categories grouped logical-mathematical together.  While I have always placed a high value on things being logical (new information has to make sense or I will challenge/resist it), I am by no means a "math person".  Anyway, a multiple intelligence test was a neat idea from an awareness standpoint, and asking students to complete the test offline saved classroom time while also allowing students to prepare for a fulsome in-class discussion.  The discussion that followed was insightful as this peer group has so many great ideas!  Some criticised the test itself, but all agreed that multiple intelligences exist and in a learner-centred classroom this needs to be considered.  The method of instruction needs to incorporate elements that apply to different intelligences, and not shame students when they are not as strong in one intelligence area.  For example, I scored very low on naturalistic and kinesthetic intelligence, which means that my physical/natural environment is not one that I care much to learn about.  This does not mean that I dislike the outdoors, but rather that I dislike learning about the outdoors, farming, plants, animal species, etc.

I was aware of multiple intelligences before this class, but I learned a great deal nonetheless.  I wonder about the limitations of this theory - if I know what intelligence areas I am weaker in, does that incline me to avoid learning when that type of intelligence is the focus?  Learners can be labelled by their intelligence (both strengths and weaknesses), which may limit their willingness to learn AND can also negatively impact the teacher's opinion of the learner.  The key takeaway is that there are different intelligences to consider, and that students who struggle with certain concepts are not "dumb".  The course theme of "Every learner is different" is evidence of this.

The M.I. concept is also highlighted in one of the readings for this week, Bransford, Vye, and Bateman, who, when writing about learner-centred environments, identify that learners need to understand how they learn.  A form of meta cognition.  an M.I. exercise like this one is one tool to help learners who struggle identify how they - along with the instructor - can modify the learning to make it make sense TO THEM.

We also discussed John Hattie’s Effect sizes in breakout groups.  My discussion group was able to form our own definition of effect size in a way that allowed each of us to make sense of the concept.  This approach to learning rang true to me as I subscribe to the theory of Andragogy, where adults need to relate new knowledge to their own experiences, as well as framing ideas in ways that make sense.  Someone else's definition of effect size would not help me learn this concept, but forming my own definition did.

Essentially, Hattie is placing a value on how much (amount) of an effect some factor has on learning.  The higher the effect size, the more impact it has.  This instructional approach is one I will use when I have difficult concepts I am teaching to adults.  

It was interesting to see Subject Matter Expertise apparently has only a small effect, while teacher "credibility" was far more impactful.  I always thought being a SME was one way to earn respect in the classroom, so I struggled to separate SME from credibility.  Universities who are hiring professors demand subject matter expertise, to the point where they require an applicant's academic credentials must be “in the field of study”.  I will continue to work to understand this effect size - it was very interesting!

Link:   Aritcle about Subject Matter Expertise...

It was also eye-opening to read that class size was not a factor in learning.  As a dad who sends kids to a private Christian school, I list smaller class sizes as one of my (many) justifications for paying out-of-pocket for my kids' school.  This was a revelation to me!

All in all, a great class.  I was engaged and participated verbally on the mic several times.  Learned a lot about multiple intelligences, effect sizes, and got to work with a peer group in breakouts that I hadn't worked with before.  From a teaching perspective, the time provided for discussion, breakout rooms, and the lecture was optimal.

From a learning objectives standpoint, I definitely hit LO#2, as I continue to develop a critical awareness of learning theories (MI and Effect Size) through collaboration in breakout groups.  I was able to use my own experience as the complex educational problem on which I performed an inquiry and applied these theories, which is LO#3, and the follow-up discussions in class on the Bransford, Vye and Bateman paper (2002) met Outcome #5, which involves the application of scholarly communication and research.






Now time to prep for next week!

Week 2 – Group Presentations and Gradual Release of Responsbility

Week 2 started off with group presentations.  Our presentation went well despite some technology challenges caused by Adobe Connect's refusal to import PowerPoint slides correctly.  As a team we worked very hard throughout the week to create a dynamic presentation.  We were very confident going into tutorial.  I had the PPT ready to roll.....

Then, Adobe happened.  😞

 I made two mistakes: 1) forgetting that Adobe Connect HATES PowerPoint presentations and re-formats the crap out of them, and 2) I did not test the presentation in the M.Ed. General Room beforehand. These are two mistakes I rarely make, and the resulting frustration impacted my learning negatively - anxiety levels were high, as was disappointment, so focus was low.  Thankfully  I recovered quickly and had a great class. Of course, my teammates were gracious and didn’t fault me for the fact that the visuals for our presentation were a challenge, and the other students in the class were great about it. 

This experience emphasized to me the impact digital technology can have - both for better or for worse.  While technology is a powerful enabler, it can also be a distraction.  It is an X factor that I have to consider when designing my own courses.It is important to have backup plans in the event of tech failures.

Take, for example, Dr. Robertson’s choices tonight in tutorial.  Some groups ran long and the activities she had PLANNED for the class could not be completed in the available time.  This wasn't a technology fail per se, but an unforeseen challenge.  Without missing a beat she adapted the exercise by removing the breakout group step an instead took it up as a class, which saved time while still keeping the interactivity level high.  This indicated to me an experienced professor who had planned for a challenge and was able to adapt without sacrificing the learning.

Some humour about participation... (see below)

The chat was used effectively to provide real-time feedback, ideas, and support to the presenters, and groups generally held to the allotted presentation times.  After the presentations there was a great breakout room exercise regarding what learner-centered environments/design looks like in adult learning.  Groups were asked to find visuals online that represented their understanding of learner-centeredness ad this was taken up in class.

I was pleased to see the approach taken regarding the weekly readings.  Allowing students to read before class takes into account the different learning styles that may exist among the students.  I believe the term is "differentiated instruction".  The use of a variety of design elements to promote learning regardless of learning style was well done.

A note about the presentations.  They were brilliant, for one, but they were also diverse in their approaches and content.  I took notes of some of the activities, such as the use of the padlet, polls, wordclouds, and other engagement tools.  I immediately saw the potential for these tools to be used strategically in my own teaching.

The open-endedness of the assignment was also evident by the different paths the groups took to present their ideas and topics.  This shift away from prescribed assignments where word count, pages, specific questions to answer, and so on make for restrictive (and repetitive) output.  Allowing the students to take this solution wherever they wanted to resulted in my learning more from the presentations.  

Consolidation is going to be a major theme in this course, as it should be.  These presentations are one example of this consolidation, as is this learning log.  With more presentations to follow in the next 10 weeks, this consolidation will continue.  I am finding the significant impact reflection has on consolidation.

Lastly, there was discussion in class about gradual release of responsibility, how we (as students) define it through the lens of the HPL framework, what it looks like in practice, and how we might see it in this course.  We have already seen this approach taken by Dr. Robertson as she has assumed the role of facilitator and guide.  To me this seems a similar concept to Vygotski's ZPD and Scaffolding.  This is an approach to design that I see great value in as there is a personalization to the learning when the instructor assumes more of a "guide on the side" role.  It is kind of like bumber bowling!  The instructor protects students from falling into the gutter, but allows them the freedom to choose how they want to knock down the pins.  The instructor provides the bumpers and the ball, the bowling alley is the learning environment, and the pins are the outcomes. See image below for clarification of my metaphor...

Learning Outcomes:
Several learning outcomes were met this week.  LO#2 which involves "demonstrat(ing) a critical awareness of learning theories, their scopes and limitations, by participating in a culture of disciplined inquiry that includes independent work and collaboration".  With the multiple theories presented in the group assignment as well as the Gradual release of responsibilities theory this LO was met.     LO#3 regarding the application of research was met as well by the disucsisons.   LO#4 discusses the creation of digital education artifacts based on academic research and scholarly writing was met by way of the presentations, videos, and participation exercises.  Lastly, we showed the ability to use scholarly communication in our peer feedback, questions, and discussions, which was LO#5.


What a great class!  See you next week! 

Week 1 - Welcome to POL :)

Welcome to my Learning Log!  This blog is meant to be an electronic record of my growth and learning in the EDUC 5001G “Principles of Learning” course taught by Dr. Lorayne Robertson.  This course requires students to keep a learning log that is “characterized by reflection and metacognition”.  It will also include what I’ve learned, how I learned it, and reflections on the course design. So without further ado, let’s dive in!

To begin, there was some apprehension entering this first class, as I had read about other EDUC5001G courses where the professor required students to post to a wiki - a fairly passive and individual exercise.  I thrive in groups.  So far it looks like this course design involves more reflection and collaboration. 

Week 1 introduced the HPL (how people learn) Framework.  A framework characterized by student/learner-centered approaches, and the application of prior knowledge to form new knowledge.  I was certainly able to consider my prior learning and its impact on the course design, LO#1 in the syllabus.  It seems this course will inquire about my prior learning and encourage me to think about the impact on design often.  Already in week one we were doing that, as we were asked our preferences with respect to norms, routines, dates, language used in the syllabus (outcomes and assignment descriptions for example), asynchronous and synchronous activities, and more.

Week 1 was a really great first start.  The instructor immediately engaged students and made everyone a host as a means of encouraging participation and ownership of the learning environment. A poll was used to determine the comfort/experience students had using adobe connect.  An astonishing number of students in this class have never taken an Adobe course before, so I was pleased to be able to offer assistance, advice, and expertise. I am not shy of the spotlight when I am confident in what I have to say, share, or contribute.  This was one of those times.  

There is also a wide variety of backgrounds and experience among the students. This should make for some diverse opinions should people elect to participate.  If this week is any indication, participation will not be an issue - the course design and instructor decisions are clearly directed at establishing comfort levels, prior knowledge (to allow students to create a familiar context), respect, and support  so that students feel safe to share ideas.

I observed that Dr. Robertson took on a facilitator role, and empowered the students who were Adobe Connect veterans to lead the first breakout groups.  My breakout group was terrific.  It consisted of myself, Erica, Peter, Patrick, and Kelly.  The conversation was engaging and we covered a lot of ground.  My peers appreciated my humour, which was a surprise as I have been told I am…shall we say….an acquired taste? Here is an example of what I find funny...

From a design standpoint, this approach allowed the newer students to learn from current students, which relieved the newer students of some anxiety related to the unknown virtual environment.  Every student in my breakout group was new, and was relieved when I used humour and assisted them with the user interface to help them feel relaxed and safe to ask questions.  There was a lot of chat activity, and multiple opportunities for students to interact (ex. check marks to change status).

Anyway, the breakout group decided to form an actual group for the first assignment – a 10min presentation on “questions we developed to discover each other’s background and experiences as they pertain to learning, then analyze the findings and the implications for course design”.  During the third hour we shared some exciting ideas and plan to meet in a few days as a group to create a project plan.

There was discussion about the learning logs.  Students may work in groups or individually and the learning log can be a table or some other format.  I am choosing this format for now, as I prefer to type my thoughts.  A table seems restrictive, but I will consider it if this medium doesn't allow me to articulate my learning effectively.  It is clear the How People Learn framework is a cornerstone of the course, so my task this coming week is to brush up on the HPL as well as collaborate on the first group presentation (due next week).

It looks like the tutorial slides will be available before class.  This strategy makes sense as it allows students to come to class prepared to learn, having formulated opinions prior to class.  It also takes away the potential for "surprise" activities which can negatively impact comfort level as students are reacting instead of contributing/sharing.

 Looking forward to next week!!