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!