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