Andy’s presentation

I appreciated Andy’s introduction to using technology in education by talking about the meaning of the term, all that it represents.

Using technology in the presentation

I thought it was funny that my laptop, which has been extremely reliable, was somehow in a wireless black hole, sitting where it was in the room. I could not get online. Meanwhile, Jennifer is merrily going ahead and distributing laptop computers to students and they are all going online. It was a perfect example (of which there are many) of the affordances – being able to look up mulitple definitions online as a class – and the constraints – not being able to go online myself for the presentation. Luckily I had all my files on my computer, so I was able to function. It always pays to prepare a backup system.

Hello Everyone,

Here is an outline, links and an article pertinent to my part of the presentation this afternoon. I know it’s a lot, I’m hoping people can think about their keyword / short phrase before we gather. Also, if people can bring definitions of phenomenology, that might move things along a little faster. We’ll see how far we get.

It will also speed things up if people can get their laptops plugged in, turned on and connected to the wireless network before Andy starts his session.

My section of the presentation will be divided into 4 short topics:

1. teaching philosophy keywords or phrases

I’m bringing colored pens and paper. I’m going to ask each person to write down a keyword or short phrase about their teaching philosophy and decorate it as they wish.

2. meaning construction: phenomenology

using the laptop computers, 1/2 class look up definition – phenomena, 1/2 class look up ology

put definitions together

think about phenomenology and technology use in education, including online environments

3. using complexity thinking to theorize technology use in education

http://www.jennyarntzen.com/com_tech_edweb/

4. thinking about online environments

http://www.jennyarntzen.com/complexityconferenceve/

http://www.cust.educ.ubc.ca/cust565-05/seeds/2006_yearone/seeds_cs_06/edst314_201/

http://www.cust.educ.ubc.ca/cust565-05/seeds/2006_yearone/seeds_cs_06/arte320_202/

http://www.cust.educ.ubc.ca/cust565-05/seeds/2006_yearone/seeds_cs_06/sced320_203/

http://www.cust.educ.ubc.ca/cust565-05/seeds/2006_yearone/seeds_cs_06/epse317_203/

And finally, the last post for this batch of reflections. I’m going to focus on my particular interest: how the look and feel on an online digital environment aligns with the content of the educational project. I’m deeply interested in the phenomenological reading of online digital environments and thinking about how these enhance and enrich the educational endeavor, or how they distract or constrain the user’s experience.

As a direct result of my experience of WebCT and this course, I have undertaken a scholarly investigation into this subject. It isn’t that this experience has been the single motivation for this work, it is more that this experience has acted as a catalyst of a subject that I have been talking about for some time and now the talk is moving to a new level of action and research.

My interest in the subject translated into a presentation at the recent conference on Complexity Thinking and Educational Research held here at UBC http://www.complexityandeducation.ualberta.ca/conferences/2007/information.htm. I asked the question, if not WebCT, then what? With that question in mind, I started an online environment for the presentation that incorporated some of the elements that I feel deprived of.

Here is the link to that site, a word of instruction – the hand written text on the left of the screen are links and lead the reader to different pages on the site. The site is not finished, you will know when you get to the unfinished parts.

http://www.jennyarntzen.com/complexityconferenceve/

In the discussion in class, it seemed that the questions and answered were guided by an assumption that WebCT was the only application or instructional approach that could be used, and that there might be ways to improve access to the application or make suggestions to WebCT for changes to incorporate.

My point is that we need to expand our notions of what is possible for providing online educational digital environments. We don’t need to use a one size fits all approach, we don’t need to use the same thing everytime. From a pedagogical, aesthetic, phenomenological and curricular perspective, I wouldn’t bother making suggestions to WebCT for change, because the software itself carries embedded assumptions of the dominance of text, authorization, control and expertise.

My proposal is that anyone that wants to take the trouble to figure out how to use WebCT might be the same person that could figure out how to create their own online teaching and learning environment.

Contrary to popular opinion, our occupation of digital online environments does not have to be driven by templates and ideas of ‘expert’. I encourage everyone to explore their beliefs and assumptions about what is possible in constructing online learning environments, especially ideas about what looks ‘professional’.

I had a lot of problems with this presentation on the millenial learner. I found the presentation assumptive of both the class and the characteristics of the learner being presented. As an older student in the class, it seemed that the questions and generalizations made to the class were based on the characteristics of the class being of a certain age group, of which I felt excluded. I finally withdrew from participating in the question/answer portion of the presentation because I realized my age and experience were not being taken into account.

I also had problems with authoritative, essentialist tone of the presentation. I didn’t sense acknowledgement of the diversity of any given age group, that these generalizations might apply to some aspect of the learner profile, but one cannot assume that all students that fall withinn the millenial age group are going to have all the characteristics presented. In addition, I found the characteristics specific to a socio-economic group, those privileged to have helicoptering parents and opportunities to participate in extra curriculular activities.

I sensed a judgemental tone, a bootcamp attitude toward these students, that they are somehow lacking and it is up to the instructors to show the students where they are deficient and then pull them up by failing them. I have huge problems with this approach. When we talk about the barriers for diversity, inclusivity and academic success, a strategy that fails students to somehow build character traits seems cruel and unjust. Not only does it ignore the context of individual learner locations and what they need to engage in post secondary education, it also applies a one size fits all solution, a standardized instrument, to bring a complex student body to a new level of functionality. One of the assumptions that I found particularly troublesome on this point was the complete lack of instructional practices reflection. Given the nature of the millenial student characteristics, what is the best way to ensure engagement and academic succes? Are our methods and approaches useful to both the students and the institution?

Another point that bothered me was the notion that only the best will be hired. The best at what? Being able to provide the right answer, the answer an instructor expects, on an assessment instrument? This has been disproven many times. Where is the appreciation of emotional intelligence? Creativity? Leadership? Teambuilding? Critical thinking? Why assume that assessment methods and procedures of the past continue to be appropriate today? I found this part of the presentation deeply disturbing, when we take into account all the students that are either visibly or hidden disabled, ESL or socio-economicall disenfranchised. In this aspect, I found the presentation one sided, hegemonic and institutionally centered.

Finally, if we are going to learn anything from where we have been, I think it is to understand that there is no one truth, no one answer, that we are learning to live within a complex, integrated world, where individualistic notions of dominance must be questioned. I did not sense any of this self reflective analysis in the presentation. I found it judgemental, condescending and positing a privileged perspective out of touch with the wide range of contexts, juxtapositions and constructions of meaning that we all negotiate on a daily basis.

I have a strong interest in this subject in terms of understanding how to evaluate and assess student progress and student achievement. I’m also interested in alternate ways of representing content and knowledge acquisition, especially being able to use visual language – drawings, paintings, photography, video, performance as legititimate evidence of engagement in learning processes.

I realize that this means instructors and teachers will have to broaden their own literacy into these areas, to be able to critically assess content outside of text based submissions. At the same time, isn’t this going on, to some degree, when teachers evaluate and assess untestable aspects of participation in learning? It’s not that much of a stretch to take the same attitude to reading visual representations.

I think this is of critical importance when you have ESL, hidden disability, socio-economic and literacy factors that are acting as an impediment to success in school.

I arrived late for the class because my new teaching schedule has an overlap. I’m going to try to arrange to leave early next month so I don’t miss the student presentation.

I was there for the evaluation of Dr. Toothami, for which I sat on the promotion committee. It was a very funny presentation and led to an active discussion around evaluation practices and protocols. We always have to be careful with how we communicate, especially when there are difficulties to address within the evaluation.

It reminded me of our crit sessions at art school. Instructors were very careful to lay the ground rules before each session to ensure the critique would serve as a learning space, promoting growth for the students who are both critiquing and being critiqued. We were always reminded to critique the work, not the artist, and to be specific and descriptive. It wasn’t enough to say I did like it or I didn’t like it.

It was useful having the time to brainstorm the criteria, so we had specific elements we were watching for. It did seem that the person of Dr. Toothami was criticized, as well has the teaching practices that were not seen as helpful to learning.

This is my second group project, my small project. There are eight people in this group right now, so we aren’t sure what direction the final project(s) will take. For my part, I am interested in doing a literature review on instructional approaches that integrate ICT and creative process in teaching and learning. I’m curious to see what is being written about these approaches, specifically in relation to learning styles and multiple intelligence.

I think this research will contribute to my design for the workshop on Inclusivity in Education.

I hope that it will serve as an adjunct to this project, in terms of contributing knowledge about instructional approaches in relation to learning styles.

One idea we had at our meeting was to do a survey of our various departments, to find where instructors are incorporating learning styles research into their teaching practice. I think this would be a very interesting study to undertake.

I approach inclusivity from the perspective of learning styles, what does it mean to provide opportunities for diverse learning styles to engage in subject content. I think that the integration of ICT and creative process increases points of access for learners across subject disciplines.

I’m really curious to learn what has been written about this in the literature.

Our group met for an hour before class. This is going to be my large project. I want to put on a workshop utilizing ICT and creative process in the instructional methods. I’m curious to put my ideas about pedagogy, curriculum and ICT into practice and this seems like a perfect opportunity.

After the class on the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, I realized I could do my own study on the workshop design and experience of the participants. In consultation with one of my project colleagues, I approached Gary Poole during the break after his presentation and proposed using a scholarly approach to this project. He suggested I sign up to the network of the Institute for Scholarship in Teaching and Learning, that there might be others interested in participating in the workshop. After class, I ran the idea by my group members and we have agreed to add this component into the project.

My work on the project is going to be developing, coordinating and designing the workshop. There is also going to be a handbook produced from this project, both hard copy and an online version.

I appreciate the opportunity to test my theories and practices in teaching through this project. I think it is a brilliant way for the university to foster new attitudes and approaches to teaching and learning.