I have been involved with several colleagues working on ways to train folks in self-regulation techniques.  This based on an ever-growing body of research (some pretty good, some pretty dubious) which sees the generation which has grown up with social media as having increased problems with many aspects of learning and staying on-task.  Much of this falls under the umbrella of ‘self-regulation’, a set of learned skills such as critical thinking, time management, prioritizing and self-discipline.

Your initial set of materials are a reflection of what we have found to date both as specifying the issues but also providing some initial exposure to self-regulation skills.

I suspect you’ve heard (probably any number of times) that over 60% of the jobs that will be around by 2025 haven’t been invented yet, and that many current jobs will be largely extinct.  The main takeaway from this is that you are need to keep on learning new stuff constantly: <the days of getting a degreeàgetting a jobàhanging on until retirement> are long gone.  Some of what you’re learning now will be useless in less than 10 years—but more importantly, much of what you learn will be useful 10 years in ways you can’t imagine right now—so just going through the motions to get the degree is a stunningly bad idea.

Look over the materials from a very self-centered POV, especially with the assumption that 7 years from now your ‘career’ has just morphed into something very different.  REMEMBER you can still be working in an area that you really like and feel good about, but the nature of the job is likely to be very different.  This online course vs a traditional sit-down course from 10 years ago is a good example.

As you can see from your first assignment, think through the whole idea of Cost-Benefit Analysis from your personal point of view and send in your responses.  As an FYI, we used the same exercise last semester and got some very interesting results, which I will share later in the semester with you.  We are interested in any variation between the two semesters.  If you did the assignment last semester, please do it again—you’ve now a semester older and wiser—but mention in your response that you did it before.

Much of the grading is the same as the sit-down courses.

There are 2 Competency Measures during the semester.  The goal of these assignments is to assess whether you have grasped the content and concepts covered in that portion of the course.  Both will take-home(?), with 1 week to work on the answer.  I will be posing 1-3 scenarios/questions that I want to do a critical analysis of—so it’s your opinion backed up with evidence.  You get graded on the evidence cited [40%]; logic-clarity of your answer [40%]; critical thinking in your answer [20%].

There will be 2 Critical Analyses due during the semester-one in the first half, the second later.  I want to take one of the concepts (from the concept list) and develop a critical review of the concept and how it is used (and maybe also how its misused or abused).  You get graded on the evidence cited [40%]; logic-clarity of your answer [40%]; critical thinking in your answer [20%].

I would like you to develop a slide presentation (or YouTube video) on a concept where you explore some aspect of the concept outside of how we are covering it in class.  I would suggest you check with me when you get an idea so I can see if it will work.  The presentation will be sent to your classmates for consumption.  I will grade it based on the criteria in the syllabus.

There will be a number of Learning Assignments during the semester, all designed to help you develop or improve self-regulation skills (as seen in the next post).  You get graded on completing them, not on length or detail.

There will two types of Reaction Papers during the semester—the first are my normal RPs which are reactions based on questions that you answer while watching assigned video clips.  The second are the reactions to module material—short opinion pieces as mentioned in the first post.  These will be shared among the course members as we work through these topics.

Attendance/participation is obviously central to the course—if you don’t do the React Paper ops then we’re missing your opinion and insight into the materials, so you must post something to the course assignments.

So that’s the work you have to do for a grade—No exams, no research paper.  But critical thinking about the topics and some input.

For the Digital Realities Class Participants:

As you have figured out this is an online course.  Despite the fact that Chaminade bases their online materials on Canvas we are going to use Google Groups.  This wasn’t done just to mess with you—while Canvas if OK as an educational platform, you’ll never see it after university.  Google Groups has become a standard for the corporate world, especially between corporations as it is a very robust, FREE sharing platform.  It is highly likely you already use Groups in your workplace—if not this is a low-risk way to get used to it.

The key is to CHECK YOUR CUH EMAIL.  I realize for some students emails are an ancient, formal form of communication that has been almost completely replaced by texting, tweeting etc., but the reality is it is how the university communicates with you.  Since you pay them money, want grades-degrees and other cool things, play their game and use the email.  The corporate world plays by the same rules.

This course is looking at a number of different aspects of the digital ‘realm’ in 2017.  I have grouped the topics into modules which reflect much of the current opinions or points of discussion.  As we’ll see these divisions are arbitrary in many ways, and much of the course content merges.

Please look over the presentation I will send out at the start of the week—I will try to have a blog up to go over some of the content in the slides.  I think you will quickly note that much of the material presented is either data or guesstimates rather than more formal content—this area is just coming into investigation and it’s the Wild West out there in terms of What It All Means.  An example would be the post-mortems on the last U.S. elections.

This course is almost unique in U.S. universities at this time [though a version is taught in several UK universities—see Open University UK] so feel free to be on the cutting edge of current social issues research.  As far as I can tell this material is taught at the grad level elsewhere.

As such we are going to look at each module theme as a research topic.  I will present the evidence and some of the current assumptions/predictions along with several readings [many are blog posts] and video clips.  I want you to look over the material and come up with your interpretation of the social impacts and then find some material that reflects your assessment of the situation, which you will then post so that the rest of the group can see what you think.  I will give more specific guidance at the beginning of each module but I think you will find that this approach makes the material more useful, especially as you look at your colleague’s analyses.

All this is just a heads up—I will send you the details in a day or two.  For now go over the intro material sent through Google Groups to you for this course.

Aroha, RB

Why am I Changing How I Teach?    8.8.16

 

When you look at American Higher Education (and education in general) you see a major shift in the last half of the 20^th century, specifically in the ‘Cold War’ era.  At the start of this period (post-1945) education was dominated by the goal of teaching/learning traditional discipline content.  It’s worth realizing that for many disciplines they only became formalized in the 1910-1940 period, so that amount of material and number of concepts was pretty small and easy to get hold of, though the concepts were often very complex.  Reflecting changing in American social values, by the late 1950’s this was shifting with two related dominant concepts: 1) teaching (?) social education, so that people become better social animals and citizens; 2) the dominance of individualism, the concept that teaching/learning is not a ‘one size fits all’ model, with the concepts of ‘self-discovery’ and ‘what’s in it for me?’  These have become dominant pieces of the discussion of contemporary American social fabric in everything from gun control to texting.  More depressing is that this has in many cases been shifted into an entitlement model, where the group/society/university is required to give you ‘X’ because you exist— ‘I deserve an A because I came to class everyday’ being a nice example.

Direct impacts on Higher Education can be seen in the following current commonly-held views of the self, education and self-regulation:

• Higher Education is a specific monetized career track—disciplines have projected future pay scales;
• Higher Education must include improving students normative and socially ethical behavior;
• It is inappropriate to reward for skill competency as it can demean those who don’t perform to certain levels, so students should be instead be rewarded for participating—remove or devalue success/failure as a measure;
• A corollary of the above is that encouraging attempting rather than succeeding is central to the educational process;
• Education should be entertaining, specifically the classroom learning experience, has become more pervasive [Learning should be Fun]
• Education has become commodified:
  • Retail concepts of ease of access, low effort threshold
  • Retail concepts of quality control
  • Retail concepts of value of product, product packaging
  • Education in general, and specifically Learning, become consumables
  • Learning is seen as a passive process—‘it happens to you’
• Life Experiences are central to growth of the individual, so Learning should not require huge amounts of time/effort so that it can fit into other life experiences that are equally valuable [such as time spent on social media]
• Confusion at all levels distinguishing between on one hand information and technological tools, such as the Web/apps such as Google Search, Wikipedia/smartphones-tablets; and on the other hand knowledge and understanding
• Multi-tasking held as a viable and necessary behavior, and thus a viable Education strategy, and thus should be incorporated into the process of Learning
• Innate intelligence/aptitude is seen as more central an individual’s success in Higher Education than effort and self-discipline (self-regulation)

 

The assumptions above drive not only the student expectations, but also the general population, politicians, funding patterns and accreditation.  Of interest is the lack of any discussion of applying software development corporate models (such as Google, Microsoft, Niantic or Amazon) as a template for Higher Education.

My operant definitions for contemporary Higher Education:

Self-Regulation:  The set of learned skills that must be practiced to be retained.  They are central to the process of learning.  They include self-discipline, time management, prioritizing.

Commodity:  Something that has been given value.  It can be bought, sold, measured described…  To “commodify” something is to make it into a commodity (such as a tip for service)

Consumable:  Something that has a finite period of time (start-finish), is measurable in both time and end result.  You buy-eat a McDonald’s Happy Meal; you buy a ticket to Tokyo and land at Haneda Airport; you hire a nanny to take care of your kids.  Consumables can be scored on a number of value categories, an excellent example being Amazon’s ‘seller feedback’ with 1-5 stars.

Teach or Instruct:  To guide and assist others in gaining knowledge about a discipline or subject that the instructor is knowledgeable of.

Information: Data in a number of different forms.  Traditionally would be either oral (spoken) or written (books); now largely digital in format.

Knowledge:  The intellectual structures that categorize, organize and make sense of groups of information.  Frequently in Higher Education the goal is the ability to extrapolate the existing knowledge to make sense (interpret) new situations—to make sense of the new and unknown.  Clusters of related knowledge structures are called disciplines, the cornerstone of Higher Education.  The goal of Higher Education is the acquisition of Knowledge, to become knowledgeable in a particular discipline or subject.

Learning:  The process of converting information into knowledge.

Acceptance:  the passive process of reacting to directions of expectations.  Cram memorizing for an exam is acceptance.  After the exam, the information, which was never incorporated into knowledge, is discarded (forgotten).  Information without knowledge or understanding.

Understanding:  the active process of incorporating information into new knowledge and linking to past knowledge.

Higher Education: Post-secondary education systems, increasingly on multiple platforms (traditional sit-down classroom, virtual classroom, online autonomous course material).  The goal is to acquire knowledge in a specific set of intellectual disciplines.  Usually involves an institution which has been validated so that content is acceptable to the disciplines taught (an accredited institution).

Higher Education Instructors:  Specialists in a specific discipline (knowledge set), usually acquired over time in Higher Education institutions.  Traditionally their career is defined by continued growth in very detailed knowledge within their discipline.  Rarely have they been judged or measured by their skill to teach (help others to gain in knowledge).

Grades:  Indicators of information retention and knowledge that become central indicators of knowledge acquisition within a specific discipline or subject.  They are indirect indicators.  When Education becomes commodified, the grades become commodified in their own right.  Grades are frequently clustered together (the GPA) and become means by which one is judged as a success or failure in Higher Education, usually linked to a specific discipline/subject.

Note that much of the discussion above is directly tied to course content.  But they are central to the student being a learner vs a ‘grade consumer’.

Why do you care?

1) In the larger world no one cares what grades you get (though you do have to pass);

2) ‘Passing a course’, ‘getting a degree’ are only markers.  You will either continue learning until you fall over or you will get marginalized as a changing world passes you by…

3) 10 years from now 50% of what you will need to know doesn’t exist in your field yet—so you will have to learn it;

4) If you are a passive student in 10 years your job will be an app on an AI (artificial intelligence), and you will be redundant.

The Future is grounded in the Present and the Past.  If you don’t learn the knowledge in your disciplines now, you will become a passive object in the future.

 

Your Assignment if You Should Choose to Undertake It [with full deniability on our part if you fail]:

I want you to think about the concept of ‘cost-benefit analysis’ which was popular during my major period as a consultant in the 1980-90’s.  [I have no idea what it’s called now, but I assume it must still be around.]  It’s an incredibly useful concept to apply to your activities, introspection and issues of self-regulation.  Cost-benefit is exactly what it looks like:

What is the cost of something?

This can be time; money; social reputation…

What is the benefit of that same something?

This can be immediate reward; emotional reward; future reward…

How do they balance out?

Is the cost worth the eventual benefit?

Is it immediate gratification without any other benefit?

Is there no immediate gratification but substantial long-term benefit?

Given long-term goals, is this a good investment or path to follow, or do I need to change this pattern?

The ASSIGNMENT: List the 5 activities that consume the most time during your day.  NOTE that if you are sitting in class but actually texting or playing Pokemon Go then that counts towards those activities, NOT as ‘being in class’ time.

• Order them from most time—least time (1-5).
• For each specify the cost in time. If you can, include some thought of the emotional-mental engagement while in the activity.  If you always get upset while texting but do it all the time, include that.
• For each specify the benefits. Include not only immediate, but also longer-term benefits.  If it’s immediate gratification ‘I keep up with my friend’s lives’, note this.
• Now look at each with a critical eye:
• What are the short-term (up to 2 weeks) benefits of spending time on ‘X’?
• What are the long-term (1 year+) benefits of spending time on ‘X’?
• What are your long-term (5 year) ambitions?
• What are your long-term (5 year) goals?
• Evaluate your 1-5 activities and analyze them related to your ambitions and goals. What is the fit?  What behavior do you have to change (or control) to achieve your ambitions-goals given how you spend your time NOW?

When you’re done, archive a digital copy of your assignment.  Send a copy to me and keep the other.  Try re-doing the assignment in 6 months and see how you have changed.

These comments are based on a series of articles recently perused.  The comments aren’t meant as crtiiques of the articles, which are very well done and thoughtful, especially the Iwamoto, D., J. Hargis & K. Vyong 2016 “The Effect of Project-Based Learning on Student Performance: An Action Research Study” in IJSTEL v.1 #1; and B.Wildavsky’s “The Open University at 45: What can we learn from Britain’s distance education pioneer?” in Brookings.edu blogs 2.1.16.

Everyone seems to agree that the lecture is dead.  Replacement becomes tricky however, as one quickly shifts into ideology rather than data-supported replacements.  Key among these ideological-driven agendas is the dominance of group=based learning, frequently blended with a Piaget-based constructivist philosophy.

I have several issues with this ‘replacement therapy’ approach.  Bad lectures (200+ students, large hall, taught by TA’s / 30-60 students taught by professor who is more engaged in their personal-political agendas of academia, such as publishing, managing graduate students…) have always been failures, and will remain so.  By contrast engaging lectures, thought-provoking ones, such as frequently seen on TED talks (which ironically are touted as very creative/engaging yet are traditional lecture format) still work.  Likewise badly designed or bad-fit group-based/collective courses will be just as bad as the bad lecture.  Pedagogy isn’t a ‘one size fits all’ process.  As more research shows up, especially based on online curricula, it seems that the basic reality that course content and learning goals should drive pedagogy has been lost.

The argument that group-based learning is inherently more effective I disagree with.  While it collective learning engages students at some level, learning by definition is always going to be an individual pursuit, autonomously-based, within one’s brain.  Cynically, at some level members of a group are liable to be competing against each other, either for grades, jobs, etc.  Building a dependence on the group as a sole-source learning strategy is not doing our students any favors.

I would suggest that going back to a more Socratic approach, difficult though it is to design, would be more beneficial in the long run.  This would involve intellectual puzzles/mysteries/koan that require critical thinking to both define, operationalize, and then come up with options (rather than solutions).

This could work as follows:

A mystery/puzzle is viewed as a group (2-3 students per group), with a clearly defined goal laid out (explain and analyze the puzzle…);

the group then talks over what they have just viewed; throw out interpretations, ideas, hypotheses;

THEN they watch the mystery/puzzle again, but this time as individuals, no post-viewing discussion

Everyone then writes their personal analysis–they can use any materials collected during the process, including the opinions of others, but it is their own expression of critical thinking and analysis that they present.  A constant theme in the course would be the need to develop a “Personal Voice”, their own sense of who they are, how they see the world, based on self-discovery and introspection driven by critical thinking exercises like the mystery.

I feel this would resonate with contemporary students who deeply desire to personalize their world.  Personalizing their intellectual world would be a way to engage them in critical thinking and introspection that will serve them well in the future.

 

 

As I have been working on developing online modules I have found myself struggling with a most basic issue: what do I expect students to know versus what do I expect them to retain?  In a perfect world the two would of course be the same, and all my clever presentations, lectures and other materials would remain in their minds for a long time.  From their standpoint, the central criteria is the course grade—retaining all of the course material into the future is not on their short list of requirements.  Their keys are linked to 1) getting a good job; 2) paying off their student loan.

I could just write this off as a part of the reality of undergraduate education in the U.S. (and I’m pretty sure, globally) except for the fact that the module I’m currently working on is on “how to think”.  So blowing off the gap between the two party’s views of ‘THE CLASS’ is not going to happen.

If we throw in a 3^rd interested party—the administration, which is currently consumed with the need for assessment, measurables, marketable skills and whatever other buzz words of the month have been embraced directly or indirectly by WASC and by default our administrators.  Thus the words COMPETENCY and SKILLS get bandied around interminably.  As a result, higher education has become seen by most parties as a commodity or product.  There are a whole set of other perceptions that spin off of this, but the key one here is the largely passive way that we use products.

If I buy an I-Phone, ATT or Verizon does not perform a competency test on my ability to use the phone.  In fact, Apple’s claim to fame is largely based on the ease of use of their phones; to lower the learning curve as much as possible; the make the competency barrier as low as possible.  This is fine, since the phone is a passive communications and recording device.  It is merely an interface between me and others.

By contrast, if someone takes one of my classes, there is a packet of concepts and ideas that are central to what I present as that subject.  Since I give out the course Powerpoint presentations at the beginning of the semester, the concepts and ideas are accessible—IN PART.  But if on an assignment someone frequently quotes me ‘Webster’s Dictionary’ definition for a concept I will be an unhappy camper.  They have cut and pasted a response.  But they’ve also illustrated that they don’t know what the concept actually is (and probably don’t care), and the vast majority of the time they will show their lack of understanding in the rest of their response.

Now, from their standpoint they have the information: the term//a definition.  They then apply the definition to answer the posed question.

From my standpoint and the standpoint of a potential employer, who both expect them to be able to use and apply this concept, they’ve failed the test.  NOTE that they have illustrated that they have 2 SKILLS: 1) they can use search functions and find relevant answers; 2) they can cut and paste into documents.  They have failed IN THEIR COMPETENCY of the concept.

I propose that we call this PROCESSED KNOWLEDGE.  Processed Knowledge will be defined as a concept, term, skill, etc. that you understand the wider implications of and relationships to other concepts or terms.  For example, the term “epoxy”.  If I’m an over-stressed engineering student and the term comes up in a class, I can memorize the definition and relevant material so that I pass the test in class.  Then is falls into the pile of ‘stuff that I remember hearing about in one of my classes’.  In my case, as someone who has been involved in building and repairing boats for way too long, the word ‘epoxy’ has a number of connotations, including what it is, when you use it, failures and successes from my experience, smell, etc.  It also links to a number of other concepts including strength, waterproof (don’t ask), etc.  In my case the term has been processed, and the package is Processed Knowledge.  In the case of the engineering student, it’s just information.

I would argue that the Internet hasn’t dumbed us down.  But it has made it so easy to access information that in many, possibly in most, cases we can get by with cut-and-paste of information and don’t have to engage in processing it into knowledge.  KNOWING SOMETHING IS NOT THE SAME AS REMEMBERING SOMETHING.  Competency must be related to the acquisition and development of Processed Knowledge, otherwise the term only relates to short-term information retrieval and dissemination.

This becomes the huge challenge for a distracted world—how, when and where do you find the temporal and conceptual space to process knowledge, especially given the ease of accessing information.