On Thursday I shared an hour with Terri Rowenhorst of NROC introducing folks at WCET 2009 to open education and some of the ideas and directions orbiting around it. Mine was just a half-hour pres, and didn’t get into some of the meatier bits that interest me; nonetheless the slides and video may be of interest:

• “Openness as a Catalyst for Education” slides on SlideShare
• “Openness as a Catalyst for Education” video on ustream

You may have already heard some of the Twitter buzz about Chris Lott‘s presentation, “Closing the Gutenberg Parenthesis”, so here are links to his slides, video, and wiki:

• “Closing the Gutenberg Parenthesis” video on ustream
• “Closing the Gutenberg Parenthesis” slides on SlideShare
• “Closing the Gutenberg Parenthesis” wiki with matrix

Chris let me moderate this session, and it was exciting to monitor the backchannels on Twitter and ustream for questions, ideas, or challenges that I could interrupt him with. As always, Chris did a fabulous job presenting a continual stream of rich ideas on technology and learning. I must admit I may have underestimated both Chris and the WCET audience prior to the session; both seemed quite comfortable with complex and provocative notions embedded in our connected culture and interplaying with Ong’s concept of a “secondary orality”.

After some lengthy idling of engines, the real conversation starts when Downes asks, what does the university offer? Content, delivery, and credentials. Content and delivery is also possible outside the university, yes? Implication: therefore, there is no significant difference in effectiveness, no reason to choose one over the other (!?). Leaving the credential piece out of it, I object to Downes’s initial equivocation between learning that occurs within an institutional framework and that which can occur without. Just because learning can occur outside the university doesn’t mean it will occur as efficiently or effectively as our historical institutions. This is not to say that learning that occurs outside the university is de facto inferior, but one must compare outcomes. It’s an ugly equivocation that begs to be elaborated on, i.e. how can (or will) non-institutional learning be maximized?

Wiley recognizes that, for instance, States require teacher certification to work in a classroom. I half expected Downes to object to the teacher certification requirement in general, which might contradict his previous stance that home-schooling is a kind of abuse due to lack of teacher qualifications. I’m relieved that he didn’t.

“If you tore the covers off books (on Ruby) you couldn’t tell the difference.” Wiley says, “The books at Borders parade as choice without their being any significant difference between them.” Having reviewed tech books myself, especially XHTML and CSS books, I must say this is not really true. Yes, there are some books in any subject matter that are too similar. But there are just as many that are significantly different. Also, as the number of players in the market expands, and the number of publications–let alone editions–increases, tech book publishers are increasingly wary of being redundant. They are looking for the selling point, the distinction. Perhaps the desire for distinction comes only after the market is flooded with the generic version. Regardless, while this is incorrect, but I get the point: openness (and the Internet) brings more choice by liberating access to the market and means of distribution.

Downes goes all socialist and argues that financial incentives discourage variety because the bland textbook sells more. Again, I go back to the idea that once the market is saturated with the bland solutions, this opens a new opportunity for the unique solutions. Best example that springs to mind: “Head First” series, a quirky, sometimes silly, approach that integrates learning theories into the content as no other web language book does.

Downes suggests that because there are a large quantities of a single kind of learning object (pictures of ducks) that may be classified an OER, there is no lack of OER online. I can’t actually believe he doesn’t recognize that because one has plenty of a single thing that fits into a category, one has plenty of things in that category.

Wiley counters that there is relative value to learning resources, but leaves the argument unsubstantiated and shifts to talk about nonrivalrous nature of online resources. I think the argument here is strong, and hope he comes back to this.

Downes challenges Dave: you say a full course can be an OER, and you say an OER is digital. So can a full course be digital? He caught Dave off-guard because, again I think Downes equivocated OER with LO, and Dave didn’t realize he had actually asserted that a full course can be a learning object. There is a difference between a learning object and an OER.

Downes is challenging assertion that an organized course is more efficient (than what? at least more efficient than “floundering around”), but coming up pretty empty. Best counter argument he set aside, and that is that a course costs thousands of dollars to produce. Now he is questioning the goals or outcomes of education, and asking if a course is the most efficient path to “a good life”. So if you disagree with the outcomes of organized university coursework, for whatever reason, you might agree that, yes, a course of study is not efficient. But even if you believ the goal of university learning is self-betterment through access to knowledge, I still say that the regimented classroom and semester is pretty efficient.

This made me wonder if the most critical piece for learning is accountability: teachers and grades and administration hold students’ feet to the fire, making them read and study and produce things that make them learn–activities they may not have the discipline to do on their own. If I were to aim to lose weight (or, rather, bulk up), I would achieve my goals much more efficiently with a personal trainer driving me to work out every day under a particular, crafted, and organized regiment, rather than leaving it to me to find ways to exercise on my own. But if my goal is just to have fun exercising, yes, I’m better served just going off to skate.

Speakng of which, I’m going out to skate.

Instructional Design & Development

1. ADDIE, Dick & Cary, and other ID models useful to revisit and reflect upon, especially for planning of critical stages of course design. Models do not necessarily inhibit rapid prototyping. UVU IDS might rethink how its course design process fits into such models (instead of immediate prototyping do we first analyze needs, course objectives, then outline content in design? Prototyping should be mid to late design phase).
2. Build instructional design models into project mgmt software as template. We in UVU IDS do something like this with dotProject, but could more explicitly label phases to provide data documentation and data.
3. Log instructional patterns (e.g. activities, interactions, assessments) and create “templates”.
4. Brainstorming ideas: aim for quantity not quality (no negations), stock conference room with treats and toys, limit to 1 hr/break & flow, focus everyone on the task, use online shared docs.
5. In design phase, instead of lists of info, make visual representations like wireframes & site maps. Let it be basic, ugly.
6. Tame your use of media to reduce cognitive load (read Clark’s Efficiency in Design again).
7. Avoid novelty for novelty’s sake (bad example: wave runner game with multiple choice questions, our Frogger game).
8. Try rapid e-learning dev tools like Captivate, Articulate, and Rapid Intake, but beware of outputs that aren’t accessible, web standards format.
9. More often than not Flash is just flashy.
10. PowerPoint continues to be abused by presenters from around the world, resulting in mind-numbing, soul-sucking internments. Folks talk about PPT design in terms of how many bullets, words, fonts per slide, with nearly no mention of “Presentation Zen”.
11. Also, a PPT designed for a (classroom) presentation is not elearning, even if you convert that PPT to Flash with Captivate. @BrianDusablon says #1 problem in e-learning is PPT. (#2 is systems that put obstacles between learner and learning.)
12. However, you can use PPT as an effective e-learning prototyping platform, if not a complete and robust authoring platform.
13. Surprise! Corporate training wants demonstrable outcomes, not rubrics that assert generalized ideals of quality based on theory. How well do our distance learning “quality” rubrics (QM, Chico) measure the actual effectiveness of learning experiences at helping students meet learning objectives? Isn’t that more important than, say, the 7 principles?
14. Though the session was canceled, it appears possible to use Google Spreadsheets as a data source for live e-learning content generation (think flashcards, quizzes)
15. UVU IDS should create all lesson discussions, assignments, and assessments as plain text files WITHIN the lessons folder, until Common Cartridge XML becomes useful on Moodle and Bb Vista.
16. URLs from augmented reality games session: http://argology.org, http://argn.com, http://unfiction.com

Questions

1. Does UVU IDS have enough accurate dotProject data yet to estimate the hour-cost of a new online course?
2. Non-linear ID is still popular, but is it effective? Have we passed the point at which hypertext inhibits learning and focus?
3. Where are communities that share DTDs and schemas, esp for e-learning? Does our XML DTD match any other known e-learning DTDs? (Really only Common Cartridge)

Reading List

1. Goal-based learning design a la Robert Schank
2. Humanizing education articles
3. Videogames and Education: Humanistic Approaches to an Emergent Art Form by Harry J. Brown
4. Chico State’s latest vers. of ROI
5. Survey of Instructional Development Models by Kent L. Gustafson, Robert Maribe Branch
6. Any empirical research on linear vs. non-linear (hypertextual) learning outcomes

Software Demo List

• Articulate (rapid e-learning development)
• Captivate (rapid e-learning development)
• ProForm / Unison (rapid e-learning development)
• Jing (screen capture)
• Agilix BrainHoney (LMS/learning system)

Anyone who knows me knows about the Teaching with Technology Idea Exchange, aka TTIX, a small, free conference dedicated to the open exchange of ideas and best practices in distance learning and technology-enhanced education. If I’m not soliciting proposals, I’m soliciting keynotes, or I’m soliciting sponsors, or I’m soliciting participants–and really, the participants are the most important ingredient for a successful idea exchange!

So let me formally thank and welcome everyone who’s planning on coming to Orem, Utah June 3-5 to present, participate, sponsor, exhibit, help or support. We know some people could not travel this year due to tightening budgets, but we hope to offset that with a sepcial announcement:

Instead of taping and archiving this year’s sessions, we are going to try to live stream each and every TTIX session via UStream. This means that participants from around the world will have a chance to watch and engage with TTIX live audiences via the backchannel. I’ll post more on this soon at http://ttix.org

Finally, of course, Marc and I will be tracking your participation in TTIX via social media to crown this year’s Grand Poobah, and give out some sweet prizes. Every blog post, Twitter update, Flickr photo, Delicious bookmark that you tag TTIX (#TTIX on Twitter) will count towards your effort to claim this coveted award, if you sign up.

1. The whole-day experience, while fatiguing (at least for me), was the only way to go about a workshop as ambitious as this.
2. In fact, it could have easily gone two or three days (and would have been a stronger, more memorable experience for it).
3. The participants were both energetic and patient–the latter was important as we dealt with technical issues and the fact that teaching this territory was completely new to us.
4. Though I’d felt we’d been pretty thorough in mapping out the sessions, we could have spent several more hours planning and organizing the workshop for better results.
5. My instinct was to run a pilot segment as an on-campus workshop at UVU as a means of preparing. I didn’t do this, however, and in reflection am sure doing so would have eliminated the few problems I did experience.
6. My concept of “a PLE” has changed. I still think it’s definable, but recognize it to be more like an ever-adjusting, tool-assisted network of individualized processes than an “environment”.
7. “Environment” is easier to say, though perhaps it too strongly implies a monolithic managed system.
8. A well-considered and refined PLE is, so far, the best way for individuals to manage the indomitable mass of information and interactions that are now available.
9. D’Arcy Norman said, “‘PLE’ is a verb, not a noun … an action, not a thing.” I think it’s both: a PLE is a conglomeration of things constantly acted upon. (Someone remind me where I’ve heard this before).
10. Though initially informal, a modular, conglomerated PLE eventually becomes more formal as the individual builds habits and reinforces processes along branches as s/he moves towards “learning/achievement” goals.
11. As Chris spoke in the introduction, I sketched out the following as one concept of how the “interactions” part of my PLE work to send out signals while receiving new signals or feedback:

We are planning the workshop along two tracts: one for Web 2.0 “beginners” and one for “veterans”, though that may change depending on audience needs. We’ll be covering topics such as blogging, researching online, productivity anywhere, and mashing up your learning environment.

You can take a look at our early drafts of these tracts on Scott’s wiki, and you can register for WCET and the pre-conference workshop right now, at an extended Early-Bird rate.

Certainly if you plan or want to participate in this workshop, send us feedback on what will be most valuable to you.

George put his slides for this keynote online on SlideShare. Here are my fast-and-furious, almost-at-George’s-pace notes (which I hope to come back in and edit);

Task of education is to “combat” for lucidity

Knowledge is in the connections
more college students in china than in any other country
we are not in control of where education is going
we are not in control of these tbs of information

Complexity
putting together a puzzle
metaphor of a weather pattern – that’s why we can’t predict (Photo)
education is meant to be more like a puzzle
too much information
we end up with extra nuts and bolts
fragmentation
(I remember reading EVERYTHING in a book, in a newspaper, in a magazine, in a comic—hungry for knowledge. Now there’s too much)
“Fragmentation requires re-creation”
Fragmentation challegene coherance”
freedom of creation = abundance
(how do we filter)
There’s something else I need to read.
Need to filter out the noice, but that’s beyond the capability of our tools
fast-paced deep stuff. I feel like I’m a smooth stone George has skipped across a deep water
Brings up Kerr’s challenge
“Something is happening.
“But is it sufficient to warrant a reconsideration of learning theory?”

Web 2.0 is hype. “I never thought I’d hear myself say that blogs are hype.”

oh shiny object slide (George should use more of these—great response, great illustration)
Long timeline ofslwo change: Information (great slide showing transition upwards)
what do the tools allow us to do that they didn’t before
reminds me of the idea that technology returns us from individual thought (intraspersonal/intraspective) to collective though, or thought heavily influenced by the sometimes rash opinion of others (interpersonal/extraspective). Can we have a balance of these when everything is published open, for everyone.

Gutenberg press was one of those technologies that spilled blood

Let’s look at this; don’t look at the tools. It’s about those bigger factors of openness, access, creation, control.

Connectivism.
Tagged his critics on his del.icio.us account—great modeling of the true scholarly approach toward getting at truth.
How is this unique?
(pause. Man, he’s a bullet train barreling down the track)
a unity of learning and knowledge
not a significant difference between learning and knowledge
learning != process; knowledge != product
Abundance
I say overabundance. Scarcity of quality may remain proportional? Of course not exactly, but there will be a quantity of crap that may equal the proportional quantity of silence we had before the Internet. Now instead of not having enough I have too much information. Instead of being hungry and savoring the crumbs of information, I am overfed and nauseous at the sight of more platters of information.

Levelsof networked learning
Neural-biological
Conceptual
External-social

neural
connectionism and ai
what fires together wires together
biologically learning is creating a network

conceptual

when we make a concept map it makes explicit what we know

the occurrence of words reveals connectedness of concepts to create meaning

do network properties exist at a conceptual level?
We do have network attributes to knowledge seems intuitively right
PERSONAL BRAIN
novak on concept maps (see his delicious)
our concepts are understood by filtering through networks
simulations dont teach us steps, they teach us sequences of patterns
enable individuals to form patterns

external and social
we are connected to each other

Presentation Slides

cheatability_factor.ppt

For this session I added several slides that illustrate my gut reaction to a number of the new technologically-based approaches to inhibit cheating in assessments which I hope you will find amusing.

We had a lively and interactive discussion of the problem of cheating in online courses, and possible approaches to inhibit it. We took one participant through our cheatbility rubric explaining criteria and concepts along the way.

For the first time John administered Buzzword Bingo live in-session with bingo cards printed with key terms from our presentation. We did this not (only) as a self-deprecating joke, but as a means of focusing participant attention on the presenters and the dialog. I believe at least 6 participants scored a prize during this session while playing Buzzword Bingo, though John and Marc had to coax more than one participant to simply shout out BINGO instead of raising their hands!

Presenter: Dam Lim

Learning games are built for mobile devices using SWF and XML. Mr. Lim talks about how he would like a single interface, and comments on possibilities for inter-institutional collaborations. I’m sure John Krutsch will be talking to him afterwards.

How does this work cross-(mobile-)platform? I know you can play YouTube videos, but you can’t generally run Flash content on iPhone or on Treo’s Blazer. Mr. Lim is using Windows Mobile on a PocketPC to demo this.

Plays a YouTube.com videos that show how making of the game works.

YouTube.com video is too small to see. Should make it full-screen.

Quickly demonstrates how the game is made and loaded in PocketPC.

I’d like to see the game itself in greater depth, and discuss how these are implemented into a course structure, and at least the predicted impact on learning.

Sums up with plenty of design challenges–so many broad and disruptive challenges leave me pessimistic.

Shows what Krutsch labels “simulated screenshots” of what a game might look like on iPhone (if it supported Flash).

Exit Mr. Stein.

Presenters: Tina Parscal, Maureen Hencmann

Session presents an extremely brief overview of cognitive apprenticeship. Uses obnoxious, unnecessary terms “more knowledgeable other” (MKO) instead of “expert”, and “less knowledgable other” (LKO) instead of learner.

Implementation aspects of cognitive apprenticeship educational approach:
Content
Modeling
Coaching
Scaffolding and fading
Articulation
Exploration
Reflection

Let learners decide what tools to use to solve a problem

Idea for application: Would it be neat to give 3 lessons that are optional, and give 3 different projects that may use some or all of those lessons?)

As part of cognitive apprenticeship, “facilitators” should “encourage discovery”. Learners should “Learn to learn”

Does this help learners learn? If so, why? Does it cement or reinforce the important information or skills?

Prompt students to seek answers in a (general) document (learn to navigate the course and use resources–not spoon feeding).

Is this annoying, inefficient? Is there a faster way to deliver the information? Or is learning to navigate a system (that they may never use again, or use infrequently) that important? (Counterpoint: you could send them to a system that they should use, but is this now an information management task? E.g. Google, Wikipedia, etc. Is that appropriate here, or better in a learning skills course? Do computer literacy courses require this?)

Write good questions and robust feedback.
Discussion – articulation, reflection, exploration

In a lot of ways, my DGM 2120 and 2740 courses are modeled on cognitive apprenticeship, though I’ve found that in 2120 greater structuring was necessary.

Course design has a lot of cute representative icons relating to the content. Are these useful? Will these symbols be used beyond the course? I’m always looking for how what we learn or do in class is applicable beyond the class. That’s the epitome of education.

Shows off interactive Flash “office” to simulate a few questions principals might have to deal with daily, with MC options for responses to e-mail, phone call.

Presenters walk through these pretty intensively, but I got lost thinking about the tool and the scenario as a learner. Participants need to be reminded to think about this as an example to reflect upon as an educator. We do reflect on this at the end.

Break into groups for corrabolative discussion.

Exit, Mr. Stein.