- My eBooks Loading ...
Track details: - -
Buy this album
About Stephen Downes
About Stephen's Web
Subscribe to Newsletters
Privacy and Security Policy
Web - Today's OLDaily
Web - This Week's OLWeekly
Email - Subscribe
RSS - Individual Posts
RSS - Combined version
JSON - OLDaily
Stephen's Web and OLDaily
Half an Hour Blog
Google Plus Page
Huffington Post Blog
National Research Council Canada
Research Topics, Research Wiki, Code
All My Articles
Big Dog, Little Dog
Donald Clark, Big Dog, Little Dog, August 1, 2012
ADDIE - it's like a zombie that just won't die. Donald Clark writes, "When the first version of ADDIE appeared in 1975 it was strictly a linear or waterfall method. The first four phases (analysis, design, development, and implementation) were to be performed in a sequential manner... but in fact are highly interrelated and typically not performed in a linear but in an iterative and cyclic fashion... other components may be added to it on an as-needed-basis.... thus it became ADDIE 3.0."Today: Total:1138 [Comment] [Direct Link]
Donald Clark, Big Dog, Little Dog, October 27, 2011
My question to Donald Clark is: what is the performance is not equivalent to a series of steps? Clark, in his description of the 'analysis' phase of ADDIE, distinguishes between 'procedural' and 'rule-based' processes. The procedural process requires that operations be performed in an order, and can be represented as a flow-chart. The rule-based process does not impose an order on the steps, and rather involves the selection of actions according to goals, operations, methods or rules. But what if performance is neither of these? What if there is no mechanism that can break down the performance into correct steps or procedures? I ask, because I think many aspects of performance are like this. The step-by-step or rule-by-rule analysis is a rationalization of performance, an over-simplified abstraction of it for beginners, like paint-by-numbers, and not a description of it, much less a guide to how it may be achieved. I think the key to performance is seeing, is recognition, not analysis, and once you know what must be done, the doing of it is (by comparison) trivial. Today: Total:1275
[Comment] [Direct Link]
Donald Clark, Big Dog, Little Dog, August 23, 2011
Donald Clark offers a nice critical refresher with this look at Gagnè's nine steps of instruction. For example, his isertion of a discussion from Bandura at step six ('elicit the learning by demonstrating it'): "Bandura's theory is often referred to as social learning theory as it emphasizes the role of vicarious experience (observation) of people impacting people (models). Modeling has several affects on learners:
- Acquisition - New responses are learned by observing the model.
- Inhibition - A response that otherwise may be made is changed when the observer sees a model being punished.
- Disinhibition - A reduction in fear by observing a model's behavior go unpunished in a feared activity.
- Facilitation - A model elicits from an observer a response that has already been learned.
- Creativity - Observing several models performing and then adapting a combination of characteristics or styles."
Today: Total:1219 [Comment] [Direct Link]
Donald Clark, Big Dog, Little Dog, December 31, 2010
Some thoughts on the dichotomies inherent in learning - that between activity and reflection, that between social learning and self reflection, etc. Not deep, but I like the approach. It makes me think of the sliders Jay Cross proposed a few years ago. I was quite critical of them, for which I today feel a little bit guilty, because there was merit in the suggestion. Maybe there should be a slider for the scale between 'getting it right' and 'finding a compromise'. On the other hand, as I observed in the column, if you sacrifice a little bit of what's right, you essentially move the goalposts, and set yourself off down a slippery slope. Today: Total:1493
[Comment] [Direct Link]
Donald Clark, Big Dog, Little Dog, November 22, 2010
Donald Clark, Big Dog, Little Dog, April 22, 2010
This was such a nice way of putting it I used it in my presentation today. If you are looking at simple or complicated things, you do analysis - take it apart, look at how the parts work. But if you are dealing with something complex, analysis no longer works; in such a case, your method of study must be immersive, "the method of soaking yourself in understanding what the problem is that you are facing in addition to informing the other three parts of the framework." Today: Total:1407 [Comment] [Direct Link]
Donald Clark, Big Dog, Little Dog, March 29, 2010
Clark Quinn has been discussing the ADDIE model of instructional design, and Donald Clark offers this nice reflection and great diagram describing the planning and implementation process. Not that I agree with the diagram ("absorbing" leads to "knowledge"? I don't think so) but it looks very nice and is certainly representative of a largish school of (traditional) thought. Today: Total:1695 [Comment] [Direct Link]
Donald Clark , Big Dog, Little Dog, February 4, 2010
Some charts, based on actual research, documenting how much is spent on informal learning. The 80 percent of learning accomplished by informal learning is accompanied, according to this research, by almost 80 percent of the spending, leading Donald Clark to say "we discover that rather than being this highly efficient learning machine, it is probably just about as efficient as formal learning" and "rather than being this highly efficient learning machine that we can ignore, it may require just as much of our attention as the formal side of learning." But one wonders what the constitutes the reported spend on informal learning. I get the impression they are including everything up to and including the water cooler around which people gather. And I wonder how well the spend on informal learning would fare if analyzed for value. Was it really an investment in learning, or was it just filed under that for lack of a better category? Today: Total:1675
[Comment] [Direct Link]
Donald Clark, Big Dog, Little Dog , January 20, 2010
Interesting take on learning styles: Clark argues you get more benefit by teaching against them. For example, "while verbal learners may like to read about something rather than actually try it, they do much better when they actually apply the skills (kinesthetic), rather than reading about it." My own take is that, while this may work on a one-time or infrequent basis, because of the novelty or irritation factor, if you try to do this every day you just end up with a bunch of bored and irritated students. Still, that's something that could be looked at (I guess, if you measure the "success" of learning as the retention and repetition by a student of a small instructor-defined set of data).
A couple of other things, though. First, it occurs to me that if there's no such thing as "learning styles" (somehow defined) then there are no grounds for student-selected or learner-centered learning; just put all instruction into the same box, and deliver it the same way, because individual preferences don't matter. Whiuch seems to me to be a reductio.
And second, people have got to stop repeating the old saw that "scientific studies can normally only prove what exists, not what does not exist." It's just not true! You can prove there are no dogs in my living room, that there are no 15-minute interruptions in gravity every hour on the hour, that there are no aircraft made of water (or even ice!), that there is no phlogiston, that there are no numbers greater than three and less than two. The old saw applies only to a special class of entities: entities that have no consequences, entities that are outside our experience, and entities that cannot be tested. Everything else can be known to exist or not exist. Today: Total:1619 [Comment] [Direct Link]