There are some seriously odd concepts in computer science. These concepts are like air for programmers - so normal they're not even noticable. But for beginners, it's like not knowing how to breathe. Here's Alfred Thompson: "Somehow the idea that the index is, in some sense, part of the name and not the value being stored is hard for some to grasp. Though come to think of it, I never talked about an index as being like a name... Perhaps I will discuss indexes as part of the name next time I teach arrays." That's the sort of thing I mean. When I was studying logic and programming I found the lessons full of such background concepts that were never stated, but just assumed to be understood. (Society is like that too, and uses this as one of its primary differentiators of power and class).
I appreciated this relatively light and light-hearted look at a number of different licenses and templates developed by the author (a lawyer, but not your lawyer) over the years. They're designed more for software than for content, but they give us a sense of how Creative Commons could have evolved had it been approached differently. For example, Prosperity, which is "a free license for noncommercial use, with a time-limited free trial for potential commercial customers," or the Parity licence for those "who preferred to make their work available free for use in open source, even commercial open source, rather than for noncommercial purposes, open or closed," or even the Patron license, for those "who really wanted a recurring-payment relationship with customers, rather than the one-time-payment structure." Or the Noncommercial license, which doesn't try to define 'noncommercial', but rather, is supplemented with specific 'safe harbors' that clearly cover common personal uses and noncommercial organizations.
When an advertisement says "research-based" on TV, my sceptical antennae are raised. I must admit to similar doubt when people talk about "evidence-based" in online learning. It's not that I discount evidence - far from it. But the nature and quality of evidence in our field is far from even. There is disagreement about desired outcomes, and even disagreement about the theoretical domain. I can use Wiley's own references to make my point:
- One paper is drawn from biomedical research and introduces the reader to (a brand new?) "implementation science" designed "ensure that research investments maximize healthcare value and improve public health."
- Another paper proposes "a novel model incorporating implementation science for translating cognitive science to classroom practice in higher education".
- A third is an internal report produced by The Simon Initiative at Carnegie Mellon University, and the paper itself uses "an anthropological approach" to arrive at its conclusions.
- Another is locked behind a paywall, but the abstract recommends "the engineering of high quality evidence into a more usable format and presenting it actively or iteratively via a respected and trusted conduit, or through population measures such as legislation."
So what does the evidence tell us here? What are we to make of these different approaches? Does this assemblage of a concoction of approaches from various disciplines - medicine, psychology, engineering, anthropology - really convince us of anything? The reason educators don't adopt as evidence-based approach isn't, as Wiley suggests, because it's a threat to their identity. It's because trustworthy evidence hasn't been forthcoming.
This is quite a good paper (25 page PDF) that questions whether a technique employed in business, the realistic job preview (RJP) could help prepare students for online learning. An RJP consists of a video where existing employees describe what the job is like, or a self-assessment questionnaire where prospective employees consider what they like and dislike (the paper suggests that a combination of both is preferred). It concludes by recommending schools create and use RJPs for online learning and makes a set of specific recommendations about content, timing, and detail.
This paper (19 page PDF) adds to the research on the use of resources such as YouTube videos in education and assesses student preferences in that regard. The major issue identified is 'accuracy', though I wonder whether by 'accuracy' they mean 'can cite in a paper' (we read: "Unlike books and journals, they cannot rely on these videos as sources for their studies"). The paper also determined that a length of 10-15 minutes is preferable (as compared to previous work recommending 6-minute videos) and that students liked to see the speaker and also to have captioned text. My main criticism is that the student is focused exclusively on students enrolled in academic institutions (referenced as "the ideal audience for educational videos").
I'm sympathetic with the author because I was subjected to similar professional development on 'how to teach' and 'how people learn' (complete with learning styles and Bloom's taxonomy) in my early days as a philosophy instructor. More relevant, though, is the question of whether I've given terrible no good very bad professional development sessions. I can think of a few instances (and I've lived with that regret ever since). What's harder, though, is knowing how to do it right. "I really believe that people educating room full of experts on learning should be absolute masters of learning," writes Emily Fintelman. Maybe. But there are different types of experts, in different domains. Offering a one-hour professional development session to a roomful of teachers in a children's classroom is a specialized skill. So - maybe - it wasn't all the presenter's fault. Via Aaron Davis.
Web - Today's OLDaily
OLDaily Email - Subscribe
Web - This Week's OLWeekly
OLWeekly Email - Subscribe
RSS - Individual Posts
RSS - Combined version
JSON - OLDaily
Podcast - OLDaily Audio
Stephen's Web and OLDaily
Half an Hour Blog
Stephen's Guide to the Logical Fallacies
Let's Make Some Art Dammit
National Research Council Canada
All My Articles
About Stephen Downes
About Stephen's Web
Subscribe to Newsletters
Privacy and Security Policy
CCK 2008, 2009, 2011, 2012
Change 11 - 2011
Education Futures - 2012
Learning Analytics - 2012
Personal Learning - 2015
E-Learning 3.0 MOOC - 2018