It has been a while since I last posted, but it has been a productive (and frustrating) summer. Doing the mini-MOOC with my biology class last semester taught me a great deal, and I've had to go back and reconsider/revise some of my tactics. I also started working with our university's public relations arm to brand my new project (one day our tech people will let me use .edu with my domain...but I won't hold my breath).
The project is Biology Open Learning Opportunities, or BOLO for short. The home for the project can be found at http://www.bologsu.us/BOLO_project/. The BOLO Project website is ultimately a gateway to a site constructed using MOODLE. From here, I have a platform where I can deliver open content for my courses. Anyone who participates will have the opportunity to earn badges (I have the start of this system, but will continue to work on it), and there will be a final badge for course completion. Since this is linked to the courses I teach at Georgia State University, the course will correspond with the GSU semester. Hopefully though, the information, assignments and extras will be of help to anyone with an interest in biology.
If you visit the BOLO project site, you will find a message saying that it is still under construction and that the opening date will be August 10th. That is my general timeline to open things up to the public.
Well, here's hoping it works the second time around.
Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Wednesday, May 9, 2012
Grade Focused v. Learning Focused
Currently, I am participating in the BONKOPEN MOOC. This weeks discussion of R2D2 (Read, Reflect, Display, Do) got me thinking about some of the issues that came up with my course redesign in biology (GOALS). My students worked through concepts, wrote about what they learned, reflected on what they learned,...they WORKED. One of the biggest stumbling block though was getting the students to realize that their work was not about the grade at the end, but the learning opportunity.
Apart from the grumbling, many of the students admitted that they actually learned. Some didn't believe that they had learned anything, then they saw their comprehensive final. After the surprise abated, they looked at me and admitted that all the writing had put something in their head (i.e., they had learned).
What is surprising is that most of these same students would spend hours learning about something that "interested" them. They would look things up, explore, read, etc.... When I asked if they were interested in biology, many of them said, YES. When I asked if they independently studied biology, they said....wait for it...NO. There is a disconnect in their mind between "academic" knowledge and what they find as interesting.
Add to this that most of our students are trained that they need to achieve a certain grade in a class, and we have a problem. It doesn't matter if you learned a subject, only that you got an A in it. One strange thing that happened this past semester, those students who were good "test takers" (i.e, they had learned to cramp and dump) did not excel. They became the average student. They did not participate in the learning opportunities, and it showed.
So my question to the general audience: Do you want your students to be grade focused or learning focused? How will you change your class to switch them to being learning focused?
Apart from the grumbling, many of the students admitted that they actually learned. Some didn't believe that they had learned anything, then they saw their comprehensive final. After the surprise abated, they looked at me and admitted that all the writing had put something in their head (i.e., they had learned).
What is surprising is that most of these same students would spend hours learning about something that "interested" them. They would look things up, explore, read, etc.... When I asked if they were interested in biology, many of them said, YES. When I asked if they independently studied biology, they said....wait for it...NO. There is a disconnect in their mind between "academic" knowledge and what they find as interesting.
Add to this that most of our students are trained that they need to achieve a certain grade in a class, and we have a problem. It doesn't matter if you learned a subject, only that you got an A in it. One strange thing that happened this past semester, those students who were good "test takers" (i.e, they had learned to cramp and dump) did not excel. They became the average student. They did not participate in the learning opportunities, and it showed.
So my question to the general audience: Do you want your students to be grade focused or learning focused? How will you change your class to switch them to being learning focused?
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
Innovate Now!
In the April 8th edition of Chronicle Review, Ann Kirschner presented an article entitled Innovations in Higher Education? Hah!:College leaders need to move beyond talking about transformation before it's too late. The message of Dr. Kirschner's article is that we have to stop talking about innovation and actually innovate.
The idea of disruptive technologies, and how they ultimately force organizational changes is a critical message. What is needed is not the gradual change often discussed (change one aspect of your class, and then when your comfortable, change something else), but radical change. What surprises most people is that the change is not about the technology, but about our methods of delivery and expectations of students.
Recently, I was in a discussion with a fellow faculty member and some book reps. My colleague's comment was that they did not really care about the technological offerings of the book company, but instead cared more about the textbook. My response was the complete opposite. All of the books are essential the same from each company, and all are intimidating to the student due to unrestrained depth and complexity of presentation. I wanted to know if the company had tutorials, managed case studies that led students through the problem, short videos on difficult topics, meaningful assignments and practices. I wanted to know where I would need to invent and where I could count on support. I'm not going to just give my students a book and expect that they read it, I want to give them support. OK, so I have brought up tech when earlier I said it was not about tech.
The change is about our methods: do we stand in front of class as the "sage on a stage" spouting off an hour or more "wisdom" that is summarily ignored, or do we become mentors engaging our students in discussions and activities? Do we flip the class where "instruction" is handled through technology and the mentoring of the student occurs in person? Do we leave behind the flawed idea that "the only way students learn is if I tell it too them", or do we trust that undergraduates can become self-actualized learners?
A resistance that Dr. Kirschner brings up is the academic culture and disciplines that are woven into Higher Education. Here is where I'm going to go on a major tangent, because this is something I have been considering for a while...
One of the greatest problems in modern academia is the false separation of individuals by the invisible walls of disciplines. The idea of disciplines was important in the development of higher ed, but now it strangles the life blood out of innovation. How many chemists work with biological systems, and how many biologists do chemistry? At what point do we divide the line. While it can help a novice, it can become a stumbling block, especially when the discipline/department divides prevent stronger collaborative efforts (usually ending when which department/college gets how much of the grant money).
What if we did away with the invisible walls of disciplines, and went to a higher order set of "school" based upon the faculty and students? Taking the College of Arts and Sciences here, what if we had a school of applied science where people from various disciplines could come under the same roof? Public health, biology, chemistry, geoscience, and physics, anyone who did research and wanted to collaborate in applied sciences. As an urban campus, what if we had a school of Urban Ecology, combining biology, geoscience, policy, social science, etc... with a focus on the Urban environment. Yes, it is a scary thought to do away with disciplines at the faculty level. For students, we could have a school of undergraduate studies that focused on the undergraduates (instead of having them shuffled under the rug of research). We could keep discipline specific areas for undergraduates. Graduate degrees would be less about a name and more about showing the evidence of your work.
I'll come back to all of this in a bit...
The idea of disruptive technologies, and how they ultimately force organizational changes is a critical message. What is needed is not the gradual change often discussed (change one aspect of your class, and then when your comfortable, change something else), but radical change. What surprises most people is that the change is not about the technology, but about our methods of delivery and expectations of students.
Recently, I was in a discussion with a fellow faculty member and some book reps. My colleague's comment was that they did not really care about the technological offerings of the book company, but instead cared more about the textbook. My response was the complete opposite. All of the books are essential the same from each company, and all are intimidating to the student due to unrestrained depth and complexity of presentation. I wanted to know if the company had tutorials, managed case studies that led students through the problem, short videos on difficult topics, meaningful assignments and practices. I wanted to know where I would need to invent and where I could count on support. I'm not going to just give my students a book and expect that they read it, I want to give them support. OK, so I have brought up tech when earlier I said it was not about tech.
The change is about our methods: do we stand in front of class as the "sage on a stage" spouting off an hour or more "wisdom" that is summarily ignored, or do we become mentors engaging our students in discussions and activities? Do we flip the class where "instruction" is handled through technology and the mentoring of the student occurs in person? Do we leave behind the flawed idea that "the only way students learn is if I tell it too them", or do we trust that undergraduates can become self-actualized learners?
A resistance that Dr. Kirschner brings up is the academic culture and disciplines that are woven into Higher Education. Here is where I'm going to go on a major tangent, because this is something I have been considering for a while...
One of the greatest problems in modern academia is the false separation of individuals by the invisible walls of disciplines. The idea of disciplines was important in the development of higher ed, but now it strangles the life blood out of innovation. How many chemists work with biological systems, and how many biologists do chemistry? At what point do we divide the line. While it can help a novice, it can become a stumbling block, especially when the discipline/department divides prevent stronger collaborative efforts (usually ending when which department/college gets how much of the grant money).
What if we did away with the invisible walls of disciplines, and went to a higher order set of "school" based upon the faculty and students? Taking the College of Arts and Sciences here, what if we had a school of applied science where people from various disciplines could come under the same roof? Public health, biology, chemistry, geoscience, and physics, anyone who did research and wanted to collaborate in applied sciences. As an urban campus, what if we had a school of Urban Ecology, combining biology, geoscience, policy, social science, etc... with a focus on the Urban environment. Yes, it is a scary thought to do away with disciplines at the faculty level. For students, we could have a school of undergraduate studies that focused on the undergraduates (instead of having them shuffled under the rug of research). We could keep discipline specific areas for undergraduates. Graduate degrees would be less about a name and more about showing the evidence of your work.
I'll come back to all of this in a bit...
Friday, April 6, 2012
The Future of Learning
Today at Georgia State University, President Becker and George Pullman (Director of GSU's Center for Instructional Innovation) held a forum on "The Future of Learning in Higher Education."
It was a well attended forum, but as noted by one audience member, it "attracted only the converted." Hearing some of the questions, I'm not sure if it did attract only the converted, but those of us who have been trying different techniques and technologies were in the majority.
Our President laid out three areas for us to consider:
Wisely, George Pullman indicated that the goal was not to replicate what others had done, but to "Reinvent the Wheel" for our campus. The President seemed to be on the same page, indicating that the goal was to define what the GSU undergraduate experience is all about, even if students are taking online or hybrid (blended) classes.
The Q&A was short, but brought up some good points, including how failed attempts are handled, how to protect faculty that try innovated course ideas, and how to encourage it. The President was quick to add that the administration would not force anyone to change their styles, but also indicated that what is innovative now is commonly used only after a few years.
Some of the audience wisely addressed the concern that while the technology is great, what really has to be done is a complete overhaul of how we deliver information. Going further, it is how we conceive of the course and its outcomes.
I left the meeting hopeful, but with some caution and concern in my heart. From comments, it is obvious that the President is behind forging ahead with new course design. He even mentioned the idea of looking at what a new instructional room would look like. George Pullman is working diligently to gather all the innovators together, and to also gather those interested in hybrid (blended) courses.
But there was also the old caution: go slowly, 'Don't try too many things at once." When they are talking about spending years changing courses, I spoke up and added "...then you rip of the Bandaid." It is fine to get your feet wet by changing things around, but eventually most of us have realized we have to flip our classes. That's not slow! You may have tried out a few minor things, changed some assessments, but when you finally flip your class, it is not a small endeavor. Many things have to change simultaneously, and the students might not like it (most likely will not like it as it is more work for them).
Why does this seem to upset me? We have people on campus who have finally started to use clicker systems. They are so proud of themselves, but it is technology that is over a decade old. Heck, in the 90's, I used wired systems that ultimately became clicker systems. We had a whole room wired for this. Now we have Internet systems, where students can use smartphones, pads and computers to log answers. The answers no longer have to be multiple choice!
The common concern of my colleagues? "I don't want the students using computers in class."
Heck, we have research scientists who still think they can get grants by themselves from the big federal funders (have they not been paying attention?).
People often talk about resistance to change in Universities, and this blog post was not suppose to be an addition to those discussions. Yes, you have to show them that it works. But another great idea is to just to mentor new hires. Instead of letting them walk into a class, sit down with them and bring them into your course projects. Wouldn't that be a much better way of changing the system?
So what is the answer? The following is a list of my "Pushes", that is, things I would like to push for as we move forward.
1) In my blended class, I would like to spend the "lecture period" in a biology studio environment where students could work on experiments, activities and case studies aimed at the 'topic of the week.'
2) I would love to build a fully integrated biology freshman learning community in which the biologists, chemists, English, history and philosophy instructors work together to build an integrated year long blended course. While there would be some "at your own pace" activities, there would also be scheduled milestones and seminars. Instead of set lectures, I would love for there to be forums and selected seminars for the students. For example: if you need help in editing, there is an editing workshop sponsored by the English instructor. If you need help in molarity calculations, the chemisty would hold a workshop. If you wanted to learn more about bioethics, the philosophy instructor would host a forum on bioethics. Some seminars would be planned, others would be ad hoc based on the interest of students. The learning would be recorded in social media, blogs, and milestone assignments. Up front, the students would have the SPECIFIC and CONCRETE learning objectives of the topics.
3) Using the Degree Qualification Profile (DQP) of the Luminia Foundation, go through our biology curriculum and really set milestones for the students. Publich well articulated outcomes which students know they must acheive to pass a milestone. With the technology we have, I would love to digitally badge each milestone, so that students have Milestone Achievements as they work toward degrees. Potential employers and internship partners could look at the badges to see the competency of the students.
There is another, but it is out of my head for now. Anyway, that is what I would like to push for over the next year. Some of it is already in the works, while I'll need time for some of the other aspects.
It was a well attended forum, but as noted by one audience member, it "attracted only the converted." Hearing some of the questions, I'm not sure if it did attract only the converted, but those of us who have been trying different techniques and technologies were in the majority.
Our President laid out three areas for us to consider:
- Student Centered Learning
- Active Learning
- Controlling the rising price of higher education while maintaining quality.
Wisely, George Pullman indicated that the goal was not to replicate what others had done, but to "Reinvent the Wheel" for our campus. The President seemed to be on the same page, indicating that the goal was to define what the GSU undergraduate experience is all about, even if students are taking online or hybrid (blended) classes.
The Q&A was short, but brought up some good points, including how failed attempts are handled, how to protect faculty that try innovated course ideas, and how to encourage it. The President was quick to add that the administration would not force anyone to change their styles, but also indicated that what is innovative now is commonly used only after a few years.
Some of the audience wisely addressed the concern that while the technology is great, what really has to be done is a complete overhaul of how we deliver information. Going further, it is how we conceive of the course and its outcomes.
I left the meeting hopeful, but with some caution and concern in my heart. From comments, it is obvious that the President is behind forging ahead with new course design. He even mentioned the idea of looking at what a new instructional room would look like. George Pullman is working diligently to gather all the innovators together, and to also gather those interested in hybrid (blended) courses.
But there was also the old caution: go slowly, 'Don't try too many things at once." When they are talking about spending years changing courses, I spoke up and added "...then you rip of the Bandaid." It is fine to get your feet wet by changing things around, but eventually most of us have realized we have to flip our classes. That's not slow! You may have tried out a few minor things, changed some assessments, but when you finally flip your class, it is not a small endeavor. Many things have to change simultaneously, and the students might not like it (most likely will not like it as it is more work for them).
Why does this seem to upset me? We have people on campus who have finally started to use clicker systems. They are so proud of themselves, but it is technology that is over a decade old. Heck, in the 90's, I used wired systems that ultimately became clicker systems. We had a whole room wired for this. Now we have Internet systems, where students can use smartphones, pads and computers to log answers. The answers no longer have to be multiple choice!
The common concern of my colleagues? "I don't want the students using computers in class."
Heck, we have research scientists who still think they can get grants by themselves from the big federal funders (have they not been paying attention?).
People often talk about resistance to change in Universities, and this blog post was not suppose to be an addition to those discussions. Yes, you have to show them that it works. But another great idea is to just to mentor new hires. Instead of letting them walk into a class, sit down with them and bring them into your course projects. Wouldn't that be a much better way of changing the system?
So what is the answer? The following is a list of my "Pushes", that is, things I would like to push for as we move forward.
1) In my blended class, I would like to spend the "lecture period" in a biology studio environment where students could work on experiments, activities and case studies aimed at the 'topic of the week.'
2) I would love to build a fully integrated biology freshman learning community in which the biologists, chemists, English, history and philosophy instructors work together to build an integrated year long blended course. While there would be some "at your own pace" activities, there would also be scheduled milestones and seminars. Instead of set lectures, I would love for there to be forums and selected seminars for the students. For example: if you need help in editing, there is an editing workshop sponsored by the English instructor. If you need help in molarity calculations, the chemisty would hold a workshop. If you wanted to learn more about bioethics, the philosophy instructor would host a forum on bioethics. Some seminars would be planned, others would be ad hoc based on the interest of students. The learning would be recorded in social media, blogs, and milestone assignments. Up front, the students would have the SPECIFIC and CONCRETE learning objectives of the topics.
3) Using the Degree Qualification Profile (DQP) of the Luminia Foundation, go through our biology curriculum and really set milestones for the students. Publich well articulated outcomes which students know they must acheive to pass a milestone. With the technology we have, I would love to digitally badge each milestone, so that students have Milestone Achievements as they work toward degrees. Potential employers and internship partners could look at the badges to see the competency of the students.
There is another, but it is out of my head for now. Anyway, that is what I would like to push for over the next year. Some of it is already in the works, while I'll need time for some of the other aspects.
Monday, March 19, 2012
Research, or why I let students start with Wikipedia...
Yes, I let my students start with Wikipedia.
Yes, there are controversies over Wikipedia, but students use it. The general population uses it. Heck, most of the faculty I know use it when they need to understand a new topic.
So, the goal is to help them use it as an appropriate resource, or tool.
In my last blog post, I discussed the Digital Literacy Disconnect. The post deals with my growing realization that students don't know how to filter information and build a personal information architecture. Where my generation learned to use card catalogs and annual abstracts, my have learned to go to Wikipedia. Is it so horribly bad? As long as they use it as a research tool, no. If they think it is the end game, then yes.
At the beginning of the semester, I asked the students why Wikipedia was not an acceptable academic resource. The answers were as expected: too many editors, it is open for anyone to edit, not reliable, because the instructor said not to use it. Afterward their answers, Usually someone in the class pipes up and says that it is not a "Primary Source". This is when I get them to realize that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and as such is not a valid academic source for quotation or citation.
So, if it is not a valid academic source, why use it?
As I tell my students, when they answer my daily questions and build their blogs, Wikipedia is a fine place to start their research. In biology, the information in Wikipedia is rather good. Yes, there are some exceptions, but overall for general biology, it is a good starting point. The most important aspect of the Wikipedia pages is that they have references and external links. Both of these are an excellent resource for students.
Think about it. How many times have you used a peer reviewed article mainly because of the references the author used? Think about review articles; how many references did you look up after reading the review? If you think about your own research, don't you back track from one article to another? If an article is referenced many times, do you see it as something valuable? Something important? Maybe something you should know for your discipline?
We may start by doing an initial search, or maybe it was a paper recommended to us. Sometimes we come across it from journals we read monthly, but the process is using one article to look for other "informed opinions".
Have you ever tried to teach this to students? Did it work well?
I've found it a struggle to teach this to students, but when the student has used Wikipedia for this purpose, the transition to using journal articles is easier. It is just a matter of back tracking references. Gaining inspiration or methodological ideas from other authors. What is important is the research skill. Does it matter whether it was learned from Wikipedia or trying to instill in them our pre-digital research skills?
I'll leave you with a graphic that was sent to me. There are parts of the graphic I don't like (including the plagiarism comments), but it is eye opening.
Via: Open-Site.org
Yes, there are controversies over Wikipedia, but students use it. The general population uses it. Heck, most of the faculty I know use it when they need to understand a new topic.
So, the goal is to help them use it as an appropriate resource, or tool.
In my last blog post, I discussed the Digital Literacy Disconnect. The post deals with my growing realization that students don't know how to filter information and build a personal information architecture. Where my generation learned to use card catalogs and annual abstracts, my have learned to go to Wikipedia. Is it so horribly bad? As long as they use it as a research tool, no. If they think it is the end game, then yes.
At the beginning of the semester, I asked the students why Wikipedia was not an acceptable academic resource. The answers were as expected: too many editors, it is open for anyone to edit, not reliable, because the instructor said not to use it. Afterward their answers, Usually someone in the class pipes up and says that it is not a "Primary Source". This is when I get them to realize that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and as such is not a valid academic source for quotation or citation.
So, if it is not a valid academic source, why use it?
As I tell my students, when they answer my daily questions and build their blogs, Wikipedia is a fine place to start their research. In biology, the information in Wikipedia is rather good. Yes, there are some exceptions, but overall for general biology, it is a good starting point. The most important aspect of the Wikipedia pages is that they have references and external links. Both of these are an excellent resource for students.
Think about it. How many times have you used a peer reviewed article mainly because of the references the author used? Think about review articles; how many references did you look up after reading the review? If you think about your own research, don't you back track from one article to another? If an article is referenced many times, do you see it as something valuable? Something important? Maybe something you should know for your discipline?
We may start by doing an initial search, or maybe it was a paper recommended to us. Sometimes we come across it from journals we read monthly, but the process is using one article to look for other "informed opinions".
Have you ever tried to teach this to students? Did it work well?
I've found it a struggle to teach this to students, but when the student has used Wikipedia for this purpose, the transition to using journal articles is easier. It is just a matter of back tracking references. Gaining inspiration or methodological ideas from other authors. What is important is the research skill. Does it matter whether it was learned from Wikipedia or trying to instill in them our pre-digital research skills?
I'll leave you with a graphic that was sent to me. There are parts of the graphic I don't like (including the plagiarism comments), but it is eye opening.
Via: Open-Site.org
Friday, March 16, 2012
Digital Literacy Disconnect
In the #change11 MOOC, the concept of digital literacy has appeared numerous times. Usually as a call for an increase in digital skills among students.
The concept of the Digital Native seems flawed. While most of our students were born during or after the information tech revolution, most do not understand the concepts of the technology they use. They may be highly skilled in areas such the use of social networks, email and texting, but does this show an understanding of foundational concepts of such systems? The Digital Native is a user of technology, not necessarily a partner or innovator.
I argue that the true digital natives were not those who were born after the information revolution, but were born before it. We lived through the transformation, and adapted to it as it changed. Those that were born after seem to have a disconnect with what we would consider Digital Literacy.
An epiphany struck me a few weeks ago. It may be something others have considered, but it was a major shift in my perspective. When I was growing up, I learned how to use a card catalog and the purpose of the Dewey Decimal system. They were not abstracts, but something read to my daily life (OK, maybe not daily). When I got to higher education, I learned to use Annual Abstracts and other research references. By graduate school, some of the first computer based Abstract searches were starting to be used, but I knew how to use other means to find what I wanted.
What I realized is that I had built an information architecture. I had learned not only how to search to find relevant material (and read to confirm it's relevance), but ways to filter and organize information. I could remember most of the papers that I read (especially if they had impact), and I had a mental file system of relevant information. I knew where I had filed the paper, so I could go back for specifics when needed. In essence I had built a knowledge management system for my own learning.
When I talk with my students, I realize that they don't have that. Information is at their fingertips, and there is no real reason for them to memorize the wealth of knowledge we have available today. The problem is they are not building the information architecture to support their learning. They don't see the difference between things that are memorized and the core concepts and perspectives that need to be mentally actualized. If you can articulate the core concept, then you can hang any information off the structure you've built, but if you don't have a solid understanding of the core, you will be rebuilding the structure again and again.
That is what I'm seeing with my students. Though I tell them that this something like the Translation of RNA into a protein is a foundational concept, they don't learn it. Every semester after that, they have to relearn the concept.
*By learn, I mean understand the core concepts. They don't need to know every fact, just the core process; when they have that, they can hang the facts off of it.
Digital Literacy falls into the same problem. Students use the systems, but do they understand the concepts underlying the systems? This is not about being able to replicate the systems, or even innovate new ones (though it is hoped that could occur). Instead, it is about building different perspectives, different models for how to view and interact with the world.
So, the question I'm now faced with is how to help students build these informational architectures? You can't tell them to do it, they'll just balk at you while they roll their eyes (an extreme, but powerful image that many can relate too). This is something that has to be woven into the class as a hidden Learning Objective (you can tell them after the fact). But how do you do it? One thing that comes to my mind is I have to first clearly understand what I mean by an informational architecture.
The concept of the Digital Native seems flawed. While most of our students were born during or after the information tech revolution, most do not understand the concepts of the technology they use. They may be highly skilled in areas such the use of social networks, email and texting, but does this show an understanding of foundational concepts of such systems? The Digital Native is a user of technology, not necessarily a partner or innovator.
I argue that the true digital natives were not those who were born after the information revolution, but were born before it. We lived through the transformation, and adapted to it as it changed. Those that were born after seem to have a disconnect with what we would consider Digital Literacy.
An epiphany struck me a few weeks ago. It may be something others have considered, but it was a major shift in my perspective. When I was growing up, I learned how to use a card catalog and the purpose of the Dewey Decimal system. They were not abstracts, but something read to my daily life (OK, maybe not daily). When I got to higher education, I learned to use Annual Abstracts and other research references. By graduate school, some of the first computer based Abstract searches were starting to be used, but I knew how to use other means to find what I wanted.
What I realized is that I had built an information architecture. I had learned not only how to search to find relevant material (and read to confirm it's relevance), but ways to filter and organize information. I could remember most of the papers that I read (especially if they had impact), and I had a mental file system of relevant information. I knew where I had filed the paper, so I could go back for specifics when needed. In essence I had built a knowledge management system for my own learning.
When I talk with my students, I realize that they don't have that. Information is at their fingertips, and there is no real reason for them to memorize the wealth of knowledge we have available today. The problem is they are not building the information architecture to support their learning. They don't see the difference between things that are memorized and the core concepts and perspectives that need to be mentally actualized. If you can articulate the core concept, then you can hang any information off the structure you've built, but if you don't have a solid understanding of the core, you will be rebuilding the structure again and again.
That is what I'm seeing with my students. Though I tell them that this something like the Translation of RNA into a protein is a foundational concept, they don't learn it. Every semester after that, they have to relearn the concept.
*By learn, I mean understand the core concepts. They don't need to know every fact, just the core process; when they have that, they can hang the facts off of it.
Digital Literacy falls into the same problem. Students use the systems, but do they understand the concepts underlying the systems? This is not about being able to replicate the systems, or even innovate new ones (though it is hoped that could occur). Instead, it is about building different perspectives, different models for how to view and interact with the world.
So, the question I'm now faced with is how to help students build these informational architectures? You can't tell them to do it, they'll just balk at you while they roll their eyes (an extreme, but powerful image that many can relate too). This is something that has to be woven into the class as a hidden Learning Objective (you can tell them after the fact). But how do you do it? One thing that comes to my mind is I have to first clearly understand what I mean by an informational architecture.
Thursday, March 15, 2012
More Cognitive Dissonance
I am starting to realize how valuable it is for me to get ideas out of my head and out into world. Not as some grand thesis of life, but for the feedback received. I've realized that even a small statement can chance my perspective, especially when confused over a concept. So, here I am again posting about some of the thoughts running through my mind. Some of my current thoughts are informed by the happenings in the Change 2011 MOOC, and others from the recent Biology Leadership Conference. Add to that reading more about the Bologna accords, and the Lumina Foundations DQP process.
The first dissonance deals with a Liberal Arts Education. Just sit with the phrase for a moment. What thoughts does it bring up in you? What image does your mind create?
I asked friends on Facebook what they thought of General Education and Liberal Arts. The responses they gave me were not unexpected, but shows a disconnect between what I see as General Education/Liberal Arts and what non-academics see. This is especially true when you look at people still in school. This is a question I'm going to ask my Freshmen class today, just to see what their feeling is on a Liberal Arts Education. So, what were the comments?
The comments above reflect a common thread I've heard about liberal arts education. People want a degree with meaning, and they want to get through the degree. Many see classes outside of your major as being unnecessary or even wasteful. It is strange that for academics, we are seeing breakdown in the traditional (and abstract) concepts of disciplines, observing instead a strong increase in multidisciplinary or cross-disciplinary studies.
The problem is we as academics have not articulated our expectation of what it means to have a liberal arts education in a why that is meaningful to the non-academic. Most people see Liberal Arts as being history, political science, philosophy, or art. They don't see it as something more holistic; that liberal arts means those in the humanities have to learn science and math, as well as scientists having to experience the humanities.
Why do we have liberal arts education? Perspective.
The goal is to give students a diverse perspective of the world. It can also be described as having different models to use. A good example of this concept can be found in "Sparks of Genius" by Robert and Michele Root-Bernstein. They show how art helped informed the discoveries of great scientists. Warren Buffet has also spoken of how diverse models, even non-financial, can inform his financial adventures.
The goal is not just to fill your head with information, but to provide different perspectives. So, how do we articulate this as a valuable goal to students?
The first dissonance deals with a Liberal Arts Education. Just sit with the phrase for a moment. What thoughts does it bring up in you? What image does your mind create?
I asked friends on Facebook what they thought of General Education and Liberal Arts. The responses they gave me were not unexpected, but shows a disconnect between what I see as General Education/Liberal Arts and what non-academics see. This is especially true when you look at people still in school. This is a question I'm going to ask my Freshmen class today, just to see what their feeling is on a Liberal Arts Education. So, what were the comments?
- "The idea is to give freedom. But I've seen few liberal arts majors that don't regret their decision and end up in grad school hoping that gets them their degree. My girlfriend wishes she had gotten something that translates better to a job than her Political Science degree."
- "Because we assume people need to be more well rounded to be successful. This is why we are failing, every team has its players, playing the game makes you well rounded. We need more experts in my opinion."
- "Because 'everyone needs to go to college' but not everyone really needs to go to college and not everyone can really hack it at college. ( I say this from the position of having more then 4 years of college and no degree) So we create a ' diverse spectrum of programs suited for all types of students' Oh and because more students = more money for schools and student loan companies. "
- "I think that a lot people don't "figure out what they want to be when they grow up" until after traditional college age. Yet, most jobs require a college education."
The comments above reflect a common thread I've heard about liberal arts education. People want a degree with meaning, and they want to get through the degree. Many see classes outside of your major as being unnecessary or even wasteful. It is strange that for academics, we are seeing breakdown in the traditional (and abstract) concepts of disciplines, observing instead a strong increase in multidisciplinary or cross-disciplinary studies.
The problem is we as academics have not articulated our expectation of what it means to have a liberal arts education in a why that is meaningful to the non-academic. Most people see Liberal Arts as being history, political science, philosophy, or art. They don't see it as something more holistic; that liberal arts means those in the humanities have to learn science and math, as well as scientists having to experience the humanities.
Why do we have liberal arts education? Perspective.
The goal is to give students a diverse perspective of the world. It can also be described as having different models to use. A good example of this concept can be found in "Sparks of Genius" by Robert and Michele Root-Bernstein. They show how art helped informed the discoveries of great scientists. Warren Buffet has also spoken of how diverse models, even non-financial, can inform his financial adventures.
The goal is not just to fill your head with information, but to provide different perspectives. So, how do we articulate this as a valuable goal to students?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)