End of year review – was it a waste of time?

In the ideal college environment, all the students pass with flying colours, learning and achieving copious amounts of knowledge and skills as well as the ability to apply and use these skills.  Lecturers proceed with ease through the year and end it with a sense of much satisfaction concerning the achievements of their charge.

But the world is not ideal.

There is plenty of research to indicate that teaching and learning needs to change. The annual Horizon report reminds us that learners want to be active in their own learning and offer a range of tools to assist in this. Put more bluntly, is college a waste of time?  The arguments put forward by Mixerergy are as follows, with my commentary in italics:

• It creates corporate drones

Students lose their independence and become pawns of whatever company pays them enough to help make payments on their debt.  In the light of increased debate about university fees in Ireland, this is a controversial one. Nonetheless, sweeping statement like don’t help anyone, least of all the graduates who want to and are able to contribute in a constructive and effective way to their new employers.

• What it teaches is out of date by the time students graduate

This is very much dependent on the subject domain. Some domains (e.g. accountancy, perhaps?) change very little year on year. Others (internet marketing, perhaps?) change a lot. Taking another perspective, isn’t it important that students obtain an appropriate grounding so that they can then go with the flow and thereby are capable of adapting to change as change happens in their domain. In my opinion, this is arguably more important than knowing every little (or even large) fact in that domain.

• It doesn’t teach the way people learn

People learn by doing, not by sitting in a class and being lectured to.  This implies that college is all passive learning and students have no opportunity to practice what they learn. I’m not a fan of the large group lecture (I’ve blogged about this previously) but fortunately I also have opportunities to facilitate and scaffold student construction and development of their own ideas through project work and small-group tutorial classes.

• Four years of information is too much to retain

Students end up cramming as much information about a class as they need for to do well on a test and they forget almost all of it after they finish a semester. Unfortunately, the grades-based education system as it is now encourages such learn-it-all off-and-write-it-all-down-in-the-exam modes of study. Nonetheless, such study techniques won’t get a student high grades. Yet, it continues to happen. We need to ask why students persist in such study modes when they know they are satisfying only one goal (getting that passing grade) but not another (true learning). Perhaps, the students’ preferred goal is not the lectuers’ preferred goal?

• The truth is that college is one big party

The under-graduate college years are pivotal for a student. It’s their transition from parent dependency to personal independency. Personal development, growth of self awareness, experimentation with social structures and events that might have been out of bounds previously are critical here. We need to encourage students to strike a balance between the study part and the social part of their college life.  An excess of partying means a student is unlikely to get beyond first year. A college year spent in the library results in an unfortunately one-dimensional students.

So, what’s the answer

Mixenergy suggests letting students work on real projects, and give them experienced mentors that they can turn to for answers and advice.

In reality, what organisation might let amateurs with little experience and even fewer skills loose on any project of theirs?  Employers may be willing to take a chance on this on a small scale but that’s likely to be it. Any more and they risk spending far too long and too much training up the students in the skills and know-how required for the job.

How many mentors might there be per student? Ideally this should be small. But such a structure has resource and cost implications. One of the reasons large size classes are still with us is simply because because they are cost-effective.

Mixenergy raises some interesting issues. Students are different now then in a pre-net generation. They grow up in a technological world that provides different mental models, ways of processing information, shorter attention spans (for more traditional media types) and personal interests that are far removed from those of their pre-decessors. As a result, engaging students with traditional ways of teaching and learning is limited.

The problem is that such ways and methods are so embedded in our institutions that they are very difficult to break out of. We have a wealth of technologies with potential to reach and engage students (see the Horizon report again). Unfortunately, lecturers with an interest in deploying these tools are faced with many obstacles such as the over-emphasis on grades and traditional exams, not to mention institutional policies and procedures that dominate most educational institutions today that (sometimes, inadvertently) work against novel and innovative ways of active student engagement.

Yet, we persevere!  Giving up is simply not an option.

 

Anyone for tennis tech? It’s about Wimbledon – what else?

I have only vague memories of the McEnroe / Borg final of 1980. By the following year, I was more tuned in. The year after that was when that tournament really started to capture my attention. I started appreciating the statistics as well as the tennis.

The problem was there were very little statistics to be had. There was no Internet. The commentators didn’t have many. Childhood pocket-money didn’t always stretch to expensive hard-back fact books. Newspaper reports were my main source of info.

Move on 25 years and the extent to which things have changed is astounding.

• A team of tennis experts log every stroke played on every court. These are translated into stats and updated real-time as matches progress. So when you’re sitting in your living room asking yourself how many aces has Andy Roddick’ hit and up pops the stat on the screen.  While you’re wondering how many forehand winners Roger Federer has hit in a match, the stat appears on your screen.
• It’s not mere presentation of stats. There is analysis too. This comes in the form of Jason Goodall. Every now and again, Jason appears and takes us through an analysis of e.g. a player’s serving choices.  A graphic of where a players first and second serves hit the court is given, the spin and angle achieved and what these mean for an opponent.
• If you’re not in front of your tv to watch the tennis, not to worry. Watch on-line on the Wimbledon website. Even if you don’t fancy paying the required fee for this, you can still keep up with the real time score-board on the website which displays each point result as it is scored.
• Mobile seems to be where it’s at for this years Wimbledon. For iPhone owners (unfortunately, a category that does not include me) can avail of an app that gives them real-time scores updates and snatches of video of key points in a match.  The info goes to the users as opposed to having to go to the trouble of visiting the (albeit very informative) site.
• For those lucky enough to attend the championships, there is the G1 Android mobile facility that allows text messaging on such necessities as where the nearest strawberry vendor is, or the fastest route from Court 2 to Henman Hill.  The technology uses GPS and digital compass technology to pinpoint the users exact position and the direction that user is pointing the camera on their handset.
• Many of the players have their own websites and blogs. Here’s Anna Ivanovics. There really is nothing like getting the info straight from the source.
• There was a time when Hawkeye was non-existent in any form. I can remember the more colourful characters of the game having fun with the first manifestation of Hawkeye when it beeped if they hit a serve long. Hawkeye now has moved on to much more sophisticated things. It provides an electronic re-construction of any required shot, its direction and where it lands on the course. Impressive!
• HD tv allows very impressive visuals – apparently. I can only take someone else’s word for this one.

It’s all hugely impressive and light years away from my early viewing days back in the 1980s. But it is not perfect. There are subjective judgements still involved in some regards. For example, experts can disagree on whether a particular error is forced or unforced. It is a matter of opinion.

The implications all this technology has for training are truly extensive. Amateurs and professionals alike can benefit from watching Andy Roddick’s serve is HD. Professionals can obtain videos of their next-round opponents previous Wimbledon matches complete with a collection of stats, from the percentage of points won on first serve down to how far behind the baseline the opponent like to stand when receiving serve.  Non-players get to study the best the game has to offer (Roger Federer, perhaps) and study what it is about their game that makes them great.

Yes, Wimbledon and technology have come a long way. Yet, it cannot predict this years finalists. Having said that I wonder if someone somewhere has entered copious amounts of data into some type of decision support system to try to make such a prediction. Perhaps, I’m running ahead of myself with this suggestion. Even if I’m not, surely it’s just a matter of time? Whichever, I’m backing Federer this year.

____________________________________________________________

Update – someone who has an aversion to comments (you know who you are!) tells me that all is atwitter at Wimbledon this year. It’s not only the fans who are tweeting, the players and organisers are happy twits too.

On the subject of Twitter, guess what’s the top tool for learning this year?

 

The creativity in science

Recently I attended a creativity in education workshop. One of the activities involved an instinctive-immediate reaction to some photos. One was a trio of young primary school girls, test-tubes at the ready,  engaged in a science experiment. Among my reactions -

• They look like they are really engaged in this science task
• They seemed totally relaxed around each other
• There was no teacher hovering
• The sketches and visuals on the wall in the background
• That they were girls doing science and not boys

All of the above were on my list of my reactions. But my initial reaction was wondering where all that disappeared to. This apparently joyful collaborative experimenting with learning tools that is prominent in primary school has disappeared by the time students get to third level. Where has it disappeared to?

We read every day about falling interest in science among secondary school pupils. Despite much effort by various interest groups to stimulate interest in the sciences, students are turning away from it in droves. There is a perception of science being boring and complex. Where has that come from?

The finger of blame can lie in a number of places. The perception of “nerds” is one. Poor career guidance in schools is another. Parents passing the message that it’s almost a badge of honour to know nothing about science doesn’t help. Perception of poorly-paid jobs following graduation helps even less.

All of the above seem valid. However, a significant element in my opinion concerns education as a whole at second level. The emphasis on grades and leaving cert “points” is enough to kill off any enthusiasm youngsters might with them bring from primary school. How can the love for sheer playful experimentation survive this culture of grades grades grades?

The problem is how on earth can we reverse this grades grades grades emphasis and re-embrace love of experimental learning before it’s too late?

 

The time of it

This week I found myself walking around with a Christmas tree. Yes, Christmas in the middle of June.  I felt uneasily out of time and out of sorts.

It got me thinking about regimental time-bound lifestyles. Why do we have to bow to artificial man-made time enforcements?  Some quick examples -

• Most workplaces begin and end their workdays at approximately the same times
• Most workplaces allow lunchtimes over the same narrow time periods
• Most colleges and schools have their academic calendar starting in September and ending in June
• Most tv stations chose 9pm for their prime time news slot

The biggest “for” argument is that strict and specific time-slots puts structure on activities and people. Otherwise, we risk living in chaos.  Coordination and execution of activities could become very difficult indeed. Routine would not exist and without it the learning curve for each day would be very high.  In your daily life, how many things do you do in a specific time frame and at a specific time?  The answer might surprise you.

Even with such fixed time structures we need “time management” skills to manage this already structured concept of time. People pay good money to learn how to manage their allocation of time so as not to waste a minute.  Multi-tasking is a valued skill as it allows achievement of more within a given timeframe. Technology allows instant communication, optimising time allowances.

Perhaps we have it wrong. Why are we slaves to time structures we ourselves have put in place? Surely some flexibility would be a good idea. What’s the worst that could happen if tomorrow you changed your typical time management routines for the day? Go on…. try it………

By the way, is anyone wondering about the reason for the Christmas tree in June?

 

Interesting words

The word “interesting” recently appeared as feedback on work I had completed. But what does the word mean?

A compliment is definatley intended when I myself use the word. My interpretation is that interesting work is thought-provoking, insightful, appealing, and not ordinary.  All in all, I consider it a a positive endorsement.

However, for others the word can be a vague catch-all, or a polite way of saying that the work is not so good. Alternatively, it can be used as a nice synonym for “I really don’t understand this work at all but for various reasons I cant say that”.

Hence, we need context. I’ve decided that the rest of the feedback I received was positive, so I’m taking a glass-half-full perspective.

Other words -

Words, their meaning, and thinking enough about such words is prominent at this time of year when exams galore are being sat and marked.  I’m reminded of the challenges our English language poses for non-native speakers. Even more interesting is how the challenges vary depending on the native tongue of the learner.

An example is the distinction between “few” and “a few” for Chinese students. When native speaker says there are few differences between x and y, they are suggesting that the number of differences are low in number and the number is downplayed. When they say that there are a few differences, they are suggesting that quite a number of differences exist. Even more problematic is that the actual difference in quantity implied between the two terms could actually be very little depending on the context in question.

Even native speakers argue over words that are used in day-to-day communications. An example is the word “affordances”.  For example, “web 2.0 technologies carry many affordances to improve student collaboration” seems straight-forward. It implies to me that the technologies have much to offer the enhancement of student collaboration.

However, what does it really mean?  Does it refer to the ethos of the technologies or their features?  Does it refer so one or some or all qualities (a vague term in and of itself) of web 2.0.  Web 2.0 technologies are of little use to a dial-up internet subscriber, thus can they really be labelled affordances?  Equally, web 2.0 technologies are wasted on those who consider such technology time-consuming or troublesome to use – no affordances there.

Hence, is the statement an example of that terrible faux-pas – the sweeping statement?  Is the term “affordance” just too lose a term and needs to be explained when it is used?

Or, is all this a mere over-interpretation and an example of linguistic banter by people with too much time on their hands?

Tomorrow’s mental exercise – take a sentence that you have just uttered, heard or read, pick a word in it and ask yourself what does it really mean?  Then, consider the extent you got into linguistic knots. Finally, ask yourself if you are a wiser person after the experience.

 

What did I do when I was cut off

I’ve read interesting accounts of people choosing to abandon technology for a day or a week or a month…. and wondered how I would get on were I to try that. Recently, I was given such an opportunity, and not by choice. I found myself without tv and internet access. How did I manage? 

• Other media and communication devices were called into service. My next phone bill will be greeted with much trepidation. However, I didn’t turn to the radio.  I must confess never having been a radio person. Listening to the spoken word for an extended period of time without a conversational format just isn’t me. It’s probably the reason why I’ve never taking to podcasting.  I listen for about 30 seconds and then find myself wishing I could have a transcript of the content that I could scan-read before deciding whether or not to read the material fully.
• Paper newspapers were read.  Broadsheets allow a wide area to scan that a computer screen doesn’t. There is much less offline-equivalent linking and clicking taking place with newspaper reading than with screen reading.  Also, I tend to read the opening paragraph of a newspaper article and then scan the rest of the story, whereas on-line I tend to read the headline then scan-read the contents. The opening paragraph doesn’t seem to carry as much weight.
• I made an impulse-trip to another country. Oh, the joys of living in a city with an international airport.  I might regret this one when the next credit card bill comes in. Last-minute flights aren’t cheap.  But I had a charming day out.
• Mental notes of (free) wireless hotspots around the city are unreliable and need to be written down.
• The housework actually got done.
• I had a considerable number of blog postings and news items awaiting reading when I logged back in. How many of those will be read?  Is it interesting to read news items several days after they were newsworthy?

Ultimately, I managed fine.  I grew up without technology and know I could live without it – for a limited period of time only, and to a certain extent only.

How cut off was I really?  During my “cut-off” period, I still made use of a phone. That flight could not have been booked without technology. Much computer-based work could (and was) done offline.  I discovered and made ample use of a wireless hotspot 8 mins walk from where I live.  Ultimately, I wasn’t really cut off at all.

To be really cut off I need to ditch everything that is technological. I need to do a Lance Ulanoff. Now, that sounds like hardship!

 

How we compare?

The IIA have released the latest State-of-the-net in Ireland report. Some things I found interesting –

A list of what-do-people do on the internet reveals that searching for travel information is still the number one activity. Most standard activities are on the rise, with notable increases in social networking, Government services information and current affairs. The only decrease is in “school / college research”.  Is this a good thing – are students finally getting the message that there are many internet sources that are simply not “formal academic peer-reviewed sources”? Alternatively, is the power and quality resources of the internet increasingly not being availed of?

Regarding internet purchases there is a similar note of curiosity. When all purchases are aggregated we are above the EU average. 36% of Irish people have made internet purchases, compared with 32% of Europeans.  However, in the specific category of “books, magazines and e-learning 12% of Europeans have purchased, compared to only 7% of Irish. Is this a cultural or language difference, or does it say something about our literary tastes and / or activities in Ireland?  Our travel / holiday purchases push account for a significant proportion of our online purchasing.

We’re still lagging behind the EU average for broadband connectivity but the gap has noticeably narrowed.

What’s the bottom line – much done, much left to do?

 

Quality control, here and there

The latest UK QAA report on “concerns about academic quality and standards in higher education in England” has asked and attempted to answer the following question types (apologies if my paraphrasing has distorted anything) –

• Are there enough student-staff contact hours to enable students to reach graduate standards of achievement?
• Do low rates of contact with staff represents poor ‘value for money’ in a fee-paying environment?
• Is there an admissions problem of students with insufficient English language skills, the result of which is all students (not just the linguistically challenged) have an impoverished learning experience?
• Are there sufficient ongoing availability and/or effective support mechanisms in place to deal with deficient language skills?
• Are international students and their advisers sufficiently knowledgeable about higher education teaching, learning and assessment practices in the UK? Do they know what to expect when they arrive here?
• Are the intentions, operations and role of external examiners clear?
• Are the inputs, reports, and recommendations of external examiners appreciated by the institutions they are externing? If not, why not? What does this imply about the concept of external examiners?
• To what extent is there variation in the way that institutional assessment regulations are applied by individual schools or departments (with potential impacts on parity and fairness)?
• Is the degree classification system applied consistently across different departments, schools and institutions?
• What do the terms “academic quality” and “academic standards” actually mean?
• Do those inside educational institutions and those outside of them (e.g. the media) have the same understanding of subject benchmark statements and other reference tools used by institutions in setting and maintaining academic standards and academic quality

To what extent should the same questions be asked here in Ireland?

What might the answers look like?

 

Playing with the latest web tool

Wolfram Alpha tell us that their “long-term goal is to make all systematic knowledge immediately computable and accessible to everyone“.  That is quite a claim and is guaranteed to bring experimenters flocking.

I’ve had a look and I must admit that it is particularly good at some knowledge types.

• A query about the weather in Dublin tells me that it’s 12 degrees, cloudy along with a depth of related information
• A query to see how much the Euro is worth in other currencies tells me that I should get $1.37 US dollars, 88.06 British pence, and many other currencies besides. It also wonders if its interpretation of Euro is the one I intended. Apparently, a euro is also a marsupial animal
• A search for Jean Luc Picard, alas, did not return the captain of the Starship Enterprise
• A search for Rathmines returns one in Australia and not the Dublin suburb
• A search for the price of fish returns something very strange indeed

At the moment, WA isn’t quite the sophisticated semantic web we’ve been waiting for. But it certainly is a start. It certainly has potential.

It’s biggest plus is the avoidance of individual web pages. It gets straight to the point very quickly avoiding searchs for individual web pages that the user then has to further click on to proceed their search. WA aggregates and computes what the user requires and simply presents it.  It takes the user a step closer to their information requirements.

As of now, Wolfram Alpha contains many trillions of elements and growing (from their faq page).  It doesnt trawl the web as traditional search engines do. Instead the data comes from its own knowledge base which, in turn, comes from official public or private websites but mostly from “more systematic primary sources”. We are not told what those might be.

Nonetheless, the possibilities are there for a true semantic mash-up web. The users gets direct answers to their queries and requirements, compiled on-the-fly from many useful and reliable sources. And isnt that what the web should be about anyhow?

 

Digital Natives

Rather says it all…

http://steelwhitetable.org/media/images/BlogCartoon.jpg 

Possibilities -

• Daily project, each student has to blog “here’s what I learned today”.
• Allows teachers to see what’s grabbing the little ones’ attention
• Forces Mum and Dad to become more tech-aware and tech-using
• Allows for a sneak preview of the dinner table conversation
• Gets kids writing
• Provides an archive that can be used to track evolution of thought over time
• Constructive comments can be used as a form of feedback

What a really good idea.