Here's one: Have you ever been so busy writing that you don't have time to stop and write? How about this: Have you ever written so much nothing during the day that you don't feel like writing much of anything at night? Yeah, well that's been me for about two weeks.
My prompt to get to thinking about what I'm writing? Gorton's Ladder of Learning. I saw this model some years ago when I first started looking at technical communication through an instructional design lens. Much of what we do as technical communicators is applied learning theory. This time around, I got to thinking about the ladder in the context of what we're trying to do in online learning environments.
Simply put, Gorton's ladder runs like this from bottom rung to top: Unconscious incompetence, Conscious incompetence, Conscious competence, Unconscious competence. Overlaying these rungs are the situational teaching styles that best suite the capabilities and proficiencies of the learners located at various points on the ladder. For example, a "director" type instructor is appropriate for learners that stand on the Unconscious incompetence and Conscious incompetence rungs. A "coaching" type of instructor is similarly more appropriate for learners that stand on the Conscious incompetence rung and further up on the Conscious competence rung (you get the picture).
In regard to online learning: It seems that learners suited for online instruction stand somewhere on the Conscious incompetence and Conscious competence rungs, taught best by a coaching/supporting type instructor. In regard to mastery of the subject matter, the goal is to move the learner to Unconscious competence with an instructor who can simply facilitate movement through the content.
I know I'm oversimplifying this, but it's kind of a neat way to think about what it is we try to achieve with online learning. If unconscious competence is not an outcome for the course, it's almost always a goal for the instructor.
Friday, April 25, 2008
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
virtual skills
I've been thinking again about the "s" word in higher education. An associate dean who also manages our workforce development initiatives forwarded and interesting article about 21 century skills requirements in the UK. I'm still not sure why I should particularly care about what the UK is doing in regard to preparing their future workforce, but I'm sure it's not that dramatically different from what we need to do here.
What I keep finding across all this reading is the (almost) tired old gripe about college graduates lacking written communication skills. The added twist is that employers are now associating "written" communication skills with an employee's ability to exploit computer-based communication. By exploit I mean the ability to navigate and create content in a range of computer-based spaces, not necessarily computer-based tools.
While there clearly needs to be a lot of work here at SU on how well we address the communication skills requirement, I'm wondering (in the wake of a recent mini-seminar discussion), how prepared are students before they get to college? Anecdotal observations indicate that college students today are generally more proficient in the Web 2.0 spaces, if only that they are coming into the classroom with some awareness of these spaces. In more than a few cases, they're awareness is greater than their instructors'.
Our challenge -- the challenge of writing instructors -- is to find ways to embed Web 2.0 and the 3.0(?) virtual spaces into our instructional activities. These instructional spaces differ from our traditional writing spaces is that they allow students think about content differently. How differently is something I'm curious about.
Random association: Web 1.0 and recently 2.0 spaces require skills for identifying and aggregating content. Web 3.0 spaces require skills for creating content. And yet, how do those skills differ?
What I keep finding across all this reading is the (almost) tired old gripe about college graduates lacking written communication skills. The added twist is that employers are now associating "written" communication skills with an employee's ability to exploit computer-based communication. By exploit I mean the ability to navigate and create content in a range of computer-based spaces, not necessarily computer-based tools.
While there clearly needs to be a lot of work here at SU on how well we address the communication skills requirement, I'm wondering (in the wake of a recent mini-seminar discussion), how prepared are students before they get to college? Anecdotal observations indicate that college students today are generally more proficient in the Web 2.0 spaces, if only that they are coming into the classroom with some awareness of these spaces. In more than a few cases, they're awareness is greater than their instructors'.
Our challenge -- the challenge of writing instructors -- is to find ways to embed Web 2.0 and the 3.0(?) virtual spaces into our instructional activities. These instructional spaces differ from our traditional writing spaces is that they allow students think about content differently. How differently is something I'm curious about.
Random association: Web 1.0 and recently 2.0 spaces require skills for identifying and aggregating content. Web 3.0 spaces require skills for creating content. And yet, how do those skills differ?
Sunday, April 13, 2008
reworking the core
I’m coming back to this idea of a core heuristic – of a basic set of assumptions we come to interfaces with. I seem to remember bumping into this a few years ago working through some text on visual rhetoric. I also think there's something to be co-opted from work that Louise Phelps and Janice Lauer have done in regard to heuristics.
I’ve been working on a small project with SUNY Upstate Medical University. They were looking for someone familiar with Blackboard (they also run the SUNY Learning Network, but the faculty seem to prefer Blackboard). After an initial meeting, they realized they needed someone to do design and development and Blackboard configuration. They have about 200 PPT slides with progress checks in the notes, which are used to supplement an ass-in-seats course on evidence-based medicine. The project: convert the PPTs (the only “content” available for the course, of course) into Blackboard-compatible files.
Phase one was a predictable mess -- but a clean mess, if you know what I mean -- a straight conversion of slides to Dreamweaver-templated HTML. Coursebuilder pop-ups present the progress checks. Lots of white-space. The “modules” are accessed from the Blackboard nav bar. Inter-course nav is a simple Next/Back sequence. Nothing crazy and the only script used is in the progress checks.
We invited six second-year medical interns into a computer lab and had them work through the content, making it clear that the product is far from a complete online course. Without exception, each of the reviewers commented on the inability to “see” where they were within the space of the course. This one point was present in almost all of their feedback, which gets me back to my point.
These reviewers – all well-educated and articulate – were unable to clearly explain what it is they wanted out of the interface. They used words like “file view” and “bookmarking” to explain the inability to located themselves spatially within the course content. It’s a phenomenon that I think is part of this universal heuristic that most users bring to an interface. Maybe it’s our familiarity with book-bound texts and the way we come to use TOCs, indexes, and x-refs within a text. Maybe it’s based on our exposure to directory structures and file relationships in our personal computing. Or maybe it’s just a human requirement to be able to locate oneself within a space – be it a textual, visual, physical, or emotional space. There’s something here that converges with a range of disciplines. Now if I could just (re)focus my efforts on my exams, I might have time to work through this a bit more.
I’ve been working on a small project with SUNY Upstate Medical University. They were looking for someone familiar with Blackboard (they also run the SUNY Learning Network, but the faculty seem to prefer Blackboard). After an initial meeting, they realized they needed someone to do design and development and Blackboard configuration. They have about 200 PPT slides with progress checks in the notes, which are used to supplement an ass-in-seats course on evidence-based medicine. The project: convert the PPTs (the only “content” available for the course, of course) into Blackboard-compatible files.
Phase one was a predictable mess -- but a clean mess, if you know what I mean -- a straight conversion of slides to Dreamweaver-templated HTML. Coursebuilder pop-ups present the progress checks. Lots of white-space. The “modules” are accessed from the Blackboard nav bar. Inter-course nav is a simple Next/Back sequence. Nothing crazy and the only script used is in the progress checks.
We invited six second-year medical interns into a computer lab and had them work through the content, making it clear that the product is far from a complete online course. Without exception, each of the reviewers commented on the inability to “see” where they were within the space of the course. This one point was present in almost all of their feedback, which gets me back to my point.
These reviewers – all well-educated and articulate – were unable to clearly explain what it is they wanted out of the interface. They used words like “file view” and “bookmarking” to explain the inability to located themselves spatially within the course content. It’s a phenomenon that I think is part of this universal heuristic that most users bring to an interface. Maybe it’s our familiarity with book-bound texts and the way we come to use TOCs, indexes, and x-refs within a text. Maybe it’s based on our exposure to directory structures and file relationships in our personal computing. Or maybe it’s just a human requirement to be able to locate oneself within a space – be it a textual, visual, physical, or emotional space. There’s something here that converges with a range of disciplines. Now if I could just (re)focus my efforts on my exams, I might have time to work through this a bit more.
Saturday, April 5, 2008
social network cutlure
Sticking with this theme over the last few days... sort of like when you get that stupid pina colada song stuck in your head.
One of our assignments for the social networks mini-seminar is to "consider the culture of social network spaces." I thought I'd start with trying to get a better sense of who is actually using these spaces, aside from the scholars, academics, and crazy people on reality TV shows talking about their MySpace pages.
There are 34 senior engineering students taking WRT 407 this year. On Thursday I asked, by a raising of hands, the following questions (responses included):
Who has a Facebook profile? 9 students
How many check Facebook daily? 2 students
How many check Facebook at least once a month? 4 students (including the two who check daily)
Who has a MySpace page? 3 students
How many check MySpace daily? 1 student
How many check MySpace at least once a month? 2 students (including the one who checks daily)
Who uses other social network spaces? 2 students
Who uses social networking spaces, such as Linkedin? 3 students
I'm not sure what the survey results imply. When I shared with the class that the totals seemed low compared to what I excepted, one of the most promising students in the class said, "We're engineers, what did you expect?"
Now on the surface, that reply was (and is) kind of funny. It's a lot like lawyer jokes: you always laugh at them, but then pause to consider the reality of it. Engineers (and I'm speaking about the computer and electrical engineers I'm most familiar with) are not so much different from other students as they are more serious. I am, of course, making broad generalizations here. But for the most part, the engineers I've worked with over the past five years are focused, serious, and God-awful busy. Maybe it's the same with other pre-professional disciplines.
So my point: Based on my far-from empirical survey of senior engineering students, I can conclude that not all college students are on the grid plugged into social network spaces. And really, that's all I conclude without getting myself into some one-dimensional break-down of personality traits. Maybe there's a dissertation topic in here somewhere?
One of our assignments for the social networks mini-seminar is to "consider the culture of social network spaces." I thought I'd start with trying to get a better sense of who is actually using these spaces, aside from the scholars, academics, and crazy people on reality TV shows talking about their MySpace pages.
There are 34 senior engineering students taking WRT 407 this year. On Thursday I asked, by a raising of hands, the following questions (responses included):
Who has a Facebook profile? 9 students
How many check Facebook daily? 2 students
How many check Facebook at least once a month? 4 students (including the two who check daily)
Who has a MySpace page? 3 students
How many check MySpace daily? 1 student
How many check MySpace at least once a month? 2 students (including the one who checks daily)
Who uses other social network spaces? 2 students
Who uses social networking spaces, such as Linkedin? 3 students
I'm not sure what the survey results imply. When I shared with the class that the totals seemed low compared to what I excepted, one of the most promising students in the class said, "We're engineers, what did you expect?"
Now on the surface, that reply was (and is) kind of funny. It's a lot like lawyer jokes: you always laugh at them, but then pause to consider the reality of it. Engineers (and I'm speaking about the computer and electrical engineers I'm most familiar with) are not so much different from other students as they are more serious. I am, of course, making broad generalizations here. But for the most part, the engineers I've worked with over the past five years are focused, serious, and God-awful busy. Maybe it's the same with other pre-professional disciplines.
So my point: Based on my far-from empirical survey of senior engineering students, I can conclude that not all college students are on the grid plugged into social network spaces. And really, that's all I conclude without getting myself into some one-dimensional break-down of personality traits. Maybe there's a dissertation topic in here somewhere?
Thursday, April 3, 2008
the "ing" difference
I'm big on clarity when it comes to the terms we use, particularly in professional and technical documentation. It's no wonder that I was exuberant over Madeline's description of the difference between social network spaces and social networking spaces. With appropriate reference to the scary-smart Danah Boyd, here's what Madeline gave us (paraphrased from notes):
Mad's description is useful for me because it provides a starting point from which I can consider how these different spaces can be used in online learning situations. My question about virtual/non-virtual is in reaction to something Mad said about how we treat online spaces as "virtual" -- as if the interaction in the spaces is not real. I'm going to delve into that a little later because it bumps up against many of the discussions we have with faculty about the nature of online teaching and learning.
And with that, I'm now officially on Facebook. Yes, woefully late in the game compared to my peers, but there nonetheless... and already wondering about the relative creepiness of it.
A social network space has the following three characteristics: 1) Constructed boundaries understood and recognized by all users; 2) Within the bounded system, the user controls the groups and individuals with which to interact; 3) The user is active within the space, it doesn't count if you're not doing something.
A social networking space is used explicitly to make online (virtual?) connections that will be translated into off-line (non-virtual?) connections.
A social networking space is used explicitly to make online (virtual?) connections that will be translated into off-line (non-virtual?) connections.
Mad's description is useful for me because it provides a starting point from which I can consider how these different spaces can be used in online learning situations. My question about virtual/non-virtual is in reaction to something Mad said about how we treat online spaces as "virtual" -- as if the interaction in the spaces is not real. I'm going to delve into that a little later because it bumps up against many of the discussions we have with faculty about the nature of online teaching and learning.
And with that, I'm now officially on Facebook. Yes, woefully late in the game compared to my peers, but there nonetheless... and already wondering about the relative creepiness of it.
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
human factors II
I’m preparing for another WP mini-seminar; this one regarding social networking and how it can be incorporated into the writing classroom. In re-reading the seminar description, I was feeling a little inadequate. I’ve never used Flickr, tried LinkedIn and thought it was a little goofy, don’t have a MySpace, and never have the time to see what Friendster is all about.
But then I got to thinking about what it is I am doing in regard to these technologies. I’ve spent a fair amount of time considering how to leverage these spaces for distance or online learning. In fact, the AcademHack does a great job of exploring the relationships of these ever-morphing spaces to learning and teaching in general. And in most cases, reading about what others are doing successfully is enough for me to make a decision about a particular type of technology or virtual space in an online course or program we are designing. Can I justify the move by saying it’s the nature of the business and there’s only so much time I can commit?
Here’s the other thing that sort of gets in the way for me: I read all of these experts proclaiming that 12-25 year-olds are the plugged-in generation. People in this age group need these virtual social spaces just like people my age needed the pizzeria or the mall. And while virtual worlds, such as SecondLife and There, are attempting to create some sense of physicality online, the human element is glaringly absent. Maybe I’m limiting myself and my definition of human element. How is online social networking any different from the intertextuality of a novel? For all of my soap-boxing about the importance of textual elements in online spaces, why do I have such a hang-up with social network? And why am I exploring this on a blog - arguably the most prolific, if not the most ubiquitous, of current social networking space?
Regardless of my hang up, I’m certain I’ll learn something useful in the mini-seminar. I always do.
But then I got to thinking about what it is I am doing in regard to these technologies. I’ve spent a fair amount of time considering how to leverage these spaces for distance or online learning. In fact, the AcademHack does a great job of exploring the relationships of these ever-morphing spaces to learning and teaching in general. And in most cases, reading about what others are doing successfully is enough for me to make a decision about a particular type of technology or virtual space in an online course or program we are designing. Can I justify the move by saying it’s the nature of the business and there’s only so much time I can commit?
Here’s the other thing that sort of gets in the way for me: I read all of these experts proclaiming that 12-25 year-olds are the plugged-in generation. People in this age group need these virtual social spaces just like people my age needed the pizzeria or the mall. And while virtual worlds, such as SecondLife and There, are attempting to create some sense of physicality online, the human element is glaringly absent. Maybe I’m limiting myself and my definition of human element. How is online social networking any different from the intertextuality of a novel? For all of my soap-boxing about the importance of textual elements in online spaces, why do I have such a hang-up with social network? And why am I exploring this on a blog - arguably the most prolific, if not the most ubiquitous, of current social networking space?
Regardless of my hang up, I’m certain I’ll learn something useful in the mini-seminar. I always do.
Sunday, March 30, 2008
blue jays and jayhawks
We went through the entire winter without seeing a single blue jay. This morning we saw a huge male flitting through the bare stems of the maple in the front yard. Today was not the first day of spring, but certainly the first spring-like day we've enjoyed in weeks. S and I took out the gloves for some catch in the street (the side yard is still too muddy). I find myself marking time by how much harder he throws. I remember when D hit the same age and arm strength.
I liked Texas so much I had them picked to win it all on one of my brackets. Not to be. Now I'm watching Davidson carry the hopes of every future 10 seed into the last minutes of a great game against Kansas. And while I absolutely love to see small schools rattle the brackets, I have Kansas picked on the sheet that I have the best shot with. Cold hard CAASSSHHH or the love and beauty of college hoops? What the hell, how great would it be to see Davidson play in the championship? Pretty damn great. That's why we love the college game.
I liked Texas so much I had them picked to win it all on one of my brackets. Not to be. Now I'm watching Davidson carry the hopes of every future 10 seed into the last minutes of a great game against Kansas. And while I absolutely love to see small schools rattle the brackets, I have Kansas picked on the sheet that I have the best shot with. Cold hard CAASSSHHH or the love and beauty of college hoops? What the hell, how great would it be to see Davidson play in the championship? Pretty damn great. That's why we love the college game.
Thursday, March 27, 2008
human factors
The Scobleizer is always quick with the industry low-down, that's why I enjoy reading about his meanderings and elbow rubbings. But a recent post has me wondering about how technological fascination often clouds rational thinking.
Consider the following from his post: "When a new social network comes along (say your company turns one on this morning) I’d love it if it noticed that 15 of my friends who join up there are also on Twitter, etc. Why is that important? Because if there were some way to bind these social networks together they could do a lot more for you. For instance, I know that Scott Beale is on almost all of my social networks listed above. Why don’t the systems know that? If they did, we wouldn’t have a need for FriendFeed, or Profilactic, or SocialThing (those systems are attempting to glue all those social networks together)."
Well, sure. And if the many systems noted did "know" about all that activity, we would never have a need for making personal choices based on human factors such as motivation, determination, jealousy, envy...
This silver bullet back-end for the entire range of applications that fall under the social network umbrella is not likely to happen. I'm confident saying this having spent too many years watching altruistic software development efforts get compromised by revenue digging. I'm no economist (or futurist), but I can't imagine the financial model that motivates a range of popular and not-so-popular social networking apps to expose interfaces to some back-end data sharing process. And please don't anyone say anything about the online advertising model.
I guess I'm just bothered by the ease in which human presence in online environments is re-positioned by system functionality and feature sets. I am, perhaps, sounding a little like the anti-online learning faculty that ignorantly compare assess-in-seats learning to online learning. And yet, there is something to the argument that something gets lost when we forget that the "experience" is ours, not the system's. What that something is, I'm not quite sure, but at times it feels like a little slice of humanity.
Consider the following from his post: "When a new social network comes along (say your company turns one on this morning) I’d love it if it noticed that 15 of my friends who join up there are also on Twitter, etc. Why is that important? Because if there were some way to bind these social networks together they could do a lot more for you. For instance, I know that Scott Beale is on almost all of my social networks listed above. Why don’t the systems know that? If they did, we wouldn’t have a need for FriendFeed, or Profilactic, or SocialThing (those systems are attempting to glue all those social networks together)."
Well, sure. And if the many systems noted did "know" about all that activity, we would never have a need for making personal choices based on human factors such as motivation, determination, jealousy, envy...
This silver bullet back-end for the entire range of applications that fall under the social network umbrella is not likely to happen. I'm confident saying this having spent too many years watching altruistic software development efforts get compromised by revenue digging. I'm no economist (or futurist), but I can't imagine the financial model that motivates a range of popular and not-so-popular social networking apps to expose interfaces to some back-end data sharing process. And please don't anyone say anything about the online advertising model.
I guess I'm just bothered by the ease in which human presence in online environments is re-positioned by system functionality and feature sets. I am, perhaps, sounding a little like the anti-online learning faculty that ignorantly compare assess-in-seats learning to online learning. And yet, there is something to the argument that something gets lost when we forget that the "experience" is ours, not the system's. What that something is, I'm not quite sure, but at times it feels like a little slice of humanity.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
"civic" engineering
On Monday I finished the last session of a Writing Program min-seminar (noted earlier) on civic engagement. The seminar was great. Our assignment was to discuss or develop civic engagement projects that we can or do use in our writing classes. I learned that some of the instructors teaching WRT 105 are extremely creative and committed to developing in their students a knowledge and sense of written communication that extends beyond rote academic prose.
My challenge for the seminar assignment was to develop a way in which I can introduce civic engagement assignments into WRT 407. I poked around and found some engineering programs doing interesting things with robotics and disabilities studies. Then I recalled that the Burton Blatt Institute right here at SU has a center dedicated to research and development in assisstive technology.
The fit seems obvious enough: have the senior engineers work with the Burton Blatt Institute on projects that involve assistive technologies -- from robotics to accessibility software and systems. But the more I thought about it, the more restrictive the connection felt. I realized I was making "the move" -- defining my students against broad generalizations that I bring into the classroom. Why should engineering students be drawn to a disabilities project? Am I assuming that they don't already have a sense of the civic -- that there are no other avenues into civic engagement for electrical and computer engineers?
So maybe the challenge for me is to find opportunities for my students, rather than specific projects. Let them explore those opportunities that they find engaging and productive. I shouldn't privilege the scientific or the technological simply because of the students' programs of study or my particular interests. Which leads me to another thread about unwritten program agendas and organizational ideologies. It's a post for another time, but one that's worth writing. In the meantime, I'm going to start working on next year's WRT 407 course structure to look for appropriate spaces for civic engagement.
My challenge for the seminar assignment was to develop a way in which I can introduce civic engagement assignments into WRT 407. I poked around and found some engineering programs doing interesting things with robotics and disabilities studies. Then I recalled that the Burton Blatt Institute right here at SU has a center dedicated to research and development in assisstive technology.
The fit seems obvious enough: have the senior engineers work with the Burton Blatt Institute on projects that involve assistive technologies -- from robotics to accessibility software and systems. But the more I thought about it, the more restrictive the connection felt. I realized I was making "the move" -- defining my students against broad generalizations that I bring into the classroom. Why should engineering students be drawn to a disabilities project? Am I assuming that they don't already have a sense of the civic -- that there are no other avenues into civic engagement for electrical and computer engineers?
So maybe the challenge for me is to find opportunities for my students, rather than specific projects. Let them explore those opportunities that they find engaging and productive. I shouldn't privilege the scientific or the technological simply because of the students' programs of study or my particular interests. Which leads me to another thread about unwritten program agendas and organizational ideologies. It's a post for another time, but one that's worth writing. In the meantime, I'm going to start working on next year's WRT 407 course structure to look for appropriate spaces for civic engagement.
Saturday, March 22, 2008
joys of spring
Easter weekend and spring has sprung, albeit in Central New York style. I see some buds a' budding across the yards in the neighborhood, but it's still only 27 degrees. H excitedly called me to the front window this morning just in time to see our first robin of the year. It's something we've been doing for our 21 years together (it's actually 21 next month). It's always a big deal, because we've never lived anywhere particularly warm. So when we see our first robin, we try to imagine what she's thinking. Maybe something like, "Why the hell didn't I wait a few more weeks to fly north for spring?"
You know how certain things remind you of people? A few years ago I had the privilege to work with an exceptional instructional designer and artist. She had given me a photocopy of the cartoon to the left. It's taped to one of the organizers on my desk, and it cracks me up every time I look at it. So of course, it's now not possible for me to ever get ready for the Easter holiday without inevitably looking at chocolate bunnies, thinking about my friend, and laughing to myself.
Happy Easter and joyous spring to all. Laugh to yourself, think about old friends and good people. And remember why spring is such a great time to be alive.
You know how certain things remind you of people? A few years ago I had the privilege to work with an exceptional instructional designer and artist. She had given me a photocopy of the cartoon to the left. It's taped to one of the organizers on my desk, and it cracks me up every time I look at it. So of course, it's now not possible for me to ever get ready for the Easter holiday without inevitably looking at chocolate bunnies, thinking about my friend, and laughing to myself.Happy Easter and joyous spring to all. Laugh to yourself, think about old friends and good people. And remember why spring is such a great time to be alive.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)