Chaotic?

Image from morguefile.com

Week six involved accepting and creating critiques of the various draft models submitted by each group. It was an interesting experience to have my fellow peers dissect the model we created and provide constructive criticism referring to positives and negative aspects of the model. The cyclical design of the model received a lot of praise, and I was glad our draft model reflected a cyclical nature rather than a linear one. It was also interesting to critique other models and look at different components that they included. The class looked closely at the NTeQ model for the weekly postings and discussions, and one group in particular had been inspired by that design when creating their model. Analyzing how they integrated some of this model in their design generated a fair amount of discussion. As teachers, I think we easily work off each others ideas and efforts without considering it as “stealing.” In fact, we are usually quite flattered when someone decides to take a lesson plan or idea we created and make it their own. Sure, I have run into some teachers who are pretty protective of their material, but I have found through my teaching experiences most teachers enjoy sharing and collaborating. In his talk “Changing Education Paradigms,” Sir Ken Robinson comments on this dynamic of collaboration and how in traditional settings it is usually viewed as “cheating.” 

When we look at the power of collaboration and creation in group dynamics within professional communities, it is imperative for teachers to take the attitude that students can share ideas and glean ideas from each other without defining it as wrong because it is “cheating.” In fact, if any professional community should recognize the power and benefits of this type of learning, it would be teachers. Many of these characteristics were evident in week six as we shared our thoughts and opinions of the different models and appreciated the work and consideration that went into their designs. Teachers sometimes will question whether the constructivist approach to learning combined with group work dynamics is worth implementing in their classrooms. Certainly from my experiences as a student in this class and previous classes, my answer is a resounding yes.

This week the groups also had to submit their ID model accompanied with a written composition that justified and defended the design of their models. My part was to focus particularly on how our model addresses and supports the implementation of Web 2.0, e-learning and Social Media in the classroom. During my search for articles surrounding these topics, I came across an article called E-learning 2.0 by Stephen Downes that I tucked away for further reflection. Written in 2005, this article makes the case for what can be termed e-learning 2.0. This is discussed as the shift from what is viewed as traditional e-learning platforms that present the content to the learners in an organized manner at a particular pace to a more “learner-centred” design where “the control of learning itself is in the hands of the learner.” Quoting from George Siemens's “Connectivism,” Downes writes “Chaos is a new reality for knowledge workers... Unlike constructivism, which states that learners attempt to foster understanding by meaning-making tasks, chaos states that the meaning exists... the learner's challenge is to recognize the patterns which appear to be hidden.” When I consider my own learning in this course, I can recognize aspects of constructivism, but I also recognize some of the ideas around chaos because I knew there was meaning in the cyclical nature of ID models or the process of rapid prototyping. I was, however, challenged to recognize the patterns for myself to attain a deeper understanding of the meaning. Moreover, other earlier observations made by Downes are echoed in Robinson’s argument on how students collaborate and share information: “File-sharing, for example, evolves not of a sudden criminality among today's youth but rather in their pervasive belief that information is something meant to be shared.” Downes further observes the development and popularity of free and open-source software and open access to scholarly and other works. “Sharing content is not considered unethical; indeed, the hoarding of content is viewed as antisocial,” states Downes. I think any ID model with IT has to address and recognize the pace in which learning is changing within online platforms. I think the older designs of ID have merit, and are solid resources as their methods and components are tried and true. But we also have to address the reality that how younger students learn and process information and manage content will be significantly different as they mature even compared to the students who are walking across the stage to receive high school diplomas at the end of this school year.

Linear attacks...