Monday, September 20

PLENK 2010 - The Most Awesome Course on Planet Earth!


Click here to watch the animation video



HOW DID YOU DO THAT?
I used xtranormal to create the animation (above) by simply writing the dialogue script (text only! Seriously!). The whole production process (thinking and writing the script) took me around 30 minutes only. Now, that is what we want from awesome learning tools; Minimal effort, amazing output! Though, xtranormal has a commercial version (besides the free features) with even more sizzling juice, and that _____ me off :(



PLENK 2010?

PLENK stands for Personal Learning Environments and Knowledge Networks. This Massive Open Online (thinking) Course is facilitated by Stephen Downes, George Siemens, Dave Cormier and Rita Kop. More than 1500 persons have already registered. The course will last until 21st November, so you can still join and experience inspiring and useful information overload on rocks!

Click here to know more about PLENK 2010 and register.




MY PLENK 2010 REFLECTIONS?
Over the next nine (9) weeks this post will be continuously littered with my reflections as I learn week-by-week (One mega post, instead of 9-10 small ones! Between 4000-6000 words for sure!), but for now I am too busy engrossed learning and making noise beyond this blog.

But, before scanning my reflections, here are the most juicy collaborative reflections of PLENK2010. Yes, you can find that in the weekly webinars, which include the facilitators (Stephen, George, Dave & Rita), invited speakers, and active participants (recorded webinars):

Actually, due to time differences and sleepiness I have missed all the live sessions, but the great thing about webinars (or using tools like Elluminate) is that they can be recorded easily and archived for later viewing. So, in that sense I have managed to watch and reflect most of these recorded sessions, and they have certainly enriched my ideas and opinions about learning and moving forward. Seriously interesting, so don't skip the recorded webinars above!




WEEK 1: A TOUR OF PLEs & PLNs
The first week of PLENK 2010 was an explosive and inspiring discussion flow of ideas and thoughts from the participants (and facilitators); exploring what is a Personal Learning Network (PLN), or should I say Personal Learning Environment (PLE). Here is the reading materials shared to 'trigger' off this explosive discussion (#plenk2010, Daily [Sep 12-18], Paper.li Daily and Blog feeds list):

However, as the discussion raged on, it turned out initially to be a battle for whether PLN or PLE is the appropriate term to describe our self-assembled/constructed learning environment/network using a variety of learning tools. Of course from a semantic, theoretical, or academic point-of-view such discussions are extremely exciting, but many (based on my understanding) seemed to be more interested in exploring the 'HOW' rather the 'WHAT' and 'WHY', which we will eventually do later in this course (I think), based on the course outline.

As from a learning point-of-view exploring what a PLN or PLE is, and the potential differences helps (hopefully) the learning group come to some sort of agreement or understanding (reference point) of what we are actually talking about, as we progress in the course. Also, it was great to explore how participants articulated their own original and personal ideas and thoughts of what a PLE/N is to them.

As the discussion raged on, I discovered that PLN originated from USA, and PLE originated from Europe (somewhere!), and that PLN indicated 'Active', while PLE on the other hand indicated a more 'Passive' role, and therefore PLN is perhaps a more appropriate term to use (Nice with brains and perception!). Also, PLN emphasizes more on our online (or offline) network of people, while PLE is more focused on the usage of learning tools. Soon, some argued that the terms PLN or PLE (and lifeless visual snapshot diagrams) were not appropriate, and that perhaps 'Lifestream' with real-time flowing diagrams was more appropriate (Whatever!).

As the discussion raged on, obviously someone would argue that 'P' or Personal did not make sense for our mostly shared Learning Networks/Environments. Usually, we like to keep our Personal stuff (e.g. life) private and perhaps only share a bit (on Oprah!). But then it was argued that we needed to understand the difference between 'Personal' Learning E/N from 'Personal Learning' E/N, and as Socratic intellectuals that makes totally sense! In short, maybe we should just ditch the 'P' totally, as some people actually pronounce 'P' with a 'B' (my 5-year old son for starters!).

So, if no 'P', why not use 'S' standing for Self (or perhaps Social). So, instead of PLE or PLN, let's explore instead SLN or SELF LEARNING NETWORK :




Alright, my first diagram of SLN is too abstract, meaningless, and macro to make sense for beginners, but I will work and re-visualize it throughout PLENK 2010, and hopefully it will bloom beyond Bloom's taxonomy (No harm in being a bit ambitious!).

Finally, the real challenge for me (and probably for many others) was to access or build the mother of all learning streams, which includes every single learning contribution from all the participants (Forum discussions, blog posts, Twitter, and whatever!). Of course that would be information overload on rocks, but I kind of like that option. Of course, the Stephen Downes Daily updates are awesome, but you have to wait 24-hours for filtered juice. The Paper.li Daily is more attractive than Daily, but until Moodle Forum posts are included in the #PLENK2010 Twitter hashtag, it simply excludes too much.

In short, is it possible that all Moodle forum post links are shared through the #PLENK2010 hashtag? The only option I can think of now, is to use my Google Reader to subscribe to #plenk2010, Daily, Blog feeds list, and Moodle forums (RSS) to create my own mother of all learning streams, and enjoy the full stream.

Any better solutions?





WEEK 2: CONTRASTING PERSONAL LEARNING WITH INSTITUTIONAL LEARNING
Reading materials for week 2:
I have actually discussed earlier in my blog, why LMS is playing an increasingly less important role in our PLE (without actually using the PLE term):

Here is a photographic best answer to contrast LMS with PLE (or Constructivism and Connectivism), inspired by George and Stephen (plagiarism or copyleft?):


I am already one week behind (the class geniuses), so I will leave my reflections for week 3, and then perhaps return to week 2 if 'learning time' permits :(


I nearly dropped off my seat in surprise and laughter while watching the recorded week 3 webinar with Janet Clarey, as she was not sure what the marshmallow man is doing on the diagram (above)...

I thought it was pretty obvious... I am still learning :)



WEEK 3: UNDERSTANDING THE NEXT/EXTENDED WEB
Reading materials for week 3:
Whatever! It will always be the 'Next Web' or 'Extended Web'. Web 3.0? Alright, now that gives us some number, so we can perhaps relate to. Semantic Web? Yes, that sounds even more specific and contextualized. Anyway, all these terms kind of mean different things to different experts and ordinary people (like myself). Also, I have never really engrossed myself in defining where a specific tool belongs; whether it is web 1.0 or web 2.0, or web 4.5...who cares!

What really matters, is what a particular learning tool can do for us (efficiently, effectively, in an user-friendly manner), or perhaps what we can do for it. For example, only a clown would today train Professors to use 'Dreamweaver' to develop a course website, and then recommend subscribing to a hosting company, so that the website can be uploaded. Or teach Flash MX to develop animations and games. Or even use Photoshop to mashup or create images (PowerPoint 2010 rocks!). Today, we are blessed with an amazing and growing toolkit (or PLE) of possibilities to learn, share and interact with practically anyone in the world (Who has access to the Internet).

It is fine to define what level the Internet and learning tools have evolved to, but what really matters is how we use the Internet and learning tools to establish our own PLE, and how we engage and inspire students to create their own little PLEs, so that that they can evolve into independent self-learners for life.



WEEK 4: PLE/PLN AND LEARNING THEORIES
Reading materials for week 4:


Are learning theories important to know? Good to know, but not necessary to know to become an excellent learner or teacher. If you explore learning theories, you might notice also that learning theories often seem to reflect THE FLAVOR TECHNOLOGY/IES OF THE DAY. And Connectivisim is not an exception, as it seems to be influenced by the emergence of the Internet (connections), social media (networks), and brain science (neural connections). Whether these new technologies and understandings (of the brain) have influenced George Siemens and Stephen Downes thinking consciously or not, I have no clue, but the more I read about their evolving learning theory the more I see connections, or influences they have on their thinking. However, there is nothing wrong with that, it is just an observation (which might be wrong).

But does any learning theory conceptualized until today actually describe how we learn? I doubt it! Meaning, Connectivism is the flavor of the day today, but in a few years time another delicious learning theory will pop-up and everyone will get excited again. Although, learning theories don't exactly describe how we learn, they are still important as they guide our thinking about how we learn. As such, I believe all the major learning theories (Behaviourism, Cognitivism, Constructivism & Connectivism) have a place in understanding how we learn, and they may be relevant in their own way as they explore learning knowledge, skills, attitudes and wisdom.

In short, NO learning theory conceptualized until today actually describes how we learn, but they are all important to know as they explore how we learn from different angles. We could discuss, 'which learning theory is the most appropriate for our time (perhaps Connectivism), but I find that a waste of time. Why? Because (in my opinion), no learning theory until today really describes how we learn, so instead we should appreciate the nuggets of wisdom in all of them, and use these nuggets of wisdom to facilitate sizzling learning experiences.

So, how do we really learn? The process of learning is too complex, dynamic, unique, contextual and amazing to really understand using words and diagrams to explain. Looking forward to the next learning theory! Excited already!




WEEK 5: EVALUATING LEARNING IN PLE/NS
Reading materials for week 5:

PLE Conference Papers (.pdf):


Have you ever heard anyone excited about using and learning through a Learning Management System (LMS). Perhaps initially, but most people kind of get turned off after a few experiences. Why? I am sure there are many reasons for that, but it could be the way it operates, influences, monitors, user-interface design and the way it structures (or controls) learning (objects), which often resembles the factory model (input-process-output), or perhaps like a book. For reading that is fine, but for interacting and collaborative learning? Not so sure!

What I am trying badly to say, is that the way systems are designed and used do effect our learning, especially our motivation to learn. For example, I am passionate about writing this blog post (which is open to everyone!), but would I be passionate about posting my reflections in a closed forum (in a LMS), which is only accessible to my teacher and students. Or even worse, I write an assignment using Word, and then it is submitted online to the LMS for only my teacher to review and grade. Worse yet, the teacher is too lazy to provide feedback, except a grade (number or alphabet!). Now that is terrible, but sadly happens often in our Universities around the world.

Today, we have so many awesome learning tools to use, and getting stuck in one all conquering (LMS) is not the way to go. LMS today are more like airports, whereby we meet up before using the most appropriate learning tool(s) to collaborate and sizzle learning.

In short, we need to find those learning tools that suit us best for learning, and integrate them into our PLE and PLN. Learning is actually really fun, just need to find the right rhythm and tools!




WEEK 6: USING PLES SUCCESSFULLY - SKILLS, MINDSETS, AND CRITICAL LITERACIES
Reading materials for week 6:




WEEK 7: PLE/NS TOOLS - WHAT EXISTS, WHAT IS BEING BUILT?
Reading materials for week 7:

WEEK 8: PLE/NS AND PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT
Reading materials for week 8:



PKM PLENK


Oops, I forgot George Siemens! Now, it makes more sense:



Great, Harold Jarche has also discovered ZaidLearn's intergalactic gaga PLENK 2010 adventure! Amen :)



WEEK 9: PLE/NS IN THE CLASSROOM (PLE/NS AND BLENDED LEARNING)
Reading materials for week 9:



WEEK 10: CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON PLE/PLN COMING IN A DISTANT FUTURE!
Reading materials for week 10:

The Representative Student

Still thinking :)
Posted by at 9 comments:
Labels: , , , , ,

Monday, September 13

RT01- Closed Book Exams Could Even Kill George the Jungle!



"If we want real change in the students' learning mindset, just rethink and transform our assessment model(s) to become more authentic and relevant... It is that simple! Changing the rest (e.g. curriculum) is easy, except changing the mindset of a seasoned lecturer stuck in the 20th century factory paradigm. However, the impossible is possible, right?" - Zaid Ali Alsagoff



RT-SERIES
This article is the first of a series exploring my thoughts and experiences on what I think is wrong with Higher Education in Malaysia (and beyond), and how we can actually transform it to be more relevant without too much effort. 'RT' refers to Rethink and Transform.

As for how many episodes this RT-Series will include, I have no idea at this moment (fuzzily exploring and sharing). Let's just see how it goes as we explore different aspects of the current education systems/methods/approaches/etc. commonly being applied in Higher education. Also, I have for sure not reached that intellectual level that I am stuck with my opinion and ideas (not moulded yet!), so please challenge me on every aspect if you can (find time!). By the time you challenge my reflections, I might have already changed my mind. In other words, these posts are just snapshots of what I was thinking at the time of writing, and my ego will hopefully not allow me to be stuck in one direction, if my intellect has been convinced otherwise.

Importantly, I am not going to refer to particular Universities, but instead focus on what I have experienced, observed, read, discussed, learned, and reflected over the last 15 years. Let's face it, you will find great lecturers and courses in all Universities, but you will also find crap in every University (including Harvard!). The best Universities have the least crap (if that is a measure of excellence)! What I mean by crap, well that will be explored in the RT-series in the coming weeks and months, as I reflect out loud what I am honestly thinking.

As for now...Lets cut the babble crap, and explore assessment and specifically closed book exams, which I believe is that ultimate weapons of mass destruction to inspiring, innovative and lifelong learning.



WHY CLOSED BOOK EXAMS?
But before I start slamming closed book exams, let's reflect why we still keep on using them, even though many of us know that they have some potentially serious side effects to authentic learning and constructive learning habits.

Here are a few pointers for why using closed book exams makes sense:
  • Administratively convenient and efficient
    You can stuff hundreds (even thousands) into examination halls at the same time (if you have the facilities) and get it over within a short period (e.g. 2-hour exam). If you are using multiple choice questions (closed-ended questions), better yet you don't even have to correct them, as the system will basically do everything for you (including item analysis), whether online or using scanners. What other assessment method can be done as efficiently as exams? Usually, at least 60% (mid-term = 20%, Final exam = 40%) of the total course marks are assigned for closed book exams, which is still widely practiced for Diploma, Bachelor and Master programme courses. In terms of efficient assessment administration, exams are the Holy Grail for assessing students (but not necessarily the most effective method!).

  • Final Result (Summative)
    We want to know at the end of the course, whether students have fulfilled the learning outcomes set (according to Bloom's taxonomy) and then reward them with a grade based on what they answer. This makes sense, if final exams really measure what they are supposed to.

  • Coverage
    You can cover the essential components of the course curriculum with (mid-term or final) exams, and especially if you are using multiple choice exams, you can basically cover every chapter in the book. Now, that is awesome! Isn't it?

  • Reliable and Objective
    Exams results are often predictable and you can be quite objective, especially if you are using closed-ended questions. A-scoring students will mostly get 'A', B-scoring students will mostly get 'B', and F-scoring students will mostly get 'F'. Now that is what I call consistency or perhaps a self-fulfilling prophecy... Not sure! But exams are certainly a good indicator whether the students are hard-working and academically inclined, just like IQ tests measure your intelligence. Wait a second! Could both be reliable, objective but not really valid and relevant. What do you think?

  • Knowing
    If you are doing an open-book exam, we don't really know that you know. But if you are only using a pen(cil), eraser (sometimes calculator) and paper, you are on your own, and what you answer is what you know. In short, you can replicate what the lecturer or learning outcome wants without any additional tools. Isn't that great, you can vomit out what you have learned exactly the same way it was learned (or memorized), and then if the lecturer is kind you might score an 'A' by just memorizing the course PowerPoint slides (Been there, done that!). Whether you understand the concept or idea is secondary, as long as you can write out the answer. What matters is what you wrote in the exams, not what you actually understand, right? If both are achieved then great, but if not, you are still going to get an A, because the exam script is evidence enough to prove that you know your stuff. What more do you need to prove?

  • Yes for Quantitative Subjects
    For subjects that are infused with a lot of mathematical and scientific formulas, it makes sense to use closed book exams. Using pen(cil) and paper (and scientific calculator) is an authentic way (or close to) for assessing such type of learning areas. Don't you think so?

Alright, I could point out a few more reasons why closed book exams are still being used, but let's now instead focus on why exams or more specifically why closed book exams could kill...Alright, let's leave George the Jungle out of this discussion...



WHY NOT?
If you were asked to retake all the (mid-term and final) exams you took during your University days, would you be able to do as well as you did?

Looking back at my Bachelor (Psychology) and Masters (IT Management) programmes (mostly mid-term = 20%, Final = 40%), I can safely say that I would probably fail 80-90% of those exams, if I had taken them today. Forget about scoring 'A' and 'B' (and some 'C'), I would literally fail most of the exams! So, what did those closed book exams actually measure?
"Education is what remains after one has forgotten everything he learned in school." - Albert Einstein

Until today, I am still clueless to that question. Though, we should not necessarily blame the exam format itself, because it is the lecturers who set the questions for the exam, right? what do you think?

The best answer I can think of is SNAPSHOT. Most closed book exams that I have experienced measure what I have memorized or understood before the exam (temporary memory), but does not necessarily measure what I know (long-term memory) or can do now. So, what is the point of allocating say 60% of the course evaluation on something so shallow and trivial (snapshot learning). Is it because education is a business, and it makes sense from that point-of-view, or is it perhaps because we simply don't know better? Please, enlighten me!

Universities around the world do tons of research related on teaching and learning, but how much of that output has been used to transform education. Educational science as a tool for transforming education is probably as influential as Bart Simpson's mood swings. So, what to do?

Let's put educational science aside, and let's use our common sense and experiences to reflect why closed book exams should be history for most courses or subjects. Perhaps stimulating the logical and affectionate mind (left and right brain!) can transform change, or perhaps our old ways are so ingrained in our ego, it is simply impossible to change. Impossible is possible!

Here are three (3) more reasons for why closed book exams should be benched (substituted):
  • Cramming
    If 60% of your grade is allocated for exams (40% for coursework), I can guarantee you that many students will schedule their learning to cramming before exams, and produce great snapshot learning experiences. Although, I am a great fan of PowerPoint for teaching, I am not sure it is the ultimate tool for learning (no matter how detailed your slides are!). I have seen (and even practiced for boring subjects) students depend on the course PowerPoint slides for everything, and worse yet, managed to score 'A' by simply memorizing the slides (without understanding). Some students can actually graduate from a Bachelor programme without reading a single course related book. Isn't that cool? Yes, until the graduated student goes for his first job interview, and realize he just wasted 4-5 years of his life learning Nothing (Stephen Hawking, we were created from Nothing and the Laws of Science...Yeah, why not use your right brain for crying out loud!). Although, we should not blame the exam format, because it is the lecturers who set the questions. However, closed book exams seem to often encourage consciously and unconsciously cramming and gear students towards scoring rather than learning. Who cares what you learn, as long as you get 'A', right?
  • Closed Book Exam = Authentic Learning?
    If you are asked to deal with a problem, find an answer, make a decision, or perhaps solve a mystery, don't you use whatever tool legally (hopefully!) possible to master it (picture above)? When you are working, does your boss give you a work related challenge, and then asks you to use no tools except a pen(cil) and paper? Of course not (at least most of the times)!

    But, why do we conduct closed book exams, if it is totally against common sense to finding an answer. Worse yet, closed book exams subconsciously teach us to not look beyond our crammed brain of knowledge to find an answer. I always find it amusing when newly hired staff gets stress and close-to-nervous breakdowns, when their boss give them a challenge beyond what they have learned, without a book or PowerPoint slide to save their day.

    In the 21st century, we have Zorro-bytes to store information, and the Wolfram|Alpha, Google Squared or Answer.com (etc.) to memorize and summarize, so that we can instead focus on applying our knowledge and skills to solve problems, make better decisions and be more creative and innovative about how we do things.

    I know it is tougher to set questions for open-book exams (or any tool exam!), but at least we will be encouraging healthy learning habits from day one, so that students' habitize to think beyond and use whatever tool appropriate to answer the question. That is how it works in the real world, so let's simulate that! Why not?
  • Measuring the Right Stuff?
    It depends, but mostly from my experience with (Bachelors and Masters) closed book exams is terribly frustrating experiences. Obviously! But, what annoys me more is that closed book exams using especially just pen(cil) and paper hardly measure what they are supposed to. For example, I am doing a course exploring Business Leadership, and then 60% of my grade is based on what I write and tick in two (2) exams. It is obviously administratively convenient to measure that way, but shouldn't most of my grade be based on how I do in learning activities that are closer to the real thing (authentic), rather than ticks and a few paragraphs of synthesized memory? Yes, I am a great business leader if I can score A in that subject.

SUBSTITUTE?
So, what should closed book exams be substituted with to ensure more authentic and relevant learning?

Today, we have amazing possibilities to facilitate learning and assessment environments that sizzle, and I will explore some of these in RT02... Coming soon (after a couple of pending articles). But, what is important for now, is to realize that closed book exams should be benched for good (for most courses), and that we need to explore other assessment methods to transform the way we learn and assess. If we continue to stick with our old ways of assessing, we will soon be irrelevant, including the necessity to have a degree to get a decent job. Have you noticed that organizations and companies are increasingly skeptical to graduates' knowledge and skills (specialization), communication/language/leadership/teamwork skills, etc. I seriously don't blame them.

Well, that is what I think! But, what about you, what do you think? Let's together explore the future of learning and assessment. I can change, you can change, we can change! Impossible is possible, so let's think that we can do it. If others can't, we can :)

Posted by at 5 comments:
Labels: , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)