To get the most out of the webinar, there are one or two things you might like to do beforehand.
1. Have in mind a course that you have designed, taught or experienced, that you would like to explore/reflect on in terms of its potential for emergent learning.
2. Have the following documents either printed out or downloaded onto your desktop:
- Palette 2.0.1.png. This is for printing out and drawing by hand. It can then be scanned and either uploaded to the wiki or sent to one of us for uploading.
- Palette new template 2. Docx. This is for downloading to your desktop and working on, on your computer.
- Mapping sheet 2013. You will need to refer to this as you draw, but we will also talk you through it.
3. UPDATE 25-11-13 - New Mapping Sheet for Visual Learners - Hot off the press!! This has the same content as the other mapping sheets, but includes images.
4. You may also find it helpful to watch the video that is on the wiki (8 mins)
If you have time to look at these documents before Tuesday that would be great, but don’t worry if you don’t have time. We will go through everything in the webinar.
Looking forward to continuing our discussion and seeing you in the webinar.
Jenny, Roy and Simone
(Edited by Sylvia Currie - original submission Thursday, 21 November 2013, 2:30 AM)
Thanks to everyone who participated in the webinar today! Here is the recording, and a couple whiteboard captures:
A big thank you Sylvia for posting all this so quickly and for being such a supportive facilitator. Lucky SCoPE community to have you :-)
Hi Jenny et al,
I did my footprint this morning and while I was doing it I completed the comments table on each factor. Using the table was very useful since the factors really acted as a prompt for me to think about what was happening and my own experience of each factor.
The course that I "mapped" was a 2nd year undergrad fully online course in digital media and culture. It was a 12 week course condensed to 6 wks and there were over 500 registered (and paying) students. So, this course was not a MOOC and each student was required to fulfill the course requirements for completion. I was motivated to take this course for two reasons: i) to upgrade my own knowledge and skills regarding digital media and culture thus wore the hat of a "paying student" and ii) to wear the hat of a "designer" as I was more than curious as to how this instructor had designed the course, how it was being delivered and not to mention the assignments, feedback, interactions etc. etc. It was a whirlwind to say the least!
I did my map based on my "recall" of the course. No doubt that I might have a different map if I was to do the task of mapping in consultation with another or a group where we might discuss each factor while doing the mapping. I found myself sort of "guessing" what the factors mean so the map is a reflection of my own understanding at this point in time of the factors.
Anyway, it was fun to do this and will do more!
Hi Barb - great to know that you have drawn a footprint. Would you be willing to share it and discuss it further with us?
Barb, great that the table was helpful. We started off adding detail, and got to a point where it started looking like a over-elaborate instruction manual, which is when we began working on the graphics, to try to make it more intuitive, and open too (graphics are inherently open to more than one interpretation, no?). Would love to hear your reaction to the graphics - we wont be offended if you think they are OTT, clicheic, or just plain dumb - we need to know.
And yes, the creation of the footprint is a reflection of the course, but also of the writer and the process of writing, which is partly describing the event, and partly describing your own position and understanding - just as you say.
In another post you asked if I would be ok sharing my footprint and my comments. I am fine with this and have attached my 2 files (the footprint as a pdf and the word docx of my comments) in this space. Not sure if this is what you were hoping for but here goes. : )
I should also let you know that right after I did this course I sketched my experience of the course and discovered was that there really were two "narratives" or what I might consider 2 courses in one. The course I have mapped (attached) involved using industry standard software to complete the assignments (with no negotiation). This "design dilemma" is not uncommon in courses that require students to "learn to use" specific tools while undertaking course assignments. While there is some wisdom in this approach and clearly students must use the software based on an "authentic" practice opportunity, this process must be unpacked to reduce the cognitive load. It requires specific design techniques to ensure that students are not "lost" in software and much more and thus it takes tons of time, often time faculty don't have. I have spoken with faculty about this design issue and they repeatedly tell me that they have no time to actually scaffold the acquisition of skills that would lead to a specific level of proficiency using the software so this results in a "learn as you go approach". Industry standard software is increasingly complex and in some disciplines this can really lead to issues for students. The instructor did not negotiate the tools and also took marks off if students didn't use the specified tools. The funny thing is that this was not a "design course" but actually one about culture and digital media and the instructor used the course to "slip in" design skills.....
see what you think : )
Hi Barb - this is exactly what we were hoping for. Thanks so much for your comments, the comment sheet and the footprint which I have posted here so that everyone can see it straight away.
I'm on the road today, so don't have time to study your mapping sheet until later today, but it is clear that there was loads of potential for emergent learning in this course and that in many respects it was an edgy challenging experience.
I wonder if you could say a little more about why you scored theory of mind right at the outer edge of the 'scary/edgy' emergent learning zone - almost at the edge of chaos. What was it that happened in the course that caused you to score this in this way? We have found that theory of mind is often not selected from the palette, so I'd be interested to hear more about your understanding of it.
And I now have a lovely image of the footprints being discussed and drawn on a bus! Wonderful! What did your colleague make of the process?
I'll probably be back later with more questions, when I've had a bit of time to look at your mapping sheet.
Barb, great, many thanks. The issue of providing a point (or more accurately a process) of engagement is an interesting one. If you are thrown in at the deep end (the edge of chaos) you will presumably only learn what you have to learn - that can be good, and efficient, or it could be bad and a waste of time, time which could better be spent on the 'meat' of the course itself.
You said there were 'two courses' here - how would the other one differ? Presumably there was a software learning course, and a culture and digital media course. If you mapped them both, and superimposed them, what would that show you (if anything?) And over the time of the course, would these two adjust relative to each other, and relative to the your degree of skill and comfort in using the software?
Yes, as you point out, the experience of chaos was in this instance one leading to frustration and boredom due to the fact that it was not "meaningful". It essentially was a waste of time and from reading the posts, I got the sense that other students were expressing similar sentiments. So, it seemed like a poor way to assist students to engage in a way that might be meaningful. For instance, had we been in teams or themes even, the discussions might have been more fruitful. What I did learn is what not to do as a designer! (e.g. have 500 - 2nd year undergraduates in threaded discussion with little to no guidance; random comments can produce "noise" and thus for some students can be a real distraction.
Yes, I believe that there were 2 courses in one and I think doing another footprint of the software learning would be a cool idea. My sketch of this is in my sketchbook so I will try to remember to take a photo and upload it. Also will do a footrpint. Yes, the two footprints could be superimposed for deeper analysis. Good idea!
Barb, looking forward to seeing the next stage of your visualisations.
I too am sceptical, if not downright critical of courses that offer not much more than what I call "blind-dating-in-the-dark. There are some reasonable alternatives, from 'quad-blogging' onwards. And ModPo (Al Filreis's modern american poetry course) is a great example of what I called "a collaborative conversation which just happens to be taking place in a MOOC".