Intro to Learning Sciences (LSE 500)

Entry# 10: Augmented or Virtual Reality

March 20, 2017March 29, 2017Doug van DykeLeave a comment

My experience with AR and VR is extremely limited. The closest I’ve come to virtual reality would be Second Life. But it’s probably considered more of an immersive world than virtual reality. Aside from that, the extent of my virtual reality experience is getting a free Google Cardboard viewer with my New York Times subscription a few years ago and downloading the NYT VR app. It’s cool, but not something I’ve used often.

As far as my experience with augmented reality goes, well, that limited to:

yelp_AR — Using Monocle on Yelp to see what’s nearby…

skymap_AR — Using Sky Map to see what constellations and planets are overhead in the night sky.

So initially, I thought this entry was going to be a challenge. But in a quiet moment, I posed a question to myself. “What if you were required to teach a lesson using VR or AR even with your current level of knowledge and experience?” The answer came back and the instructional implications were clear: “Let the kids teach you.”

This would be a great opportunity to swap roles with my students and let them become the experts in areas that interest them and then have them present and demonstrate individual apps with suggestions for possible uses in our studies.

In such a lesson I’d present students with a lists where they could explore several VR/AR apps like the ones below.

Of course, we need to set some parameters for exploration, as in the embedded outline.

I’d then basically get out of their way and let them find their way through an app, learning as they go; while I monitor and help with any questions or issues that arise.

Both the punted lesson outlined here as well as many possible uses of AR/VR would align well with what we’ve been exploring all term. The lesson is both taught through and is about digital media as learning tools. The lesson explicitly incorporates self-directed learning through formal structures and in digital contexts. The lesson outlined here makes use of the 4C’s — communication, collaboration, critical thinking and creating. Students’ own interests are leveraged as are their previous learnings/schema likely will influencing their choices. Finally, the teacher is a guide on the side, creating the room and conditions for students to explore while putting students in the constructivist driver seat. They will build knowledge to answer the analytical and evaluative question, “Which of these apps would make the best tools for teaching and learning our class content?”

As a result of the quick exploration I did to write this log entry, questions arose concerning the feasibility of using true VR in the K-12 classroom. Nearly all the apps I saw made use of devices such as Oculus Rift, Samsung Galaxy Gear VR, or Google Cardboard. Given the costs involved, this would, at the moment, seem to put VR out of reach of most K-12 schools. Even Google Cardboard, at $8-$10 a pair quickly adds up. (And I can hear the complaints now about having to hold the device to their face during the lesson for those who go the DIY route!) I suppose finding videos as desktop or tablet options is a possibility. But they don’t seem to be as abundant as the apps for dedicated VR devices. I also wonder about school bandwidth issues with so many students in one room using data heavy video apps simultaneously.

In the end, perhaps such challenges are all just more opportunities to press on into the 21st Century. Bandwidth issues or device issues at school? Well then, flip that classroom. Explore the VR landscape at home instead of in school. Not everyone has a high speed internet connection or devices at home? Well then divide classroom activities accordingly. Let those who don’t have resources at home use those in class. Flip for those students who do have home resources. Break those spacetime limitation of the classroom that digital technology now allow us all to do!

Entry #9: Collaborative Learning

March 16, 2017March 29, 2017Doug van DykeLeave a comment

These last two entries are now officially out of my experience when we’re talking about the ICT/digital domains. So I’ll have to resort to some metacognition about collaborative learning and “maker” activities that are a bit more traditional.

While I was teaching, I had the good fortune of being a part of Chicago Arts Partnerships in Education (CAPE). In this program, community artists partner with classroom teachers to co-teach academic content through the artist’s particular medium. Three things make this program lightyears ahead of the rest. First, the art is not an “extra” or “add-on”. The artform and its particular methods are used as ways of learning the content. Second, the artist is not a mere guest who comes to visit once a week. The artist is a co-teacher in the classroom of the artistic content and to a lesser extent, the academic content. Third, the teacher and artist commit to establishing a long-term relationship — one meant to last years, not just for the length of a unit. By the end of a CAPE unit, students understand the academic content more deeply from processing it through making the art, and they know how to “do” that artform. The teacher knows new methods for incorporating different kinds of art to teach content, and the artist knows more about the academic content that was taught. Over the years I learned how to create murals and create found-object installations by working with local muralist and painter, Bernard Williams, as well as how to produce shadow puppetry by working with two artists from Red Moon Theater.

For any CAPE partnership, the process is the same. When beginning, the teacher meets with CAPE staff and discusses the content they’re interested in teaching and through which medium. CAPE then sets up an appropriate partnership with a local artist. The artist partner and teacher attend a certain number of professional learning sessions about how CAPE works, why it works, and the organization’s expectations for the partnership. Then there is protected time for the teacher and artist to meet and start planning. After these professional learning sessions, it is up to the artist and teacher to set regular planning times to develop the co-instructional unit and individual lessons. The first few “CAPE days” (which usually become “Bernard days” or “Sarah days”), the artist comes to teach the some of the necessary artistic concepts and skills students will need. After that the artistic application moves rendering the academic content artistically. Finally, an installation or performance is also required to take the learning and art public — beyond the classroom itself. CAPE staff continue to support both artist and teacher throughout the process.

My CAPE experiences were, hands-down, some of the most powerful teaching and learning experiences I’ve ever had. And the most memorable. To start with, the relationships I forged with the artists I taught with and learned from were foundational to the units we taught together. All the art we created — murals, installations, shadow puppetry — all seemed overwhelmingly difficult to me when we started. But my confidence grew as my relationship with the artists deepened over time. Mutual respect developed between us as we came to know the depth of each others’ expertise. Trust developed. Friendships formed. Plans were made. Over the course of that process, I can confidently say, that while I would prefer to work with an artist co-teacher, if I can’t, I could incorporate any of these kinds of artistic projects into my curriculum and execute them successfully on my own.

CAPE artists are working artists, not educators. So starting with a new artist was like having a student teacher in the classroom for a while until they got the flow of unit & lesson planning, structuring the classroom for the lesson at hand and managing the kiddies when they’re up to their eyeballs in paint and cardboard and canvas. Or shifting them from the “fun” of making a puppet to the “work” of writing a script for the show. At the same time, it was fulfilling to see my partner artist develop as educators teaching the techniques and theories of their art. So too with their developing their own understanding of the academic content the art was meant to evoke. As a teacher who relies heavily on formative assessment, it was fascinating to watch and listen for the levels of understanding develop in both the students and the artists as we worked. The same was true for me to learn the art right alongside our students. It’s difficult to describe how exciting it was to hear kids discussing and debating the content as they manipulated the artistic media; and as they manipulated the media, their manipulation of their understanding of the academic content. It’s equally difficult to find prouder moments as a teacher as when my students performed, installed or presented their artwork and then took questions from the audience about the content the art represented. What could leave a stronger imprint on them than not only for others to see them as the experts in the room, but for them to see themselves that way too?

I’m certain I was aware of it at the time, but it bears articulating here. As I look back at these experiences, everyone in the classroom inhabited all roles at various points of time over the course of the unit: teacher, learner, novice, practitioner, expert. We were all in it together. Each and every one of us was learning something new. That made for a more equitable distribution among all members of the power dynamics that develop in a classroom. To a very real extent, we were all learners learning together, supporting one another in a spirit of discovery and aiming towards a common goal. No one wanted to leave class on a “CAPE day”.

Including the teachers.

(While I’ve been out of the classroom for a number of years, Bernard has continued to do amazing work with other Chicago schools. You can see more of his work here.)

Entry #8: Digital Learning — Immersive Experiences and Tech-Enhanced Experiences

March 16, 2017March 29, 2017Doug van DykeLeave a comment

This is going to be a difficult log entry since I don’t spend much time playing video games or in immersive worlds. This is because I become too immersed and exhibit just a few addictive behaviors. I knew I had to start being very careful one Christmas when I was staying with my parents for the holiday. I had just purchased a Star Trek (of course!) starship builder game that allowed players to build custom or canon starships and then fly them on various missions. One night, my parents and I sat in the den, them watching television, me building and flying starships. I recall my mother giving me a kiss and going to bed. I remember my father doing the same sometime later. My next memory is my father coming back to the den, looking at me sitting in the exact same position he left me and saying, “Have you been playing all night?!” I had indeed.

I remember feeling exhausted, knowing I should go to bed and get some sleep. My eyes hurt from staring at the screen for hours and hours. Throughout the night I knew, with every ship lost I should close my laptop and go to sleep. Yet each time I went back to the builder module and thought, “Just one more.” Then it became, “Just build it, but don’t fly it.” As my father stood there laughing at me, but I was starting to wonder if there might be a problem here.

Over the years I have spent endless hours in SimCity — another particular favorite. I got lost in Star Trek and Star Wars RPGs. On iPad there’s a game that has taken far too much of my time, Galaxy on Fire (1 and 2). For all of them, I have to monitor and limit my time very carefully.

All that said, I find Second Life far more manageable in regard to my time. I was initially introduced to it by a dear friend in Australia who was getting a degree in medical informatics and discovered it when he was working on virtual meeting spaces for doctors to interact. It came at a time when I had just finished reading several cyberpunk novels, and SL reminded me very much of the VR & AR worlds described in Neal Stephenson’s Snow Crash. Aside from meeting my friend there on occasion I was and still am a total nube. I find it a somewhat intimidating space. I’m not comfortable interacting with strangers online and this world of avatars and Linden$ and objects that can be given and received can be overwhelming. Not to mention my fears of somehow getting hacked. So I mainly stick to myself and wonder and window shop in the different continents and parcels that interest me.

One place I spend a fair amount of time is Scilands — the science and technology continent. And once NPR’s Science Friday started taking questions from Second Life, on occasion, I have listening from there. Though I rarely interact with other individuals. It’s fun from time to time. However, I still find it a rather unnecessary additional layer for that particular listening experience. So the media I watch or listen to in Second Life are things I happen upon in my wanderings, like NASA videos or information about colonizing Mars.

There is a lot of drek in Second Life and the interface is very cumbersome and rather unintuitive. So those aspects definitely don’t “work” for me. Although, I’m fascinated by the details of all the different worlds and seeing the things that others have clearly taken a lot of time to build. That’s what keeps me coming back. I think it’s interesting too that there are things that participants can buy that have value in the virtual context somewhat analogous to objects in the real world — clothes, real estate, private aircraft. It’s enough that I actually think about purchasing Linden$ (especially when the exchange rate is favorable!). It’s interesting too how it facilitates some sort of telepresence between people separated by long distances — as it did for my friend and me. So it’s elements like these — analogues to the real world — that make it “work”.

I’m less certain about Second Life or any other such VR platform functioning as a community of inquiry — at least not at a very high level. Though it would be an interesting exercise to try setting up a formal class in SL for a while to see what evolves. However, I see at least one major element that could potentially keep Second Life and any other such platforms from reaching the level of community of inquiry. That is the use of avatars as they primary means of interacting with others in the virtual environment. Avatars in particular strike at a critical part of the CoI model — that of social presence. Avatars in and of themselves are veils, masks that hide the true person behind them. There’s always a level of wondering about how closely the avatar represents the actual person. Trust, then, on some level, becomes an issue. Since learning is impossible without trust between student and teacher, the social and teaching presences are disadvantaged. The climate is infused with a certain level of dissembling if not dishonesty. This would in turn, have to impact, in some way, on supportive discourse, climate setting which in turn impact cognitive presence. If all the other elements of a CoI are compromised, then it almost doesn’t matter what the content is as there may only be a certain level of depth participants are willing to risk in their discourse, reflection, and construction of meaning.

Additionally, with our current level of VR technology, using it is less effective than using the technology we do have that make a virtual learning community/community of inquiry more cohesive, i.e: platforms such as D2L in combination with conferencing apps like Zoom, where participants can see and/or hear each other in real time. The current platforms do better at lowering the obstacles of time, space, and distance for such educational endeavors as opposed to adding other layers that must be parsed in order to have meaningful interactions around the content. Afterall, right now, it’s just easier to put Science Friday on the radio or stream the podcast than to sit at my computer, logon to a virtual platform, fly to the virtual studio in the virtual space, pipe the audio feed, and then send chat texts to digital avatars.

It seems like a lot more work!

Entry #7: Digital Contexts

March 13, 2017March 29, 2017Doug van DykeLeave a comment

Play in the Digital Context

When I think about my own learning in digital contexts, the common theme in all three contexts is my need to “play” with the technology at hand. I find that in every instance, at some point, I wind up exploring a new software tool or interface while a “more knowledgeable other” continues with a lecture. Truth be told, I think my “playing” is even more efficient as in almost every case, I find that by the time I’ve tuned back into the MKO, I’ve figured out a task or workflow far ahead of its discrete instruction in the lesson. If I don’t have the opportunity to work in this way or apply the technology to a specific need of mine, I then become super antsy. I’m as bad as a teenager, cracking jokes with neighbors, passing notes, and leaving the session for bio breaks. On more than one occasion, my principal would tell me who I could and could not sit next to so I “didn’t cause trouble” during the session. And she was often included on the “not to” list!

Online Learning

In terms of the online context, here’s the thing: I find videos boring to just sit and watch. Bo-ring. I’d rather listen to them like a podcast while I do other things like cook dinner or cleaning or driving. And let’s face it. It’s not like there’s much video adds to most presentations since the presenter just reads something off a slide on the screen anyway. Even TED Talks. I love them. But more often than not, one can get by by simply listening. So in online and some blended/face-to-face contexts, extensive use of video is no good for this learner. What is more powerful for me is when we participants can share our screens with the virtual class along with the MKO. Now we have some skin in the game. My heart rate is is up. I need to explain, narrate, take questions, manipulate apps or docs on the screen. I’m far more active and am thus working to build my understanding as a result.

If you’ll indulge a slight side trip for a larger point here. We’ve all experienced that feel-good bump when we get a notification that someone liked an Instagram picture or replied to a tweet or left a comment on a Facebook post. That’s because these platforms are designed, as Nir Eyal explains in Hooked: How to Build Habit Forming Products, to keep us coming back by using four key elements: a trigger, an action, and unpredictable or variable reward, and investment. Additionally, neuroeconomist, Paul Zak, has conducted experiments and MRI tests on subjects using Twitter and Facebook. He discovered that the brain releases oxytocin during interactions on these platforms. Oxytocin is the feel-good chemical released during nursing that causes mother-child bonding, or other life events that we feel good doing — falling in love, eating, making money, etc. He also found that when we receive a “Like” the reward center of our brains, the nucleus accumbens, is activated. As a result, our brains receive a hit of every teacher’s and student’s favorite neurotransmitter, dopamine, which provides feelings of satisfaction, allows us to identify successes, and take actions toward more successes. In fact, researchers have found that interactions on the internet can provide more of a dopamine kick than eating chocolate or having sex. With that in mind, I’m pretty stunned to find that in just one term in a formal online learning environment, I respond to interactions on the D2L platform in the same way that I respond to my favorite (and even my least favorite) social media platforms. I receive texts alerting me to new discussion threads, or updated grades, or IM’s from fellow students (trigger). I logon and look for the red notification bubble in the upper right toolbar and click on them (action). I wonder, what’s going to be there? Who commented? What is my new grade? Is there going to be helpful feedback? (unpredictable and variable rewards). I obviously care about the work since I applied for and was accepted to the Learning Sciences program and I’m eager to learn new things (investment). I can interact in multiple and meaningful ways with materials I can share with like-minded individuals who keep in regular touch with each other. And since it’s all for my education, I can do all of this without feeling guilty about the time I’m spending because it’s not wasted. Many (more) very tangible benefits result (compared to other social media interactions).

I also find it far more engaging to be able to see all the fellow participants in online contexts. Our Zoom sessions for this class are a perfect example. Even though they’re considered optional, I feel like I have attended a traditional class. We see each other, talk to each other, ask questions, see each others’ reactions, react to each others’ reactions, share screens, take notes. It’s utterly engaging. I believe too that this one course aspect — the weekly Zoom sessions — goes a long way toward creating a virtual learning community out of a mere virtual learning environment.

Watch a bit of an ah-ha I had about D2L interactions:

Flipped Classrooms

Sadly, I have exactly zero experience with flipped classrooms either as a teacher or a student. I’d love to experience them in both rolls. As a teacher, I imagine the flip would provide far more enticing homework experiences for our Gen D learners.

Changing My Instructional Practices

Flipping, BYOD, application of SAMR to most, if not all, of my lessons, and redesigning my lessons to include far more informal learning and play parameters would be the most significant changes I’d make to my instruction going forward. A classroom characterized by students regularly creating their own learning goals in consultation with myself, discovery-based and just-in-time learning for students, more project-based learning that is digitally mediated to foster the 4C’s would all be my ICT ideal. My digitally mediated utopia.

Entry #6: Informal learning professional learning contexts

February 13, 2017March 29, 2017Doug van DykeLeave a comment

I belong to several PLC’s at the different high schools with which I work. The one I will reflect about is an instructional leadership team (ILT) responsible for changing practices to improve teaching and learning throughout the building. Their overall success has been emergent over the course of the past couple years. This has to do in large part with the different skill-will levels among team members and the challenges the low will-low skill members present in particular. But the more we work together, the more the team as a whole is deepening its understanding about the work. One dynamic I wish I could change would be the team’s overall perception of me, along with the principal, as the leader of the PLC. I’ve always preferred working in the PLC context as a group of equals. The perception of one person as the leader tends to formalize the dynamic more than I think is necessary — or helpful — for such communities.

Our work this year has centered around extending the PLC structure from the ILT into departments in order to do some deep professional reading and learning around Leading for Literacy: A Reading Apprenticeship Approach. The practices of this framework will become the research-based powerful practices teachers will use to teach the school’s targeted instructional area. Each department meets twice a week biweekly to discuss and process each chapter. Pairs of teachers lead the discussion either by using one or another Critical Friends text-based discussion protocols or by creating their own process to facilitate the team’s dive. Now that the initial reading is finished, we are moving into the first formal application stage, infusing the framework strategies into teachers’ classroom practices.

In our last department-level PLC, I applied and extended my learning in this course by facilitating an application of concept mapping. We attempted to create maps as a means of deepening our thinking about using students’ schemas for knowledge-building. I spent a few minutes activating teachers’ own schemas, asking them to talk briefly about what they know about and how they have used mind maps & thinking webs in their classrooms. Click here to see the 10-minute overview of concept mapping and the rest of the session activities.

The session was somewhat successful. What I wanted to happen was for teachers to participate in a relaxed process of exploring the reading by making and sharing concept maps. Both the learnings from the session and the maps would be steps along the path of changing practice by implementing Reading Apprenticeship strategies. Each of three groups (roughly corresponding to a department) presented a map at a point along a continuum of understanding. If I were assessing the maps with a rubric, I might describe them as Did Not Meet, Emerging, & Proficient. Not surprisingly, each map corresponded to the level of will/amount of buy-in each department exhibits toward the PLC work in general. That said, I was glad when the engaged members recognized the differences and noted that two of the groups did not produce concept maps and what they did produce were not helpful in deepening the team’s collective understanding about the work. This made for a delightfully awkward moment for teachers who demonstrated their resistance by not engaging in the activity as suggested. The group members who were invested in the professional learning rendered their resistant colleagues’ work inert by focusing solely on the map and ideas of the group that embraced the activity. For a week after the session several teachers talked about how helpful the activity was as a means of expanding their understanding of the text and thus the kinds of instruction we need to spread throughout the building.

In all, I would say it met with limited success in that it showcased a novel method for meaning-making to which teachers are not usually exposed. It proved to me that concept mapping can be used as a professional learning tool to spark interest, deepen thinking, and facilitate rich conversations among teachers. The session also extended the understanding of the text and practices we want to implement, at least among the teachers who were willing to participate. I would like to try this again, this time more actively intervening with groups to be sure they create concept maps as opposed to the webs with which they are already so used to working.

Map with incubator

More web than concept map (Does Not Meet)

Hybrid, moving from web to concept map (Emerging Understanding)

Concept map the PLC used for discussion (Proficient)

Entry #5: Formal Context

February 11, 2017March 29, 2017Doug van DykeLeave a comment

A number of years ago I consulted as a subcontractor for a company that provided both professional development about and software for curriculum mapping. The software was a suite of 3 programs designed to streamline instructional documentation — curriculum maps, unit plans, and gradebook. All consultants had to be certified in the mapping software and the professional development modules. Many were certified for the unit planning software and modules. Even fewer were certified for the gradebook components primarily because of its complexity. By the summer of 2014 the number of certified consultants was down to two and the company needed to train more consultants to learn the software in order to keep it a viable part of the suite.

screen-shot-2017-02-11-at-2-07-15-pm screen-shot-2017-02-11-at-2-06-31-pm The course was conducted by another very senior consultant who had many years experience with the application. We all knew each other very well, having co-presented PD multiple times over the years. That made for a high degree of collegiality and support in the group. The class met for 2.5 hours once a week at the same time each week throughout the summer. The instructor had a very no-nonsense demeanor which characterized both her style as well as how she organized the course material. Goals were clear and immediately applicable for our work. The structure was mostly a repetitive “I do, we do, you do” model followed by clarifying procedural questions. She consistently focused on interface elements she knew were particularly complex or non-intuitive and allowed us to ask more questions around these elements. Each lesson finished with a homework assignment that gave us opportunities to practice what we had learned during the session. She monitored our work in the program as well as requiring we email additional assignments when completed. We received feedback only if we asked for it which made it feel as if we were simply emailing documents into the ether.

The instructor mainly lectured and demonstrated the software in a scripted manner. So the level of equity was dependent upon whether or not our learning style worked with her teaching style as well as our individual ability to self-advocate, ask questions, and solicit feedback on our own work. It was quite possible to make it through every online session, clicking away at the software without ever directly interacting with either the instructor or other learners. This always struck me as ironic since the company prided itself on learner-centered PD.

Our classroom was online, though it did not consist of a unified platform like D2L. GoToMeeting was how we conferenced in with the only video component being the presenter’s shared screen. As a result, there was a bit of bouncing between G2M and the software when it was time for us to practice. The lack of video for all attendees to see and interact with each other had a considerable, and I’d say, negative impact. Not only did this setup make it easy to check out of the class, it also reinforced the individual, non-collaborative nature of the work. It was mostly a one-way conversation with information flowing from instructor to students and questions going from students to instructor. Fostering more collaboration between learners — especially with software training — would have made for more diverse perspectives, not to mention learning a complicated program more efficient.

I never want to be the presentation. When I’m teaching any learners — adolescents or adults — I try to get away with saying the minimum possible while still setting up an effective learning environment. The more the learners do, the more successfully they will learn. So I do my best to be the “guide on the side”. I also believe I’m not the smartest person in the room and that we are smarter collectively anyway. That greatly influences my planning in as much as my lessons almost always have paired or grouped discussion components. Regardless of whether I’m working with kids or grownups, all learners benefit from formative assessment and metacognitive thought. They too are centerpieces of my instruction. None of these elements were present in my colleague’s instruction. What I would take from her book would be to make more and better use of collaborative work by telepresence. Plus, our course work in the past few weeks around informal learning contexts has me eager to try to subvert formal contexts by creating informal dynamics within them.

Entry #4: More Informal Digital Learning

February 6, 2017March 29, 2017Doug van DykeLeave a comment

Probably the most informal of my digital learning is my love of podcasts and Audible. These themselves are extensions of my NPR addiction. Yes, I’m that cliche one hears during every pledge drive. I’ve lost track of how many stories I’ve heard during a Driveway Moment that I put to use in class in one way or another. Part of what I love about podcasts is the wild and wooly nature of the podcasting landscape. I’ve listened to Valerie Jarrett get tipsy while discussing policy with BuzzFeed contributors Heben & Tracy on Another Round. I’ve been spellbound by David Gushee and Frances Kissling’s riveting conversation about the tragically narrow nature of the Pro-Life/Pro-Choice debate as part of Krista Tippett’s “Civil Conversations Project” on On Being. I’ve learned all kinds of details from The American History Guys on Backstory that we’re never taught in school about how the US became the US. I have drawn inspiration for many a professional learning theme from Terry O’Reilly’s Under the Influence — a show about the history of advertising. Looking over my Cast feed, my tastes range all over the map. My Audible library, on the other hand, is much more focused to almost exclusively science fiction and non-fiction of mainly history, science, and social science topics. Right now I’m listening to The Big Picture:On the Origins of Life, Meaning and the Universe Itself by Sean Carroll in which I’m now finding many connections to this class as we start to plumb the neurological aspects of learning.

podcast1

podcast2 — A handful of my favorite podcasts

What’s interesting is that I listen to all this material for my own interests and pleasure. I don’t set out to mine a particular show or audiobook for professional learning material. But as I’m listening I “naturally” or nearly subconsciously connect relevant information to my education practice — be it teaching adolescents or adults. This is just more confirmation of how powerful the “informal” contexts are for learning. I rarely plan to sit down with a podcast or audiobook — that is until I get hooked on a good one and then I try to find as much free time as possible to listen! It’s almost always a spontaneous decision. And I certainly never have a notebook and pen poised to capture useful information. I listen in the most informal of informal contexts — when I’m driving, getting dressed, cooking, doing laundry. These are usually some of my most relaxed moments. Once again, I’m visualizing my synapses firing like Barbara Oakley’s diffuse mode pinball machine.

I try to keep found material within a digital context, documenting relevant material I hear via Twitter or make a note in Google Keep. Out of the “Big 3” social media platforms (Facebook, Twitter, Instagram), Twitter is the one I use the most for sharing and finding professional resources.

It’s fun to point teachers to it in a PD session. “Ok, everyone take out your phones and open Twitter. If you don’t have the app, find a buddy who does.” (I love the looks. Sadly, we hardly ever hear someone in a faculty meeting say, “Take out your phones.”!) It’s exciting to showcase Twitter as a useful tool for professionals and not just a time-wasting app.

With all the examples of the fruitfulness of “informal” learning that we’ve uncovered in the past few weeks, I’m realizing I have do more to create such spaces within the professional learning seminars I conduct. Flowing from podcasts to Twitter can be quite the timesaver. Especially when planning and presenting professional learning. There’s no need to make a bunch of slides when I can have everyone take out their phone and make their own meaning and share in discussion. What is less productive is the way I discover material. What I find and when I find it is very much up to chance since this is all casual listening. I never know what I’ll hear and if it will connect to work. Looking back over this journal entry, it’s clear I draw from many different disciplines in order to inform and enrich my own teaching and learning. I guess I’ve been a learning scientist for a while now!

Entry #3: Informal Digital Learning

January 31, 2017March 29, 2017Doug van DykeLeave a comment

photos-pending Update: Latest ah-ha resulting from a few moments of diffuse mode brain activity. This journal entry essentially describes what I was trying to characterize as informal learning. However, I realize now that what I do is try to turn informal online learning into formal learning — at least when it comes to learning a large and complicated program like Photoshop. Yet we’ve just spent the last week discussing the power of informal learning. So now I’m wondering how I might reframe my Photoshop sessions such that I emphasize the most effective aspects of informal learning and trusting that the dynamics of informal contexts will be just as powerful as formal contexts — if not more so. Now I’m not so sure you need to read the rest of my typically TLDR journal post. But skip to the end to see my friend, Hope!

Looking ahead at the metacognitive journal assignments, it seems the next few entries will continue to explore my thinking about becoming a better photographer. I’ve never thought about where I do the bulk of my informal learning. Though it seems my photography is where I focus. At first, this realization draws a red flag. Why am I not spending the same amount of time in informal learning for my profession? Isn’t it crucial as an educator to keep learning? Setting aside questions of work/life balance and the fact that my personal interests are just as worthy of time spent learning as my professional interests, I do allocate quite a bit of time for informal professional learning as well. Though if pressed, I would probably say I spend more time in formal learning contexts than informal contexts for my professional self. But that’s the stuff of another entry.

When it comes to online learning, I am an extremely critical learner due to the fact that I used to deliver regular webinars for several years. Consequently, I have a very low tolerance for poorly designed and/or poorly executed web-based learning. And there are a lot of bad webinars out there that ought to be much better regardless of whether they are paid or free. Luckily, I’ve found some very good online resources in the world of photography.

Upon reflection, I notice I go searching for learning materials when there is a discrete photographic skill I’m looking to develop at a particular moment. Recently, for instance, I have wanted to explore macro photography. After purchasing and playing with a fantastic macro lens, I then went right to my primary online photography subscription, Digital Photography School (DPS). So I’d say learning individual skills seem to drive my online learning as a photographer. As an adult learner, this makes sense. The learning is done very much in the moment I want or need it. It’s immediately applicable in my work which makes it relevant. I’m making 100% of the choices about what, where, when and how I learn the material. What I appreciate about DPS as well is that it is a rich community of learners (even though I don’t think they’d describe themselves in that way). The comment sections of the articles turn into forums for photo sharing, discussion, questioning and critique. So feedback is interactive, quick and useful.

Another online source I’ve used is Phlearn. This site is a phenomenal resource for learning all things Photoshop. While I don’t spend much time using PS, it is something that comes in handy when I’ve taken a picture that cannot be sufficiently developed or corrected in Lightroom. But the learning curve on PS, for full-on fluency is around 100 hours and I am being very complimentary even calling myself a novice. Phlearn is not free and is not inexpensive. However, both the video tutorials the the instruction are very high quality.

Neither DPS nor Phlearn offer live webinars, which makes sense given the subject matter. (Though could be a cool thing to try online!) So all learning is independent and self-paced. To ensure I kept up with this learning, I spent real money for Photoshop courses 101, 201, & 301. That’s twelve modules. I figured throwing my Visa at it would put some real skin in the game. Yet I still find it challenging to prioritize and protect the same kind of time and effort these tutorials require. Clearly, I’m more likely to apply consistent effort to deep, complex learning like this when it’s a “live” event, where there are regular and required interactions with assignments, the curriculum, the instructor, other learners. I’d say that’s the main difference when it comes to complex, conceptual learning compared to learning discrete skills. The latter I can easily do with a click-and-read online. The former requires much more constructive pressure to persist.

Comparing the online learning design described above to non-digital experiences, the greatest differences are in environment, process, pace, interactions and affect. The environment is can be just about anywhere I have an internet connection. I’ve watched all of the Phlearn tutorials at home where I can more easily manipulate practice materials. However, I’ve watched some of their free Youtube content while on the train or at the in-laws’. The same is true of DPS articles. They make for great reading on the train — especially with my phone or DSLR in hand. With this subject matter I can take the tutorials where the photographic subjects are and practice on the spot. Processes are determined by what I want to learn and practice at the moment. This is different from non-digital learning where goals and assignments are usually determined and set by the instructor. Interactions are limited to those with the computer as none of these are live events. Though the comment sections of DPS will bring some interaction with others in the community, though not in real-time. In terms of participant affect, I find I get very excited on either platform when I’ve actually learned something conceptually, not just mimicked an outcome. When I “get it” and can apply the skill or technique with my camera or software in a particular context. Posting on DPS comments almost always comes with some anxiety. Trolls can be obnoxious. But when people are generous in their feedback and kind in their tone, I feel very affirmed and motivated to keep working, to keep growing, to keep participating.

There’s more photography and metacognition on Youtube. Enjoy!

Entry #2: Informal Learning Context

January 23, 2017March 29, 2017Doug van DykeLeave a comment

I’m one of those people who just doesn’t feel legit about something unless I’ve taken a class or read a book about it. This is especially so when it comes to my photography, even though photography is one of those things that you really do get better at the more you practice. Your eye develops. You get the hang of balancing ISO, aperture, and shutter speed to control light and depth of field. Knowing when to use a manual shooting mode or more automated settings. Plus, the feedback is instant now with digital cameras and social media.

For the last year or so, I’ve been wanting to develop my abilities for street photography. One small obstacle: I feel very uncomfortable taking pictures of strangers. So to get a better understanding and more comfortable with the style, I signed up for a street photography seminar a couple weeks ago, held at a local photography store/gallery.

street_photog_notes — Notes from street photography seminar

I attended with a friend who is also a teacher and looking to improve her still photography skills as a way to develop as a film student. Adding a social element with a trusted friend was a good motivator. The night of the seminar we scheduled a day to go shooting together so we’d be sure to apply our new learning as soon as possible. The seminar itself was quite informal — about 10 people from all walks, gathered in a camera supply store drinking soft drinks and coffee, eating cookies, listening to a lecture from a fairly well-known street photographer. And there we were, the only ones with notebooks out and ready to write down everything we heard. We laughed at that and embraced our learning styles!

The presenter’s material was incredibly well-organized. Nearly all ideas were illustrated with example photographs. Even more bizarre, it was as if her presentation was based on all my own questions and anxieties. Apparently, my questions and concerns are not unique to me.

After 3 hours, I left with better understandings about the kinds of work that constitute street photography. I had strategies for very specific techniques including photographing complete strangers, more artistic ways of capturing architecture, and using shadow for dramatic effect. I left with knowledge about digital media rights, laws regarding creation and display of fine art, and, given the subject matter, some thinking about ethics. (The ethics material was not at all something I expected. Yet, given the subject, it made a lot of sense and completely held my attention given its relevance.)

Informal learning of this kind differs from formal learning in a few ways. One is its highly specific nature both in terms of goals and relevance. My goals were very specific and the seminar addressed only those goals. In addition, the material was something I would immediately apply in my art and it dealt with concepts I was ready to take on. Also, these kinds of learning events are short. It matters that the learning time was limited and the syllabus very specific. This differs from traditional learning settings where classes can run for months and cover a wide variety of subjects within some broader content area. This alone has me rethinking how I plan instruction and share or develop growth goals with learners.

Would anyone else have found the seminar of earth-shattering value? Probably not. But all the elements of the program addressed every one of very specific questions I had. Having answers gave me the confidence I lacked mere hours before. After so much formal learning I’ve encountered in my life, these kinds of events stand out as some of the most powerful learning experiences I’ve had.

Here’s some evidence of my learning.

Entry #1: Thinking on Hoadley & Salmon & Kelly Ch. 1.

Video January 13, 2017April 7, 2017Doug van DykeLeave a comment

January 13, 2017

The inaugural entry!

And since it is the inaugural entry, I thought I’d play around with Padlet as an adjunct space for additional metacognitive nuggets. Check it out for a “context” video as well as a quick visual on how different the technology — and thus, no doubt, the thinking — of grad school is since last I was here. I’m not sure if these items exactly count as metacognition. But they’re at least a little fun to ponder!

Through both readings I found my thinking and learning being stimulated and reinforced by emotional responses, contextual relationships, and connections to previous experiences.

I became a bit nostalgic reading again about Vygotsky & Dewey & Thorndike. I was a bit of a geek when it came to the philosophy of education in my very first undergrad ed course. It’s been so long since I’ve read them and yet they still hold up. While I can very easily dive into details when the time calls for it, global thinking is my default mode. I can see the big picture and then zoom into the details when the time comes. Knowing this, I ought to remember to hold these scholars much closer than I usually do when I get bogged down in the weeds of daily practice. Their thinking fascinates and humbles me. So brilliant. Their big ideas and big picture perspectives provide me useful paths through those weeds.

From this higher perspective, I saw pretty quickly what I believe are a few connections this course will make. An attempt at a quick summary:

As Hoadley summarized Vygotsky, et al., technology is an artifact of culture. We live at a time that is defined by the development and ubiquity of computer technology. Computers, mobile, social media are having a huge impact on our culture. As such, these tools of the culture are changing the way we think, learn and interact.

The concept of the adaptive expert, on the other hand, is a useful one on the road towards making a shift in how we teach using these technologies, especially contrasted with that of the relative expert. I see so many teachers and administrators either actively resist or benignly — if it is possible any more to describe it as such — neglect the incorporation of digital and mobile technologies. I have seen students penalized for merely possessing a cell phone. So in order to engage students who, outside of school, are so immersed in these technologies of (their) digital culture, schools need to develop more adaptive thinking in their teachers for its use. Educators need to break out of the mere efficiencies of routine expertise in order to create learning spaces that allow 21st century students to think, process information, and interact with others in the ways the technology with which they have grown up have influenced their thinking. I believe that shift is the one to spark curiosity and a joy in learning again that is lacking in so many of our students.

Concept mapping, then, is a tool to push teachers into a more adaptive stance. When in the hands of reflective teachers and strong coaches, they can reveal levels of understanding, confusion, misunderstanding, evolving thinking. In as much as they map how teachers are thinking about a concept, they are also instruments for metacognition. I am most intrigued by the notion of using concept maps as a way of engaging in unit/lesson planning. Finally, all these characteristics make concept maps useful formative assessments. Mapping allows teachers to probe and explore their thinking, wrestle with their anxieties on the path to the adaptive expertise they need to incorporate digital technologies as the now necessary tools of teaching and learning.

Considering the contexts in which I work and my examination of the course materials so far, these are a few of the more global connections I am making through these first readings. I think I’ll hold of of analysis and assessment for another entry.

Think About Sharing:

Like this:

Think About Sharing:

Like this:

Think About Sharing:

Like this:

Think About Sharing:

Like this:

Think About Sharing:

Like this:

Think About Sharing:

Like this:

Think About Sharing:

Like this:

Think About Sharing:

Like this:

Think About Sharing:

Like this:

Think About Sharing:

Like this: