This week's material was drawn from the Horton book as well as a video of a lecture by Stephen Downes. I had connectivity issues when trying to download the video, so skipped it in favor of commenting on the Horton book. Enough students did comment on Downes that I could get a feel for his presentation. It was described in the assignment as "not for everyone" and based on students comments, I would have to agree.
The discussion was kicked off by Jennifer who in response to Downes emphasized the importance of Learning Objectives in during design and creation of lessons. She also had many good comments about learning in the business place. Particularly the need for measured results. In fact, her whole post was very informative.
Only to be immediately deflated as Joni observed he was talking about Learning Objects, not Learning Objectives. It seems baffling that more distinct terminology is not used for these two, given the frequency with which the two become confused.
My own, and best to this topic, contribution followed. Which was raising meditation activities as a topic. The Horton reading had helped me realize that building this in to e-Learning materials is just as important as with any other material. However, the reason for this being my best contribution wasn't for what I wrote, but for commentary that followed the topic afterward. Bethany and Alia really took up the debate of what makes meditation activities a benefit, yet hazardous, as well as just difficult to design in.
The best observation about meditation activities, and one that I found helpful, was Joni's observation that meditation and reflection is built in to asynchronous discussions. One of those things that really makes you slap you forehead and say, "Of course!".
Again, Bethany and Alia took the lead in developing this topic, but since I raised it I'm claiming credit for contributing, at least the topic if not the detailed discussion.
Alia followed this with a post about learning how to learn. I found her comments interesting, but they made broad assumptions about people and learning. Following cues from Downes she asked, “Are we teaching people how to fish, or giving them fish”. That’s wonderful thoughts on pedagogy, but sometimes we are just giving people fish, particularly in corporate training environments. There are times where we are nobly uplifting the art of the instruction, and there are times where we just need to get the job done. As Instructional Designers, it is important not to get too enamored of our own art.
Rounding out the discussion, Eric brought up that constructivist teaching techniques are not a cure all. Unsurprisingly, his attempt to ground things in traditional learning and emphasis that tradition learning is useful and works was rapidly attempted to be disproved. The interesting thing about that discussion is the assumed portability and appropriateness for different techniques for different types of learning. Sometimes, memorization of facts and regurgitating them is exactly what is needed.
