Full Circle - Deceptively Simple

Looking back from the beginning of the class to now, the end, I'm thinking about where I started versus where I am. Coming from a business background and not having much experience with curriculum design, I was particularily excited about this class but also a little intimidated since many of the people in the program had worked with curriculum a lotand had background in design. Initially reading "The Big Picture" was almost life changing for me, but definately eye opening. I love its simplicity. I've always been a fan of simplicity but one thing I realized is that when it seems simple, it's really hard. In other words, whether it be curriculum design or the performance of a musical composition or a book, the simpllist ones are somteimes the most well thought out and meaningful ones. When a designer, composer, writer, or performer creates something that to the outsider, seems simple often it is indicitive of a well planed and orchestrated work. I remember in Gary's class we talked about this in relation to music and that often performances that sounded "easy" was a sign of a lot of practice. Making something sound easy took a lot of work and planning and practice. I think this applies to curriculum as well. The curriculum that seems so simple that you wack yourself in the head because you can't believe how simple it is, really takes a lot of planning, practice and work.

THe ABC's and the concept of backwards design is so engrained in my, that I've found it creeping into other thing too. For example, I taught a crystal reports class today and all of the sudden the light bulb appeared above my head and the bell went off at the same time when I realized while I was teaching report design, the same concepts hold true for curriculum design, database design, etc....if you begin with the end in mind, you create a lens to view all the other components. You create a framework which allows you to make decisions on what to include and not include.

So my goal is to continue to work hard to make things seem easy for others using the many tools I have become aware of for resources.

That is all the deep thoughts I have for tonight.

12:00 Flashers

When I was in a training about 2 years ago, a train the trainer session on a software program, the trainer referred to the “non-technical” people as the 12:00 flashers.

I googled "12:00 flashers" and I found this:

"Techies sometimes talk about a group of people they call 12:00 flashers. They call them 12:00 flashers, because their houses are filled with appliances with a flashing 12:00. What they mean by the term '12:00 flasher' is something deeper than just 'someone whose appliance clocks happen not to be set'.

"What they mean by '12:00 flasher' is someone who wants the benefits of technology, but is not willing to try to understand how technology works or how to use it. Their appliances flash 12:00 because they will not in a million years spend five minutes experimenting with the buttons or read the manual to see how to set a clock. This mindset affects every bit of technology they own, and invariably something will break -- quite possibly because it was misused -- and then they will invariably wait until the last minute, when there is an emergency, and ask a techie to "just tell me how to fix it." The 12:00 flasher is involved in a desparate attempt to cut a steak with a screwdriver, and when a techie begins to try to explain why he needs to set down the screwdriver and get a knife, the 12:00 flasher tensely replies, 'I don't have time to put down this screwdriver and go get a knife! I just need you to tell me how to cut this steak!'


So why don’t thiese people program their vcr clocks? Most of us can read the diretions of hit enough buttons to figure it out but why do some people do it and others not? What is it about technology that intimidates or scares some people but intruiges others? All things in life have those that like it and those that don’t but technology seems to be it’s own beast. It seems with any thing, if a person wants to learn it, they can, which makes the common denominator of knowledge to be “desire” or attitude. Technology, however appeals to every person and almost any subject matter. It might be compared to the telephone? Do you think that when phone’s were introduced some people boycotted them like some boycott technology? Sure there must have been early adaptors but did some just say “no” it’s too complicated? What makes technology any different?

Clearly, it is more complicated, but is it relatively the same as phones being introduced in their time? Surely phones seemed confusing and “hi-tech” at the time?

is technology really more efficient?

In one of my technology coaching sessions with senior executives, the exec told me a story. He said, I'm always ready to learn technology and somethings that will make me more effective but sometimes people assume if it involves technology, that it will automatically be faster and more efficient, that isn't always the case. He proceeded to tell me about how 5-10 years ago he was in an airport and there was a fellow businessman that needed to look up a telephone number. He had all his phone numbers on his laptop so he took out his laptop, started it up, went through the boot process, opened the program etc. Meanwhile, the exec I was coaching, took out his handy dandy paper address book and in the time that he had already completed the call, the man looking up the phone number on the computer was still waiting for his computer to boot, etc.

He continued on telling me computers and technology aren't always faster or better. In this instance I agree, if the task is to look up a phone number while traveling, clearly the time it takes to boot the computer and look it up on there takes much longer than someone who is ttrying to look it up in a hand sized paper address book.

This reminds me of people using technology without really evaluating technology. Just doing it because if you can do it using technology, it must be better. I think it is important to remember that computers are a tool and they should be used when it is more efficient and it makes more sense, when the user can get a benefit by using the computer they can't get otherwise. I think this simple statement is often overlooked and computers are used to reproduce a system they could do using paper. I think the process should be analyzed not just use computer to do the same thing you did before computers.

Attaining Course Goals

Course Goals: Each student will...
1) create his/her own essential questions regarding learning objectives and teaching objectives (these questions should evolve through reading, doing, discussing, reflecting, exploring, succeeding, failing, picking yourself up, dusting yourself off, and starting all over again)
I think have definately progressed in this area of questioning learning objectives, however I also think I haven't quite articulated it yet. I feel the questions are culminating but I don't have the words yet. I feel like the final project will be the culmination for me for defining some of these questions. I do feel I have a much better grasp on curriculum in general. The ABC's exercise and the U-101 was invaluable for me. I think the questions, although these may seem generic, are "deceptively simple" to coin Dr K's phrase. What are the big ideas of the learning objectives? What experiences can I either offer or simulate that will help them construct this knowledge? Does technolgy add value? Can it add value?

2) create authentic tasks which incorporate technology skill(s) in a learning/training situation
This is a hard one for me to pick apart or distinguish for some reason. I feel like this is one of the things I already do and since the majority of what I do IS TECHNOLOGY training, it is hard for me to distinguish not incorporating technology. The biggest reinforcement I have gotten through this class in regards to this objective is, authentic experiences are crucial. In much of the training I do, fake data or fake companies are used. I have been a HUGE proponent of using real data whenever possible and feasible on the classes I teach. The difference in retention that I have seen has been tremendous. I didn't have the words or the theory to support why I thought this, but now I do. Although, pure constructionism is idea, the reality is that often times these training engagements which I lead are short in time and the best case scenario is to have real data to use in the simulation which is still better than fake data altogether. I have learned the value and have become more adiment in my feelings about authenticity but also realistic that it isn't always feasible.

3) incorporate reflection of personal use of technology as a learning tool (intended or unintended) for the self and those in the immediate surroundings through blogging (we will discuss this in class #1)
This has been fun for me. I must admit, sometimes I really have to think hard about this but I've had some fun deconstructing some everyday situations and thinking about the learning or teaching part of the situation. Not all of my deconstructions have been technology related but some have. I have really learned a lot. As I'm re-reading this goal, I'm remembering myself processing it differently, not necessarily with technology attached so I think I've focused more on the learning itself but this has been fun.
4) identify when technology is and is not an appropriate tool for learning and/or communication AND be able to articulate the reasoning for making this judgment This one is hard for me as well, since again almost all my training and teaching is actually training on a technology product. I do think I have broadened my scope on this, however to be able to think critically about how technology enhances an experience or maybe IF it enhances an experience or not.

5) identify what is really being learned by the use of technology in particular situations
I definately think this goes hand in hand with #4. Being able to articulate when technology is a good choice also means being able to articulate and understand when it's not a good choice. Again, these have been the harder goals for me with my background but I do believe through the course of this class, that I have begun a process of deeper understanding about this. Another application of both of these objectives is when and when not to use technology in general. When does it make sense and when doesn't it? Some people just assume, always use technology, and I must say I tend to be a little that way but understanding when it makes sense in every day life is also important. When is it more effective or when does it bring value to the situation and when does it unncessarily complicate it?
6) meld the first 5 goals into the culmination project and be able to articulate where each of these goals lives within the project during an on-line presentation
TBD
7) be prepared to examine, revisit, construct, and deconstruct the following questions and your answers...
Guess we are doing this now...

My 3 year old says "that's ridiculous" to a symbolic tool belt

As I've blogged about before, I have 2 sons, one is 3 and the other is almost 2. My 2 year old is strating to talk but we mostly don't understand him. My 3 year old is quickly mastering the english language. It's amazing actually. It always strikes me at how much he has learned in his short life time. First I ask myself, why is that so amazing? For some reason we think these words are reservered for older people. Do we think only when you are a certain age, can you attain a certain level of knowledge. As you get older everyone thinks you get smarter but then at a ceratin age, that stops, does it reverse? Stereotypically, elderly people don't usually understand the ins and outs of our complex world, why is this? so is knowledge like a peaked line on a graph with an incline and a decline?

When I think about my 3 year old struggling over big words, I laugh to myself because it sounds so cute to hear such a big word come out of such a little mouth. It reminds me of the book by Frank Smith, Learning and Forgetting. Kids learn these words because they are immersed into an environment where the words are used in "authentic" ways. They listen and try the words out and constantly get feedback from those around them. As we get older, this changes, we are expected to "know" a certain amount of words and we are afraid of trying a word we don't know because of what people will say or think if we use the word incorrectly. We don't get the positive reinforcement like we do when we are "3". Again, when and why does this change? Does this attribute to why adults don't learn at the astronomical rate that kids do when they are so young? Why do we think its ok for kids to do this but not adults?

To take this to the next level, as educators, we should be creating environments to submerge our "learners" in to teach them all sorts of subjects. When we are 3, the majority of people around us know more than us, when we get to school, the ratios change. This makes me think of teaching in more authentic ways, which isn't brain surgery, but it also makes me think of team teaching or having more volunteers or other particpants in education help to make up this environment. How do I do this myself? How can I create environments in my classes of pd and tech training that will be affective. What are the big ideas, to walk away not with all the knowledge but the basics of a program so they have the tools to learn the rest...hmm...brainstorm...these big ideas need to be presented along with the tools...a symbolic toolbelt like Dr K talked about but for my class...I need to keep going with this.

The tools are:
1 - the basic skills of the program, understanding the purpose, (class)
2 - knowing how to get help in applying it (bb community & my contact info)
3 - Understanding how to start and dig in and know that they can't know everything
4 - Know they can't learn everything an d how they learn the program is by constructing knowledge through using it...

This needs work but it's a start

Deconstruct week of 2/21 - kids and technology

I think it's so random when you hear little kids (2, 3, 4)say big words. My son has one of the My First Leap Pad's. ALthough he's still young, it's interesting to watch him play with it or any technology. He also got a "kid's laptop" for christmas which consists of buttons for each letter of the alphabet. Is this really technology? I see the cause and effect with my youngest son (almost 2) he hits a button and understands it does something, talks etc. With my 3 year old, I wonder about the technology. Does it do any good? Some people think because I'm tech savvy I would have my kids on computers as soon as possible, but I don't necessarily think that does any good. I see how fast they pick it up but I don't necessarily see a reason to start them at 3 or 4, just when they want. WHen my 3 year old uses the leap frog, he more thinks it's cool and likes to play "bob the builder" song. Is this a good use of technology? Yes, he hears the words and sounds but he hears those from us when we read to him several books each day, plus then he gets the added benefit of asking questions. I find that he loves to read books but I try not to get caught up with just finishing the book, he likes to talk about the pages, and the pictures he sees and ask questions, how does a leappad or similar device assist? They can point to some different things on the page and get some interaction, is this good?

I do see how fast they figure out how to click on the green circle on each page, for example or how to change cartridges, but this isn't specific to technology, just how fast kids learn, they are sponges. I think maybe when he is starting to read maybe there might be more value in hearing the words while trying to read.

Are the pre-k technology tools beneficial? What does the technology add that is worthwile or unique to the technology?

deconstruct week of 2/14 - friends and family

So I'm the tech person of my friends and family. I get most of the question from people when something doesn't work right or they don't know how to do something. This is fine, most of it comes quite easily for me, although I'm not sure why but I know by taking on this role I become more and more of an expert because I get exposed to more and more scenarios thus having more experience and furthering my expertise. Anyway, similar to my situation last week how to enable these people to take on the learning of the computer themselves. I'm happy to coach them along but how can I enable them to be learners and to try to construct knowledge, not have me "fix it" for them or "write down the steps". I don't believe this is really learning at all, rather it is just solving a problem or a means to end. I try not to " do things for them" like a good teacher, although I must admit sometimes trying to explain something to someone over the phone is more than any person can handle.

What would a real "intro to computers" look like?

If I were to design a curriculum for this type of intro learner, what would it be?

The big ideas would be
1 - learn the basics of the hardware of a computer, understanding that you can't know everything.
2 - Understand that predominately software is all the same. Point out the similarities like open, save, close, help, format, menus etc. Once the similarities are apparent maybe the thoughts about each software problem being completely unrelated won't be as prevelent.
3 - UNderstand the hard drive and file structure, directories and the operating system.

Sometimes the little things like versions of software and different commands and software names get people completely overwhelmed. Like I might be overwhelmed if I were to start working with engineering or some other field for which I wasn't familiar. I understand why this is hard, because there is so much depth but certainly there are ways to work within a subject and operate at a more peripheral level not be an expert but each time you work with the computer continue to construct your knowledge and build on your past experiences.