Month: October 2018

LRNT523 Unit 1 Assignment 1

There are a few cases where it is important to do calculations by hand, but these are small fractions of cases. The rest of the time you should assume that students should use a computer just like everyone does in the real world – Conrad Wolfram

With a MA from Cambridge University in the field of physics, natural sciences and mathematics and founder and CEO of computerbasedmath.org & Wolfram Research Europe he is an activist and a pioneer in the reform of mathematics in education and the necessary rebuild of the math curriculum (“Conrad Wolfram,” n.d.).  He forces to break old habits of the traditional methods of teaching math and re-think, re-frame and re-engineer the way we train this compulsory curriculum in the 21^st century.

We need math for 3 reasons: (Wolfram, 2010)

1. For almost any job
2. Everyday life
3. Logical thinking

Stop teaching calculations and start teaching math – Conrad Wolfram 

I selected Conrad Wolfram for my assignment as an innovator in the field of education because of his drive and belief in that if math could be more practical and less mechanical, it would become more appealing to students. Wolfram has become a major advocate for the use of computers and calculators in k-12 classrooms.

As it was contradictory to my perspectives, I was fascinated on how this all could make sense as an educator, instructional designer, corporate trainer, recruiter, parent, and life long learner.

He claims that there is this myth around you need to know the basics to do math the right way and that if you just get a computer to do it, it is just mindless button pushing, but if you do it by hand it is intellectual. (Wolfram, 2010).  That’s exactly what I thought!

Now, there’s no denying getting to know the basics to give individuals working aptitude to do mental math is still important, however he claims the focus should not be around the calculation itself, as the calculation is simply the means to an end, and not the end.  He suggests that writing out the equation on paper to get the right answer isn’t the way to do math, rather using a computer for the computation, which it has been created for, is used and take the focus off the equation itself and refocus on what is the real-world problem we are trying to solve.

Doing math in 4 easy steps: (Wolfram, 2010)

1. Make sure to pose the right question; what is it we are tying to find out; what problem are we trying to solve?
2. Take this real-world problem and create a math formula
3. Allow the computer to compute the answer, rather than doing it manually on paper, get the computer to do it
4. Take the math formula and ask did it solve the real-world problem, did it answer the question, can it be verified?

We encourage and want students to be content creators, not just the consumers of content (Wolfram, 2010).  Math should be more practical and more conceptual and less mechanical and without the shift there will be deficiencies in the future skills of our workforce such as being imaginative, creative problem solvers, analytical and critical thinkers.

This is important as someone working in a corporate HR team not only recruiting, but implementing learning solutions to support the development of skills and knowledge to ensure a competitive and competent workforce.

Sites to visit for more information on Conrad Wolfram

• Conrad Wolfram Website
• Conrad Wolfram BLOG
• Wolfram U
• https://www.computerbasedmath.org/

 

References

Wolfram, C. (2010, November).  Conrad Wolfram: Teaching kids real math with computers.  Retrieved from https://youtu.be/60OVlfAUPJg

Conrad Wolfram.  (n.d.).  In Wikipedia.  Retrieved October 10, 2018, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conrad_Wolfram

 

 

LRNT523 Unit 3 Activity 7

 Authors: Chad FLINN, Beata KOZMA, Dorothy SIDHU, and Danielle STOKES.

Kozma cited Simon (1981) and Glaser (1976) and claims that educational technology is a design science (Simon, 1981, Glaser, 1976 as cited in Clark, 1994), not a natural science. Kozma (1994, p. 2) expresses that we, the people, the instructional designers need to ‘forge’ the connection between media and learning. If we don’t their educational contribution will be minimal at best.

In both his articles, Clark (1984, as cited in 1994, p. 2) claimed that “media not only fail to influence learning, they are also not directly responsible for motivating learning.” The Merriam-Webster Dictionary (“Influence | Definition of Influence by Merriam-Webster,” n.d.) defines ‘Influence’ as “the power or capacity of causing an effect in indirect or intangible ways”. Clark’s arguments seem to miss the meaning of ‘influence’ as our articles reveal.

Both Clark (1994) and Kozma (1994) acknowledge that instructional methods and the chosen media must be aligned to facilitate meaningful learning. In the summaries of the articles below, it can be seen that both Clark and Kozma have valid arguments in the field of pedagogy.  As we see, the evolution of media (Virtual and Augmented Reality) has shifted its use and potentially a shift in the authors’ views. While there was a time when media may have been no more than a glorified video lecture we are now seeing media influencing assessments, connections, personalized learning, and construction of knowledge.

The following four articles support and question Clark and Kozma’s arguments and lead to a continued debate on the use of technology and learning and what the future may bring in this field.

Is Digital Technology Changing Learning & Teaching?  The Big Debate from Digifest 2017

With clear opposing viewpoints and strong positional stances between Clark (1994) and Kozma (1994) on the debate of independence versus interdependence amongst learning and media Clark has claimed, “30 percent sample of the studies he used and found that when the same instructional design group produces Computer Based Training (CBT) and presents the live instruction with which it is compared in many studies, there is no achievement difference between CBT and live conditions” (1994, p. 23). Kozma responded with, “knowledge and learning are neither solely a property of the individual or the environment and rather they are the reciprocal interaction between the learner’s cognitive resources and aspects of the external environment (Greeno, 1988 et al. as cited in Kozma, 1994, p. 9) and this interaction is strongly influenced by the extent to which internal and external resources fit together” (Snow 1992 as cited in Kozma, 1994, p. 9).

In the article, Is Digital Technology Changing Learning & Teaching, a similar debate continues a decade and a half later in 2017 between Neil Morris, who argues FOR that digital technology is fundamentally changing learning and teaching and Amber Thomas, who argues AGAINST the motion.

The three main points included by Morris in favor of learning and teaching are changing due to technology are the flexibility and accessibility of learning, way learners gain knowledge, and interaction with others. Morris suggests, “None of these were even imaginable before we started to integrate digital technology into education” (Morris, 2017, p. 4). Morris sees these three points as interconnected to digital technology changes in learning and teaching. In Morris’s first point on flexibility, he describes how learners are able to access learning from anywhere, anytime and any pace. The options between blended, hybrid and fully online allow learners to have a choice and they can integrate it as seen best into their lives.  This, in turn, sees several benefits which could include; increases in enrollment, greater participation, higher motivation and satisfaction. His second point explains how learners are gaining competencies through the use of technology, where they are expected to not only use technology but as well as hone in on skills around massive amounts of information and ability to search, refine, categorize and understand (Morris, 2017). These are all directly useful for future employment, as these are some of the skill seeked out for tomorrow’s workforce. The third point Morris discusses is how learners are able to interact with peers and teachers residing globally, in turn enabling advocacy around inclusion and diversity, cultural awareness, and globalization.

Furthermore, Morris describes these changes give educators more diversity in their approach to support learners and provide more opportunities to be more inclusive in their teaching methods. Additional benefits raised by Morris is with digital technology, educators can create more interactive, engaging, flexible learning materials in a variety of digital and multimedia formats, as well as make them online and compatible with mobile devices. Finally, the ability to communicate as educators through the use of digital technology allows for higher and greater interaction with learners, communicating in more ways and not limited to classroom and meetings face to face.

Amber Thomas sees things in a similar viewpoint as Clark. She expresses that, “drivers for change in teaching and learning in higher education are socio-economic, related to the way student fees are funded, changes in the job market, the currency of a degree and the skills people need.  As a result of those drivers, we see technologies used in particular ways” (Thomas, 2017, p. 8). Thomas takes a pretty clear stance that digital is the endpoint and the real efforts are within the design and development by instructional designers and architects of the content to create a great digital course, emphasizing it’s about the real structures in the learning designs, course objectives, and learning outcomes.

She continues to emphasize that the learning is about conversations with academics and educators around what the course is about, how the learning is designed, what is it designed to do, how teams will be structured and allocation of time put aside for running an activity. Thomas explicitly went on to say, “Those are not technical concerns and can be quite disappointing for those who believe that we have the magical pixie dust of technology to scatter of their courses for them” (Thomas, 2017, p. 12).

The tensions between interconnectedness and interdependence between technology, media, digital and learning versus them as stand-alone and a silo pillar continue to be debated a decade later. As we continue to see greater exposure with technology in the space of learning, more demands for mobile learning, personalized learning plans, alongside with artificial intelligence and classrooms and training facilities outfitted with advanced systems and technologies for learning, it will be interesting to see if this necessary and inevitable relationship finds a cohesiveness where designing and developing great learning goes hand in hand with digital technology.

LRNT523 Unit 3 Assignment 2

Learning Management Systems (LMS) have been part of mainstream adoption for the past decade by many higher education institutions and organizations with professional industry training.  A decade may not seem that long, however the build up to what we know LMSs to be today goes way back in time.

Looking back in history, 1906 University of Wisconsin established the first distance learning institution in the world education scenario.  Fast forwarding a half century later to 1960 University of Illinois developed PLATO – Programmed Logic for Automatic Teaching Operations.

LMSs have evolved spanning the divide in the space of Proprietary LMS to Open Source LMS to Cloud Based LMS.  Consumers continue to push the limits for more added functionality,  users now see content creation, communication, assessment and administration as table stakes.  The future of making it learning more convenient and easier, alongside personalized learning, social media, and portability continues to edge us forward in the upcoming decade and LMS 2.0.

As part one of assignment 2, I’ve been tasked to review several papers on the topic of LMS evolution, select 5 articles and provide a quick overview on the following areas: concept, main thesis, evidence, key points and critique.

Below you will find my annotations on the LMS evolution. Stay tuned for part two of my annotated bibliography assignment which will have a full synthesis of these 5 readings.

Dorothy Sidhu LRNT523 Assignment 2 – Annotated Bibliography Part ONE

As a continuation to assignment 2 below is part 2 of my assignment.  Please see my attached assignment synthesizing my findings.

Assignment 2 Part 2 – Dorothy Sidhu