Epimetheus

I re-read this today: it was assigned in another USQ course as well- Designing Instruction, I think. It seemed a bit easier to understand this time

Jim Taylor is available in a chat, but I really feel quite intimidated by his presence- too much so to make a comment. Perhaps it's a case of the expert knowledge being TOO present! Johan Van Eeden seems to understand it enough to engage with him- but perhaps he's an intelligent agent, and not a person at all!! (lol)

I find myself wondering about degrees of expertise, particularly in modularized courses. For example, in the MBA course I'm working on at the moment, there is no intention in the Accounting and Finance subject that students actually develop the knowledge base of accountants. It's more that they understand enough about the concerns, ways of thinking and jargon of accountants that they're able to engage with them in their role as manager. So who would the expert be? The accountant? Or a manager who deals well with accountants?

And what about in modularized courses where the one subject is being accessed by several different programs (e.g. business, engineering, communications etc) at the same time. Is it the same knowledge basis when especially the strategic knowledge might differ according to area of application?

The first time I read this, I thought that it applied MORE to vocational training contexts than any others, so I was suprised to see Glen's question in the interview where he stated that it applied to academic and discipline knowledge but how well to training. I do agree with Taylor, though, that competency based training tends to take insufficient account of the knowledge base.

I wonder what critiques there have been of Taylor's work? I feel inadequate in the whole area of cognitive psychology to make a critical appraisal of it

From Collins ("I know my instructional technologies") article- even though it is “meh”.

“Bugelski (1971) suggests that teaching is just a myth and that there is no such operation as teaching in, and of, itself. The best that can be done is to arrange conditions in which learning can occur.”

I wonder if this is just the flower-power gone to his/her head, or a comment of the times? Somehow it doesn’t quite fit with outcomes-based, efficient “delivery of instruction”. And how ironic- Gagne’s book “The Conditions of Learning” is just about as far from this passive approach to instruction as you could get.

I disagree with Bugelski's contention. I think that teaching is far more intention-driven and deliberate than this. It’s one of the things that worries me about “facilitation” in online learning as being restricted to feel-good, soft and fuzzy niceness. While I acknowledge that establishing the conditions for learning is important, it’s not just a matter of putting on a nice spread, then sitting back and if no-one eats, that’s fine. There’s an element of professional responsibility at play here, and almost a form of contract of engagement.

I don’t know whether, particularly in online learning, we think it terms of a contract, but perhaps it’s useful? I think that Glen spelled out fairly early the intensiveness of this course in terms of expectation- although perhaps it would have been more transparent to make this clear in the enrolment information. I wonder if people’s perception of online learning as being dumbed-down or cognitively anorexic is because the concept of contract is not adhered to on either side: on teachers in terms of their expectations and presence; and students in terms of time spent, willingness to contribute and acceptance of challenge and difficulty.

Here’s a bit of a throwaway line from Gunawardena and Zittle about learner/instructor interaction: “viewed as essential by many educators and highly desired by many learners.” Hmmmm- a disparity here in the contract??

This is apropos of nothing, but anyway....

I�m reading a website that supports the Lifelong learning program I caught the end of last week. It�s called Distant Mirrors: Dimly Lit, and it addresses 21st century concerns from the viewpoint of the Ancient Greeks and Romans. The address is: http://www.abc.net.au/rn/learning/lifelong/features/classics/default.htm

There are six episodes: Anger, Privacy, Leisure, Depression, Family and Memory.

In Anger, the program argues that the Greeks and Romans had tribal anger-systems better suited to a small-scale society, where anger could be expressed, things could change, and the situation could be alleviated. But by Imperial Rome (1CE), cities were bigger, totalitarian entities. Anger was turned inwards. This trend was heightened by the Christian ethic of �turning the other cheek�, which ran counter to the prevailing Greek/Roman concept of behaviour.

Episode 2, Privacy, is interesting. It points out that in the 21st century we have unparalleled private and persoal freedom, but at the same time, yet at the same time strong control, checks, surveillance and supervision over our public behaviour (CCTV, speed cameras, email monitoring). The program points out that Romans had very little privacy: there was the constant presence of slaves, status was measured in terms of the size of your retinue, communal bathing and toilet facilities etc. Apparently Tiberius (a public political figure) withdrew from public appearance, lived on an island and communicated only by mail and was viewed as being a bit odd in his isolation. (Shades here of Garbo and Wacko Jacko??) And again, there�s a split at the end of 1CE, in the period of Juvenus and Tacticus, where the public and the private separate- and Tiberius was an example of this. He came to a bad end though- or is it a "bed" end (groan) because the senators smothered him in his blankets.

I�m thinking here of connections with my last post- about privacy in online learning- or maybe it�s not just online learning but online behaviour more generally. For example, this blog is NOT just a reflective journal- I am aware of the potential presence of other readers, and so it straddles the public/private divide. But on the other hand, I did not want it listed on Blogger�s list of sites, because I want to retain some feeling of control over who is reading it. Part of my decision to approach Nic, Carol and Alison directly was because I wanted some control over who might join the group- is that a power trip, or just an expression of privacy??

Episode 3 is about Leisure. Lars Svenson, who wrote a book called The Philosophy of Boredom is quoted to distinguish simple boredom and existential boredom. Even though the bible, the Greeks and the Romans wrote about boredom in metaphoric terms, the actual words to describe it are fairly recent (e.g. 18th century). Some societies lend themselves more than others to the expression of boredom: e.g. if you are starving, you�re not likely to complain of boredom; 17th and 18th century monarchs could complain of boredom, but their courtiers couldn�t because that reflected on the king. Leisure does not necessarily have an end in sight- if it does, then it becomes something else (e.g. playing golf to increase your business contacts)

Depression, in Episode 4, also seems to spring up from the first century CE onwards. Although the terms mania and melancholia spring from the Greeks, this does not necessarily indicate a seamless understanding of depression. In fact, it�s only in the last 150-200 years that people have spoken of being depressed. Boredom (often described by men) and depression (often described by women) are closely related. The constant presence of other people would make depression very difficult to cope with in Roman times, leading perhaps to suicide.
Oh nice! �Take this case from Seneca. He writes of a German gladiator who so loathed his life as a captive in the coliseum that he choked himself to death with a toilet sponge normally used for anal cleaning. Seneca says it�s scarcely clean and decent to die that way, but asks, �What is more stupid than to die fussily?�� (lol) Oh dear Lord, please don�t let me die by swallowing the toilet brush!!!

The program suggests that mild depression is perhaps beneficial in some ways: �it seems to provide a measure of protection against the sickness brought on by the blurring of the boundaries of the self. I�ve argued that self-awareness is built on a sense of distance from oneself, on a capacity to observe oneself. This is a type of alienation that is tantamount to mild depression, but should the distance become too great, the risk is of a type of psychological disintegration, depression. Should the gulf become too narrow, the risk is that of mania and autism.�

Episode 5 looks at the family. Although the 1950s is viewed as the golden age of the family, what about Greek and Roman families? The program looks at �pet children� or "delicia" in Roman families- similar to the family dog; spoiled by the male head of the family (although apparently not sexually), then absorbed back into the slave component of the family on adulthood. There were many close relationships: Greek and Roman families fall between the nuclear (private) family and the clan, moeity group where everything is communal.

Hmm- Greeks living in Egypt favoured marriages between full brothers and sisters. I didn�t think that full sibling relationships were favoured anywhere- that it was a sort of universal taboo. Apparently in classical Athens, marriages between half-brothers and sisters were encouraged.

Episode 6 is about memory, which is what attracted me to the program in the first place, especially having read Inga Clendinnen lately. The ancient Greeks and Romans used history as a way to avoid being forgotten; we, on the other hand, have a fear of forgetting. In the ancient world, being forgotten was the worst thing that could happen to you (possibly because there was not a strong sense of the after-life)- Ulyssess for example had the choice of a short life and long glory, or old age in obscurity. He went for the former. Anzac Day is probably an example of this ancient view of memory, but there are not many other examples of collective memory like this in modern society. This had changed by the time of St Augustine 354 to 430 CE who talks of self recollection- as if a storehouse of memories is just lying there waiting to be opened. The program suggests that Christianity put the emphasis on the individual. Memory, for us, is part of constructing the self, which is why Alzheimers is so distressing to us.

In fact, this radio series seems to suggest that I should rethink my paradigm change list, and include Christianity- as distinct from religion per se- as one of the big paradigm shifts.

There�s a really good timeline here- I hadn�t really realised how chronologically dispersed ancient writers were: they all blur into one for me.

I've just written up an email to Glen, explaining what we are doing, and forwarded it to the rest of the group before actually sending it to him.

It's a curious thing, thinking about interpersonal dynamics in an online classroom. Who owns and controls the interaction between participants? When does independent action become subversion? Are we doing the equivalent of whispering in class? (Although I think that some other learning management systems - maybe First Class- build in a whispering component.)

There's a publicness about Blackboard that doesn't necessarily occur in face-to-face classrooms, and to a certain extent, a powerlessness of the participants in terms of setting up their own groups etc. without going through the tutor. Of course, it can be avoided: stick to emails, set up a Yahoo group etc.- just as any form of control can be avoided.

If I send the email, it will be interesting to see what Glen's response is. I am HOPING that he'll say: go for it; how can I help? here's your hidden group, good on you.

And believe it or not, I have stayed connected with my laptop for two hours and twenty three minutes without losing my connection. I had to dial in twice, but this is the first time that I've been able to stay on for more than twenty minutes without being bumped. Perhaps it's getting used to me.

An interesting article in yesterday's Age, written by Stephen Crittenden from Radio National's Religion Report. This is the article he got hauled over the coals for publishing without receiving permission.

At the moment, it's at . I know that Age articles tend to disappear after a while, so it mightn't be here for much longer.

Now THAT'S interesting. I tried using the hyperlink tool on the post page, and I don't think it worked. The link is http://theage.com.au/articles/2003/08/29/1062050664027.html

Anyway, what I really liked about this article was the way that Crittenden summarised the viewpoints of two books, highlighting the debate between them. I was thinking about the meta-knowledge that a lecturer brings to a learning situation that helps him/her to know where the debate lies, where the debate comes from, and where the 'hooks' are for grappling with the debate. This is not a matter of letting students wallow in their own ignorance; but it's not quite sage on the stage either. And it's not just content in its own right either- it's a commentary on the content that makes far more sense (and indeed sometimes can ONLY make sense) if you've done the original reading. I think that the USQ notes do this well- I think it's something I'd like to encourage our academics to do to shift their focus away from transmission.

Errrrrrggggg.....why did we do it?

The bottle count out by the back door: 4 cans of Vodka, Lemon Lime and Soda; 2 small bottles of beer, 1 champagne, two whites and three reds. Oh- and 1 mineral water! What on earth were we thinking? And we reckon we're on a DIET???? (Huh!)

And just so you know that I am ever the educational designer (as well as being a lush), a little conversation with me, Richard (sessional economics tutor) and Jo (lecturer in psychology). As you know, I've been working on writing facilitator guides to send off to Vietnam with our online materials, and one of the things that I've been thinking about is "how do you convey the essence of a course to another teacher?" How do sessional teachers know what they're supposed to teach? What is the communication and the shared vision between a lecturer and tutors? How does it work when the course team is in Melbourne, then there are offshore tutors?

Richard's response, which did not surprise me in the least. Well, he gets the course outline which gives the chapters of the textbook each week, exercises from the chapter that have been assigned and he "takes them through it." There it is again: the disappearing curriculum document that holds the course objectives and outcomes that somehow is replaced by a textbook-based, content-driven document. "What about the activities you run with groups - what guidance do you get with them?" Blank look. He mentioned that there was precious, precious little that he had learnt from his undergraduate study that ever bore any relation to what he did in his working life with the public service for over 20 years. He made a big deal about his experience and qualifications, but saw his task with students in terms of "going through the questions" in the textbook.

I see bad teaching in some of the courses I'm working with as an educational designer; dominated by the textbook and questions because the lecturer is exposed by the requirement to put stuff online. I have no doubt that it happens in face-to-face too. If good teaching is good teaching, then bad teaching is bad teaching too.

Jo was more interesting: he talked about enculturation into a profession but seemed to see this as something that happened by accretion and without the need for deliberate action on his part. I wish now that I'd followed up more on this. He observed (correctly) that academics would probably find it very hard to talk about their intentions for an activity in any terms other than those of content. He said other things too, but (ahem) I can't quite remember them......(lol)