This painting has slowly been making its way from my mind to the canvas since the idea to paint it flashed into my head several months ago. It’s hard to believe that I haven’t picked up a paint brush since high school, but I can see how recent pursuits of photography and doodling have influenced both my perspective and technique.
This Dilbert comic made me laugh - bad analogies are as annoying as those little plastic things that they use to attach the price tags with. Do I hear sirens?
Last week I was fortunate enough to be in attendance for David Jonassen’s thought-provoking talk “Engaging and Supporting Problem Solving Online”. I had not heard of him prior to this engagement but within minutes of his presentation I wished that I (along with everyone else involved in education) had heard of him sooner.
What he had to say was simple and obvious yet totally overlooked for the most part in education - knowledge that is constructed in context is more meaningful, more easily integrated, better retained, and more transferable than knowledge created in an artificial situation like an exam. Given that we encounter numerous problems during the day - from where to park to what to make for dinner - problem solving is the most meaningful and relevant activity that we engage in.
Instead of teaching for tests Jonassen suggests that we should be teaching in for the real world - after all, it’s in the real world and not an examination hall that the application of knowledge truly counts. This means you have to engage learners by creating an authentic learning environment that has meaning and Jonassen suggests that technology can be a useful tool in creating these environments. Currently, technology for the most part is being used as a way to distribute course content that was previously delivered on paper - class notes, readings, tests, etc. This is all fine and dandy, and hopefully a few trees have been spared thanks to this electronic distribution process, however this hardly classifies as online learning. You don’t change learning by simply changing the distribution of the learning materials.
Jonassen suggest that we go beyond this distribution model and use technology to create meaningful learning environments that support problem solving. In these environments, technology is used both to distribute information about the problem and to help guide users towards a solution. Although problems will differ both in complexity and across domains, what is consistent is the way that technology can be applied to assist in the problem solving process. Simulations are easily accomplished thanks to the data crunching power of computers and are an excellent way for students to experiment with different variables and their resulting outcomes. Simulations would work for a variety of different problems including supply/demand analysis in economics and physical simulations for engineering. Jonassen also suggests the use of constraint-based discussion boards where restrictions are placed on the types of posts students can make in a discussion by encouraging researched-based as opposed to opinion-based responses. These types of boards would be very effective in for domains where problem solving requires decision-making and argumentation skills, such as design or policy analysis.
Using simulations and constraint-based discussion boards are just two examples of the many novel ways to use technology to create meaningful learning environments that engage the learners in problem solving. These are by no means fancy solutions - they are novel in their underlying approach and not in the technology used to implement them. Before we can effectively use technology we must look at how we are teaching. Once we understand that technology is the tool and not the teacher we will be able to harness the full power of the technology and teach to meaningful learning outcomes that support problem solving.
More information on David Jonassen’s work can be found at the Center for the Study of Problem Solving and on the Design Constructivist Learning Environments resource page.
I came across the article “Wired up, plugged in, zoned out” this morning which made me livid. I’m usually a pretty calm person when reading the paper on a bright Sunday morning, but the paranoia and one-sidedness of this article deeply troubled me. While I could go on about all of the benefits of technology and some of the drawbacks, it basically comes down to the fact that we can’t wholly blame the technology for how it is used and instead we have to look at the users and why the users make the choices that they do. I felt compelled to make a comment on the Globe and Mail site (a first for me) which went as follows:
I use personalization to filter out the junk that is delivered by the so-called “common sources” that this article praises. Personalization will eventually result in the death of pop culture and I can’t help but wonder if that is such a bad thing if that means we no longer have to read about Bradgelina or listen to “My Humps” by the Black-Eyed Peas.
Personalization gives the user the choice in what they want to consume. Some people will make choices that result in an echo chamber and others will make choices that result in a bazaar of opinions and options. Instead of cursing the technology for giving us the power to choose perhaps we should look at how we are making choices. Individuals need to be taught how to evaluate various news sources and empowered with critical thinking skills to assess the content being provided by those sources. Personalization by technology is here to stay and instead of yearning for the good ol’ days of the “daily masses” we should be encouraging individuals to create the best possible ?��Ǩ?�daily me”.
It may seem out of context without having first read the article but my point is clear - the problem is not that we can choose but how we make choices. Personalization technology will keep advancing like the juggernaut that it is and we need to keep up to speed by ensuring that information literacy and critical thinking skills are taught so that we are making the choices and not the technology.
Interestingness is an attribute assigned to Flirck photographs based on the ever-illusive “interestingness” algorithm. No one is quite sure how it works, but having a photo make it to the Interestingness page is something that, at one point or another, most Flickrites have aspired to. Although there is much debate over the photos selected by the algorithm, an interestingness raking still seems to be a measure of success in the Flickr world - interestingness has become equated with famousness. Having read several posts of users fretting over their lack of interestingness status, I was please to come across a post with this quote by the graffiti artist Banksy:
The time of getting fame for your name on its own is over. Artwork that is only about wanting to be famous will never make you famous. Any fame is a by-product of making something that means something. You don’t go to a restaurant and order a meal because you want to have a shit.
I’ve always been weary of fame for the sake of fame. Although there are some who have succeeded in becoming famous by wanting to be famous, I wholeheartely agree with Banksy when he says that fame is the result of “making something that means something”. As an artist, I feel that it is my responsiblity to put my artwork out there and as mentioned in the previous post, I may agree or disagree by how it is recieved. In the end, it is up to the audience and not some algorthim to judge my work. An algorithm my be able to determine “interestingness” but only an audience of viewers can determine whether it means something or not.
Using the very cool Mosaic Tool from fd?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s Flickr Toys, I’ve compiled this mosaic of my 20 most favorited pictures on Flickr over the past year:
Interestingly enough, I’ve only choose 5 of these 20 pictures in my own collection of personal favorites. Not that I don’t like all of the ones pictured above, however, I wouldn’t consider some of them to be my personal best. I’m intrigued by this difference, as often times I’ve posted a photo that I didn’t really like that others have really responded to and vice versa. As I’m selecting pictures to upload I’m often aware of this difference but I try not to let it affect my selection process and in the end I choose the photos that I feel are my best. Experience has shown that it’s impossible to predict how an audience will respond, especially in a domain as subjective and diverse as photography. To each his own I suppose - I’m just grateful to have an audience.
.flickr-photo { border: solid 1px #000000; } .flickr-frame { float: left; text-align: center; margin-right: 15px; margin-bottom: 15px; } .flickr-caption { font-size: 0.8em; margin-top: 0px; }
Still needs a bit of work as title and message aren’t showing up and the formatting is a bit off, but i’m still impressed that I can blog from my phone!
Creative Commons: Three Sixty Five (cc:365) is a new initiative launched by Indiesh which delivers a Creative Commons licensed song each and every day for the next year. Both the Podcast and RSS feed is updated daily with a new song and includes some brief information on the artist and song. The project is only three days old but already I’ve discovered three fantastic tracks. So far, the selection has been eclectic and of amazing quality and artisty. Given the diversity of the selection, I’m looking forward to listening to 362 more tasty cc-licensed musical treats as the year unfolds.
