http://www.tedxlausanne.org - Yu-kai Chou is an entrepreneur, speaker, and gamification pioneer. Early in life, he had the epiphany that while games had the ...
Andreas Kuswara's insight:
Interesting the way he explain his view of the gamification drives, although the speaker didn't speak specific in education, in fact he was talking about gamification applied in various aspect of life.
IMHO gamification is different to game per se in education, this aspect of the world of game in education is as much as interesting as the other; and what drives the society will influence the learning activity. thus it's interesting to step back out the education context and see how this concept is being explained in larger context.
Students have just one chance to hear a lecture - and mostly it's just someone reading their notes aloud
Andreas Kuswara's insight:
Critically viewing the argument against F2F
The article stated that “Some lecturers lack the skill to hold the audience's attention” thus rendering the f2f ineffective and downright pointless waste of time, which given the condition I probably agree. However we need to critically ask if replacing f2f with other approach. In giving this insight I’m not siding with either arguments, but would like to explore the many facets of the issue. Take note that I said “many facets” I didn’t say “complex” since the solution can be simple, but we need to know the many different things it involves.
One critical question If f2f is replaced by a recorded lecturer, would the same lecturer who had been ineffectively deliver the f2f can effectively deliver recorded lectures? So my question is, is this modality issue or human issue? IF it’s human issue, staff development probably would be a better solution than changing the medium.
The process of creating recorded lectures has some similarity with F2F lectures, e.g. both would need the preparation of content and at least some rough storyboard in mind; but they also have differences e.g. academics can take the energy from talking in front of a live audience, as they can be interactive, but recorded lectures can’t. They also have different affordances: F2F sessions can give direct cue to academics, affording us to adjust on-the-fly our direction, emphasis etc of delivery; but recorded lectures devoid of all that, however it does give consistency in delivery.
Having said that, probably not every academic does prepare well to deliver F2F lectures, although they have to stand in person; nor every academic will prepare the storyboard and record with great care when preparing the recorded lectures.
Looking at the human side of this equation, aside from the mastery of content, we have the skill to deliver (either f2f lecture or recorded lecture) and the motivation/passion to deliver; looking at the medium side (either f2f or technology mediated) we need to consider the affordance of that medium and how they match the needs of the delivery and how well the institution can support that medium; then there is another human in the equation, the students; how is their motivation to learn and skill to use the medium. IMHO we can’t really overlook any to make a case to change any one.
Formulating balance argument for Blended Learning
A blended approach would be better, not because we are too lazy to pick a winner and thrust all of our energy on that single pressure point, but because just like human body system, we can’t just keep hammering in only a single point. We have to look at the learning activity as a system if we genuinely want to improve it; and blended learning allowed us to do so. And just like a good coffee, there are many blends, some prefer one over the other simply because personal choices, or one is better suited for certain occasion (time, situation).
To apply this on the issue between f2f lectures and recorded lectures; some people (either or both academics and students) might genuinely prefer it; and some subject, content, or learning activity genuinely better delivered through f2f lectures.
About the Babylonian hour, I think it’s probably the tyranny of the scheduler J rather than an issue of pedagogy or f2f vs recorded lectures. Or to be more risky, we can say the tyranny of the definition of a credit. Even when we create recorded lectures, how many of academics still think in term of this much credit thus this much of recorded lectures hours must be deliver? Or even the students, if I enrol in a x credit unit, I should be getting x hours of content. Is this pedagogical issue? IMHO, not, so what should we do with it, I don’t know.. as long as we still do credits calculations and course fee based on credits, and then translated into x hours of something than that issue stays there. Maybe if the credit is defined as x hours of learning, rather than x hours of teaching, then units’ designers can have flexibility in creating units between the continuum of teaching and learning. Because some units or at least lessons within the units do require different ways of using the time; it’s probably liberating for academics and students alike, if we can flexibly assign hours to different things learning activities. Maybe week 1 to 3 more lecturing, week 4 to 6 more field work, etc, but our scheduling system doesn’t work like that. It’s the tyranny of scheduling system, not the fault of a particular modality. If academics can schedule for 47.7 minutes or 32.5 minutes lecture, and that is the appropriate length, then the lecture should stop there, not dragging it to become 60 minutes just because the contract said so.
Students being passive observers; it’s most likely to be unproductive if students have to be passive observer for the whole semester all the time. But not all learning has to be active learning as well; sometimes students have to sit and pay attention for 5, 15, 30 minutes maybe, at least that’s my opinion for tertiary education. I’m sure the author is writing against prolong passive observing, rather than the passive observing itself. There is a recent commentator in ABC’s Q&A who said there is no serious discussion in the parliament since everyone is talking and no one is listening. I wander if the education system contributes to that. Listening is a life skill, students need to learn to listen as much as they need to learn to construct and convey arguments. Closing ears and shouting probably is a skill any nation can be without. Second part of this, is that lecture doesn’t have to be passive, it’s probably either the size that cause that lecture to be passive (thus issue of logistic); or the skill of the academics (issue of staff development or personal preference i.e. some people not feel comfortable speaking in front of large crowd). There is an opportunity for blending here to take the good things and mitigate the weaknesses by blending. If the unit controller of a unit happen to be someone who can’t comfortably deliver a lecture, that unit can be built around workshop sessions and a guest lectures can deliver the occasional lectures, not every unit need a superstar lecturers to make that unit a good one.
About attention fall off, again it’s not unique to f2f, we can even replicate this in recorded lectures; since it’s about the endurance of attention required of the students. Unnecessarily long recorded lectures have probably equally detrimental effects to our students. We can also easily insert x minutes of break in F2F; students doesn’t have to leave their seat, academics can include a black slide to pause for 3 minutes.
About notes taking, if students can’t take note, it’s not the fault of a F2F lecture mode; students who can’t take note, is like a driver who can’t drive. It’s a basic skill required, students need to take note too when listening recorded lectures. It’s on the institution shoulder to help students to have these skills, if they don’t readily have after graduating from high-school. To touch back on the issue of Babylonian hour, maybe if all lectures and tutorials doesn’t have to be dragged on to be rounded to an hour then the spare time can be used for students taking part in online (or F2F) workshop to learn how to take notes.
The issue about disability probably is rather misleading to consider it as being resolved by moving F2F to recorded lectures. First either F2F or recorded lectures requires audible and visual perception on the students side. So anyone with weak audible or visual perception will have difficulties. So we then probably talk about how easy to provide support; some lecture theatres are poorly designed, with huge capacity that just make us impossible to see the screen, then maybe technology can be introduced to project the screen to students’ laptop or iPad.
Just in case we talk about physical movement disability, students can join from remote to a F2F lectures or proper construction of the lecture theatre to allow wheelchair access etc. it can be more costly than just record a lecture, but it’s not the issue of pedagogy or modality. Btw, I think it’s perfectly honest and acceptable if a higher education institution to choose a learning approach due to financial reasons; hopefully we are doing it responsibly but in this era where government funding is limited, HEI should be able to make adjustment that can ensure its sustainability to continue to provide education. It is a conflicting requirement, as one of the previous article I shared said, university is placed in the nexus of those conflicts and strive when none a sole winner (paraphrase).
Many of the issue discussed in this article stating the worst possible condition of F2F, thus the worst thing that can happen to F2F of course is always worst off than the best that can happen to recorded lectures. With technology some of the line dividing the two are blurring anyway… there are so many other points in this article that are actually, I think, great pointer for us to discuss further. So we can be more critical in improving the quality of our learning activities, including our F2F and recorded lectures. Thanks to the author of this article to bring the discussion forward.
(2009). The student as co‐producer: learning from public administration about the student–university relationship. Studies in Higher Education: Vol. 34, No. 2, pp. 171-183.
Andreas Kuswara's insight:
co-production: "In this metaphor, the student, lecturers and others who support the learning process are viewed as being engaged in a cooperative enterprise focused on the production, dissemination and application of knowledge, and on the development of learners." – This approach is an alternative to, IMHO complementing rather than substituting the currently dominating view of, students as customer.
(Note before I continue) to acknowledge that some (most) of the following paragraphs are direct quote from the article, and I think the author word them perfectly.
Kuhn (1996) said that Metaphors are powerful and it structure perceptions and actions; therefore using the appropriate one is crucial.
While there are undoubted benefits in the organisational adaptations that have resulted from the growth in consumer power, ‘overcorrection in the direction of only one organizational constituency may compromise other critical aspects of the organization, such as goals, philosophy, resources and personnel’
Positive changes of “‘student as consumer”:
encouraging universities to respond to changing social/cultural environments;encouraging universities to maintain financial stability;encouraging universities to recognise the reality that, for many students, study represents an investment from which the desired pay-off is a well-paid job;contributing to the university’s long-standing role in developing the student’s confidence and enabling them to find an authoritative voice. (3–5)
However on the down side:
by encouraging the student to assume the role of consumer of what is provided by the university, and by encouraging universities to adopt their market role of providing what students demand, the student’s role in the production of learning is de-emphasised and thus learning itself may be diminished.Shift academic’s roles from teaching to managerial control role by lessen their autonomy and authority.
These ‘relationship’ issues are important, because the university is a system which is driven, and held in check, by the balance between three groups of actors, each with different goals, bases of authority, length of time associated with the institution, and loyalties or identities: students, academics and administrators.
In this episode we discuss the topic of blended learning. We find that the definition is lightly nebulous as we try to define what it is. Is it blended learn...
Andreas Kuswara's insight:
an old pod-cast from 9 Feb 2012 about blended learning, but the content IMHO still relevant today.
Blended teaching or blended learning? Whose perspective - academics or students?
Blended doesn't have to be 24/7, but nowadays usually integrates technology and non-technology; sometimes we sometimes interchange between the two terms 'blended ness' and the 'flipped ness' of the unit.
Some people's resistance causes: time consuming process, lost in technology; -- staff development? -- finding the right technology to introduce to allow them sees the value or at least some of the value, even when the hard-core techie people might see it as trivial. Remember that value is subjective. Helping resistant academics see the value and experience as well as able to reap the benefit of that value. Might be we only need to introduction just one tool which really offers a value that can make the reluctant to be converted.
Other people resist due to circumstances: e.g. maybe near retire and perceive don't need any changes, not that (s)he can't, but no motivation to do so considering circumstances. -- i don't know what to do with them, if altruistic reason to make students learn better doesn't work, professional reason that this is good for your personal development, egoistic reason if you do this now well you are helping yourself to do more with less effort down the track and still get paid the same also not work, punitive motive if not do this you get fired also not work, then some more options that i won't discuss here pop up in my mind but no guarantee they will work either.
but for some people, it is new don't know where to start; although instinctively they probably have done so; or sometimes some blended learning approach are very messy, giving the perception that the teacher lost control which is discomforting; or afraid that as if the machine will come and take over their jobs, etc.
From all that, the kind of support needed to be provided to academics can range from: skill through traditional staff development, encouragement recognition assurance etc. that can be done through consultative sessions with champions, advisors, and peers in community of practice.
General Stanley McChrystal is the co-founder of McChrystal Group and is a Senior Fellow at Yale University's Jackson Institute for Global Affairs where he te...
Andreas Kuswara's insight:
It's interesting to hear the general's opinion and reflection about being connected. In this era of social network and proliferation of mobile devices, there is no shortage of means to be connected. But what kind of connections do we have? Being connected doesn't necessarily imply meaningful connection. From social perspective we all know that, don't we? From Facebook timeline to Twitter, Flickr stream to Instagram... What can you not know? Are those deep connection? Subjectivity probably in play here, "deep" and "meaningful" are extremely subjective words. How about in education? Surely there should be a standard by which we can measures meaning and significance? Or not? Of course anything is probably always better than nothing (read John Hattie's visible learning), so any connection is probably better than no connection, but how do we make judgement between one connection with the other? As we encourage students to connect to and through the internet, how meaningful is that connection? Should we or the students maka the judgement? What's educators' role in nourishing their students' connection building process? How do we evaluate connection? Because the general also said, it takes time to forge a connection. What if that connection is not worth the effort? Not meaningful? Is there such things as meaningless connection? Are the efforts then wasted? Or the journey worth more than the destination? Are we concious of these things?
Retention and attrition rates have been a major concern to universities for many years, so much so that there are publications dedicated solely to the issue. Although universities and colleges are basically…
Andreas Kuswara's insight:
But I don’t necessarily see any conflict; the conclusion of this article is “Strategically this means university leaders need to ask themselves whether they should put so much effort into trying to change something that is largely a function of market structure at the expense of recruiting new students.”
For university to recruit new students they need to have good “product” to sell; improving teaching quality is to improve the product; and satisfaction of the student is how you get the improvement of that product out to the market. So at the end, the university improves the teaching quality and makes current students satisfied to recruit new students.
Of course recruiting new students, is not exclusively done by improving teaching and learning. First of all, there are multitudes of other factors; and some university might choose to pump up hot air through their marketing without any improvement of product.
I guess some might see that the graduates are our products; not entirely wrong, but maybe there is another conception that we can use. The students, are our co-producers, they can co-produce with us, or with institution next door. So what we “sell” is the production facility, we offer them to work together with us to produce themselves. So the product we sell to our prospective students, is the production facility, which consisted of technology, academics, etc, including the gym and library either digital or bricks.
That’s why if academics do fascinating things that spark students’ engagement, they should speak about it, not just write journal paper and collect brownies points. Allow others see, share it around, including to the potential new students or society since society is the source of new students and university needs to facilitate this for its own future students recruitment.
Thus improving teaching quality, is not trying to change something that is largely a function of market structure; but it could be linked with new students’ recruitment strategy.
Paul Andersen has been teaching science in Montana for the last eighteen years. He explains how he is using elements of game design to improve learning in h...
Andreas Kuswara's insight:
This video resonate with lots of things in my experience, from the science project, I think there are some concrete lessons that me and my colleagues can agree on there; providing scaffold and making sure none of the kids drive to a brick wall. In recent internal discussion about flipped classroom, a colleague of mine, Tim, mentioned about reason of people flipping their class, is being social, the speaker in this presentation said "coming to school to social", although he did not mentioned about sending kids off to their home to do their reading, but he redefined the learning activity in his class to be more social, allowing interaction and discourses, at the same time also not all just social, but also allow self-exploration deep thinking, but they all seems to be learning, instead of just teaching/lecturing.
Hmm.. is teaching contra-productive? Do we as educators, in our endeavour to teach more, actually cause disservice to our students by making them less able to learn? Maybe if the mode of teaching is more of a one way, even if it’s equipped with lots of bells and whistle that actually enabled students to receive the information package we deliver to them, but they are not learning. Sounds like a half-bake thought, but curious to ponder further more down the track.
Explore the largest community of artists, bands, podcasters and creators of music & audio
Andreas Kuswara's insight:
summary points: Agile workforce has fewer rules, demanded from any company big or small these days. More about alignment with the strategy rather than prescription of what to do, leaving out command & control and focus in communicating alignment.
sceptic question: How realistic it is for a single organization to be able to adapt to several different work model? Would it not be an opposing forces to foster a company culture which contribute in building trust vs agility mentioned before?
Agility seems to be more like a philosophy rather than a model? It’s also heavily underpinned by good relationship between the employer and employee. How do we build that, if the people come and go in a fraction of a decade? Seems like a contradiction within agility.
We can’t really compare a product lifecycle with employment turnover, since the speed of the product lifecycle is actually manufactured (or at least originally so) because companies want to sell more products, to make higher income, but then many competing company are doing the same thing, thus as an ecosystem it become an external factor that force the individual company to keep speeding up their cycles to win competition.
But employment is about sense of security to sustain life of the person and his or her family (socio-psychology). Unless mortgages are made shorter and cheaper (compare 25 years of mortgage versus 9 month product cycle, compare close to $ half a million per house to less than $ half a thousand per phone, then we can see why people are seeking employment security with fear, worry and stress in their life).
The challenge, for employee, is to be agile, which means able to be employable in different aspects of a job or even in different sectors thus making him/her employment fluid to move from one sector to the next, which reminds me of renaissance era, becoming an all-rounder, multi-talented person. Maybe an expert all-rounder, that’s another contradiction in itself but that's a different topic.
I believe the challenge is also on the company, to be agile as a company, but be stable to the employee. Maybe through better recruitment process, and massive paradigm shift, to instead of finding a good skilled worker who can do one specific work, companies should start looking for someone who the company can employ, and re-train and re-employ for a longer term. Thus how to make a better training program, and re-training program, so this good employee, who already in the company for 5 years, the company can still ‘use’ him/her for the next 25 years. If the company can build that culture over time, it will win over the trust of the employee, since they can see it build its employment and training strategy around employment security. Thus the company can become more agile as time goes. and trust is contagious, as a small group trust the company, it can spread to the rest of the company and probably even spill over out to the job market, making the company easier to recruit suitable employee.
Now the elephant in the room; Can the company become profitable with such program/approach? Or is it cheaper for the company to just chuck the person out the window and hire a new one once their 'used by' date expired? If the latter is true, that company probably will never have a sustained agility and agile workforce is just a buzz word and fantasy.
…. now (to make this relevant to pedagogy issue) how do you educate your student for that? is innovative learning approach enough to resolve that? Maybe the nature of the relationship between a university (or any educational institution) and a company need a bit of innovating. Because probably the key, or at least one of the key, to resolve this was an old buzzword, life-long-learning, but we need to take that off the buzzword list, and into the education system to make it real. blurring the line between education-system and job-market.
Too many people think that if their LMS has the latest features, the latest capabilities that all will be well. They are so wrong. First, they have to have the content, specifically the right con...
Andreas Kuswara's insight:
I think the more balance answer would be ‘depends’, in this context, the author probably speaks about corporate eLearning; but I probably wouldn’t exclusively assign the throne to the content alone to rule. In some courses, if content is the king, then discourse around that content is the king’s mother. If she twitches to the wrong direction then the whole palace can crumble down.
It goes back to the question how the learner learns the subject you are teaching; some requires heavy visualization or practice or combining auditory modes of content to help the learner absorb in the material. Some other might not so much about absorbing, but more about deconstructing predisposition and constructing new knowledge together with peers or seniors. Then the relative significant between the thrones of content and discourse could be different.
IMHO as long as the learning we talk about is not entirely individually isolated, then the king has to learn to share the throne.
This Concept Map, created with IHMC CmapTools, has information related to: Learning Theory v5, Organisation Kolb, Psychology Vygotsky, Psychology Bloom, Piaget genetic epistemology, Psychology Skinner, Montessori constructivism, Dewey...
Andreas Kuswara's insight:
a very useful map gives overview of some of the learning theories that might be relevant in one way or the other to you.
I know it's not exactly about pedagogy, but as i did this before, it's facinating for me to read a piece about a person's life from childhood to today, and thinking is that one person a coincidence? or what can we learn from his/her story that might improve the way we educate (formally or informally).
So with that justification, this article resides here under the banner of pedagogy.
i do hope that school administrators and their IT people think things through before starting to deploy futile policies and make attempts; it's not good enough to just give it a go and then say later, that they have expected it will happen. especially if then they then decide to change the policy again to allow what's not allowed to be allowed. i wonder what will the students who had obeyed the regulation think about it? break the law, give it a shoot, ithe law might be changed if enough people doing it. ... that can't be a good education. this is probably one example of good intention bad execution. create a Google+ community or something to talk things through even with external people, to find solution, rather than try to trick and play hide and seek with students or attempt to outsmart them. it's a man-made device, if there is no solution, then work with the company/person who produce it to make one, school don't have to be a pure consumer if they value their own needs.
Dr. Carol Russell, Senior Lecturer Higher Education-eLearning provides support and professional development for academic teaching staff at the University of Western Sydney (UWS) in Australia. She also researches the use of learning technologies in higher education. I posed the following ...
Andreas Kuswara's insight:
with various initiatives and projects in the sector, evaluation of the project becomes critical to ensure improvements happen and investment justified. interesting articles from the author.
it's not a recent article, but interesting as it categorise the roles of technology as ... which probably actually a spectrum from Technology as a Master to Technology as Extension of Self. these can be seen from different angle, e.g. from the academics looking at ourselves, from students looking at themselves, and looking at the T/L process looking at the learning activity. i think they are simple, but quite powerful self-check on where the technology is at our class; but i probably also think, we don't have to drive everything to either extreme of the spectrum. a technology properly placed and fill in the shoe of a clear role is important, rather than thinking it is something while it's actually treated and effectively functioning as something else. a presentation at UWS Blended Learning Forum brought my attention to this article. thanks to the presenter from School of Education.
The data coming out from edX experience is intriguing, but there are a lot of facets in video preparation; so probably my original question in my mind “perfect duration for video eLearning content” was flawed. That data from edX findings indicated that the shorter video is (maxed out in 6 minutes duration) the more likely students stay watching the video (engagement?) until the end of the video; and anything longer than 6 minutes, students will only watch the first 6 minutes or less; hence wasted efforts.
Well first of all, it is a median value, so we don’t know if the actual data are homogenous or has large variance; I think the problem with what data we have is, we can't have identical video (since they already different length to begin with) to compare, both the long-video and short-video group are watching different videos; and the time factor here is inherently corresponds with risk of the video going bad. In layman term, it's probably relatively easier to make short good quality video, than to make long equally good quality video; even if we put aside the matter about the viewer perception, because the longer the video is, the more chance for the producer to make mistakes.
If that's the case, then a short video will have a tendency to consistently be perceived of having higher quality than longer video, although the quality is not necessarily the function of the length of the video per se. Thus it could be not accurate to say, if we want to make a better video, then make a short one; but instead it could be more accurate to say, if you want a higher chance to make better video, then make a short one so you have less time to screw up.
We might want to bring in another vocabulary at this point, which is probably the word "concise"; it's not the matter of the length, but then density of information within that length of video. That is what I suspect have a greater impact to engagement than the length per se. maybe name it Conciseness Index, and it’s like a measure of quality content per time duration. If we have two videos of significantly differing length, but consistently have the same conciseness index throughout the length, then see if they have different in-video drop out, if there is, then we can regard the length of the video as a contributing factor in itself to student engagement.
When students faced with bad or very bad short video, and they see that the video progress bar is already pass half-way mark and close to the end, they might think, well I’ll just sit tight until the end of this video, the video is playing but their mind is disengaged. Maybe, maybe not, we don’t know.
But my comment here is neither to defend nor to attack short or long video; which seems to be an interesting research project in itself; but taking the practical educator’s hat, we need to shift focus to the conciseness of our videos. We are making 6 minutes video, or 16 or 60 minutes video, good, how do we use every second in that video? Are we wasting the time? Ours to produce and students to watch? Have we made a good use of it?
Before we record our videos, either a full blown video production, or simply voice/video over presentation, have we prepare and make us of the time to have enough conciseness that does not over load the students, but also not putting them to sleep.
Presentation for CESI Conference 2014 -- inviting Irish educators to consider their identities and their practices with respect to openness.
Andreas Kuswara's insight:
We used to say, 'a shift of teacher as broadcaster of knowledge' to 'as facilitator of learning' , or some said 'facilitator of knowledge creation' (depending from which school of thought you came from). But it sounded just like a change in role or job description; with the internet as it is today, does it push us to change our identity? Becoming an open educator. How do you see your own identity as educator affected by the internet?
This is an interesting story, which brought to my attention when I was looking at the “Star Legacy Cycle” (by Vanderbilt University), presented by John Bransford, PhD. Since I can’t refer to their work directly, I found another video of this kid’s story. The original work of the Star Legacy Cycle is accessible from http://iris.peabody.vanderbilt.edu/module/hpl/challenge/#content.
That “fish if fish” story, resonate quite well to us educators who not only teach in K12, but also in HE context. Students came with preconceptions and will construct what knowledge given on top of their own preconception. Dispelling that preconception but at the same time taking advantage of any useful “hooks” already in their mind is a challenge; and this also true in so many context, when we attempt to influence others (students or co-worker) to use technology, how to convey that affordance to others?
I probably don’t like the ending part of this particular story, since it’s so not helpful for the context of us educators. Unlike the frog and fish, we and our students don’t have any inherent factor that prevents them to become us or more than us. At the end is almost like a surrender and acceptance of the fish’s own fate as a fish. But our students are not fish; neither are our colleagues who need help to make the transformation from a tadpole into a full grown frog who can leap out of the pond.
I don’t know about his comment in the ‘significance’ of the recent innovation in comparison to the older technologies, I guess volume itself can’t be the only measure to use to measure; but I agree that technology is neutral, it’s neither beneficial nor disadvantageous by itself.
Thus as Noam said, behind any significant use of technology, there should be a well-constructed conceptual apparatus which will determine the positive or negative impact of using that technology; therefore it’s important to know how to evaluate a technology to fully appreciate and understand it.
After millions of years of remembering what matters, is technology changing the way memory works?
Andreas Kuswara's insight:
Subjects were also less likely to remember something when they knew they could look it up online later.
''Your brain doesn't get full - the permutations of connectivity are almost infinite,'' he says. ''The more you learn, the more you can learn. More things connect to other aspects of your memory and that makes you more skilled at storing and pulling them out.''
''If you're going to be successful in a profession, you need to collect a lot of information,'' ... ''If you don't have readily accessible information in your head but just try to get it from other sources, it's going to be difficult for it to lead to creative thought.''
I basically don't like memorizing, but maybe i should.
The Official Dilbert Website featuring Scott Adams Dilbert strips, animation, mashups and more starring Dilbert, Dogbert, Wally, The Pointy Haired Boss, Alice, Asok, Dogbert's New Ruling Class and more.
Andreas Kuswara's insight:
“Staying Relevant” It’s a challenge for all educators as well; we get it, technology is not everything, and education is not just about technology, even education technology is not just about technology. However, technology is also not just an irrelevant object in the corner of our classroom; technology has affordances it’s offering, and along with social take up of a technology, that piece of technology can drive changes to people’s perception, expectations, habits; including our students’. Some have big impacts, other have smaller impacts. Some propagate faster, other slower.
Finding the right technology that helps our teaching and our students’ learning is important, crucial even; we can't rule out nor postpone using technology to stay relevant.
For most people, smartphones are synonymous with only a handful of companies.
Andreas Kuswara's insight:
"The key here is that there is nothing inherent in the technologies being implemented by Apple or Samsung that can’t be matched by other companies willing to accept lower margins to compete on cost."
now you might ask, why is this post appear in a scoop about pedagogy? it's a note for anyone who is educating future business owner, worker, and politicial. this article only show one of the rule of the game that might not always work anymore, or at least not as obvious as it used to be. should we change the way we teach our students? or change in what we are teaching them? or both? so that they become a different player in the new economy.