“The illiterate of the 21st century will not be those who cannot read and write, but those who cannot learn, unlearn, and relearn.” – Alvin Toffler an American futurist.

This quote found on the front page of the Intel’s Assessing Project Tool web site gives a foundation  and premise for Intel’s  free educational resource . For those trying to assess 21century skills, this site provides some practical tools and resources to answer this question. Not only does Intel provide a unique interface to construct a rubric, it includes theory, rational, best practices, and outstanding examples. It is more then an assessment tool, if used correctly it allows teacher’s to truely transform their practice using a planning process that starts with the end and involves on-going assessment. Please take a moment to read over my review and explore the links that will highlight some of the outstanding attitibutes of this site. As always, take a moment to visit my 21centuryedtech Wiki .  If you have 21century skill assessment practices to share please post a reply or send an email. I enjoy reading and make it a practice to answer each and every e-mail. – Mike (mgorman@sacs.k12.in.us)

The biggest question I get from teachers when conducting workshops on technology integration and 21st century skills remains, “How do you assess the 21st century skills?”  While it is important to make sure content standards are integrated and assessed in student projects, many times the 21st century skills are loosely incorporated and assessed . This leaves students often confused with the attempted integration of  21st century skill, resulting in a goal never achieved. Once again, as most research suggests, it is important that all projects are designed with the end in mind. The conclusion includes both content standards, and the 21st century skills that are to be acheived by students. This end, is a part of the planning process that is communicated to students in the form of a rubric. The rubric must act as a guide while students engage with the project’s on-going process.

This preparation can be time consuming for the educator, which is why I invite you to explore Intel Education’s Assessing Projects Tool. I am a long time fan of the Intel Thinking  Tools. I am just as impressed with the Assessing  Projects Tool.  Intel states, “When assessment drives instruction, students learn more and become more confident, self-directed learners. Assessing Projects helps teachers create assessments that address 21st century skills and provides strategies to make assessment an integral part of their teaching and help students understand content more deeply, think at higher levels, and become self-directed learners”.

The site overview page  gives the benefits of assessing projects, numerous references and authoritive writings,  and some outstanding assessment based websites  based on 21st century education. Learn more about the purpose of assessment, various assessments that go beyond tests, papers, and oral presentations, and how formative assessment which is continuous and ongoing promotes real achievement. Additionally, while higher-order thinking such as critical thinking, creativity, problem solving, and metacognition, can be a challenge. this tool explores methods for assessing thinking. Last, this tool explores what components are necessary for successful assessment in a school.

Intel gives you the opportunity to Try It.  Here you can try a Demo to explore the Assessment Library and examine checklists, rubrics, and scoring guides on thinking skills, processes, products, and performances. There is also a video tutorial that allows you to see how features of the Assessing Projects application work in the classroom. You can also view a great animation of the process which helps simplify the process. Explore some example project assessment forms for both the elementary and secondary level. Intel states that assessment strategies can be broken into five main categories. While not all methods within a category are needed, all categories should be included in an assessment plan. The categories included are Strategies for Gauging Student Needs ,  Strategies for Encouraging Self-Direction and Collaboration,  Strategies for Monitoring Progress,  Strategies for Checking for Understanding and Encouraging Metacognition,  and Strategies for Demonstrating Understanding and Skill. There is also an area that describes the planning of assessment, the changing of assessment strategies, and some sample lesson plans complete with timeline of project, venn diagram, table, and assessment timeline. I find it useful to use the large selection of pre-made rubics and modify and save them to my Intel Work Space. From here they can be exported as a Word or Excel file.

In conclusion, Intel offers a top of the line tool that is free to educators. There are other tools which I will explore in future posts but I do suggest that anyone exploring assessment of 21st century skills take a look at the Intel Assessing Projects Tool for its ease of use, vast resources of information,  on-line productivity, and theory behind practice. While it acts as a rubric machine, it goes much farther by transtorming educational practice. Please feel free to email or post. I am interested in learning about other tools available for 21st century assessment.  While taking your journey in 21st century education, please visit my 21centuryedtech Wiki. Thanks for reading and I look forward to hearing from you – Mike (mgorman@sacs.k12.in.us)

Parramatta Marist recently introduced Year 10 students to 151 – the extension of the Problem Based Learning (PBL) model into the senior curriculum.

Unlike PBL, the 151 model gives students an introductory period (1), whole day (5 periods) and a follow up period (1) per subject over a two week cycle.   This allows teachers to work intensively with senior students on real-world problems.

As part of their introduction to the PDHPE module, the students were asked to do a test of 12 multiple choice questions based on the information they were going to learn for the day.  The average was 58%.

During the follow up period, the class was asked to complete the same test – the average was 75%.

While the increase in the test average is important, I think the feedback from students (see below) is key in predicting 151’s success:

In my honest opinion, today’s five periods of PDHPE were the most enjoyable I have ever experienced, I had the opportunity to work with classmates that I do not usually work with. I found the case study method of working, one of the most effective methods of educating young people.

Innovations in the secondary school often falter around the post compulsory years due to the prescriptive nature of the syllabus and HSC examinations.  In recognising the obvious limitations, staff at Parramatta Marist have worked collaboratively and creatively to address this curriculum construct and improve the learning outcomes of students.

Teachers talking about new ways of learning teaching always beats the alternative.

A bad spell of spamming landed AWS range of IPs used by EC2 in almost all anti-spamming DBs. AWS introduced email limits, but it’s too late for you. Most likely your elastic IP is already listed.

Symtoms

You send emails and they never arrive

Your SMTP log has entries like this:

2009-12-02 01:41:14 210.5.49.66 OutboundConnectionResponse SMTPSVC1 WEB11 – 25 – - 554+Mail+from+174.129.44.45+refused,+see+RBL+server+SB7TQTQYWC2VA7Z4WYYKP6E62SL74TR.r.mail-abuse.com 0 0 100 0 703 SMTP - - - -

Resolution

Get an elastic IP

Fill in this AWS form for email sending limitation

Wait for an automated reply

Give AWS a day or two to notify Spamhaus.org

Check where else the IP is listed as well and start sending removal requests (www.iptools.com)

Spamhaus.org

This is probably the main one. They won’t talk to you. AWS explicitly prohibits  removal of their IP unless AWS requested it.

174.129.44.0/22 is listed on the Policy Block List (PBL)
Outbound Email Policy of Amazon Web Services EC2 for this IP range:
Under the control of AWS/EC2.
Removal Procedure
Removal of IP addresses within this range from the PBL is not allowed by the netblock owner’s policy.

mail-abuse.com

This is also a biggie. Try sending a removal request. Explain who you are, include phone numbers and other credentials. They may believe you.

Blogging about this – hoping for clarification.

PBL is Problem Based Learning because:

Among the principles of Andragogy outlined by Malcolm Knowles is :”Adult learning is problem-centered rather than content-oriented” (Conlan, 2003)

=======================================================

PBL is Problem Based Learning because:

Wikipedia says

Problem-based learning (PBL) is a student-centered instructional strategy in which students collaboratively solve problems and reflect on their experiences. It was pioneered and used extensively at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. The Materials department at Queen Mary, University of London was the first Materials department in the UK to introduce PBL.^[1] Characteristics of PBL are:

• Learning is driven by challenging, open-ended problems.
• Students work in small collaborative groups.
• Teachers take on the role as “facilitators” of learning.

Accordingly, students are encouraged to take responsibility for their group and organize and direct the learning process with support from a tutor or instructor. Advocates of PBL claim it can be used to enhance content knowledge and foster the development of communication, problem-solving, and self-directed learning skill.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem-based_learning

===========================================

I was intrigued by Paul Carr’s take on the News Corp/Bing/Google story in TechCrunch today. In particular I enjoyed the closing remarks…

“And that’s where we see Murdoch’s real genius: he has managed to use his illusion of influence to get all of these benefits without having to commit himself to anything, or expose himself in any way.”

I found myself asking the question: If this then is all an illusion why is the illusion so transparent? and, once again, Why all this effort chasing yesterday’s dream?

I later found Eric Pfanner’s piece in the New York Times more instructive (See Google and News Corp. Do Need Each Other)

“… the recession has exposed the folly of the idea that huge volumes of online traffic automatically translate into significant new ad revenue. Most news publishers have a glut of Web advertising space on their hands, and no amount of traffic is going to give them the pricing pressure they would need to make real money online.”

This observation supports the ideas explored in my previous posts on the revenue problems facing the New York Times, AOL, Yahoo! and other online media. (See  The Real Problem is FLINK! and Farewell to the Ribbons of Gold)

As you probably know we’ve spent the past two weeks looking at why the Mobile Web and the New Plastic Fantastic are not going to be the solutions to the current problems facing the Newspapers, TV and Magazine Industries.

In the end we discovered that the biggest losers so far in the Mobile Web market have made the mistake of thinking that content was the hook to build a successful MNVO business.

The New York Times and News Corp may have enormous online traffic but they do not have the relationship intimacy with their customers that is a prerequisite for a sustainable and profitable MVNO business.

When I put together these earlier posts I had forgotten completely that NewsCorp had already been down the MVNO path here in Australia.

It happen almost a decade ago, it was with a company called One.Tel.

 

News Corp lost half a billion Australian dollars investing in One.Tel. (See One.Tel…one big debacle and Murdoch speaks on One.Tel collapse (ABC)).

NewsCorp’s One.Tel legacy reemerged earlier this month when the national broadcaster (ABC) reported that the (media) Moguls face $232m claim after One.Tel ruling. The Daily Telegraph also announced that the One.Tel saga is not over for James Packer and Lachlan Murdoch

Meanwhile The Age in Melbourne reported that the One.Tel liquidator was getting ready for trial as it prepares to try and recover the $132 million rights issue by One.Tel that was to be partially underwritten by Rupert Murdoch’s News Ltd.

One of the most interesting things about the One.Tel saga has been the paths taken by James Packer and Lachlan Murdoch since its demise. Packer has gone on to sell down his shareholdings in Australia’s richest media empire to pursue business interests in the gaming industry. While Murdoch resigned his position as a senior executive with his father’s News Corporation (See SMH I’m back: Lachlan Murdoch’s $3.3b deal with Packer).

The One.Tel Saga and The Google Saga are different parts of the same story. They are about News Corp’s ongoing search for a new media business model within the increasingly competitive Mobile Convergence landscape.

The Packer Murdoch investment in One.Tel over a decade ago was like much of James Packer’s new media plays at the time: Visionary.

With the aid of advisors like Microsoft’s Daniel Petrie, James Packer reshaped the future of landscape of Australian Media only to later turn his back on the media empire his family had built over two generations. (See Will the Son Also Rise, James Packer the businessman and Paul Barry on James Packer ABC).

The paths of the Packers and the Murdochs post One.Tel are also different parts of the same MobCon story. So it will be interesting to see in 10 – 15 years time who has played the best hand from the cards they were dealt in 2001.  Will it be those who have chosen to stay and play on at the media table or those who have cashed in their chips early?

Previous Posts on the Murdoch Google Story

• If Rupert Murdoch does build a Pay Wall will anyone want to play in his garden?
• While Google and Apple sail off into the sunset, News Corp and Microsoft walk hand in hand down the boulevard of broken dreams.
• More speculation on what life may be like on the Boulevard of Broken Dreams
• The OPEC of Online News?
• News junkie or the future of journalism?
• The Business of Blogging

Previous Posts of the Mobile Web

• Are your customers packing the new plastic?
• Imagine all the people, living a Mobile Life
• Point, click and discover the future of advertising?
• Media Platform or Fashion Statement?
• More Eyeballs and More Revenues but is it the future of the mass media?
• The five emerging business models of the Mobile Web

The Maryland Greenhawks basketball team – the nation’s first “green” professional sports team — held its inaugural press conference November 18 at the Bethesda Green offices.

Formerly known as the Maryland Nighthawks, the team plays in the Premier Basketball League (PBL). This year the team embraced environmental conservation and changed its name.

Their uniforms will be made from environmentally friendly materials, such as bamboo or recycled plastic, and the team will work with Carbonfund.org to offset the carbon footprint created by its home games, travel and corporate headquarters.

In addition, the Greenhawks will conduct a sneaker recycling program with Nike. The public may be able to participate in this; stay tuned.

At the press conference the Greenhawks introduced their first two draft picks — Byron Mouton, a former member of the University of Maryland’s national championship team in 2002, and Travis Lay from American University – as well as players Scooter Sherrill and Daniel Artest.

League president and CEO Tom Doyle described the Greenhawks as the “first sports franchise that’s green,” and said the team will be going into the schools to bring the green message. Doyle said the team’s outreach to kids will go a long way to creating a generation of conservationists.

Mouton said kids seeing the Greenhawks on the court as a green team will help the youngsters realize environmental conservation is a priority.

The Greenhawks will play their games at Wootton High School; their first home game is January 16. Tickets are $10 for adults and $5 for children 12 and under.

Sync följer vad som som skrivs på Yimby. I Göteborg alltså. Stockholm har jag inte haft koll på förut, det känns så långt bort på något sätt.

Men. Nu har det hänt. Ett länktips om Jan Jörnmark ledde till ett inlägg på Yimby Stockholm som han gjort nyligen. Det handlar om hur riksintressena för kulturvården är en tickande bomb för fastighetsägare och i förlängningen förkommuner och skattebetalare. Har man en väldigt lång stund över så kan man läsa hela inlägget, men också kommentarerna. Det är många som har åsikter och Jörnmark svarar flitigt och tålmodigt.

Fan vet om Jörmark har rätt i allt, men det verkar ju onekligen underbyggt med forskning. Tyvärr har jag lite för mycket annat att tänka på just nu, men så snart det blir tid så skalla jag skaffa mig en egen åsikt i ämnet.

Yimby Stockholm åker in i bloggrulladen och Sync börjar studera en tidigare helt vit fläck på kartan i östra Sverige.

Jan Jörnmark skrev igår ett inlägg på Yimby om plan- och bygglagen (PBL) och kulturmiljöer av riksintresse. Han menar att riksintressena är en tickande bomb. Riksintressena är ett hot mot “förnyelsearbetet i Sveriges mest dynamiska stadskärnor, när livsfarliga ruiner klassas som ”riksintressanta kulturmiljöer”". Jörnmark illustrerar sitt inlägg med bilder från Eslövs gamla spritfabrik, som idag står och förfaller.

Läs inlägget, reagera och kommentera!

Eslövs spritfabrik är en av många rivningshotade byggnader som finns med på Svenska byggnadsvårdsföreningens Gula lista. Byggnadsvårdsbloggen har tidigare skrivit om Eslöv när kommunen våren 2008 tillfälligt fråntogs rätten att godkänna bygg- och rivningslov.

I have the honor of joining a panel discussion and presenting at the CELL educational transformation conference in Indianapolis on November 16 and 17. I will be blogging about the unique and innovative concepts talked about at this conference.  This posting reflects on my first formal experience with PBL two years ago as I encountered educators and students at the New Tech High Schools in Napa Valley and Sacramento, California. I have included links that showcase some outstanding videos on PBL and links to help you reflect. There is no way I can really relate the experience other than reiterating – it’s not the technology! I hope you enjoy my reflections and explore some of the links. Thanks for joining me once again and always feel free to join me at the 21centuryedtech Wiki. –  Mike

This week I will be attending and speaking at the CELL (Center of Excellence in  Leadership and Learning) Conference in Indianapolis, Indiana. The theme of the conference involves facilitating a collective initative by all educational stakeholders that is necessary as they face the challenge of finding tomorrow’s opportunities for today’s students. This conference will attract nearly one thousand diverse individuals over a two day period (Nov 16-17) in downtown Indianapolis. It is  sponsored  by CELL which is located at the University of Indianapolis. CELL’s efforts are rooted in the vision that all students, regardless of background, should graduate from high school prepared for postsecondary education, training, and success in the 21st-Century global economy. With primary funding from the Lilly Endowment Inc., CELL has leveraged resources to unite schools, communities and businesses to make substantial, sustainable, statewide education change to improve academic success for students.

My first encounter with CELL occured when I was investigating the  New Tech Network , an organization which initally started in 1996 as the New Tech High School of Napa Valley, California. It later partnered with the Gates Foundation and set out on a mission to replicate the Napa pilot throughout the nation. There are now 41 schools located in nine states serving over 8500 students across the nation. New Tech states that its goal is to “help schools fundamentally rethink teaching and learning, empowering students to become the creators, leaders, and producers of tomorrow.”  New Tech incoporates three key concepts. First they promote  “a new instructional approach that engages learners”. New Tech incorporates project-based learning (PBL) as the center of the instructional approach. PBL is facilitated by  technology and student inquiry to engage learners with issues and questions that are relevant. Teachers design rigorous projects tied to state standards and customized to local community and student interests. Students collaborate in teams to acquire and apply knowledge and skills to solve problems.  Next, ” New Tech builds “a culture that empowers students and teachers”. It is trust, respect, and responsibility that become the center of the learning culture.  Students are put in charge of their own learning, becoming self-directed learners, while teachers are given the administrative support and resources to assist students in this realization. Last, New Tech maintains that “integrated use of technology”  is essential for 21st Century education. In a New Tech school the smart  use of technology supports an innovative emphasis promoting unique instruction and a powerful classroom culture. Take a moment to view these videos  found on the New Tech site involving  small school projects and learning through projects. It will help you get a better understanding of project based learning at New Tech. These videos  could be used as a great conversation starter with educators contemplating the use of project based learning in any school or district. 

When making that first trip to New Tech almost two years ago, I was prepared to walk into a building where technology was at the center, driving a powerful and cutting edge learning atmosphere. It didn’t take long for me to realize that technology was not the center, the students really were. New Tech created a powerful learning  culture with students owning and directing their education and the shared learning community. Problem solving, intrinsic  motivation, collaboration, and engagement were all central themes. Technology was a somewhat invisible, yet powerful force, facilitating a synergistic environment. It was amazing to hear high school students talk with the same pride and enthusiasm for their school  and learning as one might often hear in a first grade classroom. I left both Napa and Sacramento with a new belief in PBL and technology  integration, along with a real appreciation for positive and powerful student centered learning communities. If you live near a New Tech school, it is worth taking the time to visit.

Since that visit, I have become more aware of the outstanding efforts that CELL is making. Their New Tech facilitation in Indiana is just one of many outstanding services provided by CELL. The CELL web site is  filled with outstanding reflections  and research, such as an interesting  study on impact of PBL  and student achievement. I am excited to share with you in future postings  new ideas I aquire at CELL’s conference as I investigate sessions covering  STEM education, project based learning and problem based learning, 20th Century vs. 21st Century skills, community partnerships, early college, and successful transformational techniques.  I am sure that speakers such as  Uri Treisman from the the University of Texas at Austin, Michael McDowell from the New Tech Network, Tom Carroll, president of the National Commision on Teaching and America’s Future, Ken Kay, president of the Partnership For Twenty-first Century Skills, and Brad Jupp from the US Department of Education will provide much to reflect on.  I also have the honor of  contributing to a panel discussion on project based learning in the middle school and presenting a session on resources for project based learning. If you happen to be at the conference, please stop by and say hello.

In conclusion, there should be more initative toward school cultures that promote student centered learning and project based learning . While New Tech has made some inroads at the high school level, initatives at all levels is still lacking and needs to be pursued. I invite you to join my 21centuryedtech Wiki and learn about resources and programs available to students and teachers to promote 21st Century learning. I am sure that CELL will reinforce the important message I heard at NMSA last week. It really isn’t the technology, it is the culture that puts students in the center of learning.-

-Mike

Mahasiswa melakukan diskusi dalam kelompok kecil

Sebagai seorang dosen Teknik Informatika, dalam hati kecil saya merasakan keprihatinan terhadap kualitas lulusan yang telah dihasilkan. Ternyata, banyak dari mereka ketika baru saja lulus, merasa bahwa masih nol dalam aplikasi di dunia nyata, merasa sulit untuk bekerja mandiri menemukan solusi-solusi memecahkan masalah yang dihadapi dalam dunia kerja. Sebagai pengelola institusi pendidikan tentu saja harus mulai berfikir, apakah selama ini cara penyampaian dan konten materi pembelajaran serta kurikulumnya telah mampu mengantar mereka menjadi lulusan yang diharapkan? Kalau belum, maka dimanakah letak kelemahannya dan apa solusi yang harus dilakukan untuk mengantar mereka sesuai dengan kualitas yang diharapkan.

Penataan ulang atau mengupdate kurikulum agar sesuai dengan kemajuan jaman dan kebutuhan dunia kerja merupakan kebutuhan mutlak. Peningkatan kapasitas tenaga pengajar dengan berbagai kemampuan tentang seni mengajar orang dewasa (andragogi) sangat dibutuhkan. Namun demikian untuk membuat sebuah perubahan pada sesuatu yang telah lama mengakar bukan perkara yang mudah. Banyak para staf pengajar yang kurang update dari sisi keilmuan, belum lagi fondasi pedagogis dan andragogi mereka juga kurang terasah, terkesan masih sangat dominan menggunakan model pembelajaran yang berpusat pada guru serta kurang mengoptimalkan potensi yang dimiliki peserta didik.

Tulisan ini mungkin bukan kali pertama yang mencoba untuk mengangkat pendekatan PBL (Project Based Learning) dalam bidang studi keteknikan namun saya hanya mencoba untuk mengangkat kembali ide/pemikiran ini dengan cara yang lebih simpel dan barangkali saja dapat membantu para pengelola institusi pendidikan serta para pendidik yang sudah mulai berfikir kearah kualitas pendidikan.

PBL dalam Perkuliahan, Apa Untungnya?

Penerapan Project Based Learning adalah pendekatan yang mengedepankan siswa untuk dapat menyelesaikan permasalahan yang benar-benar ditemui di lapangan. Dalam pembelajaran ini siswa akan berperan menjadi seorang profesional yang mencoba memecahkan permasalahan dalam kehidupan sehari-hari. Problem Based Learning adalah proses pembelajaran yang titik awal pembelajaran berdasarkan masalah dalam kehidupan nyata dan lalu dari masalah ini mahasiswa dirangsang untuk mempelajari masalah ini berdasarkan pengetahuan dan pengalaman yang telah mereka punyai sebelumnya (prior knowledge) sehingga dari prior knowledge ini akan terbentuk pengetahuan dan pengalaman baru. Ada beberapa alasan mengapa kita layak menerapkan pendekatan PBL ini dalam kurikulum kita dengan berbagai kelebihannya yaitu problem solving (melatih mahasiswa untuk mampu menyelesaikan berbagai permasalahan yang dihadapi), self directed learning (memupuk dan melatih rasa tanggung jawab, inisiatif dan kebebasan untuk belajar mandiri dan menentukan mana dulu yang akan dipelajari), life long learning (konsep belajar sepanjang hayat, sebagai usaha memupuk kesadaran belajar yang berkelanjutan dan tiada henti), identifikasi dan evaluasi sumber belajar (dengan berbagai sumber belajar siswa dituntut untuk mampu mengidentifikasi dan mengevaluasi sumber belajar yang tersebar bebas dari berbagai media dan sumber), critical thinking (melatih siswa untuk berpikir kritis dengan kemampuan analisa, evaluasi dan sintesa), creative thinking (melatih kemampuan daya kreasi siswa dalam menciptakan hal-hal baru), real world connection (melatih siswa untuk mengkoneksikan/menghubungkan konsep yang diperoleh dalam perkuliahan untuk dapat diaplikasikan dalam penyelesaian permasalahan di dunia nyata), cooperative dan collaborative learning (melatih siswa dengan kemampuan bekerjasama dan berkolaborasi dengan sesama/orang lain), peer learning (melatih siswa untuk belajar bersama rekan sejawat, dimana siswa akan mencoba mengajarkan sesuatu yang diketahui kepada orang lain sehingga dengan mengajarkan tersebut kemampuan dan pengetahuan siswa akan semakin terasah), refleksi (siswa berlatih untuk mampu mengemukakan dan menceritakan kembali atas pengalaman belajar yang telah mereka peroleh). Lewat berbagai keterampilan tersebut, siswa tidak hanya belajar hal-hal yang sifatnya keilmuan saja namun dilatih pula dalam pengembangan Life Skills dalam dirinya.

Mini Pilot, Langkah Revolusi Berskala Kecil Tapi Nyata

Tidaklah mudah untuk membawa perubahan yang besar pada sistem yang mapan. Untuk itulah perlu serangkaian kegiatan pembuktian, tentu saja dengan perubahan yang tidak terlalu signifikan serta memanfaatkan sumber daya yang minim, namun hasilnya dapat dilihat secara nyata. Jika Anda seorang pengajar berjiwa muda yang memiliki semangat tinggi, ajak dua teman Anda yang kebetulan memiliki visi yang sama untuk menggagas pembelajaran berbasis proyek ini. Dalam kegiatan mini pilot (percobaan kecil) ini usahakan membuat satu buah proyek untuk satu semester dulu, hal ini bertujuan agar siswa merasa ringan dalam mengikuti ujicoba ini, ya! satu proyek untuk satu semester dulu!.

Saat sebelum perkuliahan dimulai, ajaklah teman-teman Anda untuk mulai membahas tema proyek yang akan diterapkan dalam satu semester. Pilih sebuah proyek yang riil menjadi kebutuhan di dunia nyata. Saya ambil contoh misalnya pada semester IV, dengan tema proyek “Membangun Sistem Informasi”. Keterampilan pengembangan sistem informasi ini sangat mereka butuhkan ketika berkecimpung dalam dunia keteknik informatikaan. Selanjutnya pilihlah Mata Kuliah yang saling berkorelasi dan dibutuhkan dalam melakukan pengembangan sistem informasi seperti Sistem Basis Data, Bahasa Pemrograman dan Interaksi Manusia Komputer sebagai aspek khusus perancangan antar muka (interface) dari aplikasi sistem informasi tersebut. Ajaklah teman Dosen A yang sedang mengampu mata kuliah Sistem Basis Data, rekan Dosen B sedang mengampu mata kuliah Bahasa Pemrograman dan Anda yang kebetulan mengampu mata kuliah Interaksi Manusia dan Komputer.

Contoh struktur mata kuliah dan proyek dalam PBL di Teknik Informatika

Mendesain Proyek dengan Metode GRASP

Berikutnya, mulailah untuk bersama-sama dengan dosen yang lain merancang detail proyek yang akan digunakan dalam aktivitas PBL ini. Metode perancangan proyek yang paling mudah adalah dengan metode GRASP. Penulis pertama kali mendengar dan mempelajari metode ini dari rekan Senior Trainer yang berasal dari Pakistan bernama Bagzha sewaktu menghadir Intel Teach Asia Senior Trainer Summit 2009 di Vietnam. Metode ini sangat mudah untuk mendesain proyek. GRASP merupakan singkatan dari Goal (Tujuan), Role (peran siswa yang dihubungkan dengan dunia nyata/real world), Audience (peserta dalam aktivitas pembelajaran), Set of Activities (rangkaian kegiatan dalam aktivitas pembelajaran) dan Product (produk/hasil/artefak pembelajaran). Contoh perancangan GRASP untuk proyek diatas adalah sebagai berikut :

Contoh Ide Proyek Pengembangan Sistem Informasi

Goal/Tujuan : Untuk memberikan keterampilan kepada para siswa bagaimana mengembangkan sistem informasi dengan mengembangkan berbagai dokumen perancangan dan penggunaan berbagai piranti pengembangan aplikasi.

Role/Peran : Siswa akan berperan sebagai pengembang aplikasi yang bekerja dalam sebuah tim dengan berbagai spesialisasi seperti perancang antarmuka (interface designer), business analyst, programmer, project manager atau peran lain yang dapat ditambahkan sesuai dengan jumlah anggota kelompok.

Set of Activities/Kumpulan Kegiatan : Siswa mengumpulkan informasi kebutuhan sistem informasi yang akan didevelop dari para nara sumber (pemakai), siswa mempelajari berbagai literatur, siswa membuat rancangan basis data, diagram alir aplikasi/program, rancangan antarmuka (user interface) lalu mempresentasikannya kepada pengguna untuk mendapatkan persetujuan, melakukan pemrograman aplikasi menggunakan IDE (Integrated Development Environment), membuat dokumentasi dan dukungan teknis serta melakukan ujicoba kepada pengguna dan melakukan distribusi aplikasi.

Product/Hasil : Dokumen rancangan basis data, diagram alir program, rancangan antar muka (user interface design), aplikasi desktop/web dan dokumentasi untuk dukungan teknis (help documents)

Setelah perancangan proyek, proses berikutnya adalah membuat detail dokumen Rencana Pelaksanaan Pembelajaran (RPP) atau Action Plan atau ada yang menyebutnya Unit Plan dimana didalamnya mencantumkan Tujuan Pembelajaran, Standar Kompetensi, Detail Aktifitas, Alat & Bahan Ajar, Lembar Kerja, Metode Evaluasi, dll.

Nantinya skenario project ini akan dijalankan secara pararel dalam tiga mata kuliah yang ada sehingga perlu dibuat sinkronisasi antar konten yang akan disampaikan pada tiap tahapan/pertemuan dengan mahasiswa.

Peran Dosen, Asisten Perkuliahan dan Dosen dalam Aktifitas PBL

Dalam kegiatan PBL ini, peran dosen dan asisten adalah sebagai fasilitator pembelajaran dan membangun komunitas pembelajaran. Peran dosen adalah: Pertama, mempersiapkan skenario yang akan dibahas pada tiap sesi dan mengatur silabus mata kuliah. Jumlah sesi disesuaikan dengan cakupan materi, output, dan outcome dari perkuliahan. Kedua, secara bertahap mempersiapkan materi perkuliahan dalam bentuk file elektronik dan memberikan beberapa sumber antara lain buku referensi dan link website. Ketiga, sebagai fasilitator, dosen mendorong para mahasiswa untuk mengekplorasi pengetahuan yang telah mereka miliki dan menentukan pengetahuan yang diperlukan selanjutnya.

Dosen umumnya diharapkan untuk menahan diri tidak memberikan informasi, sebaliknya mendorong dilakukannya diskusi dan pembelajaran antar para mahasiswa. Beberapa cara yang bisa dilakukan adalah: (1) melakukan klarifikasi (misal terhadap perspektif yang muncul dalam diskusi), (2) mendorong pemikiran yang divergen (misalnya, adakah kemungkinan solusi yang lain?), (3) meletakkan permasalahan sesuai konteks (misalnya, apakah isu yang dibahas mengingatkan dosen pada berbagai informasi lain yang telah teridentifikasi sebelumnya?), (4) membuat urutan prioritas (misalnya apakah berbagai informasi yang telah diidentifikasi dapat diurutkan sesuai relevansinya terhadap permasalahan?), dan (5) memoderasi diskusi (misalnya apakah ada kemajuan dalam diskusi, kalau tidak, identifikasi apa saja yang salah dan kembalikan diskusi pada tujuan yang semula). Keempat, sebagai evaluator. Walaupun peran dosen tidak lagi dominan dalam pelaksanaan perkuliahan ber-PBL, namun tetap dosen bertanggung jawab penuh terhadap keberhasilan pelaksanaan dan pencapaian tujuan perkuliahan. Untuk itu secara berkelanjutan dosen perlu mengevaluasi pelaksanaan perkuliahan dan melakukan perbaikan segera bilamana diperlukan baik dari sisi content maupun proses.

Dosen sebagai fasilitator juga harus menyediakan waktu untuk mendampingi mahasiswa dalam menyelesaikan penugasan yang diberikan, termasuk menjadi nara sumber yang siap kapanpun dan menyediakan berbagai media komunikasi seperti email, web, blog, forum diskusi, dan chatting untuk memberi dukungan teknis kepada para mahasiswanya dalam usaha menyelesaikan studinya.

Sedangkan peran mahasiswa adalah secara umum dalam perkuliahan ber-PBL adalah mempersiapkan diri untuk belajar dan bekerja secara kelompok serta berperan aktif dalam kuliah. Peran serta mahasiswa yang dimaksud adalah seperti menghadiri dan mengikuti keseluruhan perkuliahan dan tidak diperkenankan mendrop mata kuliah disaat mata kuliah tersebut sedang berjalan.

Proses Evaluasi dalam PBL

Proses penilaian atau evaluasi dalam PBL haruslah bersifat valid/absah, dapat dipercaya/reliable dan fair/adil. Dalam konteks ini para siswa juga harus mampu untuk belajar mengevaluasi pekerjaan dan apa yang dilakukannya dengan melakukan self assessment. Siswa juga harus mampu untuk belajar menyediakan umpan balik yang membangun atas hasil pekerjaan orang lain/peserta didik lain (biasa disebut dengan peer-assessment). Terdapat dua metode penilaian yaitu Formative Evaluation dan Summative Evaluation.

Evaluasi formative adalah metode penilaian yang dilakukan pada saat berlangsungnya proses /aktivitas pembelajaran yang menyediakan umpan balik sewaktu-waktu untuk mengukur hasil pekerjaan siswa. Sedangkan evaluasi summative adalah penilaian pada saat proyek telah berakhir/atau dilakukan di akhir proyek. Hasil penilaian formative dapat pula dijadikan sebagai bahan untuk penilaian summative.

Perangkat penilaian otentik yang sering digunakan dalam PBL untuk menilai proses dan performa siswa adalah dalam bentuk Rubrik. Rubrik merupakan bentuk penilaian formative sebagai panduan penilaian untuk mengukur kinerja siswa berdasarkan berbagai kriteria yang disepakati bersama. Rubrik juga merupakan panduan kerja untuk menghasilkan produk yang sesuai dengan tujuan pembelajaran yang biasanya telah diberikan kepada siswa pada saat awal pelajaran. Lewat rubrik inilah siswa dapat melakukan penilaian pekerjaannya sendiri (self-assessment) dan mampu menilai pekerjaan siswa lain (peer-assessment). Jadi bukan lagi hanya mendapatkan nilai berupa angka dan huruf tanpa mendapatkan umpan balik yang membangun seperti yang terjadi sekarang.

Kesimpulan

Penerapan PBL dalam pendidikan tinggi akan mampu untuk menghasilkan siswa/siswi yang memiliki ketrampilan aplikatif dan siap kerja karena ketika belajar di universitas mereka telah dilatih untuk menyelesaikan permasalahan dalam dunia nyata. Kreatifitas dan inovasi dari staf pengajar yang terlibat sangat diperlukan untuk menghasilkan pembelajaran yang inovatif, kreatif, aktif dan menyenangkan supaya siswa bebas dari tekanan, bebas menuangkan ide, menemukan hal-hal baru, dan mampu berfikir kritis dengan tujuan akhir meningkatkan kualitas lulusan.

Hur lång tid ska det ta att få ett bygglov? Ja skillnaden i handläggningstid i Sveriges kommuner är stor. Bara i Västskåne är väntetiden olika, allt från Staffanstorps två veckor till sexton veckor i Vellinge. Detta redovisas i Sydsvenska Dagbladet.  Skillnaden är ännu större om man börjar se på enskilda bygglov. Naturligtvis kan komplexiteten variera men en allt för lång handläggningstid är inte acceptabel.

Regeringen håller på att se över plan- och bygglagen.  Jag hoppas att det kommer en proposition under tidig vår. Regler om bygglov ingår i denna lag men också mycket annat tex. detalj- och översiktsplanering, områdesbestämmelser etc. En bra lagstiftning är viktigt för en god stadsplanering.  På regeringens hemsida kan du läsa mer om en del av de propositioner som är aktuella inom bostadspolitiken.

Please take a moment to enjoy this thought provoking reflection on the role of technology in education. This article contains my thoughts on the National Middle School Conference 2009 and its potential impact on 21st century learning and technology. It covers some of the featured speakers along with thoughts,  links, and videos to allow you to investigate.  I guarantee you there are priceless links in this posting!

I also want to recognize Mr. Alan Summers and his complete conference team from the NMSA for what will be remembered as an outstanding conference. The Indiana contribution from IMLEA was also evident along with the constant enthusiasm at their welcome area!

I also want to thank all of you for visiting this site and helping it grow. The wiki/blog have attracted close to 6000 unique visitors in about three short months of existence. It has now reached all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and 47 foreign countries. Your thoughts, reflections, emails, and invites to the network are so appreciated. Please visit the companion 21centuryedtech wiki for even more resources - Mike

A conference is always what you make of it. Since I am an avid technology conference attender, I decided to check out the technology message at the NMSA09 Conference in Indianapolis. I did not even have to attend a session to get my first taste. After strolling through the vendor area I found the 21 st Century Classroom filled with modern technology along with real teachers and students conducting lessons. Imagine not just lecturing about educational transformation, but creating the real experience for all to see. It is awesome to see that NMSA  takes the time to model what it also advocates.

The NMSA09 Conference had close to 500 sessions with featured keynote speakers of national prominence accounting for many of these. The featured speakers and keynotes I  attended  included Will Daggett, Daniel Pink, and Alan November. As I listened to the three it was evident that the common theme appeared to be empathy, awareness, and creativity was needed for real transformation to happen.

Will Daggett opened with a reminder fto teachers that they really are part of the best educational system in the world. After all, the United States is one of the few countries that attempts to educate all children.  United States schools are involved in a constant battle between excellence and equity. This is a difficult line to walk, but one the United States must continue to engage in.  His constant theme revolved around the idea “Relevance makes Rigor Possible”, a phrase he coined. Daggett then emphasized that U.S. students need to be made aware of the social/economic change happening in the global community. He stressed this need for awareness as he emphasized that today’s students are in a battle for future jobs, and they do not even know it, because no one is teaching them.  The new technology he demonstrated was awesome including both the siftable chip, a new technology manipulative, and SPOT (Smart Personal Object Technology) which allows for even more computing portability due to a virtual keyboard and a virtual monitor that are both beamed using laser technology. In fact, I did some research and found there is already a portable video projector for the iPhone. Be sure to also check out this virtual laser keyboard!   Daggett then listed five concepts in learning which included: knowledge of one discipline, application of one discipline, application across disciplines, application to real world predictable situations, and  application to real world unpredictable situations. He maintained that schools spend a lot of time on the first and second and very little time on the last three. It was the first time  I realized that the very last step really identifies the difference between project based learning and problem based learning. My mind wandered to this year’s Future City problem. Students are to build short term housing that is sustainable and green for displaced people after an emergency sometime in the extended future. Wow, talk about a problem that is so difficult to answer, nothing is correct, and the possibilities are endless. Parts of the question even contradict each other from an engineering standpoint. Sounds like Daggett’s “applications to real world unpredictable situations” is being practiced in some arenas of education. This leads us perfectly into Daniel Pink’s keynote.

Daniel Pink, the author of  A Whole New Mind: Why Right-Brainers Will Rule the Future, described the increasing  role of right-brain thinking in the new  economies and describes the skills  individuals and organizations must possess in this outsourced, automated age. Using brain research, Pink advocates that left brain (orderly, logical, and linear) thinking, while still important, is no longer adequate to survive in the 21st Century global economy. He attributes this theory to the role Asia now plays in the global economy with automation being software driven, and abundance of material in the market place. In essence, routine work is disappearing! Pink advocates that educators prepare kids for their future (right brain), not our past (left brain).He suggests including skills in our curriculum that cannot be outsourcedor automated. He includes such abilities as design, story telling, symphony (ability to see big picture), empathy, play, and meaning. One example used was Google’s idea to allow its employees 20% percent job time for self direction. From this effort, such big projects as G-Mail, and Google News have evolved. Finally, Pink suggested some ideas he feels educators should reflect and implement. Number one, explore the new metrics. IQ only accounts for 20% of success. We need to make sure we are measuring the right things. The next concept involves “getting real about STEM. Pink stressed that STEM must include the Arts because students must be taught to see. Engineering firms want people who have passion, are willing to be  life-long learners, are systems thinkers,  have multicultural values, and can understand interdisciplinary context. The third suggestion is to rethink motivation and look at intrinsic versus extrinsic motivation. The fourth idea really caught my attention as Pink suggested moving problem solving out of the terrarium and putting it in the forest. He described the terrarium as an environment  that is much too clean, organized, and not real world. Problems should involve clarification, identification, multi-disciplines, several answers, non-perfection, exploration, challenge, and relevancy. Last, Pink suggests that artistic educational programs must be facilitated, encouraged, and practiced across the curriculum. China has an emphasis that states “Creative Arts are not a frivolous luxury“.  I am anxious to bring the arts concept into my next STEM presentation! Have a little fun fooling your left brain by having your right brain look at this Fedex logo in a different and unique way.

Different and unique  is a great way to describe Alan November. I had the honor to introduce this master of storytelling and thought provoking educational reformer. November emphasized that it is not the technology that will make the change happen, even asking participants to cross it off the program title. He stressed that kids need to be able to learn and use tools at school that are  available in their homes. Education must understand that blocking certain websites is actually contributing to a lack of student awareness of proper and valuable web usage. It is important that the skills we teach today outlast technology change. November emphasized student creativity  as he made the audience aware of Jing and Math Train TV. He also demonstrated a math search engine entitled Wolfram|Alpha. Enter your question or calculation and Wolfram|Alpha uses its built-in algorithms and a growing collection of data to compute the answer. While some schools may want to block this because using it could be considered cheating, November suggests allowing students to use it so they instantly know if they are right or wrong in a computation. He then suggested that students create their own multimedia story to explain the process. He also shared an exciting video about sixth sense work using technology. You maybe interested in exploring information on Web Literacy located at November Learning. Located at this site is a great collection of resources to teach students about using the web to retrieve information. Students have a chance to learn there is really no Pacific Northwest Tree Octopus and that Christopher Columbus was not born in Sydney in  Australia in 1951, even though it says so on the web! November also covered the Way Back Machine, and Easy Who Is, to further validate web resources. All of these resources are explained on November Learning. Alan November is truly one of our time’s great thinkers in education and I recommend attending his BLC10 conference in Boston this summer. I have had  the honor to both present and attend. It is a truly an amazing conference that will give you plenty of opportunity to reflect and acquire resources. Perhaps November’s most intruiging statement was that employers are seeking the skill of empathy as they hire. It would be interesting to see who has that concept in their standards beyond definition and  vocabulary!

I did have a chance to attend some other sessions that were truly outstanding. Jim Wenzlof presented a valuable session entitled Read It, Write It, Say It. He introduced innovative ways to use Diigo,  and Skype for teaching literacy. He suggested techniques to allow students to make movie trailers for books using Audacity, PhotoStory, and iMovie.  He also introduced the websites  Lit2Go, Itunes University, and the Story Starter. My favorite was a collaborative site called EtherPad. If you haven’t seen it give it a look! I also had a chance to see the state of Indiana’s new educational service presented by Gary Bates from the DOE called The Learning Connection. It is a service for Indiana educators interested in designing lessons, assessments aligned to standards, or wishing to collaborate and connect with other educators in the state of Indiana. Indiana educators, take the time to register now at The Learning Connection. I also had opportunity to talk with the people at both ePals and NSDL. These are two great organizations that understand 21st Century learning.  I plan to become  more familiar with both in the near future. I appreciated the time and energy both Dr.  Kimberly Lightle from NSDL and Victoria McEachern from ePals spent with me.

As I close I want to thank all those people who attended my session on 21st Century learning. It was my intention to deliver a dynamic presentation to you. I appreciate how nearly 90 people made room for everyone in a room designed for 50. I also hope that the many who could not get in will at least take advantage of the handout sheet left at the door. As promised, the Power Point will be available on the wiki under Presentations. Thank you for all of the kind comments and I hope all of you keep in touch.

Overall it was a truly amazing conference. I was only able to see it from my limited perspective but I can  tell you that it was one of the best I have ever attended. The goal is always to find at least one new idea and I surpassed that with an improved vision for transforming education in the 21st century. I am excited about NMSA10 in Baltimore as I  hope to learn  and contribute even more! Again, thank you to the great staff at both NMSA and IMLEA along with the countless volunteers and presenters. I feel it was a great “Welcome To The Future!” Please feel free to visit the 21st Century Ed Tech Wiki. Your comments, suggestions, and emails are always welcome! Keep up the great work at using technology to facilitate empathy, awareness, and  creativity! They just may be the most important unwritten standards.

-Mike

How many of us have fond memories of Year 9 science?   I suspect most of us don’t unless we had a natural aptitude for the subject.

The reality is it probably had something to do with the way the subject was taught – a one size fits all approach to science that was far removed from our lives and yet integral to understanding  the world around us.

For John Hattie, a good teacher is able to turn on the challenge of physics, chemistry or Year 9 science for every student. 

Greg Whitby and Year 9.3 Science at Parramatta Marist

Last week, I was invited into a Year 9 science class and saw young men challenged and engaged in their learning.  Their teacher, Br Anthony is using a project-based learning (PBL). Click here to listen to Br Anthony on PBL.

I found it an engaging experience to watch two students (whom I later discovered have been struggling) stand in front of their peers and deliver a presentation on “Energy and Ecology”.

The subsequent class discussion of which I was a part, on global warming and alternate energy sources was lively and well-informed and it’s encouraging to know that these students see themselves as part of the solution!

I saw a science teacher who was passionate about his subject and committed to using PBL to engage and challenge students in a real-world context and showcasing their work.

Teaching is a science and good teaching is about the continual examination of the evidence of what you are doing and how it is impacting on learning outcomes. At its very core is a fundamental understanding of the learner. 

There are many more examples like this – we  just need to share them.

First Tuesday in November and here in the Lucky Country it’s Melbourne Cup Day. This is the day the country stops everything and downs tools for a very long, liquid lunch and a horse race on the TV.

On Melbourne Cup Day the only thing that matters is what horse you have drawn in the office sweepstakes and if your glass is full.

So it should come as no surprise that, on the day of the nation’s biggest horse race, the Australian Commercial Television Networks have quietly announced they have managed to gamble away AuD$3 Billion in a punt on the MobCon.

The SMH reports that the Seven Media Group has cut more than AuD$1.5 billion from the value of its television network, pushing the company to a AuD$1.9 billion loss . While PBL Media, the owner of the Nine Network, has also reported a loss of nearly AuD$1 Billion. Only the 10 Network came through relative unscathed after posting a loss of just AuD$89m.

Up until recently Television thought is was immune from the creative destruction that is ailing the Newspaper industry. 

Viewer numbers are still strong and Australians still spend a significant part of the day “Glued to the box”.  

After today’s announcements, the shareholders of Australia’s TV networks are very much aware of the financial impact of the MobCon and how it’s not just destroying shareholder value in the newspaper game but across the whole media industry.

Business Insider’s Henry Blodget pretty much said it all earlier this year in his post Sorry, there’s no way to save the TV Business.

Today television is struggling to discover a future for itself.

Ironically the challenge isn’t distribution, there are more channels than ever before and the arrival of digital has improved the AV quality. The challenge is in content. A future of professional sport, 24 hr news cycles, reality TV and endless repeats isn’t going to cut in the long-term.

The challenge TV also shares with Newspapers and Magazines is to make their  linear and cyclical programming formats relevant in an increasingly asynchronous world. Their audiences simply don’t have the time to sit around and wait for TV to deliver linear content. They want it all and they want it now and they want it free.

Oh and if you’re wondering who won the horse race? Well one look at that AuD$3 Billion loss and picking the winner today was very easy: 

It was Shocking.

Doering, A. & Veletsianos, G. (2008). Hybrid Online Education: Identifying Integration Models Using Adventure Learning. Journal of Research on Technology in Education. 41 (1). pp. 23-41.

The importance of this article is succinctly presented in a chart defining four models for integrating technology-based instruction. The applicability of the article is that the authors examined how teachers incorporated a computer-based, community-oriented PBL in actual classrooms. Rather than examining teachers’ technical literacy as previous studies have done, the authors ask “how technology is used” and provide real answers.

Previous research suggests three methods that teachers use to incorporate technology:

1. for efficiency (replacing less efficient methods)
2. for enhancement (transforming methods)
3. for entertainment–relaxation and reward (amplifying existing methods)

Doering and Veletsianos define four methods from observing actual use:

A larger study may provide a full gradient of methods with a near-infinite number of defined paths–or it may provide validation of this four-method topology. Regardless of the methodological count, the article points the way forward in urging us to consider how technology is used in real classrooms. In addition, the article underscores the importance of teacher-teacher collaboration.

Doering, A. & Veletsianos, G. (2008). Hybrid Online Education: Identifying Integration Models Using Adventure Learning. Journal of Research on Technology in Education. 41 (1). pp. 23-41.

The importance of this article is succinctly presented in a chart defining four models for integrating technology-based instruction. The applicability of the article is that the authors examined how teachers incorporated a computer-based, community-oriented PBL in actual classrooms. Rather than examining teachers’ technical literacy as previous studies have done, the authors ask “how technology is used” and provide real answers.

Previous research suggests three methods that teachers use to incorporate technology:

1. for efficiency (replacing less efficient methods)
2. for enhancement (transforming methods)
3. for entertainment–relaxation and reward (amplifying existing methods)

Doering and Veletsianos define four methods from observing actual use:

A larger study may provide a full gradient of methods with a near-infinite number of defined paths–or it may provide validation of this four-method topology. Regardless of the methodological count, the article points the way forward in urging us to consider how technology is used in real classrooms. In addition, the article underscores the importance of teacher-teacher collaboration.

Doering, A. (2006). Adventure Learning: Transformative hybrid online education. Distance Education 27 (2). pp. 197-215.

Despite the unnecessary introduction of a new term (“adventure learning”), this article provides a concise and clear vision of an instructional model with solid grounding in contemporary learning theory and immediate practical application in the classroom. Doering positions adventure learning as an online course taken in the classroom while “teachers are facilitators” (differentiated from the other hybrid model where students take a face to face class augmented with online instruction outside the classroom). Combining collaboration and reflection to transform students into the authentic practitioners of Shaffer’s epistemic games, adventure learning relies on real-time community and fantastic (unknown) environments to provide student motivation.

The seven elements of adventure learning provide the practical application:

1. begin with a researched curriculum grounded in problem-solving and based on learning outcomes
2. provide collaboration opportunities among students, peers, experts, and content
3. utilize the Internet for delivery
4. provide authenticity with media and text from the field (emphasis is mine)
5. provide synchronous opportunities
6. offer pedagogical guidelines (for the teacher)
7. captivate students through adventure

An interesting variable which is mentioned but insufficiently explored in the research is the importance of teacher-teacher interaction.

Hmelo, C.E., Holton, D.L., Kolodner, J.L. (2000). Designing to learn about complex systems. Journal of the Learning Sciences 9(3), 247-298.

Design activities, which allow explorations of how systems work, can be an excellent way to help children acquire a deeper, more systemic understanding of such complex domains. In this article, the authors incorporate lessons from problem-based learning, structure-behavior-function theory, and case-based reasoning, to construct a two-week lesson plan for middle schoolers that involves both modeling and design. They call this Learning by Design.

Learning from design activities “has the advantage of more completely considering a system as a union of functionally related subparts, but it does not address how students can be motivated to be engaged in such learning, nor does it address how we can support students’ evolving understandings from superficial to deep.” The authors’ Learning by Design (LBD) approach takes those next steps by asking students to not only think of systems as designs, but, in addition, to understand some natural design (e.g., the lungs) well enough so that they can undertake the design of an artificial system that can carry out the same functions.

The LBD approach builds on Perkins’ “knowledge by design” approach. “Perkins suggested helping students view systems as designs: structures adapted to specific purposes. Viewing a system as a design goes beyond simply defining the parts, and also addresses their functional roles, the mechanisms by which those roles are carried out, and how those functions causally interact with each other” (p.248).

“Systems are dynamic entities, and many of their organizational levels are difficult to visualize, such as cellular respiration. Part of the difficulty individuals have in understanding complex systems can be related to the way students are introduced to them (Feltovich, Spiro, & Coulsen, 1993). Often, learners are introduced to complex systems in oversimplified static forms [reminds me Spiro and Jehng's complaint in "Cognitive Flexibility and Hypertext", leading to greater danger of "reductive bias" (Feltovich et al., 1996)], and these early conceptions form schemas that are then difficult to overcome. In life science, in particular, there is often an emphasis on understanding isolated concepts without introducing learners to the interrelations among various levels of the systems.”

The authors use SBF (structure, behavior, function) theory (Goel & Chandrasekaran, 1989) as a way to help student understand and describe systems. This involves building a representation that “highlights structures, functions, and behaviors of systems, and the connections between those parts. Structure refers to the physical structures of a system (the lungs are a physical structure in the respiratory system); Function refers to the purpose of the system or subsystem (the respiratory system transports oxygen throughout the body to the organs that require it); Behavior refers to the dynamic mechanisms and workings that allow the structures to carry out their function; that is, the mechanisms that cause changes in the structural state of a system (p.250).

Behavior of a system is probably the most difficult for novices to understand because it involves invisible (e.g., the invisible electrical impulses traveling through nerves that cause the respiratory system’s involuntary movements) and time-delayed causalities. “Novices tend not to consider that a system has behavior until some anomaly in the normal function of a system arises and they have a need to debug or explain it (Murayama, 1994)…Because structure is visible, novices typically begin to understand a system at a superficial structural level, only later beginning to understand how structures are related to each other through behavior and function. On the other hand, when experts reason about systems (e.g., for design or diagnosis), they typically reason first at the functional and behavioral levels (Chi, Feltovich, & Glaser, 1981).” (p.250-1).

Potential benefits of using design:

• Design places students squarely in the process of constructing rather than receiving knowledge (Lehrer, 1993; Perkins, 1986).
• The process of design initiates students into the discourse that typifies communities of practice in science and engineering (Roth, 1995) — students learn to use concepts and heuristics as tools for problem solving.
• Discussion about the designed artifacts facilitates sharing of knowledge—the artifacts they are designing can serve as concrete referents that students focus attention on as they are communicating (Roth, 1996).
• In the classroom, the process of designing affords the potential for learners to construct, apply, and evaluate models (Kolodner et al., 1998; Penner, Lehrer,&Schauble, 1998; Roth, 1996). Students may construct a model of the device they are designing, of some part of it, or of some mechanism they need to learn more about to achieve their design goal.
• The design, construction, testing, and refinement of models provides a powerful means of coming to know our world and thus offers the potential to enhance understanding in scientific domains (Penner et al., 1998). As students design models, they need to describe, predict, or explain some phenomena, which requires them to discuss and invent objects and their relations to each other as well as to consider functions and causal behaviors of the components in their model.
• Tradeoffs include:
  • Finding a balance between having students work on design activities and reflecting. Incorporating reflective activities is important to encourage an
    understanding-oriented approach;
  • Learning how to integrate real world knowledge without letting it overwhelm the class with irrelevant aspects of the world that might take the students on unproductive tangents;
  • Determining how to maintain extended student engagement in a manner that emphasizes principled understanding rather than task completion.

Types of scaffolding that may be needed:

• Help with identifying new goals for learning
• Making one’s thinking visible
• Seeking answers to questions one has generated— with the ultimate goal of helping students anticipate and seek out better and better models to explain phenomena.

Modeling and design have many similarities—both lead to the construction of an artifact, and both require managing the interconnections between a variety of structural and functional parts. When the goal is to create a model, success is judged in terms of whether the model elucidates the phenomena being studied. When design is the goal, criteria for success are the satisfaction of functional constraints. We borrow from both traditions, asking students to use design practices to come to an understanding of the issues involved in achieving a large and complex design challenge (designing an artificial lung), to focus investigations on some of those issues (e.g., How do human lungs work? What artificial mechanisms can model the functions of human lungs? How do lungs connect to other organs?), and to construct and test models to answer those questions. [The authors later admit that this duality of (conflicting) goals produced some confusion among the students.]

The design challenge was used to promote engagement, questioning, and connection to the world. It was then assumed that students would recognize that to learn what’s needed to achieve the design challenge, they would use an investigative method engineers and scientists use—modeling. Unfortunately, this connection btw modeling and design was not made clearly enough. “The design challenge had not helped students sufficiently focus their earlier investigations as intended…Also problematic was the lack of explicit connection between the design challenge presented to the students and the modeling activity they actually did. It was ambiguous to us, and to the students as well, whether they were constructing a miniature artificial lung, a model of an artificial lung, or a model of a real lung or part of the respiratory system” (p.276).

Problem-based Learning (PBL):

• Begins by presenting a group of students with a complex problem to solve.
• Students pause to reflect on the data they have collected so far (FACTS); generate questions about those data, and hypothesize about underlying causal mechanisms that might help explain those facts or potential solutions to the problem they are working on (IDEAS). They identify concepts they need to learn more about to solve the problem (LEARNING ISSUES) and then they develop a plan for proceeding (ACTION PLAN).
• During investigation—students divide up and independently research the learning issues they have identified. They regroup to share what they have learned, reconsider their ideas, and/or generate new ones in light of their investigations. They continue by attempting to solve the problem based on what they have learned, sometimes cycling several times through question generation and additional research. The dynamically changing lists of facts, ideas, learning issues, and action plan are recorded in columns of a public whiteboard, as shown in Figure 1. The whiteboard is revisited and updated on a regular basis. The whiteboard helps learners remember where they have been and where they are going in their learning and design. It helps focus negotiation of the problem and provides an anchor for students to co-construct knowledge. After completing their task, learners deliberately reflect on their experience to abstract the lessons learned and to consider how they performed in their self-directed learning and collaborative problem solving.
• The facilitator (i.e., teacher) is responsible both for moving the students through the various stages of problem solving and for monitoring the group process—ensuring that all students are involved and encouraging them both to externalize their own thinking and to comment on each other’s thinking.
• The facilitator plays an important role in modeling the needed thinking skills. Another important role the facilitator plays is helping students bring in their knowledge of the world as a contribution to problem solving while at the same time helping them to move forward without being overwhelmed by the magnitude of the problem. That can be carried out by allowing any and all ideas and questions to go onto the whiteboard initially and then guiding discussion toward identifying the more realistic and important ones, helping students create an action plan that has them investigating only the most important of the questions raised. Although the facilitator fades some of his or her scaffolding as the group gains experience with the PBL method, he or she continues to actively monitor the group, making moment-to-moment decisions about how best to facilitate.

Case-based reasoning (CBR):

• Was developed as a way of allowing computer programs to solve complex problems.
• Based on observations of experts—particularly their ability to learn from experience and re-use knowledge learned in one instance in another instance.
• CBR, as a method for computer reasoning, focuses on storing problem-solving experiences (cases) in a case library, interpreting and indexing them so that they could be found and re-used at appropriate times, ways of searching that case library to find appropriate cases, and adapting and merging the solutions  to old cases to solve new problems.
• CBR’s suggestions are in keeping with much of what is proposed by constructivist education and in keeping with the classroom experiences of researchers looking at learning in the classroom (e.g., Feltovich et al., 1992; Linn, 1995; Penner et al., 1998).
• CBR shows that learning is an iterative process: One’s initial conceptions are often incomplete or faulty, and only by trying them out, seeing if results are as one expected, and attempting to explain ensuing anomalies can one discover the holes in one’s knowledge and be motivated to fill them. Thus, according to CBR, deep understanding requires the experience of one’s expectations failing and the subsequent need to explain why. One’s expectations fail when one tries something expecting one result and a different result ensues. When one fails at something one wants to accomplish or understand, one is motivated to explain the failure (i.e., to learn more). Conversely, it is difficult to recognize a lack of understanding without the opportunity to try out ideas and observe what happens.
• CBR suggests that the better the connections between one’s goals, one’s solutions, and their outcomes, and the better one has articulated those connections in explanations, the better one will be able to re-use the results of one’s experiences.

Some lessons learned include:

• Inadequate scaffolding. There was no scaffolding provided to help students plan the design of their lung models based on what they had learned. Also no scaffolding to help them debug and explain their models (p.273).
• Students stopped at the point where each had a first partial working model, thus they missed out on the chance to apply their ideas in a new situation. “They had no opportunity to continue adding to their fluency (p.274)…”[or] iteratively make their models better — in parallel with refining and increasing their own understanding” (p.275).
• Students’ research was focused on big issues, not on details needed to be able to design or build something that could work.
• If a more explicit connection had been made btw design challenge and modeling activity, students would have had a chance to be introduced to the process [modeling], they could have had an interesting science process discussion and perhaps learned about modeling as something scientists and engineers do as a method of investigation” (p.276).

From p. 267: “Although the task was to design an artificial lung, this was overwhelming for these students, so they transformed the task into a modeling task that they could manage.” [Does this mean that the authors initially wanted more creative solutions?]

“Students had a hard time getting to a point where it made sense to grapple with the details of implementation. Yet it is in implementation that design challenges have their most powerful affordances for learning. When one can build and test a device or some piece of it, one can grapple with one’s conceptions. A device that does not work signals a lack of full understanding. The best design challenges for promoting learning are those that afford construction, testing, timely and authentic feedback, and revision” (p. 287).

Also, the materials they provided were “leading” and incomplete. The authors also suggested that “messing around” with the materials before fact-finding may also help students gain insight. “In addition to achieving focused investigation during a design challenge, it is important that the materials students “mess about” with and construct with have affordances and constraints that promote identification of the full range of important issues. The balloons and straws and plastic bottles we made available provided affordances for getting things in and out of something by blowing or pumping air. But we provided no materials that could be used for filtering, and we provided no materials that could be used to build a working pump. It should be no surprise then that most students focused on getting air into and out of the lungs and only one team considered issues of gas exchange. It should be no surprise, either, that only one team recognized a need to investigate issues associated with controlling the flow of air into and out of the lungs—the team that brought an electronic construction kit from home and built a working pump.” (p.288).

“Materials provided to students for messing about and construction can focus investigation through their affordances or poorly constrain what students think about through their lack of affordances. It is important to consider the range of issues we want students to investigate as part of a design experience, to choose materials that will afford identification of those issues and their productive investigation, and to give students experience messing about with those materials early on” (p.289).

“We’ve come to realize that if we expect students to model some phenomenon, we must include, as part of our classroom activities, a discussion of what a model is, what we can use them for, and what kind of fidelity is needed for a model to be useful…” (p.290). [Perhaps that same goes for simulations? (Molecules and Minds)]

A good design challenge for learning:

• Affords construction, testing, timely and authentic feedback, and revision of something that works;
• Makes clear the utility of learning targeted facts, concepts, and skills;
• Focuses investigation at a concrete level;
• Can serve as vehicles for promoting model design, model building, model running, and an understanding of modeling as an investigative method;
• Should be supported with materials that promote the construction of working models; and
• Can be orchestrated such that students will understand the relation between the challenge and any model building and testing activities they are doing.

The authors recommend the following sequencing of activities for good learning from design activities:

1. Presentation of the design challenge with appropriate material to promote engagement.
2. Engagement in some quick construction activity or an activity that has students investigating how some artifacts work to get students started recognizing specific issues they need to address to achieve the challenge (what we referred to as “messing about” earlier). It is important here that the materials they have available and the guidance students have for messing about be chosen such that students are able to identify a wide range of the issues that need to be addressed.
3. Whiteboarding or some other reflective and planning activity that gets students together as a class to record ideas, learning issues, and plans.
4. Planning and carrying out some of the investigations that will help them address some significant subset of the issues they have identified as important (e.g., through reading, experimentation, modeling), along with presentation of findings to the class, discussions of the applicability and implications of findings, and return to the whiteboards to articulate what they have learned and how far they have come; it is entirely appropriate here to have different groups in the class investigate different topics.
5. Revisiting the design challenge to apply their new knowledge, planning their best solutions based on what they’ve learned so far, and presenting them to the class.
6. Iterations of construction and testing of solutions interleaved with additional investigation as needed and with presenting to each other what they have done and learned with each iteration of their designs.
7. Final presentations, reflection, and review.

Another important consideration: “[Teachers'] lack of experience with designing and modeling makes it difficult for them to feel comfortable staying with an activity for several iterations, to completely grasp design’s affordances, and to articulate to the children the reasons for what they are doing” (p. 293).

“When children conduct experiments, they often focus on creating outcomes rather than constructing understanding. This is understandable because the outcome (some artifact that works) is a concrete product, whereas understanding the internal workings of a system is more abstract and less tangible” (p.254).

Igår träffade alltså Civilutskottets ledamöter Stockholms Byggmästareförening (SBF). Här kommer en kort återrapportering om vad som diskuterades.

Vi diskuterade bland annat möjligheten att producera hyresrätter. SBF anförde bland annat att hyressättningen är ett problem. Avkastningen på en investering blir för låg.

Vad gäller hyressättningen i övrigt så menade SBF att lägesfaktorn och standarden på lägenheten har för dåligt genomslag. Värt att påpeka i sammanhanget är att en viss uppluckring är på väg i denna fråga och att lägesfaktorn troligtvis kommer att få en större tyngd i framtidens hyressättning.

Finanskrisen slår hårt mot bostadsbyggandet, var vi överens om efter diskussion. Det är både svårt och dyrt att låna upp kapital för bostadsbyggande, även om läget förbättrats i takt med att reporäntan sänkts. Representanterna för SBF var också tydliga med att de inte vill ha tillbaka några subventioner för bostadsbyggande.

Det framkom även viss kritik mot till förslaget mot ny PBL men jag får nog säga att den föll efter en diskussion.

Ikväll ska Civilutskottets ledamöter till Stockholms Byggmästareförening. Såvitt jag förstår kommer vi att få träffa representanter för ett antal byggbolag, det vill säga medlemmarna i Byggmästareföreningen, och bland annat diskutera frågor som byggandet i Stockholm, PBL, upplåtelserformer och byggfelsförsäkring.

Australia’s MobCon journey makes a great case study for what has happen elsewhere in the developed world.

All the major global players are present in this market (e.g. Microsoft, Newscorp, Nokia, Yahoo! and Google) and Australia is not known for its innovation culture.

Corporate Management and Government Policy here in Australia is extremely cautious when it comes to new ideas and will normally adopt a policy of “wait and see” what is happening in the US and UK markets before adopting any new strategy.

This “late to market” approach to “leasing innovation” from the rest of the world allows Australia to pick and choose the best solutions the world has to offer without having to fund both the risk and expense of R&D. Anyone familiar with Donald Horne’s seminal study of the early 1960’s, The Luck Country, will know these “Cargo Culture” management practices are an inherent way of doing business in this country.

So, theoretically at least, what has happened with the MobCon here in Australia represents world’s best practice

The Australian Media, I.T. and Telecommunications landscape was very easy to understand 20 years ago. Telecommunications was dominated by a Government owned monopoly (Telstra), I.T. was dominated by US interests (e.g. Microsoft, IBM, Apple) and the mass media was basically divided up among three family concerns Fairfax (Newspapers), Packer (T.V. & Magazines), Murdoch (Newspapers & Magazines).

Here is what has happen in Australia since the Government first adopted the Clinton:Gore call for investment in the “Information Superhighway” back in the mid-1990’s.

• The local Telcos have attempted with varying degrees of success to diversify into media and to a lesser degree I.T.
• The local Media has attempted with varying degrees of success to diversify by setting up joint ventures with global IT and the local Telcos.
• The global I.T. players have replicated their US strategy by seeking Joint Ventures with the local media providers.
• There has been an explosion of new providers and business models across and in between all 3 industry groups.

With all this activity there have been some interesting individual and portfolio investments. For Example:

• OneTel: the Packer/Murdoch foray into telecoms
• Foxtel
• CVC Capital Partners investment in PBL

This diagram illustrates just how much more complex the MobCon landscape has become for each of these market leaders.

By 2008 the major industry players had invested over (Aus)$75 Billion on their MobCon convergence strategies

Achieving this level of complexity requires significant effort and by 2008 the key industry players had invested over Aus$75 Billion in their ongoing efforts to capture their share of the newly emerging convergence landscape.

So, given all this excitement and activity, who has the winning strategy today?

If we take a look at the combined MobCon revenues of all the industry leaders we can see that it is the telcos who are dominating the MobCon Landscape.

Share of MobCon Revenues in Australia for 2007*

Note: This chart illustrates the share of Australian MobCon Revenues (Including Advertising, Subscription, Licence and Service Revenues) as published by the market leaders in their annual returns.
* Within the total group revenues of (Aus) $26 Billion

What is really interesting is, that after all this investment, the revenue patterns show us that the media companies are still essentially media companies, the telcos are telcos and the I.T. companies are I.T. companies.

After 15 years the only thing these market leaders are doing differently is online.

Now if you closely you will see that online revenues represent 4.8% of the revenues across the Australian MobCon landscape. All of which means that Australia’s market leaders have invested over (Aus)$75 Billion in search of a new market opportunity with annual revenues of less than (Aus)$1.25 Billion.

Not great business by any measure and this is reflected in the performance of their individual share prices over the past decade.

Now, getting back to our original premise: Australia’s MobCon investment strategy represents World’s Best Practice.

If this is true, then what do these figures tell us about what has happened elsewhere in the world?

It probably means that the first 15-20 years of the MobCon have resulted in a significant write down of shareholder value by investors all over the world.

Indeed any cursory review of the individual MobCon strategies of the global market leaders will reveal the challenge of convergence for most has been more about retaining shareholder value than increasing it.

The real difficult question is: Do the global media, I.T. and telco players have the ideas and ability to turn this nightmare around? Or should the world’s investors be looking elsewhere for a more risk free return on their investment?

Thursday evening my colleague Heilyn and I had the final session in the PBBL course and we had asked the Learning Teams to prepare evaluations of the course. We have actually designed several evaluation activities, mainly because reflection-on-action is an important component is our pedagogical philosophy, but also because the course is part of the EU funded research project COMmunity of integrated Blended Learning in Europe (COMBLE) and as such we need to document our findings. Friday Heilyn and I did our weekly meta-reflection on the course as a whole, and I think Heilyn was a bit surprised, since I was not willing to say that the course has been a complete success. Judging from the various types of feedback we have received from the participants, there is no doubt that the course has been a success. Both the participants and Heilyn and I as designers/facilitators/researchers have learned so much and all in all it has been a very engaging, rewarding and fun experience. As part of the evaluation process we asked the participants to look at their individual expectations they all stated in the application form before entering the course and comment on whether the course had meet their initial expectations or not. Here are some quotes from their responses:

It confirms what I maybe knew before: No one can be learning by a system alone. The systems are just supporters for all the good intentions and the heavy work done by the facilitators. And it is probably not the time alone, it is the timing too, and the whole spirit from the facilitators which inspires the learners to show up and participate every time.

Now I know: I was wrong in the assessment of my previous knowledge about BL - thank you very much for the new insights.

My expectations, on the other hand, were more than fulfilled. Also, I like fulfilling other people’s expectations. I did learn some theory which will be useful, and the collaboration in our virtual team was wholly enjoyable. I did get re-started nicely on teaching in second life and I am taking a bag full of ideas home with me. Especially on PBL and how to deepen my application of this theory, but also with respect to how much time this takes when you take it seriously as an educator.

The work in our team has pleased me very much. It was surprising to see that we as a small group already had so many different approaches and we had longer discussions than I thought before, but we have reached a very cooperative process of discussion of how we ultimately manage and present our mini project. Working in our team was really fun!

In short – all these expectations are met and are even exceeded. In a little longer – at work we used a bit “americanized” AL in some high potential training courses. That is basically all I knew about this kind of adult learning method and now I feel I have a good first insight what PBL means and what you can achieve with it. This will very much help me to influence what we do in the future with such programs at work. Also seeing what online learning opportunities beside just simple WBTs are out there was eye opening for me, however I am not so sure what I am going to do with that new knowledge in regards to me current work environment.

Also thank you very much for an interesting course – you have done a great job, and also shown us, how much time we have to be willing to invest, if we want to implement BL courses in our practice. A very important information for the institution before the boot. I wanted to get better assumptions to transform f2f courses into BL and get knowledge about PBL and technology to have a better foundation to choose the right method and technology for the target groups. I do think I got it all. It has been very interesting to learn about the methodology and explore the virtual environment. The team process has been excellent with lots of good discussions.

For me this course was more than I expected. I liked BL, when something was difficult in audio version, ppt gave the missing parts. I learned lot from Comble members in SL. Very useful was reading forums. The most boring for me was my computer, movements in SL were slow, arrows buttons were slow, there was kind of break or time between me to press the button and me to move in SL. Then I pressed the button again and again and once, when I started to move in SL I went and went … and got lost. This course gave me a new dimension of teaching. From flat Internet to 3 D in SL, from one tool lecturing to BL. Thank you all, it was fun.

I learned very much – but unfortunately also something I didn´t care to know about myself: I am not any longer resilient enough for such a giant course. I didn´t visit each optional meeting and I’ve only been able to read about a third of the requested literature efficiently. After some days full of daily life I couldn’t manage to stay fully concentrated trough the evening sessions. On the other hand it has been great to see the advantages of SL, to gain a lot of experiences and to develop my aims to handle PBL and AL. Thank you for this very intensive but great experience.

I really enjoyed learning in SL which was a complete novelty to me. I regret that I wasn’t able to turn up during all SL optional meetings as I really liked them. For someone like me, to whom getting around in SL (broadly speaking) was really completely new, the tours gave many hints how to let yourself being educated in the virtual world and maybe, in the future, how to organize the learning process there. Before the course I had just theoretical basis of PBL/AL (quite superficial, I believe). Now, I know much more, have a lot of materials and some experience to use.

When entering the course I was hoping to experience SL as e-learning platform on my own skin and it happened on the skin of my avatar But seriously I really had a chance to see how education process may look like in SL. I think it is too early to state that now I will also use it in my courses but I do really have something to think about. If in the future I had opportunity to provide similar course I think I would be ready from instructional point of view but there is still a lot of things I should learn about PBL… In fact during that course I realized how complex and difficult it is and how hard it is to implement it into the teaching/learning process.

Like everybody else, I want to thank you for the fabulous work, you have been doing during this course. I will forever be inspired and have your doing in my mind working with BL. It is hard to find words to express my experience during this course. I am amazed, and I really feel sad, that it’s now over, even though it has been hard work  I feel connected of course mostly to the danish team but also to the rest of the participants in a way, that I never thought possible after 6 weeks working together only online and never meeting in RL. I have really learned a lot too.

Now looking at these comments and the rest of the feedback we have received, it may come as a surprise why I’m somewhat reluctant to label the course a complete success, so I’ll try to elaborate a bit on that as a) course designer/facilitator and as b) researcher.

As course designer and facilitator my responsibility together with Heilyn has been to design for optimal conditions for learning to happen in order to meet the promised outcome. Even though taking responsibility for one’s own learning is very much part of the PBL pedagogy, the facilitator still has a huge responsibility to try to ensure that learning actually can happen (through the design), and when evaluating a course it thus makes sense to look at the expected outcome and review the final learning result. In this PBBL course the general course objective and the outcome was the following:

The main objective of the course is to provide the participants with a combination of conceptual, theoretical and practical strategies with regards to designing, implementing and teaching/training courses of different duration in blended modality using an overall PBL approach.

The participants will learn how to design blended learning courses/learning units based on a PBL approach.

There is absolutely no doubt that the participants learned a great deal about Blended Learning (BL) and PBL and that they got a lot of inspiration and new knowledge with regards to designing, implementing and teaching/training. But I would not feel comfortable in saying that they actually learned how to design, implement and teach/train – and how to are the operative words here. Heilyn and I discussed this and agreed that the course outcome actually should have been differently stated with an emphasis on learn about instead of learn how to, since we both agree that learning how to is way too ambitious for a short 6 week part time course, where the majority of the participants had little or no prior experience with BL, PBL and the 2 chosen course technologies, Moodle and Second Life (SL). We cannot propose to prolong the course, since our 3 European COMBLE partners find longer courses unrealistic to implement in their local settings. Consequently we will suggest changing the course outcome, when we do our final report, but even so I find it necessary to review the design and see if anything could or should have been done differently.

The most important course component aimed at learning how to design, implement and teach courses based on a PBL approach was the Mini-projects we asked each Learning Team to produce. As mentioned in a previous post only half of the 6 Learning Teams managed to hand-in their projects in due time, 2 teams handed in later and 1 team resigned. And in my book that is not satisfactory. Insufficient time to do the projects has been stated as the main explanation, and so we need to look at the general workload and consider carefully if the project description, incl. assessment criteria can be done differently. Another issue pointing at a revision is the quality of the projects. When looking at the quality of the 5 project reports, 3 of them were quite good content wise, whereas the 2 final reports did not in a convincing way show that the teams were able to identify characteristic and attributes of PBBL, discuss the advantages and challenges, align goals with local standards and design a course.  The course has been offered by Aalborg University at master level, and as such we have been assessing the projects according to our local standards for academic reports at this level.  The course has shown that there are cultural differences in what is to be considered a good academic report, and if we had more time in the COMBLE project, this would be something I would want to investigate further. For the final report we will recommend assessment criteria based on local standards and this would also influence the content of the projects.

Other ways of ensuring a higher quality would be to;

• Form the Learning Teams in the first week and get them started earlier
• Ask the Learning Teams to submit their problem formulations earlier
• Ask the Learning Teams to submit an example of their writing before handing in the final reports
• Have a synchronous supervision session with each Learning Team

Given that project work is a core element in the way we do PBL at Aalborg University I would hesitate to reduce the Mini-projects further, but would prefer to reduce some of the other course activities. We have had 2 lectures and 1 optional meeting pr. week, and in our final report we will suggest only 1 lecture and 1 optional meeting pr. week. In this course we also included Action Learning (AL), and even though there are similarities between PBL and AL, Heilyn and I agree that in a future course we would not include AL, since it seemed to create some confusion among the participants and bringing in AL in the projects did not improve them quality wise.

Heilyn and I have also discussed the use of especially SL. It is evident that the steep learning curve in SL has been very time consuming for the majority of the participants. Depending on course objectives one could chose a different environment for synchronous communication and probably gain some time, but it would be at the expense of some other important factors, which leads us to the research perspective.

As mentioned above this course has been part of a research project and Heilyn and I had the task of designing, implementing and evaluating a Blended Learning course based on innovative technology and Problem Based pedagogy. Besides this we decided to formulate an investigation question more targeted at our respective PhD interests and we came up with this question:

How can deliberate pedagogical design promote community creation and motivation among participants?

In order to investigate this question we decided to apply an action research approach meaning that we worked in (small) cycles of planning, acting, observing and reflecting throughout the course. We also decided to share our findings with the participants inviting them to comment on our meta-reflections, and this really turned out to be a great learning experience for all of us. Based on the feedback we got from the participants, we were also able to act proactively and in this way I think our research perspective supported our functions as designers/facilitators a lot. We planned many different activities targeted at promoting the community creation and motivation, and we both agree that the course has been a huge success in this sense.  Many of the activities we planned were carried out in SL, and I’m convinced that the immersive and engaging character of SL contributed greatly to the community creation and the motivation.  I was happily surprised to see so many participants show up for especially the lectures in-world, and I’m not convinced they all would have been as motivated if the synchronous lectures had been in a different platform.  This part of the project is something Heilyn and I will investigate further in 2 papers for the PAN PBL2010 Conference and the 7th Networked Learning Conference 2010. For now I’ll finish with a quote from one of the participants, who had no prior experience with SL:

In the beginning I though SL is only some funny tool/place and more gaming than really learning something seriously. However after getting over the voice issue I had in the beginning I really feel that his is somehow better than just telecons with sharing PowerPoint presentations. Somehow it’s more fun and more engaging to join in for sessions and being able to write within different groups in parallel to speaking is very interactive and useful. …. Someone that normally favors f2f against any sort of technology meeting.

Summing up the course has been a success, but there still is room for improvement, and this is actually what I appreciate most about being a course designer, facilitator and researcher – it is a lifelong learning experience

/Mariis