Open Thinkering

Menu

Month: September 2011

My Belbin results – Part 1

At the JISC infoNet quarterly planning meeting on Tuesday we got our Belbin feedback. For those who don’t know what that is (which would have included me until recently), go and read the Wikipedia article.

I’m not a huge fan of being pigeon-holed, but I found the results interesting nevertheless. I’ve only got a paper version of the results at the moment and, given it’s copyrighted material, I’m just going to share edited highlights. 🙂

There are nine defined roles with the Belbin process, the characteristics of which an individual is judged to exemplify to a greater or lesser extent. These are:

  1. Plant – Creative, imaginative, unorthodox. Solves difficult problems. Ignores incidentals. Too pre-occupied with own thoughts to communicate effectively.
  2. Resource Investigator – Extrovert, enthusiastic, communicative. Explores opportunities. Develops contacts. Over-optimistic. Can lose interest once initial enthusiasm has passed.
  3. Co-ordinator – Mature, confident. Clarifies goals. Brings other people together to promote team discussions. Can be seen as manipulative. Offloads personal work.
  4. Shaper – Challenging, dynamic, thrives on pressure. Has the drive and courage to overcome obstacles. Prone to provocation. Liable to offend others.
  5. Monitor Evaluator – Serious minded, strategic and discerning. Sees all options. Judges accurately. Can lack drive and ability to inspire others.
  6. Teamworker – Co-operative, mild, perceptive and diplomatic. Listens, builds, averts friction. Indecisive in crunch situations.
  7. Implementer – Disciplined, reliable, conservative in habits. A capacity for taking practical steps and actions. Somewhat inflexible. Slow to respond to new possibilities.
  8. Completer Finisher – Painstaking, conscientious, anxious. Searches out errors and omissions. Delivers on time. Inclined to worry unduly. Reluctant to let others into own job.
  9. Specialist – Single-minded, self-starting, dedicated. Provides knowledge and skills in rare supply. Contributes on only a limited front. Dwells on specialised personal interest.

For those who know me (either wholly through my work online or in person) I’d be interested in you participating in a little experiment:

If YOU had to choose three of these roles to describe me, which would you choose? Why?

(for a ‘Brucey bonus’ list some keywords you’d use to describe me)

I’ll share the keywords and roles my colleagues think fit me best in a forthcoming post. 😀

Change MOOC – #change11

After seeing several MOOCs (Massive Open Online Courses) come and go over the past couple of years, I’ve decided to play a part in a new one being facilitated by Dave Cormier, George Siemens and Stephen Downes.

What’s a MOOC?

Allow Dave Cormier to enlighten you:

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eW3gMGqcZQc?rel=0&w=640&h=390]

What do you have to do?

Pretty much anything you like. To paraphrase from change.mooc.ca

This is an unusual course. It does not consist of a body of content you are supposed to remember. Rather, the learning in the course results from the activities you undertake, and will be different for each person.

This type of course is called a ‘connectivist’ course and is based on four major types of activity:

  1. Aggregate
  2. Remix
  3. Repurpose
  4. Feed Forward

When a connectivist course is working really well, we see this greate cycle of content and creativity begin to feed on itself, people in the course reading, collecting, creating and sharing. It’s a wonderful experience you won’t want to stop when the course is done.

And – because you can share anywhere – you won’t have to. This course can last as long as you want it to.

The schedule consists of people who are pretty much who’s-who in my corner of the digitally-connected world; I’m particularly looking forward to:

  • Week 3 – Martin Weller (Digital Scholarship)
  • Week 9 – Dave Cormier (Rhizomatic Learning)
  • Week 17 – Howard Rheingold ([How] can [using] the web [intelligently] make us smarter?)
  • Week 25 – Stephen Downes (Knowledge, Learning and Community)
  • Week 30 – Alec Couros (Facilitating Networked Learners)
  • Week 33 – George Siemens (Sensemaking, wayfinding, networks, and analytics)
  • Week 34 – Bonnie Stewart (Digital Identities & Subjectivities)

That’s because these are people I know will provide interesting stimulus material and sound guidance. However, I’m also looking forward to being surprised by others!

MOOCs have a structure that allows you to dip in and dip out. This course is running (at least) until 20th May 2012 so there’ll be times when I can pay more or less attention. Given that I’m handing in my thesis in the next 14 days I should, on average, have a whole lot more time on my hands to get involved.

Why don’t YOU take part as well? It’s a great way to meet new people and think through new ideas!

http://change.mooc.ca

Commoditising learning through the #flippedclassroom (or, the difference between education and training)

Ever since April 2010 when Karl Fisch first suggested what has eventually become known as ‘the flipped classroom’ I’ve been both attracted and repelled by the idea. For those who haven’t come across the concept, it’s a very simple one: the ‘transmission’ part of schooling happens at home through pre-recorded media (videos, podcasts, etc.) with the discussion element, the groupwork happening in the classroom.

Described as such, and with the present realities of the education system (especially in the USA) it’s difficult, prima facie, to argue against this suggestion. On further reflection, however, I think that  the flipped classroom is only possible because we’ve commoditised learning to such an extent that it’s becoming indistinguishable from training.

Let’s just step back a moment and look at the western idea of an education system. There’s at least five unspoken assumptions common across most schools:

  1. Learning is primarily something that happens in, or under the auspices of, formal educational institutions.
  2. The time when schools should be open to educate young people is (roughly) between the hours of 9am and 3.30pm.
  3. High-stakes testing is a good (if not the best) way to demonstrate ‘talent’ to future employers.
  4. Learning can be done at scale, with up to (around) 35 young people in a classroom learning from one teacher.
  5. The answer to student disaffection is discipline.

I, along with most progressive educators I know around the world, disagree with these five unspoken assumptions. It is assumptions like these, I would argue, that lead to the flipped classroom looking like a good idea.

As far as I understand it, the flipped classroom concept is gaining traction (especially) in the USA because of a synergy with the Khan Academy, lauded by celebrity educational funders such as Bill Gates. Khan Academy, for those who don’t know, is a kind of YouTube for educational videos, but with exercises. It’s gamified drill-and-practice for the 21st century. Whilst I think Khan Academy does  have a place within the educational landscape it is, undeniably training. Training is a (very small) part of learning but to mistake one for the other is an error seasoned educators should not be making.

John Hattie’s table of effect sizes is the result of a meta-analysis of many, many learning interventions in educational institutions. Feedback, the student’s prior cognitive ability, and instructional quality take the top three positions in Hattie’s table;  in other words, the flipped classroom would look to have an evidence base. I think that such an approach would work very well in one school I used to work in, a high-achieving specialist school with a predominantly middle-class catchment. However, in the first and last schools I worked in, there would not only be huge digital divide issues, but the usual problems surrounding homework and classroom behaviour.

All of this reminds me of an important lesson from a Philosophy of Science module I took as an undergraduate. Until Copernicus came along and changed the way we understand our place in the universe, the Ptolemaic system was the dominant astronomical model. In order to explain the phenomena (i.e. the seeming speeding-up and slowing-down of planets in relation to the Earth), Ptolemy and his followers added ‘epicycles’. These were rotations around a particular point, over and above the (assumed) rotation of the planet around the Earth.The whole Ptolemaic system was, of course, spectacularly incorrect. Ptolemy had started with a faulty assumption that seemed ‘obvious’ (that the Sun goes around the Earth), modifying and refining his theory to fit the phenomena. It was an impressively-complicated system. But it was wrong.

I think we’ve gone about reforming the western education system in a Ptolemaic manner. I think we’re adding epicycles such as the ‘flipped classroom’ instead of challenging core assumptions about how we can and should be educating young people. I think there’s a debate to be had. I think we had better get on to having that debate in a grown-up way. Quickly.

css.php