What?
For my recent Digital Education and Design for Learning paper, our cohort was tasked (2.3) with the job of collaboratively creating an organiser that demonstrated our collective understanding of current learning technologies that we value.
Through this activity we would touch upon two of the course outcomes listed below:
Familiarity with a variety of broad categories of learning technologies
Develop/use your collaboration skills.
To help us think critically about the activity, we were provided with six categories that we could use to organize these tools. These were:
Production v Presentation
Interaction and Collaboration Tools
Web 1.0/Web 2.0/Web 3.0
Virtual worlds and immersive environments
Mobile/M-learning technologies
Serious Games/Games in the service of learning
So What?
After reviewing the above information on the course site, I scanned over the discussion forums that the other groups were having. This helped me clarify my understanding before connecting with my group to initiate the task. Based on our group discussion, this is what other members did too.
Taking lead from another member in our group who set things up via a Google Doc, we quickly divided the six categories above based on preference. While this was a first come, first serve basis, it seemed to work and we all got on with our assigned areas. To organize the categories, I suggested using a Padlet (Shelf format) which is visually appealing and easy to add various media. However, the Google Doc was used and I believe that this "one-stop shop" proved successful in enabling us to communicate via the commenting features, link multimedia and draft our product which is embedded below.
Now What?
Looking at the above outcomes, was I successful in achieving these? I can confidently say, "Yes". The reflective question that I pose to myself which I know the answer to is, "To what depth did I display this?" My answer, "Surface level, tick box, done and on."
In thinking about why the lack of depth, I am drawn to three possible areas as a student of this course.
A lack of commitment from myself to the task so that I could ensure a proficient demonstration of the above outcomes.
The length of time allocated to the task so that we can truly dig deep
Outcomes
Commitment
Something that I have struggled to do during this COVID-19 time is effectively manage my time so that I am focusing on quadrant 2 of Stephen Covey's Time Management System. For the most part, I have been dealing with quadrant 1 tasks and distracted by aspects that fall in quadrant 3. Clearly my personal time management needs a shake up and so does the focus on my short and long term goals as drivers for what I aim to achieve.
Action - Look at different aspects of my life and record my short, medium and long term goals. Use this to plan out what my weeks and month could look like.
Time Allocation
When given the chance to provide course feedback, I pointed out that for this to truly be a collaborative and social task where participants provide feedback, more time needs to be given and specific outcomes added.
Action - Provide course feedback that speak to the above.
Outcomes
Turning the outcomes in a self-reflective rubric would help participants like myself reflect more deeply on the quality.
Action - Provide feedback or develop the rubric myself and share with participants.
Excuses aside, for activities like the above mentioned, I have a responsibility to engage in practices that promote collaboration. In taking a situated cognitive view, Bredo (as cited in Wilson & Meyers, 2000) highlights the important connection between the individual and social in constructing meaning.
“[Writing, conversing, or thinking are] the result of dialogue… in which person and environment (ideally modify each other so as to create an integral performance” (p. 73).
Lastly, it would have been interesting to utilize some Google Docs and Slides analytics to gain an insight (checkpoint or social network diagram) to actualizes my contribution (self & others) and communication (Lockyear, L., Heathcote, E. & Dawson, S. 2013).
References
Lockyear, L., Heathcote, E. & Dawson, S. (2013). Informing pedagogical action: Aligning learning analytics with learning design. American Behavioral Scientist, 57(10), 1439-1459.
Wilson, B. G. & Meyers, K. M. (2000). Situated cognition in theoretical and practical context. In D. H. Jonassen & S. M. Land (Eds.), Theoretical foundations of learning environments (pp. 57-58). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.
Comments