Learnagogy: Sandy Mills-Alford’s e-Learning Blog

The Common Core State Standards Initiative (CCSSI) announced on June 1st that Forty-Nine States and Territories Join Common Core State Standards Initiative.

From their site: (http://www.ccsso.org/whats_new/press_releases/13359.cfm)

By signing on to the Common Core State Standards Initiative, governors and state commissioners of education across the country are committing to joining a state-led process to develop a common core of state standards in English-language arts and mathematics for grades K-12. These standards will be research and evidence-based, internationally benchmarked, aligned with college and work expectations and include rigorous content and skills.

We recently worked on a STEM project for NASA aimed at grades 6-10. Part of our job was to “align” the curriculum to state and national standards. Well, that is pretty much impossible to do since the US does not have national standards. So, like most authors of “national” K-12 curriculum, we relied on the dominant organizations for Math, Science and Technology. While it is awesome that discipline specific organizations write such standards, there is clearly a mismatch in pedagogical and writing styles, methodologies and even processes for adoption of such standards. As well, these standards were clearly underwritten in that they are way too generic and barely helpful.

While we completed the task, the objectives for each lesson are aligned to generic and not very useful “standards.” So what was the point?

If our job as educators is to prepare our students to graduate and become happy and productive members of this “global” economy, states should worry less about “losing” control and more about focusing on what the rest of our country is doing.

I challenge you to visit two state government sites that post the standards for their state. Choose one discipline and 1 grade level or grouping. Now compare and align. Okay, now do that with the remaining sites. I don’t believe Excel will help you. But what you will see is that we owe it to our students, our teachers and our society to think more globally about this. Let’s help the states come together so more time and energy can be focused on achieving excellence in the delivery of education.

Since I started my eLearning best practices evangelizing (soooooo many years ago), I have always stressed that a photo of the instructor was important for building a sense of community.  Every time we design a new course with a facilitator, we request a photo to post under “Instructor Info.”

Today, as I began writing a best practices tip for a faculty newsletter, it occurred to me–I can’t say I know of any research that supports this practice.

Does adding a photo of the instructor and students add to the “sense” of community?  Of course our logic says it does, but many faculty feel it is not important and I don’t think I could argue intelligently, from a research-based perspective, that it matters at all.

What if the professor doesn’t look inviting, but his online personality is quite warm and welcoming?  Would the photo decrease the sense of community?

What if a professor posts a photo she actually had taken for her husband (as an anniversary present) because she feels it is the best photo she has of herself?  I think you know what I’m getting at here….Is it going to help her facilitate her course more effectively?  Would she be better off not posting anything?

When I spend time on any social networking site, I always enjoy seeing the faces of my friends and colleagues.  But, do their photos make me feel like I’m part of a community more than their personal pokes and messages?  I’m thinking they don’t.

I  invite anyone who knows of any research on eLearning, particularly in higher ed, to post your findings that would help me to continue encouraging faculty to upload their head shots.  Until then, I’ll have to find something else to preach about.

As a long time fan and former WebCT employee, I have to agree with many of the dedicated WebCT administrators and users who do want a change. It is very frustrating to watch a product that was built with such a fantastic grass roots user base, over 12 years ago, to dwindle away. Murray Goldberg and his team at UBC really set the standard for what most of us believe a good LMS/LCMS system should entail. However, I must caution most educators from thinking that they can just move from WebCT to Moodle. Talk about fitting a square peg into a round hole!!!

The Moodle development effort needs to be commended. Afterall, they have started a revolution of sorts, by offering up such a great solution and really making the entire educational community think twice about our choice of content management and learning management suites. They fill a great need. At AliveTek, we use and recommend Moodle quite a lot–but only when the solution fits.

I recently visited many of the wish list items at http://tracker.moodle.org/browse/CONTRIB/component/10308, a user list specifically for requesting special features in Moodle to replace those WebCT features for schools wanting to migrate. Guess what? By following this route, we are only trying to shove WebCT features (many that are instructionally sound features) into a system that is literally quite different.

I’m not saying institutions should NOT look at Moodle as an option. I guess what I’m saying is that if you want to change things up, let’s look at the needs we have today and what our learners want today and will want tomorrow. Let’s retool and not just replicate.

I hope it is not the license fee that is driving this change. There are many other emerging products that may have a license fee but may also be more futuristic. Take a look at TimeCruiser, for example. They have a great line of products and are willing to work with their clients, much as Sasan Salari and Murray Goldberg did when they launched WebCT.

Have a look at BehNeem’s suite of products, specifically Epsilen. The chief architect also designed Angel, but this time, the product really looks to be Web 2.0 and full of optimism for doing things differently.

My point is this–don’t pick a product because it is free and open source. Pick it because it is the right solution and it is moving you and your team of learning leaders to a new level. Don’t dwell on what you need in a product based on WebCT that was originally constructed over a decade ago. Instead, help to develop a product that truly is a new breed, because if you’re going to move the cheese, move it to a better place for all of the right reasons, and not just because the current fridge smells.

Move the cheese in the name of progress!!  <End of cheesy analogy>

The economy is such a depressing topic these days, but it is not all doom-and-gloom when sales are slow and budgets are cut.  Especially if you are interested or involved in e-Learning.

 Why?

Historically, the e-Learning market has grown astronomically, has saved corporations big money, and has developed an entirely new set of specialty careers that seem to be highly sought after by employers.  While we have reached a certain saturation point, up to 50% of all US organizations are yet to embrace eLearning as a mode for employee or customer training.

In a time where we are all advised to tighten our budgets and live within our means, e-Learning could be an excellent initiative to champion if your department or organization does not already take advantage of the benefits.

1.  Travel expenses related to training can be greatly reduced.

2.  Time away from the job for large group trainings can be staggered, keeping production and efficiency at normal levels while employees get training as it is more convenient to the company and to the learner.

3.  Once built, ROI is easy to measure and document.

4.  When business is slow, marketing often gets more attention. eLearning can serve as a very powerful marketing engine, especially today with so many  cool technologies that help to keep your audience engaged.  Potential clients will take advantage of a webinar or free course in lieu of a face to face demonstration.  

I’m sure you can add several more reasons eLearning saves money and is good for business.  Please add them here!  If you’re looking for answers to economic trials, you may want to consider e-Learning as a possible solution.  I’m always glad to talk about it.  

Yes. Learnagogy is a made up word. I’m not sure if I’m the first to say the word, but I am the most recent owner of the .com domain.

After decades of being a student, teacher, workshop facilitator and instructional designer, I wanted a word that says that learning is fun and it is a process. Of course we have words and phrases that are similar, such as cognition, learning theory, study habits, study skills and learning strategy, but if Malcolm Knowles can popularize the term “andragogy” then why can’t I keep going with a related word that speaks to the responsibility for the learning process to belong to the individual who is seeking the knowledge and retaining the knowledge?

We say that students learn in thousands of ways, and some would even be willing to admit that each individual has a learnagogy, or a process for learning, that is completely unique.

If andragogy (the art of teaching adults) is offered as an alternative of pedagogy (the art of teaching children), then why can’t learnagogy (the art of teaching ones self–>an individual’s art/process of learning) be offered as an alternative as well?

As far as I’m concerned, we don’t have enough words to describe this process. So I hereby on, from this day forward, will refer to the “art and joy of learning” by using the term Learnagogy!

I think this site is great, and it doesn’t surprise me that it comes from UBC!

http://www.learningtools.arts.ubc.ca/

There are several tools for instructors to build their own learning objects and games. One key to a tool’s reusuability is its “stickiness” and I was stuck exploring for a while. I then shared it with my team, and they got some great ideas for a couple of our future projects.

I thought this tool was especially well designed and clever!

http://www.learningtools.arts.ubc.ca/pronunciation.htm

I encourage you to visit the site. I know I will be going back!

I recently asked our web team to revive our old Learning Object on Learning Objects (originally designed in 2001) and to update our Resource Center. As I was reviewing the cited resources on some of the earlier papers I wrote, I discovered that the majority of them are out-of-date and that most resource links are broken.

Does this mean the sites are not worth the maintenance because learning objects aren’t cool anymore, OR does it mean expecting resource links to remain static and functional over a period of 5-6 years is unrealistic?

As a reusable learning object advocate (hey, everyone has to have a cause, right?), I’d love to hear from anyone who is seeing progress from a design and development standpoint on the number of and quality of learning objects. Are you building them? Are you using them? Are you putting them out there for “reuse” by others? Have you made advancements in this arena in the last 5 years?

If you have never seen our Learning Object on Learning Objects, I encourage you to check it out. It is, in my opinion, still pretty cool!