Disqus - Latest Comments for jonmott

Re: The Publisher’s Dilemma

jonmott — Tue, 09 Dec 2014 12:13:18 -0000

Absolutely agreed--disruption / innovation / reform / whatever, for it's own sake is less than useful. It is quite probably damaging and counter-productive. We should *always* begin with the end in mind. And yet, as you not, the "innovators dilemma" is very real and there are many pockets in higher education that are ripe to be disrupted (e.g., the interlocking directorates--to borrow a poli sci term--of publishers/institutions/faculty member, student financial aid, credit hour hegemony, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera).

In the forward to Michael Horn's new "Blended" book, Clayton Christensen invokes Thomas Kuhn who has, I think, a much more intellectually sophisticated frame for thinking about disruption as "scientific revolutions." We have a discipline (or disciplines) (i.e., learning science, educational technology) that have become myopically attached to paradigmatic solutions to learning problems. The dilemma is that they "solutions" keep failing in what were first considered "anomalous" (and therefore ignorable) contexts. But as the failures mount, the anomalies begin to be the new reality and existing paradigms become ripe for replacement (through the thesis --> antithesis --> synthesis process).

Many of us (you as a prime example / champion) have been agitating to move away from "normal science" in ed tech. Now that it is (or at least appears to be) going mainstream, it is incumbent on the agitators, the paradigm-busting contrarions, to make sure that the new perspectives don't get coopted by entrenched defenders of the existing paradigmatic heterodoxy.

Thanks for the reminder that we need to keep fighting the good fight, both intellectually and in our practical, rubber-meets-the-road work! Viva la revolucion!

Re: Saylor Academy

jonmott — Thu, 24 Apr 2014 17:31:50 -0000

This animation is broken

Re: The CMS and the PLN

jonmott — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 11:08:53 -0000

Great addition to the list. I included this in my presentation yesterday. Thanks!

Re: The CMS and the PLN

jonmott — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 11:08:27 -0000

Excellent question. I'm so focused on my higher ed context I haven't really thought much about the K12 context. Off the top of my head, I'd say that the modular, flexible framework would make sense in K12. But there are significant privacy and online safety issues to deal with, particularly with 4 and 5 year old children. By the time students are in college, they're adults and can be expected, I think, to navigate an open, online world.

Re: Why Wave Won’t Replace the CMS

jonmott — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 16:14:06 -0000

Far from it Joel. I'm just responding to the speculation that Google Wave (or any one tool for that matter) might replace the CMS. I think we need to carefully consider the factors that have driven CMS adoption and account for them as we envision, develop, and deploy new technologies. For example, "open learning network" technology that isn't integrate-able with student information systems would be a non-starter. We have to meet our evolving teaching and learning needs while also addressing ongoing administrivia issues.

Re: Why Wave Won’t Replace the CMS

jonmott — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 11:31:35 -0000

Agreed - this is at least as much a people / pedagogical issues as it is a technological problem. And I concur that there are many faculty members (both young and old) who are leaving the CMS behind for technologies that are more consistent with the ways they want to teach.

But we should still provide the best aspects of the CMS for faculty members and their students (particularly for those who teach and take high-enrollment classes). These features include things like lightweight content management (which, as you note, is one of the most valuable features of the CMS), SIS integration, and a secure online assessment communication and feedback tool (aka, a gradebook).

And, yes, it is oddly appropriate to call a 10-15 year old technology a "dinosaur." :-)

Re: Why Wave Won’t Replace the CMS

jonmott — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 11:21:12 -0000

Great stuff. Thanks for sharing these links. Looks like we're heading in very similar directions. I'd love to hear more about your progress as it unfolds.

Re: Assessment as a Social Activity

jonmott — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 11:07:58 -0000

Nils -

Thanks for the note. We missed you in Vancouver--it was a great meeting.

I'll do my best to join you on Friday. If you or your colleagues are attending, perhaps we can connect at Educause. At some point, though, we should definitely connect and compare notes since we're working on such similar projects.

Re: Assessment as a Social Activity

jonmott — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 11:05:59 -0000

Jared - I agree that not all learning and assessment activities should be social. Solitary reading, pondering, reflection, and writing are some of my most important and cherished intellectual activities. I think what we're looking for is some sort of Aristotelian Mean between the completely social and the utterly solitary. Unfortunately, the center of gravity in assessment has been private and individualistic rather than open and collaborative. While agreeing with your assertion that there is a time and place for private study and reflection, I'd argue that in the current environment we need more social space to enrich and balance it.

Re: To Act or To Be Acted Upon

jonmott — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 11:15:13 -0000

Jared & Joel--

Good points about not just accepting bad uses of technology as facts of life. We do need to help students understand what is appropriate and what is not and reinforce good behavior via appropriate incentives. And while we ought to come up with creative ways to leverage technology in the learning process, there are times when it's appropriate and ideal to turn the technology off. There some intimate learning conversations that technology would tarnish. We need to work these issues out in our own minds and then model good practices for our students.

Re: Reflections on OpenEd09

jonmott — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 23:02:15 -0000

I love the line "everyone is as clueless as me!" We should always be in discovery and learning mode. As soon we think we've figured everything out, we're sure to be proven wrong.

Re: Outsourcing Our Memory to Google

jonmott — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 17:28:33 -0000

Agreed--there is a good deal of domain specific knowledge that an expert or practitioner should be able to recall and use at will. However, the amount of knowledge even within a domain (e.g., the drug interactions a doctor should know about) is massive enough that some reliance on Google-like machines for memory assistance is not only inevitable but desirable. This is even more true for the layperson who only occasionally has need to recall and use facts to complete a particular task.

Re: Outsourcing Our Memory to Google

jonmott — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 17:24:44 -0000

@Neil I agree with you completely--there are many aspects of cognition that we can't (and shouldn't) outsource to any machine. The challenge for us as scholars and educators is to leverage technology to do what it's good at thereby freeing up our cognitive bandwidth for the weightier matters you reference.

Re: Failure, Learning, and Achievement

jonmott — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 11:25:26 -0000

Better now?

Re: Failure, Learning, and Achievement

jonmott — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 17:54:40 -0000

Wow. This is really whacked in the browser I'm using right now. Something must have broke. I guess I know what I'm doing this weekend. :-(

Re: Failure, Learning, and Achievement

jonmott — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 16:16:44 -0000

Ron--

I guess it's time to tweak my CSS. :-)

Jon

Re: Failure, Learning, and Achievement

jonmott — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 16:15:48 -0000

Steve,

This is great stuff. I love the idea that the exact same outcome can be perceived differently if we simple call it something else ("failure" v "learning"). I think that's one of the hallmarks of a great teacher (or parent for that matter)--one who helps the learner or the child see obstacles, foibles, and mistakes as stepping stones to greater knowledge and achievement.

Thanks for sharing!

Jon

Re: Loosely Coupled Gradebook Presentation @ TTIX 2009

jonmott — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 14:10:35 -0000

Modularity does come with the possibility of increased "outages," but I think that's a manageable risk. We have lots of inter-dependent systems right now, so I don't think the increased risk is significant.

With regard to multiple copies, our librarians have been using the term "LOCKSS" -- "Lots of Copies Keeps Stuff Safe." Not a bad digital literacy competency in and of itself.

Re: I’ve Seen the Future and the Future is Us (Using Google)

jonmott — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 10:33:05 -0000

You're right--people have always been the "future" of learning. Accordingly, people considerations should come first in our edtech deployments. That's why I share your vision of an open, services oriented, flexible, modular environment where we adopt, adapt, and mashup the right tools for particular learning situations and challenges. Such an approach is focused primarily on what affordances will help learners succeed (and not on student throughput).

While not necessarily an LMS, I still think there's got to be some "glue" that connects the institution and the cloud. That's the next big challenge--figuring out what that is and how to implement it.

Re: I’ve Seen the Future and the Future is Us (Using Google)

jonmott — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 10:26:20 -0000

I agree there are risks to a Google-centric (or any single vendor-centric) strategy. I assume though that since Wave is open source that institutions could choose to host it themselves? Or provide a redundant mirror of a Wave site? 'Twill be interesting to get more details and see how this actually works.

Re: A Post-LMS Manifesto

jonmott — Mon, 11 May 2009 15:37:44 -0000

Yes, that would be great. And thanks for the reminder that I need to get a CC license on my blog!

Re: A Post-LMS Manifesto

jonmott — Sat, 09 May 2009 15:57:15 -0000

Absolutely. Schools--and the educational ecosystem more broadly--are very complex systems. I agree that we need to foster teaming and networking between teachers, not just between learners. As educators share ideas and talk about ways they can better facilitate student learning (and not just manage their students' learning), we are bound to have thoughtful discussions that move us out of our centuries-old paradigm toward something more open and effective.

Re: A Post-LMS Manifesto

jonmott — Sat, 09 May 2009 15:52:42 -0000

My boss (BYU's Academic VP) likes to say he's yet to discover a teacher-proof pedagogy. I don't doubt there are some really ineffective one-on-one tutors out there. But I'd say the same for technology--no matter how good it is, there's bound to be someone who will misuse it or use it poorly. It's possible to employ any pedagogy or technology either effectively or poorly. And I agree that the LMS can be used to help students learn better--we have lots of good examples on our campus.

My assertion remains, though, that the overly-structured nature of the LMS and the ephemeral connections it creates between learners and content are now standing in the way of greater progress toward better learning. Let's take what's good about the LMS and see what we can add to it to facilitate even better, more effective learning. A key part of this has to be leveraging the broader collective of learners our students currently don't have access to via the traditional LMS.

Re: An Open (Institutional) Learning Network

jonmott — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 10:49:19 -0000

Nils--

Great feedback. As you can tell, this is a work in progress, so I very much appreciate your insights. I've been following your work with the Harvesting Gradebook, so I'm glad to make a connection with you here.

A couple of thoughts . . .

First, I agree that more of the assessment we do should be more open and public. But I'd argue that there's still an important place for traditional quizzes and exams (especially low-stakes, formative quizzes). I'm ecumenical when it comes to assessment--I'm in favor of a broad range of assessment types in the context of a course or program. There are some courses (or elements thereof) for which tests are appropriate. Regardless of my assessment preferences, there are many faculty members at my institution who administer high-stakes exams in their courses. Additionally, we have new legal requirements for our distance programs to ensure that students who complete assessments are who they say they are. Accordingly, we need to provide a secure assessment environment. That's the piece that I think remains inside the institutional network.

Second, I agree that student portfolios should live outside the university network. I placed it on the boundary in the diagram because we still need a way for faculty members to evaluate portfolios and record confidential information about them (akin to evaluating student work in a gradebook). Some programs also keep archived versions of portfolios or artifacts for long-term program evaluation and improvement purposes. These institutional components of the portfolio process are what I think belong within the university network.

Re: A Widening Gap

jonmott — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 13:51:55 -0000

Thoughtful paper. Thanks for posting it. You've described well the various sources of tension between institutional learning networks and cloud-based learning networks. I agree that technology is not the source of the problem here--policies, culture, role definitions, etc. need to be reexamined. And through it all, our focus should be on facilitating learning, not on making things easier for the IT support folks, right?