Category: Week 2 – Networked Learning

When I was an undergrad student, most of my classes followed the lecture model, wherein we showed up to a lecture, the professor told us all of the information we were expected to know, and most if not all, of our grade was based off tests on that information. While this approach may be acceptable for some classes, mainly introductory courses where the main goal is to develop a solid foundation of knowledge on which more advanced classes will build, it is definitely not the best model to help all students develop problem-solving and critical thinking skills. For many students, grades based solely on tests are not an accurate representation of the student’s knowledge and skills. Even for the students who are good test takers, this system of learning can encourage a binge and purge system where students will study hard to learn what they need to know for a test and then move on to the next subject without retaining much of the information they just learned. Another issue is that when students are handed information via lectures, and are not required to search out information on their own, even in textbooks (I can’t even tell you how many classes I took where I never had to crack open the “required” book), they don’t learn important skills. Students don’t learn how to ask questions and find the answers outside of asking a professor. From my own personal experience as a TA, i have found that many college students don’t know how to word the questions they have, and if they can’t ask a question, it becomes very difficult to find an answer. Perhaps a better classroom model might be to encourage the use of networked learning. As an example, I think back to the first R class I took. For those unfamiliar, R is an open-source software for statistical analysis and data plotting. Because R is open-sourced and code-based, anyone can develop a software package to do any type of analysis, and as a result, there are a number of right ways to do any one thing. However, code-based statistics can be frightfully confusing. In my first R class, the structure was something like “here is the basic code of how to do [analysis], now you try to do it with this other data”. In order to prevent us from simply copying and pasting the code and changing a name, we were also expected to figure out how to add a little something extra in our code, usually something to make our plots work better. The internet has an excellent network of people using R at any skill level asking and answering questions on forums and websites, so this was useful in teaching how to ask a question, or more accurately, how to Google a question and find an answer on the internet. We were also encouraged to work together on assignments to problem solve. This often worked well, as usually the same bit of code would cause everyone problems, and so we could all search for answers and share solutions. The networked learning of that particular course could have been taken one step further. If the students developed their own websites, on which they could create R code tutorials for the parts they had struggled with, it would help them to understand what had caused the problem, and how to avoid it in the future. By having their sites publicly available, they would be helping build the public resources for other beginner R students. Plus, they would have the information there in the future, avoiding the post-semester purge. Versions of this model could be used in other classes to help students take ownership of their education, allow them to showcase their accomplishments, and help them develop skills that will help them outside a classroom.

As future academics, we are encouraged to produce work that gets published in academic journals. Research papers are a powerful tool to communicate scientific findings. They help to showcase the latest in scientific research. In its own way, academic journals support the theory of networked learning as it communicates knowledge and information between individuals. However, there are a number of other tools that apply to the networked learning theory. The readings touch on blogging as a tool for disseminating knowledge. Micro-publishing platform, such blogs, can grant higher visibility and engage a wider audience outside of academia. It can also bring the audience through the research process. Due to the interactive nature of blogging, it can extract useful feedback. Blogging fall under the umbrella of networked learning by maintaining communications between individuals, and information. I see blogging to be a useful avenue in which ideas can be expressed. It helps build relations between like-minded people outside of the rigorous of scientific publication. Communication in blogging build relationship to other and relationship to scientific outlets which can establish further apatite to it.

When I first started to think about networked learning, I was focused more on online or hybrid classes. How are they used? Why are they important? Of course, an obvious reason is to make the class itself more accessible. There are situations in which a students may only be able to attend or participate in […]

So, here’s one of the videos we watched (there’s adorable baby footage). In it, a professor from KU talks about how we “get by” our classes and watch our education pass us by because we’re just trying to “get through” our requirements and commitments during college. He also points out the design flaws in the higher education system, and I think it’s a very illuminating critique on how we view higher education. The most notable was the question of whether or not having a bunch of students in stadium-style seating facing a teacher who basically talks at them for one to three hours–or more–is the most effective way to keep them engaged or enthusiastic (or even interested at the most basic level) in what you or I as the teacher have to say. I go into classrooms now and specifically pay attention to the ways in which seating is arranged, where the main focal points are, what the students look like (are they facing forward? Are they even awake? Engaged? Texting?), what the teacher looks like (do they have a flat affect and speak in a monotone? Are they gesticulating wildly with enthusiasm? Are they moving around or remaining stationary? Are they using a powerpoint presentation? Are they using multiple mediums? Are they writing on the board? Are they inviting students to come up to the front? Are they moving around the room? Can they move around the room or does the design of the space restrict their movements?). I also pay close attention to the design of the space and think about how that affects learning and teaching outcomes. Having just finished a human-centered design course, I have become a believer in the power of design thinking to improve and democratize higher education, and am fully cognizant of the fact that the way in which a learning space is designed and built directly influences the type of learning (or lack thereof) that happens there. -Jasmine

When watching the TedTalk video together at class, it reminds me of my friend who was a graduate student at VT and also was a student of this class one year ago! Now, he’s an assistant professor at a university in my home country.  When I met him after teaching one semester, I asked: how was it?  What you think you did differently from others given you just graduated and took “Contemp Pedagogy”?!. What was your achievement? I was impressed by his response that five students of his class got internships (which is very difficult and unusual at my home country) with the help of him although he doesn’t have a communication with the industrial field and has not yet built a profile with industry. The secret is that he assigned one hour of his schedule for his students who need any help that is not related to the class such as reviewing resumes and consultations. Although one hour in a week is nothing to him but it means a lot to his students. He also started giving his students non-classical assignments such visiting the industrial field and attending the career fair and then he asks the students to give a presentation to their colleagues at class. This is not just to help the presenter but the class as a whole. To sum up, it is important for new faculty to think differently and be the ideal professor that he was thinking of when he was a student. To me, the job of the professor is not just teaching but it’s being a close friend and a true consultant for his/her students. This is the great advantage of face-to-face learning that online learning cannot do. If a student fails in a class, then it’s a failing of the professor FIRST!

Let me begin by saying that during my undergrad I was the type of student that found most lectures boring, could not pay attention for more than a couple of minutes at a time, cared a lot about my grades and much less about learning, and skipped most of the classes when I could get away with it. That being said, I still think I got a really good education, a solid grasp of my domain, and even enjoyed some of the classes I took; else I would not have chosen to pursue a Ph.D. in the same discipline. The reason for that is that I interpreted courses as a path that leads me to my goal, and not my actual goal. The first issue I would like to point out which makes the college (I am strictly talking about college here) education system seem broken is the lack of proper guidance that students receive before picking their majors. I know from personal experience and from observing the people around me that the majority of students rarely pick a major based on passion or interest, and when asked why they have chosen to pursue their major, the most prevalent answers were “Why not” and “The market demands it”. With people making such choices why does it come as a surprise that most students want to survive through their education? If a student is passionate about his major, sitting through 3 to 4 years of college is a very small sacrifice that will yield dividends in the coming 30 to 40 years of work. My point is, in many cases in many cases, guiding people towards a major that suits them is a better solution as compared to making courses more “barrable”. The second point I would like to touch on is that yes, the education system is not perfect, but with the current economy of scale it’s very hard to come up with a system that is both better for students and scalable. How is it possible for a professor to interact with students at a personal level when the class has a 100+ students? You might say that a class should not contain that many students and I agree, but again I come back to the issue of scale, when 10000 students apply for one specific major, the university hast to either reject most of them  (you can’t do that) or hire more professors (not a very financially sound decision for the university). Thirdly and finally, I would like to address Dr. Michael Wesch’s  Ted-Ex video in which he introduces the concept of going through a class using a stairs approach where students help each other and are motivated to work to reach a goal. Even though this approach might have worked in a particular case and in a particular environment, I think such approaches will fail when applied to groups of scale. Particularly, concepts like “students helping each other” are more likely interpreted as an open invitation to cheating as opposed to an opportunity to learn from each other. To wrap up, is the college education system perfect? Definitely not, I can point out so many things that are current being done wrong, but overall is it broken? I don’t think that either. I think that the way our current society works has forced the education system along its current trajectory and instead of trying to fix the education system, I would suggest looking at why the education system got to this point in the first place, fix those core problems, then try to fix the current problem which is a consequence rather than the cause. Disclaimer: If you made it all the way congrats :). I know my ideas are all other the place but hopefully ill get better at this.

“What kind of educational experiences change lives?” begins the article “Networked Learning as Experimental Learning”. This question is definitely super broad in scope and doesn’t really have a definitive answer.  I definitely think that different educational experiences can effect people differently, and beyond that no two individual’s education experiences are even remotely close to being the same. I feel that some individuals respond better to material itself as opposed to the presentation of material, others respond more to the individual presenting the information, while others still simply have their own unique viewpoint on education. However, I also feel that education has the potential to change anyone’s life and has the potential to positively impact any individual who decides to pursue it.  This idea seems to have been acknowledged by those in higher education because there are so many different way that classes are taught, however there is always much to be done as far as adapting education to meet everyone’s individual needs.

In watching, and then re-watching, Dr. Michael Wesch‘s TED talk on “What Baby George Taught Me About Learning,” I was completely enamored by the level of care and dedication that Dr. Wesch showed to his students. Moreover, the emphasis that he places on continued relationships with alumni, as well as cultivating and sustaining relationships with current students, really got me thinking about my role as a GTA and my classmates’ role as future teachers. In a quick google search on networked learning, I discovered that this means using, “a relational approach that focuses on the connections between learners, learners and teacher and between learners and resources, which does not privilege any particular relationship, either between people or between people and resources, and is supported by a community of researcher-practitioners, who are aligned with evolving, postmodern approaches to teaching praxis.” When reading the above definition, the word that sticks out most to me is connections. More specifically, how these connections can foster successful and joyous learning- something Dr. Wesch does such an incredible job with. As noted, I began thinking about my own class that I teach and the role that connection has on my students and their overall learning. Fortunately, I teach Public Speaking, a class where interaction and connection is imperative to my students success. I have to be able to talk and communicate with them in different and unique ways, depending on the student, on a consistent basis. Now, to be clear, I’m not eating lunch with my students where we avoid small talk nor am I emailing students from the past to ask what they took from my course, like Dr. Wesch does. However, it is a course that provides for closer contact with my students and for more interaction- something most normal lecture classes do not provide or allow for. This leads me to question how those aforementioned normal lecture classes are to close the gap when it comes to networked learning. Michael Wesch has earned the US Professor of the Year Award from the Carnegie Foundation, so one can assume that perhaps he has a little more flexibility and control when it comes to his classroom. Because of this, it may be easier for him to build connections and relationships with 200+ students. However, this is probably not the case for all professors and instructors. With that being said, how are we to foster these environments where learning is actually enjoyable for students and it isn’t just about passing? How do we create environments where students aren’t always questioning whether or not they “need to know this?” How, especially in these large lectures, do we create connections. How do we make learning better? Perhaps most importantly, how do we make teaching an engaging like Dr. Michael Wesch the norm? I understand this post has a number of questions and I apologize for the rambling, but I would love to hear your feedback on both the original video and my thoughts!