Systems or people? We can model learning in order to develop ways for our machines to acquire, store, process and apply data: information gathered from the world around. Although I put it as a vague question of preference at the start of this essay, it has many ramifications. Are people not just quite complex systems? And is complexity simply a diversion? Is it not a more simple question? Where are the boundaries and limits?
I ask this at the beginning of term because this is hurricane season for university administration people and systems in general, and has been in particular for my university at this moment. We are building a new student record system. Well, we are acquiring, localising and implementing a student record system consisting of many new – and large – components. And, it is the system we use to manage relationships.
Which means, for the moment at least, we need to manage relationships in a different way: through people not systems. Or at least we have – for the moment – to act as though people are different to systems. Or, maybe that systems are people?
One thing we do know about people is that they feel things when they are under stress. They feel things like anger, anxiety and fear. Can I repeat that, please, using “I-statements”? I feel angry, anxious and fearful when I am under stress. While I want to be careful about projecting those feelings onto colleagues, I also want to attend to others with empathy for the possibility that they might also be angry, anxious and fearful.
I write. Not as much or as well as I should. But I write. Two very broad forms interest me: poetry and philosophy of learning, knowledge, theory. What is true and good?
Do these concepts mean anything? I believe they do. My job, and much of this writing, here, has to do with trying to explain – to myself as much or more than anyone else – what it means to learn and do “well”, that which is “right to do”: Plato, Aristotle, Chuang Tzu, Lucretius, Karl Marx, Julia Kristeva, Frantz Fanon, Paulo Freire, Bob Dylan, Paul Eluard, Alain Badiou, Bob Marley, Slavoj Žižek and Mikey Smith mashed up.
Žižek, late in this monologue, says the real artist does not add, but takes away.
I used to keep a separate notebook for work and a different one for poetry. I took it away one and a half notebooks ago.
I am adopting that principle here in this blog. Over the next few weeks I will be on a rescue mission to a few old websites.
And the warning? You might come across some poems. You might come across some philosophy. You might come across some teaching. My honest intention is to make connections. To converse. It is all dialogue. And, a story.
Chris Rust and Mandy Jack initiated an exchange about assessment volume, kind and equivalence on the SEDA maillist.
Hours are most easily countable (and even that is not easy). There are also the number of assessment points and the “weight” given to each assessed point. Chris asserted that:
the only meaningful comparison is student hours and providing the total identified learning hours for the module (including the assessment activities) aren’t over 10 per unit credit there’s no problem.
I asked for clarification on the “total identified learning hours” per unit credit.
This is a slight diversion, but the question of equivalence is becoming increasingly important. So, too, is the question of “challenge”.
Toetenel and Rienties (2016)
analysed 157 Open University course designs by all levels and activity types. Assessment (as designed or intended by those course teams) hovered around 25% of the time for all 3 UG “levels” and about 21% for PG. I do not know how much time the students actually did put in to each activity. Galvez-Bravo (2016)
, “… found that modules with more assessments had higher feedback (module appraisal) marks.” Simpson et al
(2019) in a UK/US comparison found more assessment (both in number of assessment points and total volume) led to higher grades.
So a should a 15 credit course (150 hours) be expected (or designed) to have about 30-40 hours of assessment arranged over between one and as many as eight points in a semester? Two to four assessed tasks of 10-20 hours each? Where “exam revision” counts towards the total assessment load (two or three hours of exam and 10 hours of cramming the day before)?
Took my last day of annual leave before the new leave year today.
So, I spent several hours moving this domain from Gandi.net to WordPress.com and then importing the posts from “My work blog”, rworld2.brookesblogs.net. I previously lost about 20 posts two years ago from the previous host of the rWorld2.net domain and personal blog. I had registered these somewhere when I tried, between about 2010 and 2015 to build a domain of my own for Digital Storytelling (DS106).
So here I go again.
DS106, 2017. A History of ds106 [WWW Document]. URL http://ds106.us/history/ (accessed 8.23.19).
Higher education shapes identity on many levels. We can readily identify three:
- the individual student/academic;
- the institutional characteristics of the higher education sector;
- and wider transnational cultural-historical activity.
This slicing into comprehensible tranches is characteristic of my pragmatic approach to knowing, characterised by a logic of effectiveness in the present: sure, it is a continuum, but clumping into useful groups helps if you want to do something.
Continue reading “Shaping an Identity: hacking the human?”
Evidence is one truth condition. There are at least three others. These give us a way of knowing authentic learning experiences and provide indicators of engagement, participation and outcomes. They are, also unsurprisingly, aligned with conceptions of authority and power.
Continue reading “Knowing authentic learning experiences”
- Roxå, T., & Mårtensson, K. (2017). Agency and structure in academic development practices: are we liberating academic teachers or are we part of a machinery suppressing them? International Journal for Academic Development, 22(2), 95–105. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2016.1218883
Roxå and Mårtensson (2017) argue that the discourses of academic development as mediated through formal education and training programmes by academic development departments are seen by some academics as:
a suppressing machinery anchored in globalisation and economification with an agenda to control academic teachers for the benefit of economic growth linked to a neoliberal ideology of life… Academic teachers can no longer embody the idea of academia as a place for free and critical inquiry (p 97).
Continue reading “Scaffolding Ed Dev conversations: a response to Roxå, T., & Mårtensson, K. (2017)”