Dear Don
Yes, there can be high levels of cognitive dissonance with this approach
and I have had just such feed back from some students - they know what is
being asked of them in the confrontation with difficult ideas in a live
environment but they are very uncomfortable with being disconcerted by the
impact of their own response to the catastrophe of learning THIS right
HERE and NOW simply by confronting THIS HERE and NOW.
So, I offer more usual learning experiences in parallel and there are
plenty of fall back resources.
I'd like to see the results of such experiments as your propose.
Cheers
keith
On 19/07/13 1:56 AM, "Don Norman" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>Keith
>
>That's a compelling idea that I have not given sufficient thought to.
>
>On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 6:55 PM, KEITH RUSSELL <
>[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> But, lectures are also places where particular kinds of LEARNING might
>>
>happen.
>>
>...
>>
>In the case of humanities lecturing, there can be significant cognitive
>>
>modelling/apprenticeship that takes place in the lecture room.
>>
>
>> That is, the lecturer is actually practising the art of thinking, in the
>>
>particular field, as they are lecturing.
>>
>
>My empiricist mind wonders if there are any data. What the lecturer might
>think is a great learning experience for students might not actually be
>that to the students themselves. I know that I used to do this in my large
>(300 student lectures, but discovered that students did not like it. They
>said (in their anonymous comments) "the professor was not well prepared."
>
>But in a MOOC, perhaps this could be managed by having the lecturer say
>that at this point, several lines of thought will be considered: Pause:
>the
>students then switch to a multiple choice or free-form screen in which
>they
>are asked to list what these might be. then the lecturer continues. During
>each thought stream, students are asked to rate them, rank them, or
>otherwise assess them.
>
>The advantage of a MOOC is that each student can listen at their own pace
>and the system can enforce some systemic thought process on the evolving
>ideas.
>
>Hmm. We could teach critiquing that way.
>
>Present an image and have students judge it.
>
>then ask if they considered A, B, or C -- and point out the components of
>A, B, and C -- again, asking for a judgment.
>
>the student responses are not necessarily graded: they are forcing
>functions for reflective thought.
>
>Neat idea: I'll work on it. And, back to my empiricist bent: we could
>collect data to determine how effective this was. We could even do A/B
>testing. half the students get the material one way, the other half a
>second way and we compare the results.
>
>Don
>
>--
>Don Norman
>Nielsen Norman Group, IDEO Fellow
>[log in to unmask] www.jnd.org http://www.core77.com/blog/columns/
>Latest book: "Living with Complexity <http://www.jnd.org/books.html#608>"
>"Design of Everyday Things: Revised and Expanded <http://amzn.to/ZOMyys>"
>pub date: October 2013
>
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------
>PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]>
>Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
>Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
>-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]>
Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|