people might be interested in Phelp\’s 2003 report of action research done on \”the development of one tertiary course in computer education for pre-service teachers\”. It is a great practical example of the importance of working with complexity rather than trying to put our students into boxes – and striving to meet pre-determined objectives.
It helps to illustrate an answer to George Siemen\’s (2008) questions – \”Consider learning outcomes created at the start of a course. Can we really ensure they are achieved? Can the complexity of learning be reduced to six or eight broad statements? Many educators feel that outcomes can be achieved. What is overlooked, however, is that much more than planned outcomes are experienced by learners.\”
Complexity of learning in my view cannot be reduced to \”six or eight broad statements\” and if students are given freedom, they will indeed learn more than they or the teacher ever imagined…..if they engage of course.
In Phelp\’s research, \”students were prompted to set themselves appropriate goals and were then challenged to engage with content most relevant to them\”. they engaged in self-directed and scaffolded learning which was authentic and relevant to each student. plus they took their learning to a metacognitive level. well worth a read. however it did happen over three years BUT like a good cheese, learning takes time…so pre-packaged, quick-fix, unit-standard-type courses probably don\’t cut it for real learning….well not in the long run. they serve a purpose perhaps to get black and white standards across eg. food safety, how to fly a plane etc. but if you do not really understand why it is important not to clean the cheese (yes the cheese theme is rife today) in dirty dish water, the complexity of life starts to confuse the unit-standard educated worker. We have to help teach people to think don\’t we?
However according to this Buddhist saying by Hsin Hsin Ming – thinking might not be so hot! I was interested in looking at something from the Buddhist tradition due to my husband\’s talk of Zen and the belief that we are both everything and nothing. also the post by Tech Ticker about Buddhism and complexity theory \” Everything, they say, is related and dependant. Nothing is independent.\” It is hard to be everything and nothing is it not?
To deny the reality of things is to miss their reality;
to assert the emptiness of things is to miss their reality.
The more you talk and think about it, the further astray you wander from the truth.
Stop talking and thinking and there is nothing you will not be able to know.
Hsin Hsin Ming