Extreme learning and teaching
This page and idea are under construction, consideration and formulation.
Some initial thoughts about extreme learning and teaching can be seen on a recent blog post which is some very early thinking.
Contents |
Origins
The idea comes from some recent presentations about What CDDU is doing to improve learning and teaching at CQU. In that presentation the unit's activities were divided into three categories
- Collaborative Curriculum Design and Development (C2D2)
- Quick wins
- Research and innovation.
It's the quick wins bit which doesn't seem to fit, not formal enough, a bit ad hoc. It's also difficult to explain how that idea fits within an organisational hierarchy and consequently its been somewhat problematic. At least one aim of this idea is to formalise the place of this process within CQU's practices and subsequently be in a much better place to report it back to external and internal stakeholders.
What is missing?
Extreme learning and teaching is intended to fit between the other two activities. C2D2 is meant to be the formal, more heavy weight process by which groups of courses are analysed, re-designed, developed, implemented and evaluated. It's an involved process of discussion about learning and teaching within those courses.
Research and innovation is the bleeding edge work. Experimenting with very different ideas and technologies which might radically change learning and teaching.
What is missing is a middle ground. A process that is helping to improve the learning and teaching experience of both CQU staff and students without requiring a full-on curriculum redesign or engaging in research and innovation. A process that responds to the problems and desires that arise out of the experience of actually learning and teaching at CQU.
Discussions before, during and after the original presentation identified a long list of examples at CQU of the type of problems that extreme learning and teaching would be designed address.
These are problems that are widely known about, but which there has been little or no systematic approach to addressing. Some examples include:
- Students want print materials in a physical form.
Over recent years CQU has moved away from distributing print material in physical form. A number of staff argued against this trend. Feedback from students has been negative towards the trend, but as yet, only limited moves are being made to returning and/or finding alternate solutions. - Blackboard's assignment management system is inappropriate.
Online assignment submission and management (OASM) is essential to CQU's operations, especially in large and complex course offerings. It is widely known that Blackboard's gradebook and OASM systems do not scale beyond 20/30 students and that CQU staff are reporting that it actually increases workload for staff. CQU has had an alternate system for 6 or 7 years that is more appropriate, but not real move has been made to integrate the two. - Course coordinators being required to configure teaching staff access to Blackboard.
Some CQU courses have 20 or 30 teaching staff involved in specific offerings. The way Blackboard is currently set up at CQU requires the course coordinator to take on the task of manually providing appropriate access to staff. Staff allocations at the start of term can be fluid. It is technically possible to automate this process but moves to do this have only just started. - Online video and audio of lectures.
It has long been known that distance education students feel as if they are missing out on something by not being able to attend lectures. CQU has facilities by which many lectures could be automatically made available to student with a minimum of work on the part of students and with a minimal expenditure of CQU resources. But we haven't made any moves to do this.
What is missing is a process that will:
- Actively develop an evidence-based idea of what is going on within learning and teaching at CQU (what the problems and strengths);
- Work collaboratively with staff and students to identify and action an on-going cycle of small-scale improvements; and
- Do so quickly, effectively and efficiently.
This is where extreme learning and teaching might fit.
What might it be?
The title of this section, "What might it be?", is intentional. It might have been called "What is it?", but there is a lot more discussion, reflection, collaboration and experimentation necessary before something that definite is established. Extreme learning and teaching might look like the following.
Process
It is suggested that the process used to implement extreme learning and teaching would illustrate many of the characteristics of pull-based approaches to innovation as described by John Seely-Brown and John Hagel. This is opposed to the traditional push-based models which can be used to characterise most institutions, including learning and teaching at CQU. The following tables provides a contrast.
|
Push |
Pull |
|---|---|
|
Demand can be anticipated |
Demand is highly uncertain |
|
Top-down design |
Emergent design |
|
Centralised control |
Decentralised control |
|
Procedural |
Modular |
|
Tightly coupled |
Loosely coupled |
|
Resource centric |
People centric |
|
Participation restricted |
Participation open |
|
Focus on efficiency |
Focus on innovation |
|
Limited number of major reengineering efforts |
Rapid, incremental innovation |
|
Zero-sum rewards |
Positive-sum rewards |
Guiding principles, rather than aims
To a large extent this type of process is not suitable to having a specific aim. It is meant to emerge from the process. However, resources are limited and some decisions will need to be made about what is to be done. The characteristics of pull-based systems give some guidance but there is a need for more. This is where the "extreme" bit enters the picture.
Extreme programming is an approach to software development that has been around since 1999 or so. One description of the origins or aims of extreme programming is that the intent was to take the principles and practices that were known to produce quality software and turn them up to an extreme level. Extreme learning and teaching aims to do that for the support of learning and teaching.
The principles which will be turned up to the extreme are Chickering and Gamson's seven principles of good education. The principles are:
- Encourages contact between students and faculty.
- Develops reciprocity and cooperation among students.
- Encourages active learning.
- Gives prompt feedback.
- Emphasizes time on task.
- Communicates high expectations.
- Respects diverse talents and ways of learning.
The idea would be that as the pull-based approach to innovation was operating the focus on innovation would be guided to maximise the 7 principles.
