Some near-end Thoughts; No offence really

This morning we had our mock exam for this module NM3204. It was not that tough to answer, as long as you did the reading, MCQ section is not a problem. For the writing part, I think is quite subjective; which is good for us as we will get the mark as long as we got the basic theory support. But at the same time it is hard for us to score full marks for that. Here I am just giving statements, not commenting on the format of the exam; I am totally fine with the format. The example of case study in the paper is kind of too technical for us; and we are so unfamiliar with it. Hence this is building a barrier from the full mark. I hope that Mr. Alfred's claim on easier case study in actual exam is true.

One thing to compliment for this module is, I like the idea of having mock exam. It gives us an idea what the final exam will be and what types of questions will be asked. This makes our revision more productive. Besides, after this morning's mock exam, I realised that those assignments we did were really important and relevant.

In addition, this learning journal is also benefiting me although it is a kind of "behaviourism" requirement to me. It 'forces' me to study and review my thoughts here which helps to develop my "cognitivism". Although there are some drawbacks like more time needed, easily distracted as using computer and the Internet; in overall its effect is positive, at least to me.

I remembered I was lost during more than half of the semester in this module; fortunately I have catched up back now (kind of lah...) I would like to use this platform to comment a bit on this module. Firstly, the lecturer, Mr. Alfred. He is kind and approachable. You know, giving out sweets and snacks and walking around the LT. But in some extent we might feel that we are treated like kids. Moreover, kindness and friendliness sometimes, are inappropriate as I think as a Professor or Lecturer, one should have the stance, the 'behaviourism' to instruct us rather than keep asking feedback while knowing that Singaporean students do not really respond in class; for instance, he had already posted announcement saying that today will have the mock exam during the first hour but on the actual time, he asked again whether we want to have the presentations first. No one replied then he decided to have presentation first but the group members were not arrived yet so he waited. Waiting and waiting for responses increased idle time. (8am lecture has to be time efficient and productive to get people up from their beds =P) If I did not raise my hand and ask to have the mock exam started, I wonder how much time would be wasted doing nothing. Moreover, due to the announcement posted, we might already plan our arrival, plan for the presentation for the timings given. Besides, the way he lectures is kind of 'fresh' (which is true since he is still a PhD student currently); I heard people using the term 'mumble' for the way he speaks. I remembered in the very beginning, I was quite "..." during the lectures as Mr. Alfred always tended to move his mic away, or further down from his mouth. I was (-_"') and did not really absorb the content at all! Mumble + no mic = Super unclear. No offence really. Clearly after some time, he improved and started to clip his mic on his shirt. Better, but still quite blur. I am not sure until now whether the issue is on his voice, his speaking or the mic system. In any case, I still think that Mr. Alfred has to work harder on his presentation during lectures; in tutorial he was absolutely fine! (so he was really nervous in the big LT as he claimed??) Oh yea, I think he also needs to work on his presentation of his ideas. A lot of times we, as a group, did not understand what he really wants from us. The words he used, hmmm can I use fuzzy to describe? Not sure whether it is appropriate. Our reactions were always "Huh?" after reading his feedback or getting answers for our doubts from him; we just could not get it.

As a whole, I still appreciate Mr. Alfred's effort he had put on us and this module. *Thank you* I could tell he is working on everything to provide us the best as we wanted and expected. He is trying hard to put himself in our shoes, to think in our points of view as learner here. Just like the problem I faced when completing the assignments for this module, I tend to think as an educator rather than a learner, which is wrong in learning theories. But a lot of times things just would not work out well. Human beings are complicated, demanding and unpredictable. We want differently in similar situations; or want the same in different situations. When we have this, we want that and vice versa. (=_=) Anway, I wish Mr. Alfred all the best in his future teaching! Ganbate neh...

Ms. Jodie, nothing much to comment. Maybe speak louder? And also besides asking our comments and thoughts, she should share more of hers with us. I like her anyway. Thanks for remembering me since last semester. (",)

For the module content and methods used, I found them OKAY! I just a bit disappointed that the percentage for webquest could not be increased further. It really took us a lot of time to do but it only counts for 10% and the presentation is ungraded. Kinda not matching the effort.

*Sigh* Time flies. Semester is ending again. Bless me for the final papers!! All the best to everyone else too!

Webquest Project

The Webquest project our group, 5trangers did was on Singapore Food Culture. We started brainstorming and structuring our project quite early but the topic was finalised only after it was narrowed down. We managed to finish the webquest on time for our presentation. Fortunate to say that, our project is a success as we had included the details for each section. Especially the "Process", detailed enough (I did one!!!) haha... Overall I would like to thank all my group members on the project and other group assignments (glad that no freerider problem), especially Rara who did the webquest with Adobe Dreamweaver, which no one else knows how to use it; and made our webquest nice and appealing in terms of the appearance.

One short coming for the webquest is our teacher's page and task analysis. I think it is because we are quite confused on the contents for the both as we think there are overlaps with other sections. Anyway I think this webquest is an all-in-one platform for us to apply the e-learning theories we have learned from this module. I would not comment on its usefulness or purposes as I believe its existence must have some benefits to some particular groups which we may not be aware of. So yea I'll just take it as an experience.

Procedure VS Principle Learning VS Problem-Solving

The term 'procedure' seems so common and understandable to me which it simply means steps of a process or a task to achieve something. It was perceived as simply listing down the steps will do, without thinking of how in-depth the steps should be. Now I know that procedures not only can be shown in lists but in charts; can be simplified by chunking steps into one, and separate branches. Besides, procedure may consist of decision steps in addition to operation steps. There are also subprocedures sometimes which I wonder they should or should not be listed down as well.

While on the other hand, principles, are totally different from procedures. A principle does not step-by-step list down the requirements to reach a goal but it is a combination of two or more concepts prescribing the relationships, be it relational or procedural. It is said to be the central for problem-solving because we need principles - if xxx then xxx or xxx causes xxx - to understand the situation well and predict what will happen to assist in solving a problem. In addition, besides problem-solving, principles are used in individuals' daily lives as people usually will say "I have my own principles". For instance, my principle is not to smoke. Why? Because I know that smoking will cause negative effects to me and people around me thus I hold this principle. In this case, the principle shows causal relationship between smoking and health. So, principles are actually occurring around us unconsciously or subconsciously.

Usually people tend to group principles or problem-solving into procedures. I am still confused even after the readings. Isn't it a procedure made to achieve something, which may also mean to solve something if the goal is a problem? I think, think and am thinking still. Perhaps, I can perceive their relationships this way.

Declarative knowledge is a subset of concepts, but itself can build procedure. Procedure can be built with declarative knowledge or/and concepts but principles are only built with concepts. Procedures and/or principles could achieve goals, and the goals could be problem-solving materials. Hope I get it correctly. =D

Declarative knowledge versus Concept learning

Just the above title is an interesting concept to learn! What I have learned from the differences is, a concept consists of both declarative knowledge and concept learning but a fact only consists of declarative knowledge. Let me apply with my own example here; hopefully I get them correctly. Let's say, hmmm *looking around* a container!

If one could only point to one particular container and says it is a container but do not know that another thing beside it is also a container, he only gained declarative knowledge of the container; which is just the fact that he knows that it is a container but might not fully understand what a container is. While one understood a container to be square looking and with a cover, he has gained the intrinsic attribute of the concept of a container. If he understood that a container could be in any colour, not necessarily square maybe rectangular, without cover; as long as it is used to contain something eg.food, it can be called container. Then additionally he has acquired the functional attribute. Whenever he could relate a container with other things, say a bottle, food etc; then he has fully acquired the concept.

In my point of view, if we want to teach a fact or concept, we have to start with teaching them declarative knowledge. How? Through linking with prior knowledge, organising and elaborating. How do we know what is someone's prior knowledge? If we say a container is square shaped. Huh? What is square? Then we have to describe square again. Probably the linking part also means linking to some other things which are somehow related, say point to another thing that is also a square. Then the learners themselves will link with their own ways for them to remember and define a container. This could be part of organising already whereby they choose how to arrange the attributes and different meanings together to get a whole image of a container. Lastly they will elaborate with other terms or words to support their understanding. I say that the learners are going through these stages themselve as I think individuals have different ways for themselves. Educators yes could guide them but not throwing them with all the arranged steps and organisation. They could only be the "starters" who give an idea what a container is to the learners by going through these three steps as well as if they go too much, it would turn to be something forceful for the learners to memorise the facts but not understanding them.

With this, learners are able to learn the concept faster and easier as they process the thinking, imagination and association themselves. They could apply the declarative knowledge to other similar stuff and learn the concept. They understand the intrinsic attributes - shapes, colour, cover; functional attributes - containing; and relational attributes - a bottle is a container for water. For educators, inquiry approach and expository approach are applied which both use examples to test the learners. The former one is to help the learners to differentiate the non-containers from containers while the latter one is a further in-depth of discussions with comparisons involved among all the examples. These are platforms for the learners to think.

So in conclusion, learners are required to process the definitions and facts themselves along with the guidelines given; as learners are not fully passive and such self-processing is good for them to acquire the knowledge and concepts faster efficiently.

Task Analysis & Skill hierarchies

Wow~~time flies...It is now in week 12! And I haven't been updating my learning journal for NM3204! Probably this period after the mid-term is my peak period haha... Hmmm I stopped posting at week 6 readings, quite far away from now. And I realised after-week6 readings are mostly from the textbook Instructional Learning which are all quite lengthy and wordy. Anyway I still have post my reflections here. I read back my previous posts, I myself do not seem to understand them well *since were posted months back tsk tsk* thus I referred back the readings and noticed that I did not reflect on the task analysis and skills hierarchies under week 6 readings. Here it goes.

Our group 5trangers had just gotten back our assignment 3 Needs Assessment from Mr Alfred during the lecture just now. Bravo we got full marks! However when I read on the comments, it does not seem like we did perfectly. One of the comments are on task analysis for the taxi driver which was the topic we chose. We missed out task analysis totally. Referred back to the reading, task analysis basically is a detailed task list that states all the required steps and elements to complete a particular task. At the time we were completing our assignment 3, we did not really think about this task analysis is needed as we tend to assume that the target audience will understand the task well by themselves. I wonder, this is probably due to we are not assigned with such a detailed analysis before, as we are already tertiary students. But think back, even when I was a primary student, the teachers did not really guide us with such detailed steps. Is it something natural for teachers or educators to miss out this part assuming the task description given is detailed enough? What are the possible benefits for the learners with this analysis? Let's examine briefly.

I do think that it is good to have this detailed task analysis, which is a guideline for learners to refer when they are doing their task. It ensures they would not miss out any important point or idea for the task completion. Moreover, with the assistance of visual cues like the flowchart, the task given out looks more appealing and easier for the learners which they may be motivated to do their task with their best. HOWEVER, would not this "guideline" turn out to be a restriction for the learners as they would blindly follow it and bypassing their own creative thinking processes? In addition, educators would not expect to receive surprises of the work from their learners which means that everybody will get around the same marks. Moreover, educators might miss out any important task details in the analysis since they are also human beings. The analysis will either be listed with too detailed information or too briefly stated as people tend to squeeze out every single details or brief in a fuzzy way.

Despite the up and down sides of this task analysis, personally I think it is somehow useful. BUT, educators have to take note as I think it is context dependent. It highly depends on what the task is and what are the steps. If the task is technical like fixing a machine, the steps should be in details and clear. If it is an assignment like writing a report, there are still steps needed to guide the learners, but they should left spatial for the learners to think and come out with their own ideas instead of following completely.

From the readings, it states that after the task analysis is done, we can proceed to skills hierarchies. I believe this step is more for educators as reference than for learners although it is also a good guideline for learners to understand their limitations or capabilities. Like I said previously about the different context, some skills are intellectual or unseen easily. Even if the educators state down these kind of skills are needed, the learners themselves might not know (sometimes) whether they have them or not. This may consequent in both ways - demoralised and rejective, or motivated and challenging. So as educators, they have to consider this as well and be prepared to encounter it. Am I right?