Resources

This piece describes the peculiar origins of the "credit hour" and argues against its relevance as a measure of learning. In an outcome-based approach to curriculum design, "where and how" learners spend their time is less important than what they can learn and do.

Based on "preliminary findings of an ongoing study at Boise State University," the author reports that faculty work 61 hours/week, increasingly at administrative tasks, and "largely alone." Only a vanishingly small percentage of time is spent on research and writing. The article is especially relevant in contrast with periodic pieces purporting to show that instructors in higher ed are protected from economic realities and underworked.

Nel examines the factors contributing to overwork on the part of faculty members in higher education: habit, economics, a culture of busy-ness, the blurred line between work and "fun," technological connectedness, etc.

In this Chronicle of Higher Education (ProfHacker) piece, the author describes the discoveries arising from "Center for Teaching Excellence" workshop: specifically, regarding active learning (even with lectures), possibilities for in-class use of social media, Twitter as a means of extending collaborative learning beyond session hours, and issues of vocational training and assessment.

Downes links to, and comments on, two articles, each offering tips on choosing among educational technologies. One list is focused on desirable outcomes (e.g., that the technology is scalable, or promotes lifelong learning, etc). The other list (his own) focuses on the properties that lead to such outcomes (e.g., good technology is always on, or doesn't require parts, etc).

Frost and Stommel capture a 14-minute YouTubevideo of a collaborative writing session on Google Docs (now Google Drive). In the accompanying blog post, they offer suggestions for assigning collaborative writing to students, along with persuasive arguments about the pedagogical goods of collaborative writing.

This graphic, with relevant links to Wikipedia, attempts to briefly describe all the established learning theories. It also maps the theories graphically 1) to one another, 2) to their key concepts and "world views," 3) to the learning theorists that developed them, and 4) to the scientific disciplines from which they arise.

Preparing the way to advocate for a more "brain based" approach to diverse learners, Inglis asserts that even the creator of "multiple intelligences," Howard Garner, announced a decade ago that he was "over" the theory and that educators need to "move on."

Acknowledging that "there certainly are important abilities outside of what IQ tests measure," McGreal argues that calling these "intelligences" is unsupported by scientific warrants, and may produce needless confusion for educators. Further, he finds that such varying "intelligences" are "explainable in terms of existing concepts of personality and general intelligence."

Virtual visits to 3D religious sites and buildings.