Sunday, March 13, 2011
Holiday (think Madonna)
As far as QUT is concerned, I am actually on recreation leave yesterday, today and tomorrow. Although of course the weekends don't count. So I've basically been recreating... wandering around Zurich and Luzern here in Switzerland. It's pretty good and great to spend time with my mum who is accompanying me on the trip, but I really miss the family at home and especially my Dad who is in hospital at the moment. Hope you are doing well Dad, and hopefully a bit less spaced out from the drugs compared with when we talked this morning! :-)
Thursday, March 10, 2011
RED conference - summary
So I'm at this RED (rethinking education in the knowledge society) conference at a place called Monte Verita in Switzerland. Essentially this is a technology in education conference. Originally I registered to attend because I thought it was quite relevant to my Director of Studies job in the Science & Technology Faculty - I think this was a good move. Unfortunately, I am coming to the end of my time in that job, so it seems to be no longer of much relevance to me personally. I am learning about various things, incorporating technology in the classroom etc, but without my position as DoS I guess I don't really have the opportunity to spread this too widely. There have been a few talks though that I have found to be relevant to my own teaching - so (of course) perhaps there is scope to have impact by making changes in my own teaching and demonstrating to others how this can be useful to learning.
Something that has really struck me, perhaps because this field is outside that of my traditional research (ie math bio), is that a lot of time, effort and money seems to be spent on studies that (at least to me) have obvious outcomes. I'll oversimplify things to make obvious what I mean: "Are computers useful for learning x in context y". The answer being "well it depends". Clearly explaining what "learning x" means is really important here. Clearly outlining what "useful" means is important. I guess my point is, in a lot of the studies the question is answered prior to the study because the researcher is defining what they mean by these terms in such a way that it reflects their position on the question.
It has however been good to hear people talking about learning outcomes being more important than technology incorporation. That is, talking about what it is that you want students to learn rather than what new gizmo you want to bring into your classroom. Think about what you want people to learn and then if there is scope for some new technology to actually play a role, figure out a way to incorporate it. Otherwise, leave it on the shelf. It's good when people don't forget what's important!
Something that has really struck me, perhaps because this field is outside that of my traditional research (ie math bio), is that a lot of time, effort and money seems to be spent on studies that (at least to me) have obvious outcomes. I'll oversimplify things to make obvious what I mean: "Are computers useful for learning x in context y". The answer being "well it depends". Clearly explaining what "learning x" means is really important here. Clearly outlining what "useful" means is important. I guess my point is, in a lot of the studies the question is answered prior to the study because the researcher is defining what they mean by these terms in such a way that it reflects their position on the question.
It has however been good to hear people talking about learning outcomes being more important than technology incorporation. That is, talking about what it is that you want students to learn rather than what new gizmo you want to bring into your classroom. Think about what you want people to learn and then if there is scope for some new technology to actually play a role, figure out a way to incorporate it. Otherwise, leave it on the shelf. It's good when people don't forget what's important!
Saturday, March 5, 2011
March 5 - on the way to Europe
Today I flew out of Brisbane, heading to Zurich and then to a place called Ascona in the south of Switzerland to attend the RED conference (an education/technology conference). I have no idea what to expect as I've never been to this conference…I don't think there has been one actually. My mum is coming with me to visit Switzerland and later Norway. So far it's good - I think we have really interesting discussions. Today on the flight to Singapore we were mainly talking about my recent trip to the Philippines and my thoughts about inequity/poverty, as well as perspectives of a white guy from a white town visiting places like Manila and Cebu. We also had some good discussions about religion and god…very interesting.
Just read a fb post from Dr Simpson - it's snowing in Trondheim (unless he's exaggerating :P ). Mum said she hasn't seen snow before.
Just read a fb post from Dr Simpson - it's snowing in Trondheim (unless he's exaggerating :P ). Mum said she hasn't seen snow before.
March 4 - at Gardens Point again (briefly)
While you may think you know a lot, most surely you also DO NOT know many things. On the other hand, while you may think you are a small player in a group, quite often the bigger players of the group have just as many small-time interests and petty, unimportant thoughts as anyone else does.
I attended a meeting of the professoriate (and me, as Graeme likes to point out every time the professoriate meets) regarding one of our research groupings (I'll leave it nameless) at work. Topics of discussion were supposed to be things like vision and future of the group, leadership of the group, etc…strategic things I guess you would say. We spent about an hour on the presenters second slide, basically bickering over a name for the group. I think it was me saying "can we suspend this very important discussion for a later date, acknowledging that the name may be an issue, and move onto slide 3" that finally allowed us to move on.
On the "not knowing things" side though… We were discussing the structure of the group itself and how it would be clustered and organised. A thought that has long swum around in my mind is that there should be broad clusters at the top that are flags or tag words, and then under these there should be "research groups" eg "mathematical biology group", "industrial mathematics group", "medical/biostatistics group" and so on. Each with a leader or champion, and various members. This is good, and basically what we settled on, but while I had a good idea I didn't have the understanding of the broader research picture to be able to articulate this as appropriate. Tony (former head of maths Tony) did this beautifully (in my opinion). Essentially as a result of his vast experience in the research sphere I think. He was able to pose this as tagging our work to the Fields of Research classifications of the Australian Research Council. This makes a lot of sense.
I attended a meeting of the professoriate (and me, as Graeme likes to point out every time the professoriate meets) regarding one of our research groupings (I'll leave it nameless) at work. Topics of discussion were supposed to be things like vision and future of the group, leadership of the group, etc…strategic things I guess you would say. We spent about an hour on the presenters second slide, basically bickering over a name for the group. I think it was me saying "can we suspend this very important discussion for a later date, acknowledging that the name may be an issue, and move onto slide 3" that finally allowed us to move on.
On the "not knowing things" side though… We were discussing the structure of the group itself and how it would be clustered and organised. A thought that has long swum around in my mind is that there should be broad clusters at the top that are flags or tag words, and then under these there should be "research groups" eg "mathematical biology group", "industrial mathematics group", "medical/biostatistics group" and so on. Each with a leader or champion, and various members. This is good, and basically what we settled on, but while I had a good idea I didn't have the understanding of the broader research picture to be able to articulate this as appropriate. Tony (former head of maths Tony) did this beautifully (in my opinion). Essentially as a result of his vast experience in the research sphere I think. He was able to pose this as tagging our work to the Fields of Research classifications of the Australian Research Council. This makes a lot of sense.
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
RUME Conference - Portland - Day 3 further thoughts
Darryl and I also got talking about a couple of things that came up in one of the talks. In particular:
- "trimming"
- "decompression"
when teaching mathematics.
By trimming, I guess we are talking about the instructor, acting as expert/guide, trimming away potentially distracting surplus or unnecessary details when they teach a course.
By decompression, we are talking about taking what is sometimes quite dense and maybe even simplified mathematical results or statements and unpacking them, maybe even making them more complicated (in some sense anyway) to teach them to people.
Does anyway have any thoughts on these? Particularly if you teach yourself and either actively do these, or (like me) did them without realising what you were doing?
RUME Conference - Portland - Day 3
Here's a thought. If you hold a conference and the last day is a half day only...particularly on a Sunday, people WILL leave early. This should be avoided. a) it's somewhat embarrassing I think, to the organisers, b) it's not pleasant for the speakers, particularly if they are new to the community at the conference/students - they can feel like nobody cares about them. How to avoid it: a) put higher profile speakers on the last day, b) don't have a half day at the end if possible (eg, remove breaks between talks and squeeze the program into a shorter time.
I watched a couple of talks today about blended instruction/online teaching - these were interesting enough. It was cool to see someone in mathematics employing the Elluminate Live! technology (this is a tack-on to blackboard/LMS sort of a cross between skype, online whiteboard and powerpoint). They used it for teaching a graduate level course to teachers in remote areas (Colorado and Wyoming I think from memory). This is something that I'd like to do myself with my idea for a GradCert in maths for Qld/Aus teachers who are interested in upskilling their mathematics. It seems unpopular though with folks at work...not to worry.
Anyway, I feel like I was a good boy for actually going to a few talks on the last half day. But at the end, it was good to head out (even though it was freezing and raining) and wander around town, grab lunch and drink some Full Sail (cask aged Bump in the Night). We also got all cultured and headed to the Portland Art Museum for a couple of hours. Not a lot of artworks that I liked, but some. Some of the African American stuff was powerful - but there was a particularly lame bit which was basically video and bits and pieces made from experiments of cells dividing. Darryl and I are thinking of approaching an artist and giving them some matlab vids of solutions to the diffusion equation. We iz artists.
 |
| Submarine and Interstate 5 from Full Sail |
 |
| Full Sail Bump in the Night and Mathffiti on the copper table top |
RUME Conference - Portland - Day 2
[delayed post]
So day 2. Apparently this is a record cold day for Portland - it was about -7C this morning (worse with windchill) - needless to say I didn't go outside and certainly didn't join the conference attendees that were going for a jog - morons. I guess there are all types though - people like me who sleep til 7 then have breakfast, and those who don't but rather strap on their jogging suits and hop around in the freezing cold along a river bank.
I saw another interesting student talk this morning. Grad student this time. She spoke about college maths faculty at research 1 (ie top level research...like our Group of 8 kind of) universities and their efforts and interest in improving their teaching. She had just completed a pilot study and run into problems such as very low response rate etc. But it was interesting nonetheless to think about the fact that we really don't get training in how to teach. Basically you just get the *opportunity* to go in front of the class and you figure it out as you go. I know at QUT we have our tutor training day, but really, compare that with the years of training you need to be a teacher and you start to see what I mean. University students are just as diverse (if not moreso) than school students - it makes you think whether there should really be more training in how to teach. Still - while there are some absolutely shocking lecturers, some people do just fine without any training.
My talk was just before lunch. I think I mentioned yesterday it was almost the same as the CRA talk I gave at QANZIAM last year. Apparently it went well - Darryl said so, and I trust him :-) It was interesting to see the reaction to my (in my opinion friendly and not cynical) explanation of the policies and procedures that we are subject to when teaching at QUT (in particular, with regards to assessment, unit outlines, etc).
So...now to write the full paper.
So day 2. Apparently this is a record cold day for Portland - it was about -7C this morning (worse with windchill) - needless to say I didn't go outside and certainly didn't join the conference attendees that were going for a jog - morons. I guess there are all types though - people like me who sleep til 7 then have breakfast, and those who don't but rather strap on their jogging suits and hop around in the freezing cold along a river bank.
I saw another interesting student talk this morning. Grad student this time. She spoke about college maths faculty at research 1 (ie top level research...like our Group of 8 kind of) universities and their efforts and interest in improving their teaching. She had just completed a pilot study and run into problems such as very low response rate etc. But it was interesting nonetheless to think about the fact that we really don't get training in how to teach. Basically you just get the *opportunity* to go in front of the class and you figure it out as you go. I know at QUT we have our tutor training day, but really, compare that with the years of training you need to be a teacher and you start to see what I mean. University students are just as diverse (if not moreso) than school students - it makes you think whether there should really be more training in how to teach. Still - while there are some absolutely shocking lecturers, some people do just fine without any training.
My talk was just before lunch. I think I mentioned yesterday it was almost the same as the CRA talk I gave at QANZIAM last year. Apparently it went well - Darryl said so, and I trust him :-) It was interesting to see the reaction to my (in my opinion friendly and not cynical) explanation of the policies and procedures that we are subject to when teaching at QUT (in particular, with regards to assessment, unit outlines, etc).
So...now to write the full paper.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)