Alternative to clickers – freeing up the physical location limitation

In a previous post I outlined some broad ideas of how to understand “lectures”. At the crux of it was an initial stab at a “taxonomy/framework” for understanding characteristics of lectures. In this initial stab there were three main dimensions: participants, physical space, and time. Each had some additional sub-points. As one example, a sub-point

Continue reading Alternative to clickers – freeing up the physical location limitation

The reason *insert label* talk about gurus is because they can’t spell the word charlatan

A little while ago, I was sparked by Dilbert and my own prejudice against external consultants to contribute two posts (1 and 2) critical of the assumptions underlying the idea of and the contribution of such folk. In some thesis reading today, I came across this great quote the continues my basic assumption of the

Continue reading The reason *insert label* talk about gurus is because they can’t spell the word charlatan

Why minimium standards (probably) won't work and will probably become maximum standards

I’ve reached a phase in my thesis work that allows me, long after I should have, to return to Cavallo (2004). I had previously put in a place holder to remind me to go back to this paper. The full impact of the paper will likely become evident over the next few days, but this

Continue reading Why minimium standards (probably) won't work and will probably become maximum standards

Examination focus and what it might tell us about learning and teaching

Phillips (2005) includes the following quote In most university subjects, the dominant mode of teaching consists of lectures, tutorials and laboratory practical sessions (Laurillard 2002: 81), with assessment strongly focussed on examinations. This has some connections with some work a colleague and I are doing around what history can tell us about e-learning and some

Continue reading Examination focus and what it might tell us about learning and teaching

css.php