First Discussion on C.A.R.P.

I enjoyed the overall diversity of thoughts expressed in our group discussion this week. In reading the assignment for this week my main “take away” was the idea that relationships can be established visually, which in turn help readers recognize the relationship between items. This engages the reader in a way that big blocks of text do not.

The author’s ideas are new to me, and to other group members as well. It was interesting to see how other group members processed the author’s text. I loved that Greg and Brendan picked up on the overuse of centering of text. It diminishes relationships. Armi noted that varying font size not only adds interest, but also open up new placement opportunities on a page. Sue picked up on the author’s suggestion to use square corners for a cleaner, stronger look. Jessica liked the idea of using different font types for headings. This listing is not complete, but it represents the range of thoughts that others in the group expressed. Reading over the entire discussion log at the end of the week I was rather amazed at the list of “take aways” generated by the group. It was so much more than what I had seen in the reading at the beginning of the week.

What I consider my best contribution isn’t anything that started another discussion, nor did it add to another person’s understanding. But, it did show that I was starting to pay attention to the design principles to which we are being introduced. In response to Jessica’s post on using different font styles in headings, I noted that in the 2007 version of Word there are style templates. In most of these templates the font style used in the title and subtitle are different. I would not have consciously noticed that before reading Williams. Because I connected the idea in the text to a concrete example I consider this my most valuable contribution.

To Scroll, or Not To Scroll

This week’s discussion was similar to the Final Post discussion protocol used in week 6. This time around our group was much smaller, with only three of my classmates (including myself) participating. Our topic was Exposition, using chapter 11 from the Driscoll and Carliner text.

Scrolling was one of the topics a peer posted about. The text selected stated that designers should strive to place their important points above the fold so that readers did not have to scroll. The quote selected made me recall a recent article that I had found in "Boxes and Arrows" website. I was able to provide the link, http://www.boxesandarrows.com/view/blasting-the-myth-of, in my response to my peer and I think that all found the article to be useful. Because it was a timely and applicable source I considered this to be my best contribution for the week. The article states that while the above the fold theory is widely subscribed to, there is ample evidence to show that readers do indeed scroll. The article cited research that noted completion rates for surveys and ratings located below the fold did not point to mass drop outs in readers not going beyond the fold.

The contribution which provided me with the biggest smile was being able to award a Karma point to everyone in the group this week as it was such a small group. When I noted how small the group was I decided that in the name of encouragement, and out of a sense of belonging I wanted to recognize the value in each of my peer’s contributions. I found something positive to say about each of their postings. I think that through the discussions we are helping each other to distinguish what are the important points of the readings. It was nice to be able to share a Karma point with each group member. Had the group been larger this week I don’t know that I would have thought to award Karma points in such a manner, but I’m glad I was able to this week.

Snacking and Reflecting.....

We were presented with two discussion options this week. I participated in the role playing discussion option. We were to practice responding to participants having problems in an eLearning context. Problems not unlike the problems, the attendees to our web conferences might have. I had so much fun role playing that I consciously limited the number of my responses. I could have posted a response to each of the six fictional participants. But, I didn’t want to be a discussion hog.

I enjoyed this activity for several reasons. First, I respond to people in crisis not infrequently at my job, so I’m comfortable listening and trying to redirect people to what can be done to help them out. Second, I could work on each participant’s question with a short burst of energy at my computer. I’ve been told my Internet usage fits the profile of a “snacker.” The time period it took me to think about one participant’s comment and formulate a response fit comfortably into my “snacker” attention span. The activity provided a nice change of pace compared to some of the discussion weeks where the time requirements were greater and there was a need for a sustained focus on one topic. Finally, I liked making suggestions for the fictional facilitator because I've grown to like the process of editing over the years. Perhaps because I have to heavily edit my own writings!

My best comment was probably one that I’m still wondering about. In responding to one unhappy participant about the work load which was too heavy, I identified with the fictional participant’s feelings of frustration and then asked what was causing the most frustration for them. Nothing too profound in that response, but it got me thinking that maybe there should be a section in our web conference shell (per each group) wherein an attendee can seek help. I noted that Joni and Dave have structured two places in the web shell for our class to get help (weekly and under the “course home” heading). But, in Joni’s response she liked my second idea, which was to bring the discussion between the participant and facilitator out to other attendees to start a larger dialogue on how others were handling the work load. While I like this idea, I had flashbacks to my first year teaching wherein as a teacher I felt overwhelmed when something didn’t work well. I recognized I'm going to be in a new environment again (like my first year teaching) where not everything is going to work. It was just one of those moments when I realized that as I'm creating learning experiences I am as much a learner as my students will be. It was a little scary and very humbling.

"The Final Post"

The “final post” was the technique used to start this week’s discussion. Students were asked to make a comment (based on a quote from last week’s reading). Then other students commented/critiqued your original comment. You were not to respond to other students’ posts on your original post until everyone had finished responding to your original post (meanwhile you could happily comment on other’s original post, just not your own). In your final post you finally have the chance to respond back to others on your original post.


I was not too sure about this discussion format. I thought it would feel like being “dog piled” on by one’s peers. But, I was pleasantly surprised. It turned out to be a good thing. It forced me into a reflective posture. While I couldn’t respond to the comments of others, I had to figure out how my original comment might have seemed from another person’s point of view. I found that to be beneficial. I could better understand some of the concerns raised by my peers on my original post after doing this.


The quote I selected was about the importance of “to do” activities. Some peers were concerned that in my original posting I did not acknowledge, that while learning is active, it is not always visible….much of learning is internal processing and reflection. I very much agree. Much of what goes on in learning is metacognative, reflecting on what is being learned. I think my final post was my most significant contribution because it was a statement that acknowledges the value of “to do” activities not just as “activities” but as part of a strategically planned educational experience that supports, and compliments cognitive processing.

Another advantage of using this discussion starting technique was that more voices were heard. Everyone had to participate, and the groups were broken into smaller sub-groups of five students. It was nice to hear more from some classmates who maybe would not have posted as much in larger group format where the “rules” for discussion weren’t so formalized. There were postings about learning to teach within constraints, reflections on using experiential learning in the classroom, and using games in a purposeful way to teach. None of us solved the problems of the world, or for that matter resolved the tensions inherent in some of the topics in our discussion, but it was a nice way to have us pull ideas out of the Horton text for this week.

What's Philosophy got to do with it?

This question was used to start our discussion on educational philosophy. We were to examine our own thoughts on education by using the PAEI, and then to engage in a discussion that attempted to classify our collaboratively derived course values by philosophy. I like that our group has people of diverse backgrounds. We never settled on one philosophy that encompassed all aspects of our course values. However, there seemed to be a consensus that the educational values derived fall under Progressive and Humanist philosophies.

Several side discussions of interest also came up as part of our discussion. One was whether or not corporate training environments were always Behaviorist in nature. Group members gave examples to support the fact that corporate training is not always Behaviorist in nature. I thought Armi made a valuable distinction that corporate training is designed to address specific needs whereas formal schooling is more commonly charged with developing a whole, critically thinking person.

My most valuable contribution...I feel like I'm supposed to toot my horn here..awkward. I tried to make clearer the distinction between Progressive and Liberal philosophies with respect to the role of the teacher. I did this by pointing out that in our text book (Carliner and Driscoll) in Table 2.1 define the role of the teacher as "guide on the side" under Progressive philosophy and as "expert" in subject matter under Liberal philosophy. Our class values statement viewed the teacher more as a "guide" in line with Progressive philosophy. I also think that Dewey's ideas about experience and relevance are critical to the way we think about education today. I saw Dewey's influence throughout our common values statement. It has been a long time since I reviewed educational philosophy. It was reassuring to have a couple of classmates indicate that they felt Dewey's ideas were also influential and very present in our common values.

Joni gave us some interesting questions to ponder about halfway through the week. Are our philosophies set, or not? The belief that one chooses their philosophy strategically, based on type of content or learners was voiced. Many people in the discussion seemed to feel this way. However, Kay commented that she didn't feel this way, as her philosophy represents her values. She wouldn't change her values to meet an audience. Her strategies might change based on her audience, but not her philosophy. I think that this is right on. If your philosophy is your world view, how likely are you to change that so suddenly, or for each audience? Not very. Another intriguing idea that came out of the discussion was that two individuals might embrace the same teaching strategy in a given learning environment but for different philosophical reasons.

There was a lot to think about in this discussion. I enjoyed participating in this discussion with my peers and hope I get better at acknowledging their contributions by using Karma points more effectively.