reflections on simulations and research

I was impressed by the level of detail and insight demonstrated in the case study assignments.  Each group provided thorough background and good ideas for how to deliver a challenging topic.  As an instructional designer for online learning, I appreciated the insight that each group provided into the challenges for their learner audience.

The exercise was a good example of a simulation used to develop and practice skills.  In my design work, and knowing my personality type, I struggle with the amount of detail that ought to be included in a scenario.  Is it better to clearly define the problem and the expected solution?  If this information is not provided, it can cause anxiety for learners as they struggle with incomplete information and some confusion about the task.  If too much information is provided, we lose the effort of the environment scan or needs assessment.  As an example of a simulated training project though, it is likely that there would be ambiguity as well.  When presenting to stakeholders, it is difficult to know in advance what information they will find important and what information is less relevant.  The  struggle in the case study mirrors the struggle a designer would experience in a large design initiative.  If we provide too much scaffolding for learners, they would not experience this challenge.  Learning emerges from the experience of the struggle.

In our group, we also ran into the challenge of knowing when to stop researching and start producing.  We had a range of reports at the beginning of the process and continually looked at new policy documents and other reference materials to ensure our understanding of the role of family doctors was accurate.  My comfort with our amount of research fluctuated throughout the project.  I often felt the urge to find new sources to cross reference our understanding and assumptions.  As we move into our online courses, I worry that this question will be a greater challenge.  In residency, we had limited time and strict deadlines.  In our on-line courses, we could spend much more time researching problems before recommending solutions.  With the article search tools and the internet, we have access to a tremendous amount of information.  I will struggle with the decision that I have read enough to move ahead with projects. 

Bias in research

So I slowly plodded my way through the article.   It was a dense article that I had to eat in small bites.  The author explores how research has been androcentric, defined as ”the characteristic of being derived from, based upon and relevant principally to the experiences of men.”  (Code, 1995, p. 15) The definitions of intelligence favour men. Women’s health issues were seen as fictitious and imagined because they were different than men’s health issues.  Gender along with racial and culture bias have created an incomplete picture.  How do we arrive at a more holistic understanding?  Or is the concept of an inclusive truth a fiction?  The diversity of people, mixed with privilege and power dynamics suggest to me that there would be no valid universal truths, particularly for something as culture-bound as learning.  The author makes the point that women are more hetereogenous than homogeneous as a group.  If we cannot understand someone else’s reality without experiencing their lives, we also cannot draw general conclusions about a people’s knowledge  constuction. 

Code (1995) explains that almost all research conducted is eurocentric and heteronormative.  Intelligence tests and theories support the privilege of white, wealthy, heterosexual men by ascribing them higher scores and to acheive scholastic success, students either learn to conform to this model or struggle in the system.  As we begin conducting our own research, how will we avoid this historical tendency to exclude?

Code, L. (1995). Changing methods. Chapter one.  How do we know? Questions of Method in Feminist Practice. p. 13-39.

Q vs Q

In the qualitative vs. quantitative mud wrestling ring, is the definition of a research question itself not a qualitative process?  In the humanities, is it possible to ask a question that is purely numeric?  We use words to formulate our questions.  Once words are introduced, we imbed our inherent perspective in the question itself.  In reading a research question, we impose our subjective interpretation.  A person selects the words, subjects of the study, how data is collected and analyzed.  It seems to me that we cannot cleave our pre-conceptions from the research process or from the interpretation of research findings. 

Ultimately, we explain the quantitative data  in a document.  Words can be  imprecise and are subject to the reader’s interpretation.

Big Fish

Oh no… the nature and truth and reality.  My brain hurts enough already.

How do we know what we know?  Is knowledge necessarily true?  Should it be?  As we construct knowledge, where is the rigour around the reality or truth of that knowledge?

Some truths from the film included:

“It was common knowledge that towns of a certain size have a witch.”

“They say when you meet the love of your life… time stops.  and that is true.”

“A true version or an elaborate one involving a fish, I’d choose the fancy one.”

All of these quotes speak to our ability to take ideas as truth and add them into our knowledge construction as easily as facts or figures.   Before the printing press, knowledge was largely communicated and shared through oral story telling traditions.  Throughout history there have been many “truths” that have later become fictions.

The world is flat.

The sun rotates around the earth.

and some closer to home: Homosexuality is a psychological disorder.

These ideas or theories were held as truths with a certain amount of support for their validity.  If we can know fictions and hold them as truth, and fictions can be taught and trained as readily as truths (or perhaps even more so since they can be “fancy”- engaging or emotional), how does that impact learning theory?   Or are learning and truth and learning and reality independent?

Positivists argue that there are truth exists and we just need to discover it.  I see knowledge as context driven, culturally influenced, and relative to the individual.

Teambuilding through technology

Yesterday morning’s demonstrated passion around building teams in a distributed evironment raises challenging and exciting questions for our field of practice.  If learners and facilitators have an aversion to communicating and forming teams at a distance, how can we best use technology to be inclusive and ensure that everyone has an opportunity to belong?  In his article, Boyd (2004) mentions that learners with particular learning styles might prefer to operate in distance learning environments.  There is much left to discover in this relatively new field.  We have the challenge and opportunity to establish the practices that will allow all types of learners to belong and contribute to a team.   If learners are never going to be face to face, how does that change the design of your program?  Our profile activity was one example of engaging learners through technology to begin forming teams.  These blogs are another example.  Currently in my work, when learners log into our training site, they complete mostly asychronous courses that are interactive but without a collaborative or community element.  I am struggling with these questions.  How technology can create the sense of belonging for new learners in a similar way to face to face classes? Is the notion of community critical for self-paced learning?