- Incorporating dates into file names as part of prescribed naming conventions
- Using “track changes” in word processing software like Microsoft Word
- Taking advantage of the version control capacities and methodologies “baked into” content management systems like Livelink and Sharepoint
- Referencing “living documents” to make it explicit that consumers of said material can expect changes (and will need to know how to distinguish/where to find current vs. previous versions)
Thursday, February 13, 2014
Wednesday, January 29, 2014
From my vantage, there's value in Coleridge's willing suspension of disbelief when contemplating the notion of embracing uncertainty, or the willing suspension of certainty if I may.
Being open to, or embracing, uncertainty also allows for outcomes beyond initial expectations.
Providing a group of learners with a challenge or goal, and leaving them to their own devices as to how to solve the problem, or reach the desired outcome(s) may result in solutions which ultimately exceed the expectations of all involved.
Of course, this dynamic will only be possible in environments or situations in which uncertainty is fostered and, in turn, provides the for the chaotic, messy, non-linear setting necessary for a given group of learners, or community, to marshall uncertainty and arrive at solutions beyond what is possible in prescribed, scripted environments. This is easier said than done, especially in formal learning environments; however, the benefits of such an approach can be measured in learner engagement and ownership of, and responsibility for, one's learning.
Thursday, January 23, 2014
- Online meetings with work colleagues for a project status update and a software installation walk-through
- Poked my head into a Designers for Learning session hosted by Jennifer Maddrell
- Participated in the Unhangout for #rhizo14 and take part in the breakout session for "Independence in Everyday Life" breakout group with Aaron, Carol, Jim and Vanessa
Monday, January 20, 2014
Following on Peter's post on "breaking away" from the rules, rather than contravening a particular rule itself, I think there's benefit in an exploring rules, or current standard operating procedures, with an eye to improving performance, increasing safety, or working toward whatever a particular desired outcome may be. Too often we fall into the trap of "we've always done it that way" without critical assessment of how me might do a better job of leveraging available resources to perform a task, or ensure an outcome.
In our breakout discussion during the unhangout, Jim Stauffer mentioned that we'd do well to focus on goals, rather than rules, and that it can't be considered cheating if one is focusing on, and working toward, a particular goal. If rules preclude me from attaining my goals, do I have an option other than "cheating" to attain my goal?
In the business world, instructional designers and training developers develop documents called "cheatsheets" which are used as performance improvement tools and provide "just in time" quick reference for those charged with completing a task, or operating a software application. In this instance, the "cheating" being done amounts to referring to a one-page document, rather than having to locate a reference to the specific procedure or task in an owner's or operator's manual. Keyboard shortcuts and data entry codes are also referred to as "cheats" in some software applications.
Workarounds (a circumvention of the way you're supposed to do something might also be referred to as a "cheat") are a big part of getting stuff done in business environments--especially those with a variety of software applications, operating systems, and connection speeds. One size most definitely does not fit all, and accommodations have to be made, for differences in technical acumen, connection speeds and operating systems.
In the recreational world (and particularly ski resorts) "cheating" can take a number of forms. For instance in the past couple of weeks, skiers have "cheated" the boundary of the ski area in search of untracked power snow and have found themselves stranded and in need of rescue by Park Wardens slung under helicopters. I'm not sure what's been learned by those requiring rescue. Maybe they learned that the pursuit of fresh tracks in powder snow isn't worth risking your life (or endangering those charged with effecting your rescue)--one can only hope.
In an attempt to bring this stream of consciousness to a close I'd say that I "cheating" as an accepted practice provided it serves larger or ultimate goals, is in keeping with the spirit of how one sees one's role in an organization, and doesn't impune the interests, or safety, of others.
Wednesday, January 15, 2014
"Do your own work," we've been told since grade school.
For me the crux of the matter comes down to intent:
Why exactly is it that you're cheating?
If cheating is indeed to be used as a weapon, I'd suggest that it be used for goodness as opposed to evil; that said, who becomes the arbiter of what constitutes "good" and "evil" in a given environment or situation?
GOOD: During my time as a student at the Southern Alberta Institute of Technology the more proficient of my peers had developed computer science skills through the use of game cheats, and the understanding this provided of the underpinnings of the games they were playing. Developing, discovering, implementing and sharing these "cheats" allowed these individuals to develop a fluency and proficiency in both the code and social milieu in which it was developed and evolved. In this instance, cheating was used as a weapon to make games more accessible and playable for a wider audience. Those developing the cheats gained status and "cred" and many of these individuals have since parlayed this foundation into careers in computer science.
EVIL: During this same period of time, the same group of individuals commandeered a series of servers within the institution to mount a Quake deathmatch which involved hundreds of students across the campus and essentially amounted to a denial-of-service attack for "legitimate" users within the college. Those responsible were reprimanded, and levels of security were added to guard against a repeat of the situation. No one was was expelled or punished academically for their actions. While the institution may have considered their actions "evil" most of those involved did not, and my impression was they saw this experimentation as a natural extension of the "cheats" they'd initially developed for client machines.The whole notion of cheating as learning has my head spinning (like that's news if you've made it this far into this post) and has me thinking of the concept of "stupidity as a teaching tool" and a post I made to this blog in 2002
What if there are no right answers?
Is there any use in cheating to get the wrong answer?
I mentioned earlier today that I was contemplating the notion of "cheating as learning" as it might relate to corporate (i.e., #cubefarm) and recreational (i.e., ski resort) environments and I'm still struggling with how the implications and repercussions of cheating in both might manifest itself. I seem to keep coming back to intent--why are you cheating, and what to do you intend to accomplish? I need to consider these topics in more detail and will be back with more musings as time permits.
Thanks for reading, and to Dave for a provocative start to #rhizo14