An avid reader might note that the advice above tends to contradict the 1st theorem of my Interaction Equivalency Theory namely:As I redesign my economics course I of course like that quote because it gives me permission to back off on some of the interaction in the course. The Reflection assignments work on the student-content interaction, the first 2 assignments and the discussions work on student-peer interaction (okay and student-teacher). That leaves my comments on reflections and other grading for student-faculty. I have all three built into the class, but the focus is on student-content.
Deep and meaningful formal learning is supported as long as one of the three forms of interaction (student–teacher; student-student; student-content) is at a high level. The other two may be offered at minimal levels, or even eliminated, without degrading the educational experience.This implies that one can still learn without enhanced interaction (that grounds connectivist pedagogy). I still believe this to be true. People can and do learn in a very broad array of models, models, contexts and personal inclinations. However the second theorem posits that:
High levels of more than one of these three modes (student-student; student-teacher, student-content) will likely provide a more satisfying educational experience, though these experiences may not be as cost or time effective as less interactive learning sequences.
Thursday, December 27, 2012
Interaction and Learning
From Terry Anderson (http://terrya.edublogs.org/2012/12/18/connectivy-your-course/)