with the risk of being harsh: this is the paradox of many committees in university settings: formed, and served by members with no true interest in what the committee SHOULD be about in the first place. In this case, one would assume the opposite of "calibrating" voices. But encouraging diversity, encouraging strong voices and transparency.

what a choice of words. I can't help but see such statement almost as admittance of guilt. One immediately thinks that the message delivered already is unfair and compromises personal integrity.

I am just really curious to how would the director and the committee members would explain what the "tone" of COLTT is?

considering that the introductory statement of COLTT is: "COLTT engages participants in learning about teaching practices and technologies, challenging the way they think about both." - emphasis on "challenging". Maybe they should edit to "moderately challenging" or "challenging and censoring".

Such a far stretch with the Drake's equation and yet such a beautiful analogy. I couldn't help but smile and think of the famous reply in the film Contact to the question whether we are alone in the Universe: “The universe is a pretty big place. If it's just us, seems like an awful waste of space.”

First Daily Create: Thunderstorm in Bolivia Meets Rain in Granada: Five Sounds of Nature

First Daily Create: Thunderstorm in Bolivia Meets Rain in Granada: Five Sounds of Nature

so well described. Especially when we think about technology in terms of extensions of ourselves: "who we are is due to the feedback loops between us and our tools as part of our cognitive arsenal "

It really resonates with Kevin Kelly’s : "technology is the real skin of our species"

So feedback was added and students' success increased. Didn't have to write 16 pages to come to this conclusion...

There is an Adobe Suite but not Google Suite. May be Google tools, apps.

Here is the inconsistency: the author is exploring Vygotsky's social theories that are applied to children's learning to master level courses for adult learners. Does anyone see something wrong with this?

as opposed to analog systems?

This is quite inaccurate. The whole concept of learning styles has been qualified as a neuro myth and completely disproven (see Pashler 2008).

Isn't the whole point of ZDP theory - the social context of learning?

or as we call it: "'coz it's cool"

So according to the OI theory, a system that is designed to be fun for the users, allows for user's input and certain level of control over, different paths to achieving outcomes, and the ability to participate in the generating and creating of the content, results into transforming external motivation to internal. Thus, it increases the system value to the user and consequently, the learning experience. Did I get it right? .....In essence it sounds familiar coming from andragogy principles addressing value and motivation as necessary for the adult learner's experience.

Actually, did Malcolm Knowles derived the principles (or assumptions of the Adult Learner) from that theory?

It is true that there is a constraint of users defining the course objectives because of curriculum and accreditation needs but how about if users participate in determine lower level unit objectives or milestones? That may be something to consider in the designing and teaching of a course....well no. They have to be subject matter experts to determine that. So never mind.

I think Remi's wiki pages in the course are a great example of this. It is an instructor generated content that provide students with the opportunity to add, edit, modify or in other words: generate their all content to contribute to the learning process. Right?

I am still not very clear on the essence of OIT theory.

I am quite fascinated by this study/statement. I wonder what are the brain mechanics for this necessity to occur in the brain? How does the brain process and works through the motivation factors to create such a dependency? IF anyone have a good source of information on this, I would be really interested (and if it not too complicated to read :)

So, in my opinion these are fundamentally wrong questions to ask. An example of transferable skills may be:"Does playing the game teaches on tactics or how to build a strategy". I think finding out which skills are being practiced during the game and then formulate the question of what is being transferred.

I am not sure I agree with the way the question of transfer is situated here. It seems way too broad.

Reading just this sentence makes me excited reading the rest of the article. It is like asking if one would be able to learn to swim by taking a course on swimming without even trying to get in the water. So if the conclusion of the article is playing first-person shooters teaches players how to use real weapons, I would be extremely surprised!

I think the problem is the transferability of what students learn and not necessarily as Goodman states that the problems are different after graduations. Grades are a common instrument for measuring success on how information is retained or applied or analysed. Every information is valuable. It's a matter to connect it to prior knowledge or experience and make it relevant to students.