Comments on: Uncompetence http://incsub.org/blog/2007/uncompetence Thu, 04 Feb 2010 12:15:39 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3 By: Michael Feldstein http://incsub.org/blog/2007/uncompetence/comment-page-1#comment-26984 Michael Feldstein Tue, 20 Nov 2007 03:26:04 +0000 http://incsub.org/blog/2007/uncompetence#comment-26984 You can say anything you want. I'm simply pointing out that the language of your original post conveys different connotations than the intent you described in your comment. You can say anything you want. I’m simply pointing out that the language of your original post conveys different connotations than the intent you described in your comment.

]]> By: James http://incsub.org/blog/2007/uncompetence/comment-page-1#comment-26966 James Tue, 20 Nov 2007 02:35:54 +0000 http://incsub.org/blog/2007/uncompetence#comment-26966 Or we could just say that you're overreacting :) Or we could just say that you’re overreacting :)

]]> By: Michael Feldstein http://incsub.org/blog/2007/uncompetence/comment-page-1#comment-26964 Michael Feldstein Tue, 20 Nov 2007 02:21:22 +0000 http://incsub.org/blog/2007/uncompetence#comment-26964 Well, you did write "And as the teachers aren’t going to be making decisions about their OLE, CMS, VLE, LMS or WETFYWTCI, it makes perfect sense for D2L to go straight to the top and give them exactly what they want." That's a bit more focused than a general "swipe at over-administration of T&L." And your last sentence, which refers to "technology that is anti-learning," picks up that context. So let's just say it would be easy to read this post as "having a go at D2L." That said, thank you for your kind words about my post. Well, you did write “And as the teachers aren’t going to be making decisions about their OLE, CMS, VLE, LMS or WETFYWTCI, it makes perfect sense for D2L to go straight to the top and give them exactly what they want.” That’s a bit more focused than a general “swipe at over-administration of T&L.” And your last sentence, which refers to “technology that is anti-learning,” picks up that context. So let’s just say it would be easy to read this post as “having a go at D2L.”

That said, thank you for your kind words about my post.

]]> By: James http://incsub.org/blog/2007/uncompetence/comment-page-1#comment-26957 James Tue, 20 Nov 2007 01:39:02 +0000 http://incsub.org/blog/2007/uncompetence#comment-26957 FFS chill out Micheal! Just because I happen to think that masses of competencies are anti-learning doesn't mean that I think D2L is per se or that you are advocating anything but. In fact I think it's a good post that provides a much more in-depth and engaging overview of how these kind of elements might work in the context you describe than I able to do... if you read the above again you'll see that I'm not having a go at you or even really D2L but making a broader swipe at over-administration of T&L. For which I need provide no specifics to back up my claim at all! FFS chill out Micheal!

Just because I happen to think that masses of competencies are anti-learning doesn’t mean that I think D2L is per se or that you are advocating anything but.

In fact I think it’s a good post that provides a much more in-depth and engaging overview of how these kind of elements might work in the context you describe than I able to do… if you read the above again you’ll see that I’m not having a go at you or even really D2L but making a broader swipe at over-administration of T&L.

For which I need provide no specifics to back up my claim at all!

]]> By: Michael Feldstein http://incsub.org/blog/2007/uncompetence/comment-page-1#comment-26951 Michael Feldstein Tue, 20 Nov 2007 01:27:44 +0000 http://incsub.org/blog/2007/uncompetence#comment-26951 Wow. Anti-learning? That's a bit over the top, particularly given that you cite not one single specific about D2L's system other than the fact that it has learning objectives and assessments. Did you read my original post? The truth is that D2L's design can be used for a variety of purposes, including giving students a way to track *for themselves* the skills they pick up in different courses across different departments that are relevant for their career paths. They can be used as a kind of metadata for teachers who are looking at a learning object or an assignment and trying to decide how it fits with their own course goals. It can even be used by teachers within a course to create non-linear curricula where students can choose their own paths through content and still make sure they hit all the experiences they need to learn all that the course has to offer. You may or may not think that some of these potential applications are valuable. But that's not the point. One of the main thrusts of the original blog post was that one size does *not* fit all when it comes to thinking about outcomes, and that D2L's system is designed to be useful when applied to a wide variety of aims. I'm not here to defend D2L's design, and I'm certainly not here to defend state-mandated measures of education. My point is simply that you're leveling some pretty harsh criticism based on some pretty thin tissue here. If you want to call this system "anti-learning", then I think it's only fair that you provide some specifics to back up your claim. Wow. Anti-learning? That’s a bit over the top, particularly given that you cite not one single specific about D2L’s system other than the fact that it has learning objectives and assessments. Did you read my original post? The truth is that D2L’s design can be used for a variety of purposes, including giving students a way to track *for themselves* the skills they pick up in different courses across different departments that are relevant for their career paths. They can be used as a kind of metadata for teachers who are looking at a learning object or an assignment and trying to decide how it fits with their own course goals. It can even be used by teachers within a course to create non-linear curricula where students can choose their own paths through content and still make sure they hit all the experiences they need to learn all that the course has to offer.

You may or may not think that some of these potential applications are valuable. But that’s not the point. One of the main thrusts of the original blog post was that one size does *not* fit all when it comes to thinking about outcomes, and that D2L’s system is designed to be useful when applied to a wide variety of aims. I’m not here to defend D2L’s design, and I’m certainly not here to defend state-mandated measures of education. My point is simply that you’re leveling some pretty harsh criticism based on some pretty thin tissue here. If you want to call this system “anti-learning”, then I think it’s only fair that you provide some specifics to back up your claim.

]]>