2-3 lbs Country Style Ribs
1 cups of your favorite BBQ Sauce
1 Packet Onion Soup Mix
1/2 cup of Italian Dressing
1 tsp Minced Garlic
3/4 cup Water or beef broth
2 TBSP oil
Onion Powder
Salt
Black Pepper
Trim excess fat of ribs
Salt & Pepper Ribs on all sides, then season generously with onion powder
In large skillet, heat oil on Medium Heat
Brown ribs two at a time (don't crowd pan) for 45-60 seconds on all four sides. Place directly in pressure cooker when ribs are done.
Deglaze pan with 3/4 cup water or broth
Sprinkle Onion Soup Mix over Ribs in Pressure Cooker
Add Garlic
Pour deglazing water/broth over ribs, then Italian Dressing, then BBQ Sauce
Pressure Cook @ 15 (pressure regulator rocking gently) for 20 minutes, then turn off heat and allow to depressurize on its own for at least 15 minutes before releasing rest of pressure.
Place ribs on foil lined sheet pan, glaze with sauce from bottom of pressure cooker, place under broiler for five minutes
Turn ribs, glaze other side with more sauce, broil five more minutes
Devour. Watch your fingers. Good with Cole Slaw & Steak Fries.
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Response to a Webquest
The WebQuest I chose to evaluate is called "Introduction to Computers." It was published in September of 2010 and purports to cover "computer basics and XP basics" and be targetted to "adult learners." XP was already two versions out of fashion by September of 2010, so I'm interested to see how good it is. The link is here.
a. Introduction
Strength: Well, it's direct and to the point. I disdain introductions where the subject is explored too deeply and it feels like the designer or presenter is going off on some kind of a tangent; none of that is going on here.
Weaknesses: Nearly everything else. The first word (welcome) is spelled wrong. Beyond that, it doesn't tell the learner what they are supposed to do next. If someone needs a lesson in "Computer Basics" is it going to be intuitive to them to go over to the left and click "Task?" Do they even know what a WebQuest is? Probably not, but this introduction doesn't give them any of that information at all.
b. Task
Strength: Again, I like that it is direct and to the point. It's a numbered list that explains the exact steps that a student will follow.
Weakness: Writing. I don't want to cast aspersions on a total stranger, but if this was intended for an adult audience it should be written at at least a high school reading level. Clearly that is not the case. The writing goes in and out of the second person. And while I do appreciate brevity, some of the tasks are almost too abbreviated. For example, #3 simply says, "View Youtube Videos." There are approximately one gajillion YouTube videos that someone could watch and simultaneously learn nothing about using computers. I agree that the tasks listed are probably "Doable," but they certainly aren't sold by the designer as being interesting.
c. Process
Strength: Not many. I think I will say that this section is easy to understand even for a beginner (what with the CLICK HERE stuff)... but that's only because I feel like I'm required to say something for strengths.
Weakness: I think I understand what's happening here. We had an assignment last week where we had to make a trackstar presentation that was a few slides long. I did so, using "Beginning Computers" as my example. Our goal was to demonstrate we could use TrackStar, as opposed to designing a fully functional, marketable module. I'm beginning to suspect that the creator of this WebQuest was doing the same thing. Again, the writing is a problem (future vs present tense, second person again) and beyond that, the instructions are a bit too clipped. If someone is a beginner, it isn't enough to tell them "Click here and view the presentation." You need to tell them how to view it, what a powerpoint presentation even is, etc.
d. Evaluation
Strengths: None. Sorry. I can't do it this time.
Weakness: Completely unreadable. If the WebQuest page hadn't told us this was going to be a rubric, I wouldn't even recognize that that's what they were going for. I'm quite certain that the text Stated Objective or Performance was supposed to be replaced with an actual stated objective, but it was just left there. Also, there's only one level of success, no depth of understanding. This is understandable with technical training (either you can turn the computer on or you can't) but the level of achievement described barely makes sense....certainly not to someone who is supposedly a computer "beginner." "Perform Copy & Paste Hot Keys." What?????
e. Conclusion
Strength: It's polite. It thanks people for coming this far, and they deserve that thanks. It also gives people a "Click here to provide feedback" link, which I suspect might be a canned QuestGarden component, but it's still nice to include one.
Weaknesses: It isn't really a conclusion of the material. It tells people they're going to get a certificate of achievement, but there's no effort to conclude what was learned, to tie together disparate concepts... It's there because it's required, not because it's doing anything.
f. And Lastly
There was no question listed for F.
g. Usability
I think this could be used in a classroom without modification, specifically in the scenario where you were teaching people how to design WebQuests and needed a rubric example of "Completely Unacceptable." I could not use it to teach adults anything about computers; probably children too. In order to make it acceptable, it would essentially have to be redone from scratch, but if I Have to pick the one thing that makes it useless it's that it isn't really written to an audience that doesn't understand or know computers. It appears to have been written with the goal of using the fewest possible words. While it is admirable not to want to waste people's time, if they get nothing from the exercise/don't understand it, you're still wasting their time... just less of it.
a. Introduction
Strength: Well, it's direct and to the point. I disdain introductions where the subject is explored too deeply and it feels like the designer or presenter is going off on some kind of a tangent; none of that is going on here.
Weaknesses: Nearly everything else. The first word (welcome) is spelled wrong. Beyond that, it doesn't tell the learner what they are supposed to do next. If someone needs a lesson in "Computer Basics" is it going to be intuitive to them to go over to the left and click "Task?" Do they even know what a WebQuest is? Probably not, but this introduction doesn't give them any of that information at all.
b. Task
Strength: Again, I like that it is direct and to the point. It's a numbered list that explains the exact steps that a student will follow.
Weakness: Writing. I don't want to cast aspersions on a total stranger, but if this was intended for an adult audience it should be written at at least a high school reading level. Clearly that is not the case. The writing goes in and out of the second person. And while I do appreciate brevity, some of the tasks are almost too abbreviated. For example, #3 simply says, "View Youtube Videos." There are approximately one gajillion YouTube videos that someone could watch and simultaneously learn nothing about using computers. I agree that the tasks listed are probably "Doable," but they certainly aren't sold by the designer as being interesting.
c. Process
Strength: Not many. I think I will say that this section is easy to understand even for a beginner (what with the CLICK HERE stuff)... but that's only because I feel like I'm required to say something for strengths.
Weakness: I think I understand what's happening here. We had an assignment last week where we had to make a trackstar presentation that was a few slides long. I did so, using "Beginning Computers" as my example. Our goal was to demonstrate we could use TrackStar, as opposed to designing a fully functional, marketable module. I'm beginning to suspect that the creator of this WebQuest was doing the same thing. Again, the writing is a problem (future vs present tense, second person again) and beyond that, the instructions are a bit too clipped. If someone is a beginner, it isn't enough to tell them "Click here and view the presentation." You need to tell them how to view it, what a powerpoint presentation even is, etc.
d. Evaluation
Strengths: None. Sorry. I can't do it this time.
Weakness: Completely unreadable. If the WebQuest page hadn't told us this was going to be a rubric, I wouldn't even recognize that that's what they were going for. I'm quite certain that the text Stated Objective or Performance was supposed to be replaced with an actual stated objective, but it was just left there. Also, there's only one level of success, no depth of understanding. This is understandable with technical training (either you can turn the computer on or you can't) but the level of achievement described barely makes sense....certainly not to someone who is supposedly a computer "beginner." "Perform Copy & Paste Hot Keys." What?????
e. Conclusion
Strength: It's polite. It thanks people for coming this far, and they deserve that thanks. It also gives people a "Click here to provide feedback" link, which I suspect might be a canned QuestGarden component, but it's still nice to include one.
Weaknesses: It isn't really a conclusion of the material. It tells people they're going to get a certificate of achievement, but there's no effort to conclude what was learned, to tie together disparate concepts... It's there because it's required, not because it's doing anything.
f. And Lastly
There was no question listed for F.
g. Usability
I think this could be used in a classroom without modification, specifically in the scenario where you were teaching people how to design WebQuests and needed a rubric example of "Completely Unacceptable." I could not use it to teach adults anything about computers; probably children too. In order to make it acceptable, it would essentially have to be redone from scratch, but if I Have to pick the one thing that makes it useless it's that it isn't really written to an audience that doesn't understand or know computers. It appears to have been written with the goal of using the fewest possible words. While it is admirable not to want to waste people's time, if they get nothing from the exercise/don't understand it, you're still wasting their time... just less of it.
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Technology Standards
Before I paste my standard and start talking, I should insert a disclaimer. Since I don't work in the K-12 classroom, my lessons are not K-12 lessons. But, since I want to get as much as possible out of the class, I'm still going to try to relate it to my experiences. So rather than talk about how I can implement these standards into my teaching, I'll talk about how this standard would impact my role.
From the standards for Grades 9-12, "Technology Communications Tools" Section.
By the end of Grade 12 each student will:...2. use available technologies (e.g., desktop conferencing, e-mail, groupware, instant messaging) to communicate with others on a class assignment or project
In a way, I teach this standard in the professional environment more than any other. Businesses in general want collaboration to be more efficient. My employer is the largest in West Michigan with over sixteen-thousand employees spread out on more than seven campuses. "Face to Face" meetings are not always convenient (and if one person is in Reed City and the other in Kentwood, you could make the case that they're barely possible), and while telephone conversations and e-mail can facilitate communication, I wouldn't call it collaboration.
There are two tools that are our primary means of addressing this issue--Microsoft Live Meeting and SharePoint.
LiveMeeting allows remote individuals to participate in a "Face-to-Face" meeting. One person (or more) "hosts" and can share things on their computer display. You can choose to share a single application or your entire screen. Educating people on this tool is trickier than it seems, mainly because outside of the technology realm try to connect what they're learning with the technology knowledge they already have. They have heard of--and generally understand--the concept of "Video Conferencing," so they assume that this technology involves a camera. Additionally, they understand the concept of e-mailing attachments (and LiveMeeting involves sending an e-mail invitation) so they might think of it as sending a succession of screen shots back and forth.
The best way that I have found to get people to understand it is to do a Live Meeting in the classroom. Some people sit facing the screen, and others turn away (with their monitors) and become our "Remote" participants, then people alternate "hosting" the meeting.
SharePoint is more of a web-based collaboration space. Whoever "Administers" the site can control access to all or part of it, and then create different collaborative tools therein. These include Discussion Boards, Problem Tracking Systems, Document Libraries, and Shared Calendars. The tool is extremely flexible, and especially useful since it requires minimal involvement by technical support and provisioning personnel to keep it running.
And honestly? The trick to teaching it to people is getting them to understand how easy it is.
I've been doing technology education and training for more than a decade, and I am confident when I say that people typically underestimate their own technical ability by 2-3 rungs down the ladder of proficiency. People who come to a class and say they are "Completely computer illiterate," probably know almost enough to get by. People who are truly computer illiterate (in my experience) hate computers and don't try to learn more about them.
But since SharePoint is so powerful & flexible, and people underestimate their own capabilities, they assume it must involve "computer programming" to make it work. The class on SharePoint Administration is an eight hour class. I spend the first part of the class showing them some of the "cooler" features, at which point when we're ready to take a break a lot of them have decided they're never going to understand how to do it. Then all you can do is take "baby steps" to building something complicated and powerful to prove to them that they can do it. A lack of confidence is a lot harder to overcome than mere ignorance.
So we start small, and have them build basic file libraries, then show them how they can add "Columns" to those file libraries that allow them to ask people who submit files different questions about those files and compel them to answer. I can usually tell who has their Eureka moment when we cover that, because they get the same look on their face that I got back when I learned to program in Basic and I figured out how to make the computer ask people questions.
Tying this back into the standards, I'm better off as high schools (and colleges) build this proficiency in people. I do not see myself teaching K-12 in the future, but if I stay in the professional development sphere then those levels of education will "trickle up" to where I am, and additional proficiency like the kind suggested by these standards will only make my job easier.
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Discussion Comment
Here is my next blog response:
It's from the conservative Heritage Foundation, and currently says it is awaiting moderation.
Just in case they super-moderate it (i.e. don't post it) here is what I said:
Depending on how you are defining “Online Learning” I think I interpret the Department of Education article a bit differently. The article explicitly states the one category where involving technology failed to produce any positive effects was the “Independent” category… in other words where it was not guided and there was no teacher. Additionally, immediately following the statement about online learning being more effective is this caveat:
“It should be noted, however, that this overall effect can be attributed to the advantage of blended learning approaches over instruction conducted entirely face-to-face. Of the 11 individual studies with significant effects favoring the online condition, 9 used a blended learning approach.”So it performed better than classes where there was no technology component at all, and the instruction was 100% lecture/face to face. I think everyone agrees that technology should be better leveraged in the classroom than it is, including implementations like blended learning… but I’m not sure this equates to as broad an interpretation of “Online Learning” as I am perceiving here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)