Dapoxetine Cost Australia >> Top Quality Tabs

Dapoxetine dosage dapoxetine generic cheap buy voltaren gel in canada mestinon timespan tablets sildenafil citrate 100mg and dapoxetine 60mg. Mestinon tablet price dapoxetine 60 mg kaufen dapoxetine price in uae allegra medicine usage tamoxifen citrate pct buy. Dapoxetine cost australia dapoxetine price delhi dapoxetine price egypt voltaren gel buy online voltaren buy uk voltaren rapid 25 buy online. Allegra otc medicine price of dapoxetine in pakistan voltaren gel canada buy buy voltaren emulgel usa dapoxetine price delhi generic viagra with dapoxetine 160 mg. Dapoxetine 60 price dapoxetine 60 mg price dapoxetine tablets price buy voltaren in uk beconase spray price dapoxetine price uk. Voltaren gel to buy dapoxetine 60 mg price in delhi good drugstore brow gel beconase nasal spray price dapoxetine 60 price. Voltaren tablets to buy buy voltaren spray dapoxetine price in pakistan dapoxetine 60 mg tablet price in india. Beconase price buy tamoxifen online india generic allegra medicine dapoxetine price in singapore which medicine is better zyrtec or allegra. Buy voltaren gel usa tamoxifen citrate buy online dapoxetine 60 price dapoxetine best price buy voltaren gel cvs dapoxetine price in canada buy voltaren in canada. drugstore gel eyeliner buy voltaren tablets buy voltaren gel 1 information on allegra allergy medicine buy generic tamoxifen citrate. Buy voltaren gel buy tamoxifen online usa price of dapoxetine tablets prilosec medication dapoxetine 60 mg tablet price where can i buy voltaren injection. Beconase aq price voltaren emulgel buy usa dapoxetine price in singapore generic priligy dapoxetine 60 mg allegra with cold medicine buy generic tamoxifen uk. Buy voltaren actigo buy voltaren gel new zealand dapoxetine price list in india tamoxifen buy uk pills with dapoxetine buy voltaren gel online canada. Tamoxifen nolvadex buy buy voltaren gel uk tamoxifen buy australia buy voltaren gel otc dapoxetine india price dapoxetine price in india dapoxetine price in canada. Dapoxetine hydrochloride price mestinon tablets 10mg buy voltaren injection beconase aq cost dapoxetine 30mg price in india. Can i buy voltaren in usa dapoxetine 30 mg and 60 mg buy voltaren uk buy tamoxifen online australia buy voltaren pills. Dapoxetine price in pakistan voltaren emulgel buy online buy voltaren cream canada which allergy medicine is better claritin or allegra. Dapoxetine price egypt beconase cost buy voltaren in usa buy voltaren emulgel australia dapoxetine price prilosec medication guide buy generic viagra dapoxetine online. Buy voltaren gel from canada keflex cefalexina suspension oral tamoxifen nolvadex buy uk medicine allegra 180 uses buy voltaren usa mestinon 30 mg tablets. Allegra medicine use buy voltaren gel canada dapoxetine price uk voltaren buy canada voltaren gel buy online usa. Price of dapoxetine in pakistan buy voltaren gel cheap prilosec medication interactions dapoxetine hydrochloride price. Dapoxetine cost buy voltaren gel diclofenac sodium topical gel 1 where can i buy voltaren emulgel generic priligy dapoxetine 60mg allegra d and cold medicine. Buy voltaren 75mg dapoxetine 60 mg price in mumbai dapoxetine india price buy voltaren gel in usa buy tamoxifen online cheap. Dapoxetine 30mg price online buy voltaren gel amazon buy voltaren emulgel allegra medicine interactions low dose naltrexone canada dapoxetine priligy price. Buy voltaren emulgel online buy voltaren online uk beconase price tamoxifen buy online uk vardenafil 20mg dapoxetine 60mg dapoxetine cost in india. Dapoxetine generic uk buy voltaren gel online beconase best price buy generic dapoxetine online dapoxetine price where to buy voltaren gel 1 allegra medicine for cold. Tamoxifen pct buy dapoxetine 60 mg tablet price in india prilosec medication dosage beconase nasal spray price price of dapoxetine tablets. dapoxetine 30 mg or 60 mg dapoxetine 60 price in india can you buy voltaren in the usa taking allegra with cold medicine. Buy voltaren eye drops buy voltaren online beconase nasal spray cost.

Of Serifs & Silk – Analog Learning in a Post-Analog World

Every few months it seems that the topic of handwriting comes up – generally revolving around the question: Should we still bother with teaching handwriting in this digital age?

It’s a question I’ve looked at on-an-off over a number of years; part of a series of questions about learning in a post-analog world.

There’s some interesting research on the topic, from fields like haptics and embodied cognition.*  Good stuff, important stuff; I’m always looking for more…

Understanding how writing, literacy, cognition, memory and attention work together is critical, but it’s not the only reason we need to look at handwriting and other analog activities in the context of learning.

Today I’m going to be a bit lazy (academically) and look at this with just some good old horse-sense.  It’s not just a straightforward cognition issue (that is a key element, but not the only aspect).  On a practical level, we are physical people and we do respond differently to the tactile than to the digital.

The efficiencies gained in the past 20-30 years of digital development, are quite evident.  Remember drafting images for presentation slides by hand, and then sending them over to the slide-makers to be photographed? (Of course the upside was that there were a lot fewer slides in any given talk.)

But, with any gains in efficiency there are necessary losses elsewhere and it’s good to weigh those in the balance.  By moving things from the slow and tedious to the brilliant and efficient, we may, along the way, lose some intimacy with the material – and, through that, miss out on some wide-ranging insights.

There is, of course, the famous story of Steve Jobs studying calligraphy and how that parlayed into the variety of fonts, the proportional spacing – all the visual elements that made the Macintosh so staggering when it was released.  He had a kind intuitive grasp of both the principles and the beauty of fonts that came from his extensive work with them; and he was able to translate that into a new sphere.**

In a similar vein to the handwriting vs. keyboarding question: With machine knits in every store, what is the value (beyond pure recreation) of learning to knit?  Having taught a few people to knit – I’ve watched them learn some interesting things. Things like:  wool, silk and cotton each have a different elasticity, which leads to some consideration of plant vs. animal fibers (and the underlying cell differences), the nature of protein chains… Things that they would learn in biology class, and which will now have a real, personal meaning.   It’s non-trivial stuff.

Clearly this isn’t to say that all students should try knitting, or calligraphy; its about tactile people building translatable insights from tactile experiences.

Sometimes we just need to ask the question: If the digital machine can do it faster and better, when is their value in doing things in the physical world?

There are situations where the answer is obvious, like when you are designing a manufacturing plant – you step away from the design screen and walk through the actual space and consider things like “If we move these pipes up a foot, we won’t have to duck every time we walk under them.”

It’s not so straightforward in learning, though.  We don’t have time for people to build a deep, personal knowledge of everything, and they probably don’t need to build it.  But based on your learning goals you probably have some notion of the peripheral concepts that your learners would benefit from having a good gut-feel for.  That is a good pointer to determining the types of experiential learning in one area that will greatly support digital learning in many others.

* Of note: written text is processed in the auditory centers of the reader’s brain; Braille is processed in the visual centers.  I’ve yet to find many studies about what parts of the brain are activated when writing by hand and also by keyboard.  Would welcome links on that.

** Interestingly, there was a related phenomenon when AutoCAD was introduced into the drafting profession.  Those who had started with hand drafting tended to produce AutoCAD designs with fewer errors than those who had only used AutoCAD during their carreers. This may have been because errors in hand drafting were a pain to correct, so hand drafters learned not to make them, but generally speaking it seemed that those who spend some time designing plants or buildings by hand had a deeper awareness of the systems as a whole, they weren’t just digital objects to put into place.
By jleffron
Published: January 24, 2012
No Comments

Putting (Non-Traditional) Learning to the Test

There was an eye-catching article in the WSJ this weekend: Online Education: My Teacher Is an App.”

The author was looking at online public schools as an alternative to the traditional classroom model. The article spends a good bit space comparing test scores between online and classroom students and making note of the consistently lower test scores of the online students. Interestingly, the discussion of test scores follows a number of comments from student who discuss how much they are getting out of online learning.  So either the students are dead wrong about how much they are learning (possible), or testing isn’t necessarily the best measure of learning (also possible) Both may be true; they are not mutually exclusive, but….

I found the article a bit cringe-inducing for a simple reason: it’s missing the point.

Test Scores are not Learning.

Even when I was in grade school I could see through standardized testing; the weaknesses were quite visible. I usually had extremely high marks on my tests, so my beef wasn’t against testing per se – it made me look good. But I also wasn’t stupid. I knew full well who was cleverer than I was in ways that mattered, often clever in ways that would involve creating things (what we would now call “innovation” ,but at 12, I didn’t really toss that word around a lot, I just knew what I saw). But some of the innovators didn’t necessarily score well on tests.

Test Scores are not Ability.

In college, I would study in the labs with a fellow student working through samples and discussing processes. His depth of understanding would blow me away, but come test time, he’d get a C, and I’d get an A.

Test Scores are not Mastery.

It may be that the online students had lower standardized test scores because they haven’t learned as much as classroom students. But it might also be that that they scored lower because they learned more. It’s possible that they were busy learning, discovering… while their classroom counterparts were being taught how to succeed on tests.

Ultimately, though, the whole conversation in this article points to something deeper than test scores. The reliance on standardized tests as the basis of measuring learning (and structuring the educational system) is a symptom of a bigger issue: the overlying assumption that learning is something which can generally be standardized, and which is scalable.

What can we validly test at a massive scale? Standardized tests can do a decent job of measuring basic skills: things like the ability to do arithmetic, and perhaps the ability to read with comprehension, to write a coherent sentence and paragraph? Those are foundational tools for any job or just living life (balance the accounts, read an email from your boss, write a thank you letter…).

Skills are good, even necessary.  But there’s a difference between using standardized tests to verify skills, and using them to define education.

Learning is not inherently scaleable** nor stadardize-able. Evolving technology can either be used to build even more extensive cookie-cutter approaches to education, or it could be a golden ticket to something better – a chance to allow for a more human scale of learning; supporting the creation of something quite remarkable – allowing something more than standardization. I’ve been playing with this a lot lately. So much in fact that it’s becoming a major focus of my work.

I don’t see myself as taking on education reform as a whole – that’s far too complex and extensive a problem for my abilities. Instead I’m playing with ideas like narratives, and games (meaning world-building, not gamification); looking at how digital and tactile environments affect learning and how they can work together; and I’m using lots of very bad, and highly labored, analogies. You’re welcome to come join in. (Website going live very soon.)




**Looking at learning in its uber-scaled, standardized test format, compared to what learning can be, is rather like the difference between a strawberry milkshake at the local fast food emporium as opposed to fresh strawberries and cream at the local cafe. The same base ingredients, but what a difference in the delivery. Uniform, prefrabricated goo versus the lovely individual dish, with it’s mix of flavors, colours and textures. I think it’s pretty clear that I’m in the “strawberries and cream” camp on this one.



By jleffron
Published: November 14, 2011
No Comments

Critically Flawed

We have met the enemy and he is us.

Multiple Working Hypotheses vs Pet Theories

It was “smackdown” time in my brain last week. I fell into the situation quite innocently.

When I’m working to create change, or to build something new, it’s easy to become so busy being the ‘champion’ for my project (or ‘evangelist’, if you like) that I forget the need for Multiple Working Hypotheses.*  This is understandable.  If I decide to work very hard to develop “B” in response to flaws in “A”; my (non-objective) gut feeling is that I’m fixing things. I start to feel like “A” and “B” are the only games in town; I’ve done something good here by replacing erroneous “A” with meritorious “B”. But it could well be that “B” is as flawed as “A”. If “A” is ‘wrong’; and “B” is different from “A”, it does not necessarily follow that “B” is ‘right’, only that “B” is not “A”. To do my work well, I really need to consider (create, if necessary) “C”, “D”, and possibly “E”.

This reality hit me smack between the eyes at about 7:00 on Saturday morning. Right up until that moment, I’d seen the my pet project of several months as this lovely shiny solution. But as I stood in the kitchen, waiting for the coffee to finish brewing, every weakness of my approach became clear to me.  The fact that another approach was problematic in some areas did not make mine right, even if I felt I was addressing a particular set of flaws in the old approach.  I’d become my own worst enemy – lack of critical thought left my project critically flawed.

It’s tough to not become enamoured with a particular theory or approach, and that’s where Multiple Working Hypotheses come in handy. Having more than one working hypothesis not only cuts back on things like confirmation bias, it makes for stronger research.  Entertaining multiple theories leaves my mind open to new connections often by pushing me to examine a wider body of data or evidence. If I don’t have a pet theory I’m nurturing along, I’m more open to new insights and surprising (but true) conclusions.

I’m back to the drawing board with my project. It’s not a blank slate, by any means.   The work I did before still has merit but it was only a partial view of the whole picture.  So I have a bigger drawing board now, with lots of room to examine a wider set of ideas. A little dose of objectivity diverted my work; the end result will be much stronger for that diversion.





* It wasn’t until I started writing this that it occurred to me that the concept of Multiple Working Hypotheses, coming from the work of a 19th century geologist, was commonly known in Geology departments, but not something I’ve heard much discussed in other disciplines.

By jleffron
Published: September 28, 2011

In Praise of Critiques

I don’t like criticism, which probably puts me in pretty good company. But I like critiques very much.

Yesterday there was some lively discussion on Twitter  about the use of public critiques as a learning tool. The phrase “learning tool” is the key – critiques are about learning, not correction.

Critiques are not a new tool for learning, many university Music and Art Departments post their guidelines for effective critiquing online. It’s not a tool restricted to the world of performing arts; at it’s best public critiquing is a civilized discussion of a person’s work, looking at what’s good, what’s lacking, what other avenues could be pursued. It’s a blend of offering needed objectivity and providing additional germane resources. It’s discourse, it’s learning, and it can be a bit unnerving to the uninitiated; but that last bit doesn’t have to be the case.

Consider the popular site Critters.org where there are loads of people actively seeking critiques of their novels and short stories. Why would someone do this? If you’ve written a piece of fiction, even if you (rightly) suspect that it’s absolute dreck, you’ll be irrationally fond of it, protective of it; you love it like your firstborn child, so why seek out critiques? The answer seems to be simply this: for writers, improving in their craft matters more than their fear of hearing something negative about their work; they know they need that objective outside voice.

Common Objections

Supposing you’re sold on the notion of critiques. It’s still not all sunshine and daffodils, because there a few hurdles to clear before most people are going to jump on the “Critiquing is Awesome” band wagon. And they’re big ones.

If critiques are going to be effective as a learning tool, there are some logistics to be addressed, in the form of trust, culture (individual and organizational), and personality. Some of these are clearly not in your control; but you can usually address enough of them to be successful. Being aware of obstacles allows you to address them up front in your learning design.

As an example in some organizations the nature of the work is such that “failure is not an option” (things like nuclear power plants and neurosurgery come to mind) but that’s the big picture view the performance of the job. During the learning process, it has to be clear that critiques are not indicators of failure but stepping stones to success – or at least are akin to bumper bowling, keeping you from drifting too far off target.

Of course, there may be some cultures where critiques are a bad match. In a company with an up-or-out policy critiques may turn to daggers pretty fast.

Making it Work

In most circumstances it’s probably not the best plan to jump in with full throttle critiquing.

The whole notion of critiques is a bit contrary to our nature, or at least to our habits. It’s a bit like going for a swim in very cold lake – most of us like to ease in a little at a time; jumping in right off the bat is likely shock all but the most hearty folks right back out onto the shore. So, you need to help people want to swim in the (metaphorical) water, and then make it as painless as possible for them to ease into it.

Let’s look at back at those writers who willingly seek critiques – what’s going on there? In general it boils down to a sense that “the success of my project; the excellence of my work has risen to a higher priority than my fears or feelings”. We might call this “engagement” in the learning world. There has to be a sense that what is being achieved worth the investment.

So, let’s say you’ve done your up-front work and you have group that says “we’re so committed to excellence in understanding that what we want mutual public critiquing here so we can maximize our learning curve”. You still have real people with real fears and feelings, so how do you ease them into critiquing?

The first step will be tough: as an instructor you need to minimize the teaching and leave a void for people to fill. Cover the principles and potential pitfalls of the subject, but then turn folks loose. Critiquing is participatory by it’s nature. Too much noise from the instructor tends to silence the other voices; provide guideposts as needed, but let people wander around a bit and find their way.

Imagine the following scenario: you’re an instructor trying to build critiquing in your class. What might you do to get the conversation started?  One approach might look like this:

  1. Step away from spoon-feeding information and then fill that gap with brain-work. You have your learners “Read 5 of these 8 sources (and others if you like), then write an opinion/commentary on 2 of them. Leave comments on at least 4 other posts; your comments should be substantial. Bring in relevant information from other sources to support your comments as needed.” Repeat every week and pretty quickly comments evolve into meaningful, complex discussions. The learners realize that critiques aren’t red marks on paper, they are conversation; invitation to discourse.
  2. Build up to the big time. When there is a high comfort level, you might move onto oral assessments, taken collectively where students can amplify or refute comments made – shared marks on this kind of assessment can lead to a group of learners really working to build the best possible responses to questions. In this setting the only failure is lack of preparation, thought or constructive contribution. I’ve seen this work in real life – the students all agreed it was the most they’d learned in a class, and the most excited they’d been about preparing for classes.

Make no mistake: the instructor does not get off easily in this format. Sure there’s less lecture on information, but the workload shifts to preparation and mediation Curating a list of readings and references, creating the discussion formats, addressing group culture and checks/balances that will work with the learners at hand will all take some serious time on the front end. Even more important will be knowing the learners, knowing what’s going to convince them that (insert topic here)  is vital to them.

A lot of time especially early on, may be spent providing mediation in conversations in order to keep balance, allow voices to be heard, and redirect non-constructive approaches. This requires a bit of a deft hand, and more than a dash of diplomacy in some cases. But it’s really a big chunk of the learning – learning how to exchange ideas (even differing ones) rationally and respectfully; recognizing that you just might be wrong about some things; and it may be the others are also quite wrong, but collectively you might all hash through the wrong and get to something approaching “right”*. In particular, if this is the first time learners have walked through this model, there may be a learning curve from violent disagreement (or violent agreement) to actual discourse.

When done well, critiques a bit like Beta testing for ideas. Ideally in the course of discussion, terms are defined, assertions are supported and a spectrum of opposing opinions are allowed, all of which refines the original work.  And like Beta testing, ] the learning comes from hashing through the “Whys” in the critiques as much as from the “Whats”.

By jleffron
Published: September 26, 2011
No Comments

Learning Design from an Unusual Source

If you need to help a person, or even 20 people, learn something, it’s easy do so in a highly personal way; recognizing what is relevant, what’s already known, discussing the merits and problems in alternative approaches to that which is being learned.  You can personally see if people are “getting it” and customize on the fly to make the learning more valuable and more memorable.  It’s great.

If you’re tasked with assuring that 20,000 employees (or, say, every 8th grader in the New York Public School System) all have the same level of learning or achievement in a topic, things look a bit different.  With a large and (effectively) anonymous group, you have to assume a certain “least common denominator”.  This means you layer on a lot of detail that might not be necessary for all learners, whether it be background knowledge specialized information that might only have value to certain user groups.

Scaling learning is tough.  It’s like the difference between fresh strawberries and cream at the local cafe versus a pre-fab strawberry shake at a fast food franchise.  They might both have the same core ingredients, but scale (and the need for uniformity and efficiency at large scales) has a huge impact on the delivery.

I don’t need to tell you how this translates to onboarding training, or new software training, or <insert tedious course title here> in the workplace.  You already know. In the same way, you know how it looks when a school curriculum is built to support state standardized tests.  It’s fast food milkshakes, served up one size fits all.

But that’s not an inevitable outcome, as I was reminded when got an email about, an online magazine dedicated to, of all things, knitting socks.


And it got me thinking…

When an organization is designing a course for a large group, they need:

  • People to be engaged, interested, somehow pulled into the necessary task so that they not only complete it but actually learn from it
  • Assurance that learners will gain the essential fundamentals
  • Affordability.

As I looked at Sockupied, I realized it hit those criteria smack in the bulls-eye.

Interest and Engagement

People who design magazines live or die on getting your attention, and then keeping it.  They are good at “Made you look!” covers and headlines, but they won’t sell a copy if that’s all there is.  They know how people visually and mentally track, not just through pages, through the entire magazine.  Some folks read cover to cover, some hop from topic to topic.  Both kinds of readers have to get enough value from the magazine to make it worth shelling out the money, so magazine folks design content that works for both kinds of readers.

Learning the Fundamentals (and beyond)

Knitting is like a lot of workplace (or classroom)n tasks.  There are certain fundamentals that you have to do right to get the result you want.   But beyond those fundamentals there’s a lot of latitude for individual approaches.  I love how Sockupied demonstrates the principles of personalization within the inherent constraints of the topic:  the pros, the cons…  and let’s show you few videos… oh, and here are some examples of how variations will affect your material needs or end product.



Cost is Always an Issue

Budgets are always a tough point in learning design, so I found myself doing some informal mental calculations.  How many people are actually going to buy an emagazine that is solely devoted to knitting socks.   I doubt we are talking sales in the millions, probably not even 10’s of thousands.  Combining that with the price tag of $15 and the need to turn a profit, tells me that this is kind of learning can be fairly economical for organizations and schools that have outgrown the “strawberries and cream” scale of instruction.

I think most folks would be happy to bypass click-through training for something is beautifully compiled and accessible, adaptable, flexible and with a variety of support mechanism (from good quality video to forums which allow questions and a chance to showcase personal innovations)…  And like any good magazine, you can put it on the virtual shelf so it’s there for reference, review, and just-in-time learning when you want to try a new approach sometime down the road.

I’ve never knit a sock, but this emagazine actually makes me want to try.  That’s a good metric for course design – it should make you want to dig in, learn some more, and build a new skill.


By jleffron
Published: June 11, 2011
No Comments

Expert Opinions

Reflections on the 500 Words Project

Looking back at the Purpos/Ed 500 Words project, what strikes me most is not any particular post (although there were a number that were impressive and thought provoking).  It is not the occasional debates that cropped up; although a few got rather vigorous, I think often even participants in the most heated discussions were (at heart) in violent agreement with each other, at least as far as their deep commitment to students.

What sticks most clearly in my mind are events that never made into my 500 Words.

Meeting with the ‘End Users’

Two weeks ago, I was sitting by a basketball court, doing some final editing of my post, while a group of about 20 teens were shooting hoops and joking around, in a game that seemed to have no recognizable rules. Periodically someone would stop by and ask what I was doing.   I realized I had a golden opportunity – here was a group deep in the midst of their formal education and who are mainly remarkable in that they are very comfortable in their own skins; they don’t feel a need to impress.

So, after I told them what I was doing, I asked them:

“What do you think is the purpose of education?”

It’s not surprising that the first reaction was something along the lines of “It’s so when we grow up we can get jobs and have a good life”, often delivered with a tone that implied they viewed this platitude-like response with a hint of contempt, not fully doubting it, but wearied of having it said to them so often.

But then, something would happen.  They’d catch themselves mid-answer, and stop parroting what they figured was expected.   And you could see them thinking; see their eyes lighting up with inner conviction, it seemed like they were no longer talking to me, but having an inner conversation.  Almost without exception, they would start talking about education being about something more than jobs or personal gain, about how it’s purpose was to equip them to to do something of worth for their country, or for the world.

At a fundamental level, they each saw the purpose of education as leading to something bigger than themselves. And were willing to do the work it took to get to that “something bigger”.

Those conversations left me impressed and hopeful for the future.  They also made it clear that learners of any age have little tolerance for learning if they see it as pointless, but have impressive drive if they grasp that the work they are doing is a stepping stone to something bigger, something that matters.



By jleffron
Published: April 7, 2011
One Comment

The Purpose of Education

There is a distinction between the purpose of education, the purpose of schools, and the purpose of learning. The three may sometimes share some overlapping terrain, but they are, nonetheless, discrete topics.

The purpose of schools can be any one of a myriad things depending on who “owns” the schools and what they want or need to achieve through them (whether that ownership is in the hands a government, community, industry, or other individual or organization). This is fully reasonable: whoever is running a school does so to fulfill their specific goals and agendas.

The purpose of learning is a bit nebulous to pin down. Learning may serve a practical purpose or meet a need (learn to read, learn to fix a leaky pipe, learn to say ‘please’ and ‘thank you’). At other times, learning may motivated purely by personal interest, like a friend who learned to read ancient Chinese simply because it interested him. Any practical effects (e.g. building mental discipline) were merely ancillary; they were not the reason for learning.

The purpose of education goes back to the root word, educare: “to bring up”. That begins to suggest something. Bringing up children (or puppies, or gardens) involves care, nurturing (and perhaps a bit of redirection or pruning); but “bringing up” does not add to what is already there, it merely allows it to develop.

Taking things one step further, there is the related root, educere: “to draw out”. Someone is drawing something out of the one being educated, maybe it’s a teacher, a colleague or even one’s self. If something is being “drawn out”, it had to exist in the first place.

In short:   The purpose of education is to allow people to reach their full potential.

That’s not as slippery a statement as it might seem. Full potential resides in the individual, not in jobs, tasks, families, or societies (those are where individuals put their potential into play). Since “full potential” is an individual thing, it can cover a lot of territory: some people are going to be clever at math, some are artistic, some observant, skeptical, optimistic… That all fits under the umbrella of potential.

For a person to achieve their full potential takes hard work, and there are three key elements to drive a person to do that work: Need, Hope, and Opportunity.

Youth in poverty may see the Need for education but might not have Hope  or Opportunity. Youth in affluent places may have buckets of Opportunity, but might see no Need;  they have everything, why work to become more than what they are? But when you have all three elements converge, it’s a powerful thing. It’s the girl who grew up picking through garbage at a dump in the Philippines, who saw the Need for education, held on to Hope and was given Opportunity, and went onto get a college degree so she could make things better in her community. It’s the ordinary middle class kid, who uses their Opportunities, sees a Need and goes beyond complacency into excellence motivated by Hope.

Ultimately the purpose of education is not rooted in politics, ideologies or educational theories, those are more likely to get in the way. It’s rooted in individuals who reach their full potential, and then turn around and use that potential to help the next generation find their own Need, Hope and Opportunity so they can reach theirs.

By jleffron
Published: March 25, 2011

The Mooreeffoc Effect: Learning Through the Wrong Side of the Door

Through a glass darkly…Through a door backwards

I’ve been familiar with the Mooreeffoc Effect but hadn’t given it a lot of thought recently until I started working on world building for a digital learning project.

Mooreeffoc is taking the familiar but looking at it through a new angle, shining light into a cobweb laden, dusty corner, taking the familiar and making it unfamiliar. Dickens makes reference to the term as coming to him when he abstractedly noticed the words “Coffee Room”, backwards, on the wrong side of a glass door. It transformed the familiar and prosaic into something new and captivating.

Mooreeffoc allows you see the same world through new eyes, it strips away the dulling film of paradigms and assumptions and lets you really see what is there.

Why it Helps

When we try to teach something (or learn it) we’re usually burdened with the familiar – with thick layers of assumptions and generalizations (based on experience) wrapped around us like down cushions so thick we’re well insulated from any real impact.

It is difficult to learn new things when the “space” or “subject” is one we’re quite at home with. The mental filters are up; one will only see what they ever and and always see… And in general will do what has always been done. We anticipate what comes next and are planning our responses well ahead, based on what we know.

Brains are like that – they find efficiencies so that there’s space left for the tricky bits; that’s great if you’re in the forest wanting to avoid becoming dinner for the local mountain lion, but not so good for workplace innovation.

When building a learning environment, the trick is to not to have the situation so foreign that all of a participant’s mental energy is used up in managing/processing the environment but just foreign enough that it’s possible to see new details, form new connections, do things differently. Mooreeffoc.

To do this, requires a learning environment that’s real enough that participants can immerse; if they can easily “see outside the walls” the illusion can quickly break down and the Mooreeffoc effect can lost before its done any good. It also helps if the environment allows discovery, not imposition or exposition of the discoveries of others. The flash of understanding that Dickens’ got from his coffee shop door was a very different experience to what you or I receive just reading about it.

In a Walled Garden

Now, that’s not as tough as it sounds, you don’t need a 3-d immersive environment, just some careful and thoughtful learning design (using the words “careful” and “thoughtful” quite literally, here).

What helps in this effort is that our lazy brains actually don’t WANT to see outside the walls… I see this in myself all the time.

I can read Vilenkin’s “Many Worlds in One” (physics for the non-academic) and the book might be right, or it might be pretty much rubbish – but it’s just enough beyond my inherent knowledge base that I can’t see over the walls to know for sure. And I’m really pretty happy to stay that way – I’m not bothering to do the mental equivalent of fetching the step ladder and a spy glass. It jibes enough with what I do know, and I find Vilenkin’s conclusions appealing. So it doesn’t actually matter to me if I don’t pull down the math texts to verify… Or does it matter?

I occasionally catch a popular technology talk online. Some of them are okay. Some of them pretty much annoy me, because I do know enough to spot the false rigour, unsupported assertions, or the selective presentation of facts to support a thesis. It makes me think of Dr Fox or the Sokal affair. I know the talks aren’t supposed to be deep research, and people like an appealing assertion with an engaging delivery, and happily accept the conclusions (much like me with my book). But in this case my knowledge is often sufficient to see well outside the walls.

And I realize that an intriguing, attractively presented error really is a problem.

Back to the Right Side of the Door

Which comes back ’round to the Mooreeffoc effect. Creating a compelling learning environment may help with creative thinking, but there are times you need look beyond the illusion and see what emperor’s tailors are really making….

In a well designed Mooreeffoc space, you’ll not quite be able to take anything for granted; the moment you do you’ll be put off balance by the results or effects. It may be that building that habit of looking for the unexpected in the environment will waken us enough that even if we are not looking outside the walls, we can at least ask good questions about what we’re seeing inside of them; and transfer that knowledge beyond the walls later on.

But if we’re really trying to foster self-directed learners, it’s defeating the purpose to keep them confined in a walled garden of someone else’s making. The learning environment may be bright and enchanting, and realisitic, but isn’t quite real, which makes it quite easy to lead someone, quite literally, down the garden path.

In the end we have to go back to the origins of Mooreeffoc – it’s not just possible for it to work when we look beyond the walls; it’s imperative that it does work.

Done right, a learning environment will push us to look outside the walls, once we’ve enjoyed our time in Mooreeffoc. You can’t always be sitting inside the coffee room- at some point you need to step outside look at the world with fresh eyes and new ideas.

By jleffron
Published: February 16, 2011
No Comments

More Than Words… Building Productivity Out of an Abundance of Ideas

There are probably writers who work in a nice tidy sequential fashion.  They have an idea, sit down, research it, write it, hit ‘save’ or ‘publish’ and move on. I’m not one of those writers.

Well, I used to be one of those writers, but I’m now solidly in the school of writers whose work-flow goes something like this: “Start with a couple dozen open tabs on Firefox and a collection of journal articles spread out on the desk, add a few though provoking conversations, have the connections start pinging in the brain …. and next thing you know, there are the notes for 3 or 4 different posts and articles, but nothing actually written.”

At some point I realized that this is the blessing and the curse of living in this Web 2.0/SocialMedia world.  An abundance of resources, an abundance of conversations to trigger ideas, and an overabundance of details to try to do something useful with.

I’m realizing more and more that the problem is not a lack of information structuring, nor of information filtering, it’s that I’ve needed to learn to keep my resources for a given piece of writing all in one place.  My brain is more than willing to be distracted when I write, and it was an awful lot easier maintain a hint of discipline when the only things within my grasp were directly related to the work at hand.  You know, Old School: at the big library table with references and note cards creating the only visual landscape; a wall of focused information blocking out the rest of the world.

So, I’m learning.  Learning when to allow myself time to dig into research and go down those rabbit trails that lead to serendipitous connections.   And learning to remember when it’s time to say “enough”.  Just because one has nearly infinite access to resources doesn’t mean it’s a good idea to gorge on all of them.   If I’ve missed an idea or a connection, I’ll find it later, on my own or through the comments of others.  But if I don’t get it written in the first place, there’s nothing there to improve on, to criticize or to expand on.  It’s that simple, and it’s that hard:  sit down and write.

Now, it would be really great if I had the discipline to tune out the siren song of Google Scholar, and the persistent calls of Twitter.  But it’s human nature, when you lift your head up from writing, to want to dig in and find “one more thing”.    I needed to find a way to keep all the resources for a project in one virtual workspace so I wouldn’t drift off while tracking down references, mind maps, emails, and notes that I’d collected.

For me this ultimately meant finding a software solution;  I started using Scrivener.   It allows me to recreate that giant library table of references and notes, removing the need to wander off to Google (or Mindmeister, or iStockphoto) to finish a project.

Writing is more that words.  It’s words fueled by ideas, challenging conversations, striking images, or problems to be solved.   Creating a virtual library table can make it possible for a writer to step back from the conversation long enough to actually produce something that contributes to the conversation.

By jleffron
Published: January 21, 2011
No Comments

Project Platypus

Project Platypus

A digital learning site, providing a guided learning environment which immerses the learner into a business problem and teaches them new skills as they work through the problem.  Available: Fall 2011

By Michael Effron
Published: December 14, 2010
No Comments

Page 1 / 3