So, Tuesday, after listening to Malcom Gladwell and having considered one of the readings, I was a little more persuaded that the SME, while not completely useless, was at least less essential. But then I'm thinking back to one of the other reading which suggested that this was one of the places to check to see if an instructional design was on track(Brown and Green, page 115-116..."One of the most effective ways for determining the success of your task analysis during the design and development of your instruction is to ask a SME..." and then I run into this weeks words about sequencing. "At this stage, collaboration with one or more subject matter experts (SME) is indispensable."
I suppose the conflict is experience vs. instruction. I think most of my teachers that I have admired were all SMEs. They didn't just know about the instruction of the content, they knew the content and its instruction. I think of one in particular since he has been my "teacher" for so long, about 13 years. Part of the process of his instruction involved self-reflection and directed reflection. We would take a break in class, he and the assistants, myself included, and go out and shoot the breeze for a few minutes in a 3-4 hour class. At that time, we usually talked about what was going on in class, particularly challenging problems and our own solutions for them. These discussions redirected our approach and greatly refined the methods used. Perhaps it was, in a small way, the reevaluation suggested in our text... it just seems so much less formal, that it was more palatable.
So, I'm still arguing the point with myself... That seems like the place I always end up.
What a.... (how public is this?)
No comments:
Post a Comment