Landing : Athabascau University
  • Files

All site files

Load More

Latest comments

  • Jon,

    This looks great.

    My only question is how do I become a member of the faculty?

    Gerald Ardito November 24, 2018 - 9:23am

  • This is looking good, Liliana. I wonder, though, whether there is another entity lurking in the relationship between an employee and a cash register? Seems to me that a cash register will be used by many employees, and an employee may use many cash registers, which implies to me that there must be an associative entity between them. I've never worked as a sales clerk in a supermarket so am not sure of the terminology but I've noticed the ones doing so talking about 'shifts' on the till: might be a possible entity? Don't forget to draw relationships explicitly, wherever there's a foreign key: there's one between receipt and customer_more_reward, for instance (the foreign key implies that the many end is at the receipt, I think). My own experience of the More Rewards program suggests that the phone number is very important to the system and *might* be a significant index. It also suggests that redemption matters (not in the religious sense!) - quite a lot of products are offered at a reduced price or even free with More Rewards, and that makes a difference on the receipt (and to the customer's reward points - might there be a need to record these?). Beware, too, of complexities around those offers. Some of them are affected by the number of items purchased. This may imply further entities - perhaps including a 'discount' entity that affects a receipt? It would not be a bad idea to look at a real receipt to make sure that you've picked up on all the possible attributes, including those that are implied. Another useful intuition pump might be to think about whether and how the model changes for online customers getting their groceries delivered.

    Jon Dron November 13, 2018 - 7:31pm

  • Jon,

    In a chunk of time full of synchronicity, I have been wondering about the same things. 

    I have been working with my teacher candidates in designing curriculum, specifically units of study and lesson plans for elementary school students. They are good students and very committed to being good teachers, but all of there work amounted to an addition problem = fact 1 + fact 2 + fact 3 = learning. You can imagine that the assessments they designed were very traditional and linear as well.

    I have been working with them pretty intensely around seeing that their job is to create learners and people in love iwth learning, not pushing content. I want to investigate outcome mapping and outcome harvesting further as tools that they could be possibly using to change their thinking and practice.

    Gerald Ardito November 7, 2018 - 7:10am

  • Thanks Gerald!

    Yes, I had an 'aha' moment when I drew the Venn diagram and mapped it to intended outcomes. I've said as much in so many words many times before but, seeing it laid out in front of me, it just seemed so obvious that the only thing we should ever assess is (in positive terms) what a student has learned. It's good news if that happens to overlap with what we are trying to teach and what we are trying to assess, but that's not the main point. Another nice thing about thinking this way is that, if a student achieves outcomes that we did not intend, but that happen to overlap with something else we assess (e.g. a different course) it can be used as evidence towards that, too. This does mean that we need to have a pretty fair idea of our intended outcomes across the whole institution (or at least a whole program), and thus will run into the many problems of misusing learning outcomes as currency/bureaucratic measurement tools, but it might be a way to sell the idea to those in charge.

    Alas, no audio or recording of any kind.

    I came across the concept of outcome mapping/harvesting at the International Federation of National Teaching Fellows conference earlier this year and it resonated with many of the things I have been grappling with over recent years. The details are fairly mundane and obvious - it's a project management tool for dealing with complex projects and emergent/unanticipated/fuzzy outcomes, but the general principle of identifying change (any change) as an outcome, and working back from that to discover what led to it makes an awful lot of sense to me in a learning context. The act of mapping itself is a highly reflective and potentially very effective pedagogical process in its own right, so it's a good idea even if bureaucracy prevents you from actually using those outcomes in summative assessment. If the powers that be prevent you from adding new outcomes (or from removing those that are pre-ordained) you can always add an outcome along the lines of 'be a reflective practitioner' or 'demonstrate the ability to be a lifelong learner' or 'critically evaluate their learning in the field' to the specified outcomes, but I think it is way more useful if we are allowed to be flexible in specifying criteria for success on a per-student basis.  

    Jon

    Jon Dron November 2, 2018 - 2:32pm