“Model Driven Design: Systematically Building Blended Learning Experiences”
I’m supposed to sit through a one-hour plenary address with that title? It’s ridiculous. How is it helpful to teaching or learning to use language that gargles and breaks in the throat?
Why not use English–especially when there’s a chance you’ll be talking to English teachers. I’ll bet a dollar that “Model Driven Design” is either obvious, or meaningless.
So Model-driven design means you make little “lessons” which work independently of faculty individual approaches, and which reduce learning to little particles–without enough room for digression, exploration, constructivist approaches.
Similar to Lynda’s question–in our institutional culture, most of us believe that good teaching *is* idiosyncratic and personal–model-driven design seems to ignore this position. In addition, this approach seems to contradict the very broad goals and philosophical foundation of liberal arts/humanities education. If the emphasis of education is broader and (I would argue) greater than simply training, how would model-driven design function? This seems like an effort to standardize, modularize, and de-personalize education, which detracts seriously from the interaction and personal relationship which is so important (many of us believe) to student satisfaction and higher-order learning. In addition, disciplinary differences in perspectives are often real and valuable. Why abandon them without recognizing that fact? Multi-disciplinary approaches should not be *non*disciplinary approaches.