adult education

APA format requires the use of a title page, in-text cites, and a references page.

There is a video available at
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1426756603054312579
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1130889091708765451
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=913592705208032179

Title page

Every scholarly paper should have a title page. It helps the reader prepare for the reading.

Added notes on the Title page - http://www.wooster.edu/psychology/apa-crib.html#Pages

In-text cites

APA requires in-text cites, most often in this form (Author, Year).APA requires page numbers in this form (Author, Year, #).The absence of in-text cites indicates to the reader that all the words used in the paper indicated original or common thought and were the original words from the author.

Added notes on in-text cites - http://www.wooster.edu/psychology/apa-crib.html#Intext

References page

APA requires a references page (not one entitled “Works Cited” or “Bibliography”). Unless otherwise noted, there is no natural minimum for references, but many of the best papers have, on average, 5-6 references per page. Most average papers have at least one reference per page. A few more references than the average would be beneficial.

References in APA format should be listed alphabetically, in order of the authors’ last name. Note that your references should not include the textbook, never a dictionary or encyclopedia like Wikipedia, and should be more scholarly than those found in Google. Textbooks are not a good reference, but they can be a source for references. Wikipedia (or any encyclopedia) is not considered a scholarly reference at the college level.

Added notes on references - http://www.wooster.edu/psychology/apa-crib.html#References

There is a video available at
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1130889091708765451
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0l9Mjn751Jw&feature=related

Plagiarism

Plagiarism is cheating. Many scholarly papers include a significant amount of others’ research, but they cite (give credit to) the originator. I don’t expect Graduate-level rhetoric in your papers – if I see it I may be suspicious.

Plagiarism includes copying directly from a website, a book, another student’s paper, or any other writing without giving appropriate credit. Many people work harder on making copied material look “good” than they would have if they had just written their own material. If you haven’t already spent time learning both APA format and looking up journal articles in the online library, please go there now. It is imperative to successfully completing this class, and this program.

Added notes on plagiarism - http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/589/01/

Writing style

Work to improve the quality of your writing by reviewing numerous scholarly journals for the form, content, and writing style needed in this academic discipline.

Access to Scholarly references

If you are taking an online college class, you have access to an online library that few outside the University have access to. Please consider taking advantage of this access as you write your papers. Unlike news articles, websites, and online encyclopedias, the articles published in scholarly peer-reviewed journals are subject to critique by a variety of the author’s peers. For the purpose of academic integrity, you should take advantage of these articles when possible.

There is a video available at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vu7Mpk16TEQ&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubyAaORxpAA&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmM10mahvpU&feature=related

For further reading, please consult:
http://www.wooster.edu/psychology/apa-crib.html

So I was minding my own business, and I happened across a term that conjured up thoughts of stature-challenged horse-riders competing for first place.  I had never heard of Google-Jockeys before (thanks Educause).  It makes me wonder how hard it would be to do in a live (synchronous) online class . . ..

“A Google jockey is a participant in a presentation or class who surfs the Internet for terms, ideas, Web sites, or resources mentioned by the presenter or related to the topic. The jockey’s searches are displayed simultaneously with the presentation, helping to clarify the main topic and extend learning opportunities.”

More at 7 Things You Should Know About Google Jockeying.

docendo discimus

In a recent class we were discussing this topic and a student observed that copying someone’s stuff was not at all uncommon in their facet of the CJ profession (the real world). In a three week period, I’ve been in a similar conversation with professionals in three separate (though related) fields, regarding writing various proposals and preparing presentations. I’ve also been told that students in criminal justice ethics are dabbling in this heinous act . . .
I was listening to a podcast from EdTechTalk yesterday and one of the guys observed that this generation of students “raised on the Internet” find nothing wrong with turning in the work of another as their own.They cited a BBC article (linked).  There’s a brilliant observation that I won’t copy here so as not to be considered a plagiarist :-).

I am one of many professors located both in online and face-to-face classrooms that feel “The era of cut-and-paste requires our vigilance” (linked) . . . more at Chronicle.com.

My concerns are many, but initially I am wondering . . . if I don’t give credit where credit is due, what legitimacy am I providing for what I say?

There’s a (semi-humorous) saying that’s been used in the speaking circles that goes something like this: If I like what you said I’ll repeat it and give you complete credit the first time. The second time I use it, I’ll preface my comment with “I heard somewhere.” By the third time I saw it, all the audience will hear is “I’ve always said.”

How’s that for originality?

I don’t recall where I first (or last) heard this, but I was able to find someone else who heard it too (It appears I am already between the first and second position).  Check out #5 of the rules to live by on Spike’s Blogspot (linked).

Have you ever heard of “docendo discimus?” You’ll see it on the bottom of many of my (original) emails. I have used a “tagline” on my email “signature” for many years. It represents, in a few short words, what message you hope to convey to the recipient (and anyone who receives your message as forwarded by other readers). I have had several taglines, to include “if you are not part of the solution, then you are part of the problem” and a quote from Seneca that I found while reading the General’s Daughter . . . but that one escapes me.

Back to my current tagline and why I entitled this “branding.”

I was in correspondence with a well-known CJ author, and noticed on his email he had “.” Not wanting to miss out on an opportunity to converse, I Googled it, and found it means “.” I thought about the learning process I had just gone through, and realized that it crossed many disciplines, including psychology, marketing, and even Latin studies.

I then went searching for my own Latin phrase.

I enjoy teaching, and my teaching style and philosophy was catalyzed during an evening college class I was taking during my quest for a Bachelor of Science degree.  Without solicitation, the Professor told the class, “If you come to class and do your work, you will receive a C.  If you try really hard, you will receive a B or a D.  I don’t give A’s or F’s.” 
At the time I was not interested in devoting the time necessary to receive an A in the class.  I was, however, intrigued – if not challenged – by his comment.  I approached the Professor after the class session that night and asked what was required to receive an A in one of his classes.  He responded that in order to receive an A, one must “come prepared to teach.” 
Applying that philosophy as a student, I subsequently received several As in his classes, but the thought-process I received was of much greater significance than my GPA.  When the teacher and the students “come prepared to teach,” the level of discussion is raised.  I encourage you to apply this philosophy.  Try it for a week, or two, or three.  I realize it’s “different,” but I assure you that your “educational experience” will never be the same.
(Mock)

I happened across docendo discimus (do-”ken-dO-’dis-ki”mus), which means “we learn by teaching.”
I call it a “brand” because it serves the same purpose. In the business world, a brand is used to define you, do provide a visual and intellectual reminder of your calling – what you do.
All I need now is a logo.

Carter

(docendo discimus)

I wanted to share a nugget that I have been thinking about recently.

Dr. Stephen Covey (see the 8th Habit) often quotes Viktor E. Frankl . . .

He was a survivor of the Holocaust and authored “Man’s Search For Meaning”

Frankl said . . . “Between stimulus and response there is a space. In that space is our power to choose our response. In our response lies our growth and our freedom.”

More on Frankl at http://www.meaning.ca/meaning_therapy/viktor_frankl.html

In “The Adult Learner,” Knowles identified the root of Pedagogy as “paid” (child) and “agogus” (leader of), and combined the two to mean the “art and science of leading children.”  That tells me that Andragogy is the “art and science of leading adults.”

Since I’m studying this topic in the context of the Criminal Justice profession, I’m thinking we should be looking at the “art and science of leading adults in Criminal Justice.”

Knowles’ definition shows the strong link between leading and learning.  Knowles is known (by me, anyway) as the “father” of modern andragogy.

So, what’s the difference between andragogy and pedagogy?

My first exposure to pedagogy was with a CJ textbook author, with whom I was discussing using a text he had compiled for a basic terrorism understanding course I was putting together.  He said, “Good luck with the course — I would be very interested to hear about your pedagogy and how your class responds.”

I honestly had to look up the meaning of pedagogy.  That led me to the study of andragogy, which I quickly learned was the foundation of my teaching style. 

Here’s the essence . . .

Pedagogy says that the role of the teacher should *NOT* be primarily one of facilitating learning.  There is an assumption that the fundamental system of educational design requires that teachers approach design of instruction as interacting elements not as a sequence of events. 

So what’s the difference between interacting elements and a sequence of events?

I am reading “Human Learning,” by Peter Jarvis.  He describes the optimal “zone” in which adults learn as “disjuncture” — when time seems to stop . . .when our biographical repertoire is no longer sufficient to cope automatically with our situation . . . where we have a tension with our environment.

Been “organizing” my day lately, closed out a few classes (tests, paper grading, etc.) and building on my margin (see McClusky’s theory of margin).  I’m in a dilemma regarding my move toward higher ed.  I am scheduled to attend a doctoral program in a couple weeks, but some of the parameters changed.  In any case, I’ll be focusing on increasing my understanding of adult education and the way it applies to the study of criminal justice.

McCluskey’s theory defines margin as the ratio between “load” and “power”. The “load” of life is the various demands of livelihood, and the “power” is the resources one has for tackling the load. The merit of this theory is to focus our attention on the barriers and the support relevant to adult learning.

Simply put, it’s the amount of energy you have less (minus) the amount of energy-draining things in your life.

References

Long, H. (1983) Adult Learning: Research and Practice. Cambridge, MA: Adult Education Company

Opened the accounts - been meaning to for a while. I have tons of stuff going on (not shocking) but that should slow in the next couple days — at least for a couple weeks.

I’m in the organization process - my main site is at carterfsmith.com