to be a graduate. It’s something I have not experienced since January 1981 when I earned my BS in Economics. I have loved having that degree! It opened doors to professional experiences; but, it also opened my mind. I think that Bachelor’s degrees are great – I know that some folks think community college and trade schools are appropriate for most of us. And some think that it is a bad thing to push 20-somethings into higher education. I disagree, and would argue that we don’t know what we don’t know – so we should not turn away from something we are unable to define.
I certainly never imagined myself being an economist and now I wear that badge proudly. As a sign of the times and of my heritage, I went to college and majored in business because that is what my high school boyfriend was doing. Who knows what path my life would have taken if he had set-sail around the world, moved to Colorado to paint rocks, or whatever. I’m pretty sure I would not have gone to college right out of high school and I am soooo glad I did!
Fast-forward to today, my daughters are women-of-the-world and my two-year academic focus resulted in an MS in Instructional Design and Technology. My goal is to help teachers inject technology into their courses. Not just technology; appropriate technology, that fulfills a specific purpose. My favorite new concept is Community of Learners – I see it as a challenge (and an important aspect of the learning environment) to take a disparate group of learners (perhaps disparate by time and place) and encourage them to form academic relationships wherein they can reflect on their learning, share experiences AND create their own knowledge.
Wow – does that sound like it’s miles away from the sit-still-repeat-after-me and now write-this-exact-thing-on-your-test-paper – - – I hope so. I hope that technology can be our vehicle for personalizing learning; think of it as one-size fits-one. Here’s what it sounds like: “Tell me a bit about you and let’s explore how algebra could fit into your world. You like to cook? Ok, if we have 6 eggs, how many batches of cookies can we make.” etc.
That’s it. Me, the new Master’s Degree graduate. Watch-out world I am passionate and have many tools with which to embrace you.
Where the heck have I been? How could I stay away from my lovely blog for so so long?
Finishing my MS in Instructional Design and Technology at Walden University is probably a good excuse for my absence – but it is still an excuse and I wish I did not have to give an excuse and ask for forgiveness.
Yes – Finishing my MS – hurray! Last bit of work is a Reflection piece due tomorrow at midnight MST (of course I have to wait until the last few hours to submit it, gosh the professor must really hate that, oops).
As I write my Reflections I have come across many many areas I want to explore further so here’s a list (oh goodie! said in my sarcastic voice)
Worthy of Further Exploration
If you Tweet It, They Will Come:Using Twitter to form a professional network 4T VirtualCon: Teachers Teaching Teachers about Technology: Workshop
Presenter: Emily Thompson, Student – University of Michigan School of Information (2011)
Co Presenter: Adrienne Matteson, Student – University of Michigan School of Information (2011).
Tech Plan Strand(s): Teaching: Prepare and Connect & Infrastructure: Access and Enable
Session Description:
Just don’t “get” Twitter? Perhaps you just need some tips on using it more effectively. Dean Groom describes Twitter as an “IV drip of professional development.” We’ll show you how to get the most out of our favorite social networking tool. We’ll cover how to find people to follow; apps that make Twitter better; and answer your questions about what to do after you have the account everyone bugged you to get.
Clark N. Quinn has led the design of award-winning online learning solutions.
Yikes – need fuel, back after a peanut butter sandwich (promise it won’t be a month-long absence)
Yep, I’m talking about the frequently referenced forced-choice scenario which exemplifies how and why we make choices.
Remember? If not, here is an overview:
You and your Partner-in-Crime are captured by the police and put into two different interview rooms and enticed to divulge information that will convict your Partner and set you free.
This table demonstrates the traditional pay-off for the various combination of choice made by you and your Partner:
Your Partner
Cooperate
Compete
You
Cooperate
20 , 20
0 , 30
Compete
30 , 0
10 , 10
I was first introduced to this game in a statistics course for my BS in Economics where it was presented as a lesson on odds-making. It is one of the experiences my 20-year-old brain chose to store in it’s “reflect on this frequently” folder, and I have accessed it often.
The current opportunity for this reflection is the course by Howard Rheingold “Introduction to Cooperation Theory” in which the Prisoner’s Dilemma is presented not as a lesson in odds-making but as a lesson in why folks choose cooperation over competition (and choose competition over cooperation).
The course provided my fellow students and I with the game in three formats:
First format I will call “Opponent Personalities” because I played 5 games against opponents with 5 different personalities or “firms”.
Here is the link to this game, see how your experience matches mine:
One thing I know about myself is that it is in my nature to cooperate even it reduces my personal gain. So in Prisoner’s Dilemma I would always choose to cooperate even though it means forfeiting the large pay-off.
So, when I face Firm 1 in this game I begin with Cooperate and so do they. We hold these positions for the entire game of 25 rounds and end with the same number of points. I find this to be the perfect. Notice that this is quite a sizable penalty for being Cooperative because I could have had 10 extra points each round for a total of 250 additional points; moving my point total from 500 to 750.
A huge downfall to this game
This game does not let me know what portion of my income these points represent. For example, if housing costs 500 points, I really need those 250 additional points for food, clothing, transportation, etc. Would this affect my choice to Cooperate – YES! Would this pressure to get the additional points mean that I would Compete, maybe.
In Prisoner’s Dilemma the bargain is for reducing your sentence, so you could argue that my example of choice being effected by the portion of my income these points represent is similar to the years-added-to-prison-term choice being effected by the portion of my life these years represent (am I old or young at the time of imprisonment), or the value of those years (do I have a young family to raise).
Back to the Opponent Personalities version of Prisoner’s Dilemma
Playing against firm 2
I continue to Cooperate and so does Firm 2 so again, after 25 rounds, we end with 20 point each
Playing against firm 3
Here things begin to get interesting because in round 2 Firm 3 decides to Compete and I do get 30 point to their Zero points but it makes me angry that Firm 3 is Competing, so for the next 3 rounds I Compete also and we each get 10 points. In round 8 Firm 3 Cooperates meaning that they get all 30 points and I get Zero this makes me angry because I thought we could both keep Competing to share the (less but equal) points. Rounds 9 – 25 I keep Competing and so does Firm 3.
Result in average points: Me = 10, Firm 3 = 13.6
Playing against Firm 4
I carry my disappointment from Firm 3 into my game with Firm 4 even though I know that this is a completely new partner.
I am a bit miffed that I earned less in round 3, so I am going to begin this round with the points on my side (30 points to start). Then I go back and forth between Competing and Cooperating, trying to guess how Firm 4 will play so that we both win; but I am really happy when they Cooperate and I compete and receive the 30 point prize.
Result in average points: Me = 20.8, Firm 4 = 6.4 (I am secretly really pleased with this result.)
Playing against Firm 5
I begin again by being (generous) Cooperating, but they Compete, so I change into my Firm 4 strategy. Firm 5 opts for Compete more often than Firm 4 resulting in a more even spread of points, on average.
Result in average points: Me = 9.2, Firm 5 = 11.60
End of game Summary (against all 5 Firms) me 80, them 71.60. Hee Hee Hee, I’m the winner!
Second format played was called “Serendip” here is the link:
Same Prisoner’s Dilemma scenario, close to the same pay-out system. There are two rather important differences between this and the Opponent Personalities format detailed above.
First difference: That the number of rounds played in each game is not fixed (in the previous format there were 25 rounds). The game ends when the “fiendish cyberspace wizard” decides to bring it to an end. This changes the strategy if the player is planning their moves based on average winnings.
Second difference: At the end of the game the “fiendish cyberspace wizard” supplies critique of how I played the game. I was surprised to see how much these textual comments effected my play.
For example:
Game 1
I play my usual “Cooperate and hope that my Partner does the same” and indeed that was the case. The “fiendish cyberspace wizard” ended the game after 18 rounds and said “You might want to try a new strategy”. Of course, I understand the written meaning of “you missed out on bigger gains” and the unwritten message “you are not very smart to choose lesser gains”.
Game 2
I maintain my Cooperate every round, my Partner and I end with the same amount of coins. The “fiendish cyberspace wizard” stops the game after 10 rounds and asks me if I think this is the BEST strategy; repeating that I might want to try a new strategy.
Game 3
I go back and forth between Cooperate and Compete and it ends with the “fiendish cyberspace wizard” saying”not bad, but I’ll bet you can do better”.
Game 4
I notice that my Partner is choosing to Compete a lot so I do too with this resulting critique from the “fiendish cyberspace wizard” saying I won but that I was “flirting with an Inconceivable foul fate”. Pretty harsh coming from a faceless machine!
I understand that the game wanted me to take more risks to obtain possible rewards, but that is not in my nature.
The third format is called Iterated Prisoner’s Dilemma it’s link is:
By this time I was pretty tired of the virtual interview room and trying to out-maneuver my virtual Partner, so my play was a bit dull. This format also critiqued my play at the end of each game. The advice was: “The best possible Mutual Outcome Rating was not achieved.” So, I guess I employed my “Cooperate always” strategy in this format also.
