I know I haven't blogged for a while. Partly it is because I have been busy participating in commencement (it's official, I'm a Dr. and I have a picture to show for it), partly its family responsibilities (I AM in the sandwich generation), but mostly its because I'm working on some very interesting projects.
The first is a blog I have started with my sister, a 50 something who I convinced should learn more about social media. With this in mind we have started a blog in which she posts questions as she navigates the ins and outs of social media (getting stuck, confused, and otherwise frustrated) and I try to answer her questions.
The second is part of a program I was chosen for through my university: the flipped classroom. Honestly, one of the main reasons I applied for the program was to get an ipad I could use for my classes and figure out the technology my students all seem have at their fingers tips. This was a smart move on the part of our Leaning and Instruction Center to get us into the door.
The fact is, I wasn't sure I'd be accepted for the program. After reading through the information and watching the videos they sent us about the "flipped classroom" movement (see below for those resources), I wasn't sure I'd be able to change my class much since my current teaching approach (based on experiential learning theories)seemed to "flip" the class so students had a lot of control over their learning. However, as I discussed "flipped learning" and read some of the background information on it, I realized there was a key weakness in one of my classes especially.
For the last 3 years, I have been having an increasing difficulty in getting students to link what we do in class to the assigned readings. Now granted, some of this is students not doing the assigned work. However, many times I would see the frustration of my best students who would look at me blankly when I asked them to link the reading concepts to class activities. I could see in their body language the question: Why are you here? Aren't YOU going to tell us what is important? Why aren't you teaching us? What do you mean there is no right or wrong answer???? What are we PAYING YOU FOR? HOW ARE WE SUPPOSED TO KNOW THIS IF YOU DON'T TEACH US !!!!!!????
I don't blame the students for being unable to make the links, but rather have identified the problem as years of education where testing for the "correct answer" has been drummed into them. The results of this type of teaching is that students are afraid to take risks (they get it wrong, they fail) with their learning; they are unable to develop hypotheses and/or are not confident in their own abilities to draw their own conclusions; and they look to resources and teachers to tell them how to interpret information. Many of my students just had never had their critical thinking, critical reading, and problem solving skills developed so they were able to make the links between the reading and active learning activities.
So my goal for this semester is to:
1) Develop my skills in teaching them critical thinking, problem solving, and critical reading
2) Make the links I make between the activities and reading more transparent, so my students learn to make those links also
3) Rework my syllabus and class activities so students feel safe in making mistakes, yet learn from the activities and apply assigned reading concepts to those activities.
To do this, the learning team I am working with has suggested I use clickers (helps focus reading and promote discussion around questions), video recordings to summarize the most important concepts (or fill in spaces of understanding) from the reading, and (my idea) use the video recording capacity of the ipad to record specific examples from class activities, that the class can then review and critique.
Hopefully, throughout the semester, I'll be able to blog about the process. Already I'm working on writing objective questions that will provoke discussion. I also have gained a better insight into the tone of a syllabus and how it can empower students (or take away their choices, and therefore responsibility, for learning).
References:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBYrKPoVFwg
http://www.ted.com/talks/salman_khan_let_s_use_video_to_reinvent_education.html
http://www.thedailyriff.com/articles/the-flipped-class-conversation-689.php)
Showing posts with label educational theory. Show all posts
Showing posts with label educational theory. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 23, 2013
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Are there differences in learning at different educational levels?
I have addressed this issue in the past in which I find many people at different educational levels (primary, secondary, higher ed, adult/training) differentiate the learning at different levels. What I always find interesting is that K-12 teachers discount me because of my limited experience in formal primary and secondary schools (although I have extensive experience in informal learning at these levels) and training professionals discount much of what I say as not being relevant for the workplace (despite the fact I my first 5 years of teaching was at the corporate level).
Recently, I commented on another blog in which many of the blog basically discounted what I had to say because they labeled me an "educator" rather than a "trainer". One person commented that because I used "student" instead of trainee, that I really was speaking from the traditional "education" sector (as if this were different than corporate training). This has been bothering me for a while and I finally tried to reflect on what the differences might be.
In my experience (informal education at the k-12, formal education in higher ed, and formal and informal education at the organizational level) basic learning concepts are the same. I try to be student centered, while at the same time maintaining a "teaching presence" and being aware of the technology, social and cognitive presence of the content and learning environment (Garrison and Anderson, 2003). I feel Garrison and Anderson's model is universal in today's learning, regardless of mode of delivery, content, or level of education (even though the model was developed for elearning).
HOW a teacher, instructor, or trainer makes their presence known and the amount of support a student or trainee might need in learning IS dependent on the level of knowledge the student/trainee already possesses about the topic/content, their motivation in learning, the amount of time they have to learn something, how they will be assessed in their learning, and their expectations for instruction.
For example, my daughter goes to a school that is based on experiential and cooperative learning methods. Most of the students who go to the school come from traditional educational environments. It takes the students about half a year to become familiar with these methods. By sophomore year, they need less direct teacher instruction, and thus less teacher presence. However, newer teachers have difficulty balancing student need with teacher instruction. It takes a new sophomore or junior level instructor about half a year before they become comfortable allowing students to come to them. This, in fact is no different than a trainer understanding when to direct trainees and when to react to their questions.
Suddenly, as I began to work through this difficulty I had with different levels of education thinking that they are different in their approach to teaching, I realized that the 21st century needs a new model that will follow through all levels of education. I saw a model on a blog this year (I can't remember whose or where it was...let me know if you have the post so I can bookmark it!) that was a grid of formal and informal learning and on the other axis, the level of complexity of the content. The intersection resulted in different categories of learning objects. I could see this adapted so that there were different categories of syllabi or curricula based on the level of formality of the learning and the complexity of the content.
All of this points to me the need to train teachers and trainers in the art of developing a flexible curriculum and syllabus. My point in the comment in which the trainers did not like what I posted was that sometimes there needs to be a more rigid structure for training (i.e. to comply with professional laws, such as CPA's, healthcare providers, or lawyers) and other times there can be more flexibility. However, there should always be structure. Just like an open amphitheater can deliver the same service as a music hall or arena (a venue for concerts for example), to do so there has to be some structure (seating area, performance area, acoustics). But definitely it's structure is much more open and less formal than the other two venues, so some concerts will have different "feeling" in an amphitheater than in a small concert hall or a large arena . Likewise, the "feeling" of learning will differ with different learning structures.
Resource: Garrison, D., & Anderson, T. (2003) . E-learning in the 21st Century. London: RoutledgeFarmer
Recently, I commented on another blog in which many of the blog basically discounted what I had to say because they labeled me an "educator" rather than a "trainer". One person commented that because I used "student" instead of trainee, that I really was speaking from the traditional "education" sector (as if this were different than corporate training). This has been bothering me for a while and I finally tried to reflect on what the differences might be.
In my experience (informal education at the k-12, formal education in higher ed, and formal and informal education at the organizational level) basic learning concepts are the same. I try to be student centered, while at the same time maintaining a "teaching presence" and being aware of the technology, social and cognitive presence of the content and learning environment (Garrison and Anderson, 2003). I feel Garrison and Anderson's model is universal in today's learning, regardless of mode of delivery, content, or level of education (even though the model was developed for elearning).
HOW a teacher, instructor, or trainer makes their presence known and the amount of support a student or trainee might need in learning IS dependent on the level of knowledge the student/trainee already possesses about the topic/content, their motivation in learning, the amount of time they have to learn something, how they will be assessed in their learning, and their expectations for instruction.
For example, my daughter goes to a school that is based on experiential and cooperative learning methods. Most of the students who go to the school come from traditional educational environments. It takes the students about half a year to become familiar with these methods. By sophomore year, they need less direct teacher instruction, and thus less teacher presence. However, newer teachers have difficulty balancing student need with teacher instruction. It takes a new sophomore or junior level instructor about half a year before they become comfortable allowing students to come to them. This, in fact is no different than a trainer understanding when to direct trainees and when to react to their questions.
Suddenly, as I began to work through this difficulty I had with different levels of education thinking that they are different in their approach to teaching, I realized that the 21st century needs a new model that will follow through all levels of education. I saw a model on a blog this year (I can't remember whose or where it was...let me know if you have the post so I can bookmark it!) that was a grid of formal and informal learning and on the other axis, the level of complexity of the content. The intersection resulted in different categories of learning objects. I could see this adapted so that there were different categories of syllabi or curricula based on the level of formality of the learning and the complexity of the content.
All of this points to me the need to train teachers and trainers in the art of developing a flexible curriculum and syllabus. My point in the comment in which the trainers did not like what I posted was that sometimes there needs to be a more rigid structure for training (i.e. to comply with professional laws, such as CPA's, healthcare providers, or lawyers) and other times there can be more flexibility. However, there should always be structure. Just like an open amphitheater can deliver the same service as a music hall or arena (a venue for concerts for example), to do so there has to be some structure (seating area, performance area, acoustics). But definitely it's structure is much more open and less formal than the other two venues, so some concerts will have different "feeling" in an amphitheater than in a small concert hall or a large arena . Likewise, the "feeling" of learning will differ with different learning structures.
Resource: Garrison, D., & Anderson, T. (2003) . E-learning in the 21st Century. London: RoutledgeFarmer
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)