Is teaching an art or a science?
Yes.
I borrow this sort of response from my husband, who is fond of answering non-yes/no questions with a yes or a no, much to my dissatisfaction. While sometimes he just doesn't want to commit, this can also mean that both are true. And in this case, yes, teaching can be an art, a talent someone inherently has (although like most talents it still needs development through practice) but it can also be something learned through a process, like a science.
To put it another way, some people are naturally better teachers, whether due to personality or natural ability to communicate ideas. However, much about becoming a better teacher is scientific, in that there should be a rational process followed (in order to establish goals and determine the best way to achieve those goals) and testing and retesting is needed. In this way, a person with natural aptitude can get better and one without the talent can be good.
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Collaborative learning and teaching
What is the role of collaboration in understanding? And if it helps increase understandings and knowledge then what is the responsibility, and how do we build in collaboration in learning particularly in virtual environments? And if it helps in learning, how can it help in teaching?
While a social constructionist perspective definitely sees understanding as coming from a shared social space, most of us probably have anecdotal support for the role of collaboration in understanding, whether it be through the exposure to different perspectives from one's own or the requirement to articulate a view to others; this is also often a iterative process, allowing all parties to come to new understandings. An obvious example of this would be this blogging assignment: not only do I understand the concept better as I explain myself, but I also benefit from reading and commenting on my group's blogs as well as their comments on this one.
If we see learning as coming to a new understanding, then learning could certainly be assisted via collaboration. In an online learning environment, this collaboration is often not as easy to come by in a f2f class, especially a f2f class that has a student participation component, as they often do. As a result, it becomes even more important for an online teacher to build in collaboration in order to expose students to more views and facilitate social reflection.
Often overlooked is the importance of collaboration in teaching. As an adjunct who goes from school to school and often does not see other English instructors unless I go out of my way to seek them, I have a distinct understanding of how lack of collaboration hurts teaching. I have often had the feeling of trying to reinvent the wheel, knowing that someone has probably figured out a better approach or what to do in a situation. From the perspective of a librarian in a school setting, teaching goals are similar if not exactly aligned with the instructor's, so collaboration makes perfect sense. (For instance, how many college classes have essays that require source use? That's information literacy.) Additionally, what a librarian teaches will "stick" better if the student can tie it directly to other course work (i.e., transfer) and collaboration helps ensure this.
While a social constructionist perspective definitely sees understanding as coming from a shared social space, most of us probably have anecdotal support for the role of collaboration in understanding, whether it be through the exposure to different perspectives from one's own or the requirement to articulate a view to others; this is also often a iterative process, allowing all parties to come to new understandings. An obvious example of this would be this blogging assignment: not only do I understand the concept better as I explain myself, but I also benefit from reading and commenting on my group's blogs as well as their comments on this one.
If we see learning as coming to a new understanding, then learning could certainly be assisted via collaboration. In an online learning environment, this collaboration is often not as easy to come by in a f2f class, especially a f2f class that has a student participation component, as they often do. As a result, it becomes even more important for an online teacher to build in collaboration in order to expose students to more views and facilitate social reflection.
Often overlooked is the importance of collaboration in teaching. As an adjunct who goes from school to school and often does not see other English instructors unless I go out of my way to seek them, I have a distinct understanding of how lack of collaboration hurts teaching. I have often had the feeling of trying to reinvent the wheel, knowing that someone has probably figured out a better approach or what to do in a situation. From the perspective of a librarian in a school setting, teaching goals are similar if not exactly aligned with the instructor's, so collaboration makes perfect sense. (For instance, how many college classes have essays that require source use? That's information literacy.) Additionally, what a librarian teaches will "stick" better if the student can tie it directly to other course work (i.e., transfer) and collaboration helps ensure this.
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Online v. F2F
In what ways is online learning qualitatively different than face to face learning?
Certainly the largest difference between the two is that in online learning all interaction is mediated through a computer instead of "face to face." Because of this, interaction online is often asynchronous. Thus, online learning poses more challenges in facilliatating interaction between students and teachers and students and other students. Online learning becomes a more individual activity as students need to find the time for a class that is often spread over the week instead of meeting at designated times. Feedback is easily delayed in online classes. However, for a student who prefers to think before speaking, online classes can better suit communication style, with their use of discussion boards and email messaging versus the F2F classroom discussion. Also, this format can facillitate questions from students to instructors, especially from students who are shy; however, some students would be less likely to ask questions in this form. Verbal feedback is easier in F2F classes and it can be easier to avoid misunderstandings - however, this is certainly not guarenteed. At any rate, confusions or misunderstandings take longer to resolve online. In all, online learning takes more effort to create social learning; however, because of this, the social learning that does happen is probably more focused.
Certainly the largest difference between the two is that in online learning all interaction is mediated through a computer instead of "face to face." Because of this, interaction online is often asynchronous. Thus, online learning poses more challenges in facilliatating interaction between students and teachers and students and other students. Online learning becomes a more individual activity as students need to find the time for a class that is often spread over the week instead of meeting at designated times. Feedback is easily delayed in online classes. However, for a student who prefers to think before speaking, online classes can better suit communication style, with their use of discussion boards and email messaging versus the F2F classroom discussion. Also, this format can facillitate questions from students to instructors, especially from students who are shy; however, some students would be less likely to ask questions in this form. Verbal feedback is easier in F2F classes and it can be easier to avoid misunderstandings - however, this is certainly not guarenteed. At any rate, confusions or misunderstandings take longer to resolve online. In all, online learning takes more effort to create social learning; however, because of this, the social learning that does happen is probably more focused.
Saturday, October 30, 2010
Assessment and Learning
What is the role of assessment in learning? Is assessment a tool for the teacher or student? How can assessment be both?
Assessment is probably more commonly seen as a tool for teachers to gauge how much or how well students are learning, and in it's formal form, as a graded test of some sort. However, unfortunately these sorts of assessments, at least partially, often gauge how well students are at taking assessments, or they test the memorization skills of a student. I think most "good" students (as determined by gpa) have had the experience of excelling on a test only to forget what was "learned" soon after. In Understanding by Design, Wiggins and McTighe point out that often this sort of assessment is done because it is the easiest for teachers to evaluate or grade; and this is not only in terms of time (and how jealous am I of the instructors who can use the scantron machine? Very), but also because of the built in objectivity in evaluating these assessments (and hence justifiability in grade assignment). However, if well thought out, Wiggins and McTighe show how assessment can be a more reliable predictor of learning.
Less considered is how informal assessment can also be a tool for an instructor. This could be informal surveys of students, feedback gotten during discussions, small writing assignments...as more focused and less high pressure than formal assessments, these have the potential to be a very specific tool for teachers to see where students are and then be able to tailor future content accordingly. Also, students assessment can also help teachers assess their own teaching approaches.
Perhaps the least concentrated on is how assessment is also (or at least should be) a tool for students. Quizzes that lead to a larger exam, small writing assignments that build up to a long research paper, a short survey on what the most important thing learned in today's class and asking the student for one question that remains, a pretest - all of these can be tools for students to gauge their own progress, to see their strengths and weaknesses and help them determine how far they've come and what they need to work on. These assessments can also reinforce learning and especially transfer by asking students to reflect.
One problem, I think, is that students don't see assessment as a tool for them; too often assessment seems more a hoop to jump through, with a good grade as the prize. Also, as Wiggins and McTighe rightfully point out, students are often unwilling to work harder than they "have" to. The key seems to be developing assessments that either "force" students to see learning as a tool for them, too (perhaps by having a sequence of assessments that build upon each other or making reflection part of the grade), or assessments that are super engaging to students, hence triggering their internal motivation. The most effective assessments would do both of these, although the former is certainly easier to do on a predictable basis. (Making engaging assessments is even more challenging than creating engaging learning activities, and in either case what seems like it would be engaging can easily not be for a number of reasons.)
As an instructor, I need to work on my use of informal assessment, especially those that increase student reflection. I've known this for a while, so why isn't it a bigger part of my course? I suppose in a way I fall prey to what Understanding by Design calls coverage, although not quite as bad as a course that has to cover certain topics or years of history. However, once I plan in enough writing assignments to both practice the skills in the students learning outcomes (a bit of background design now built in to colleges who want to keep their accreditation) and complete "6,000 words of graded writing" (the course description for the transfer-level comp class) I feel pretty overwhelmed in terms of what needs to be done during class time and what I can do in terms of prep and extra review in the time I am not spent grading or at least commenting on 50-100 essays every week. I do incorporate informal reflection some, though - having students reflect on each paper they submit, for example - and while I find it helpful, I am frankly not sure it is a tool for them, as well. It can serve to show me what we need to work on more or what activity I should do differently the next time I teach the class. (I have mixed feelings about this latter role - while teaching is widely seen as something you are continuously working on, I hate the feeling of "practicing" on any given class. Sometimes I avoid asking for student feedback when I already know it didn't go great just because I hate being reminded that I have failed a particular class. That is not exactly a hallmark of good teaching.)
Assessment is probably more commonly seen as a tool for teachers to gauge how much or how well students are learning, and in it's formal form, as a graded test of some sort. However, unfortunately these sorts of assessments, at least partially, often gauge how well students are at taking assessments, or they test the memorization skills of a student. I think most "good" students (as determined by gpa) have had the experience of excelling on a test only to forget what was "learned" soon after. In Understanding by Design, Wiggins and McTighe point out that often this sort of assessment is done because it is the easiest for teachers to evaluate or grade; and this is not only in terms of time (and how jealous am I of the instructors who can use the scantron machine? Very), but also because of the built in objectivity in evaluating these assessments (and hence justifiability in grade assignment). However, if well thought out, Wiggins and McTighe show how assessment can be a more reliable predictor of learning.
Less considered is how informal assessment can also be a tool for an instructor. This could be informal surveys of students, feedback gotten during discussions, small writing assignments...as more focused and less high pressure than formal assessments, these have the potential to be a very specific tool for teachers to see where students are and then be able to tailor future content accordingly. Also, students assessment can also help teachers assess their own teaching approaches.
Perhaps the least concentrated on is how assessment is also (or at least should be) a tool for students. Quizzes that lead to a larger exam, small writing assignments that build up to a long research paper, a short survey on what the most important thing learned in today's class and asking the student for one question that remains, a pretest - all of these can be tools for students to gauge their own progress, to see their strengths and weaknesses and help them determine how far they've come and what they need to work on. These assessments can also reinforce learning and especially transfer by asking students to reflect.
One problem, I think, is that students don't see assessment as a tool for them; too often assessment seems more a hoop to jump through, with a good grade as the prize. Also, as Wiggins and McTighe rightfully point out, students are often unwilling to work harder than they "have" to. The key seems to be developing assessments that either "force" students to see learning as a tool for them, too (perhaps by having a sequence of assessments that build upon each other or making reflection part of the grade), or assessments that are super engaging to students, hence triggering their internal motivation. The most effective assessments would do both of these, although the former is certainly easier to do on a predictable basis. (Making engaging assessments is even more challenging than creating engaging learning activities, and in either case what seems like it would be engaging can easily not be for a number of reasons.)
As an instructor, I need to work on my use of informal assessment, especially those that increase student reflection. I've known this for a while, so why isn't it a bigger part of my course? I suppose in a way I fall prey to what Understanding by Design calls coverage, although not quite as bad as a course that has to cover certain topics or years of history. However, once I plan in enough writing assignments to both practice the skills in the students learning outcomes (a bit of background design now built in to colleges who want to keep their accreditation) and complete "6,000 words of graded writing" (the course description for the transfer-level comp class) I feel pretty overwhelmed in terms of what needs to be done during class time and what I can do in terms of prep and extra review in the time I am not spent grading or at least commenting on 50-100 essays every week. I do incorporate informal reflection some, though - having students reflect on each paper they submit, for example - and while I find it helpful, I am frankly not sure it is a tool for them, as well. It can serve to show me what we need to work on more or what activity I should do differently the next time I teach the class. (I have mixed feelings about this latter role - while teaching is widely seen as something you are continuously working on, I hate the feeling of "practicing" on any given class. Sometimes I avoid asking for student feedback when I already know it didn't go great just because I hate being reminded that I have failed a particular class. That is not exactly a hallmark of good teaching.)
Friday, October 15, 2010
What is information?
Information overload is the popular conception of information, especially with the internet and the 24-hour news cycle. Information is something we are "bombarded" with: news reports, radio programs, billboards, magazine articles, facts, statistics, stuff on websites - type information into Google and you'll get "About 2,640,000,000 results." However, the popular conception of information is still pretty text-based, narrower than that of information theorists like Christine Bruce, who defines information as "anything we experience as informing" (p. 5, Informed Learning). This view of information is contextual and can include stuff with words but also visuals we wouldn't usually think of. For example, fire contains information for a fireman, as does the body language of his colleagues.
Certainly the conception of information in academia is largely text based, composed of figures and numbers and primary sources - things you can look up in books and electronic databases and possibly verify. The ACRL information literacy standards illustrate this emphasis. Multimedia forms are included, but information is still something that can be fact-checked.
Nonetheless, the traditional views of information and the broader view a la Informed Learning both boil down to two important parts of information literacy - knowing how to get useful information and knowing how to use the information you get.
Of course this begs other questions: Where do we go to find information? How do we go about looking for it How do we recognize useful information when we find it? Or in other words, how do we evaluate the information we find? How do we understand or conceptualize the information? How do we integrate the information into our work? It is these questions that the information literacy standards attempt to address, in a general way that speaks to a specific discipline - academia. Thus the emphasis on more scholarly sources, electronic retrieval of information, and intellectual property.
This expanded definition hasn't so much changed my view of information literacy as much as it has made explicit what I would have implicitly agreed with - it's all about context. However, it further emphasizes the need to have some methods of interfacing with information in a critical way that facilitates evaluation and reflection.
Certainly the conception of information in academia is largely text based, composed of figures and numbers and primary sources - things you can look up in books and electronic databases and possibly verify. The ACRL information literacy standards illustrate this emphasis. Multimedia forms are included, but information is still something that can be fact-checked.
Nonetheless, the traditional views of information and the broader view a la Informed Learning both boil down to two important parts of information literacy - knowing how to get useful information and knowing how to use the information you get.
Of course this begs other questions: Where do we go to find information? How do we go about looking for it How do we recognize useful information when we find it? Or in other words, how do we evaluate the information we find? How do we understand or conceptualize the information? How do we integrate the information into our work? It is these questions that the information literacy standards attempt to address, in a general way that speaks to a specific discipline - academia. Thus the emphasis on more scholarly sources, electronic retrieval of information, and intellectual property.
This expanded definition hasn't so much changed my view of information literacy as much as it has made explicit what I would have implicitly agreed with - it's all about context. However, it further emphasizes the need to have some methods of interfacing with information in a critical way that facilitates evaluation and reflection.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
What is information literacy?
Many (but not by any means all - I teach community college) of my younger students are computer literate, but not information literate. They can use Google or Wikipedia; but how well are they using them? Let me put it this way - whenever I catch anyone plagiarizing, it's usually from a web page in the first page or two of the Google search results.
That is so not information literacy.
According to the ACRL, "Information literacy is a set of abilities requiring individuals to 'recognize when information is needed and have the ability to locate, evaluate, and use effectively the needed information.'" The ACRL has defined 5 standards that indicate information literacy, and they pretty closely align with my understanding as someone who is unofficially paid to teach information literacy under the guise of a college composition course: know when you need information, know how to go about seeking it (e.g., Google versus the library, how to do effective searches), be able to recognize "good" information (i.e., critical reading), use the information in an effective way once it's found, and use other people's ideas ethically (i.e., don't plagiarize).
Let me interject here that this is harder than it seems.
The final project for my freshman composition classes, an argument or analysis paper that is informed by outside sources have outcomes (which are given to me) that look a bit like the above standards. This usually requires hitting the easy button by telling them they need X amount of sources, half of which must be "library" sources (and we discuss the whys and hows of that, which includes what even I must admit is a terribly boring orientation - and I like this stuff! - at the library to the catalog, databases, and internet with tips that the students seem to mostly forget. I've tried requesting a short, database only version for this Monday, so let's see how that goes.) I require these "library" sources (argh, I can't call them non-internet because practically the whole library collection is digital and accessible online) or else from some students I will get a bunch of stuff no doubt found in the first 2 pages of Google. However, I do let them use internet sources - but they have to be "credible." This is a concept we (try to) explore at length (the critical reading component), and admit that I am pretty happy if they can at least halfway look critically at a source.
This would be a noble goal alone in a semester, but I am also supposed to get them to know when they need outside information (again, by force of assignment combined with models in our readings, usually a discussion focused on argument - but since I think many are happy sticking with their already-formed ideas, I'm not so sure this "sticks"), how to not plagiarize (integration and citation practice with some explanation of why and a dash of turnitin.com), and how to use that information effectively. This last one is tough. Humans are good at the quick categorization into the "I agree" and "I disagree" files.
Oh, and I'm also supposed to be teaching them how to write an effective college essay.
All in all it is hard for me to say I am doing any of this well. I can measure types of sources and how well sources are integrated and cited easily, but the rest?
The ACRL standards lean heavily towards primary resources and academic scholarship as the information to be sought out. I think that at the freshman level, this can be instructive but is not as helpful as at a more advanced level. Scholars in the field need primary sources and peer-reviewed journal articles. But, really, do my freshmen, beyond a first-hand experience in how primary sources can be interpreted?
The standards also emphasize, somewhat implicitly, database search engines (through the use of advanced search features as an outcome), thus downplaying the role of the internet search engine and its plethera of secondary sources. Considering I, an MLIS student and holder of an MA in English, with 24-hour access to a few college library catalogs and many databases, still go to Google most of the when I need to know something (sometimes even "expert" stuff - thank you internet forums when my computer did _____), this focus is a bit unrealistic. I wish the librarians would spend more time showing my students how to use the internet better.
Intellectual property rights get another spotlight in the standards, which makes sense given the Western, scholarly perspective. Finally, there is much emphasis on technology in general, which is a separate skill (as the ACRL freely admits) but one that has gotten so wrapped up in information retrieval and has really confounded information literacy with the sheer volume of information now available.
That is so not information literacy.
According to the ACRL, "Information literacy is a set of abilities requiring individuals to 'recognize when information is needed and have the ability to locate, evaluate, and use effectively the needed information.'" The ACRL has defined 5 standards that indicate information literacy, and they pretty closely align with my understanding as someone who is unofficially paid to teach information literacy under the guise of a college composition course: know when you need information, know how to go about seeking it (e.g., Google versus the library, how to do effective searches), be able to recognize "good" information (i.e., critical reading), use the information in an effective way once it's found, and use other people's ideas ethically (i.e., don't plagiarize).
Let me interject here that this is harder than it seems.
The final project for my freshman composition classes, an argument or analysis paper that is informed by outside sources have outcomes (which are given to me) that look a bit like the above standards. This usually requires hitting the easy button by telling them they need X amount of sources, half of which must be "library" sources (and we discuss the whys and hows of that, which includes what even I must admit is a terribly boring orientation - and I like this stuff! - at the library to the catalog, databases, and internet with tips that the students seem to mostly forget. I've tried requesting a short, database only version for this Monday, so let's see how that goes.) I require these "library" sources (argh, I can't call them non-internet because practically the whole library collection is digital and accessible online) or else from some students I will get a bunch of stuff no doubt found in the first 2 pages of Google. However, I do let them use internet sources - but they have to be "credible." This is a concept we (try to) explore at length (the critical reading component), and admit that I am pretty happy if they can at least halfway look critically at a source.
This would be a noble goal alone in a semester, but I am also supposed to get them to know when they need outside information (again, by force of assignment combined with models in our readings, usually a discussion focused on argument - but since I think many are happy sticking with their already-formed ideas, I'm not so sure this "sticks"), how to not plagiarize (integration and citation practice with some explanation of why and a dash of turnitin.com), and how to use that information effectively. This last one is tough. Humans are good at the quick categorization into the "I agree" and "I disagree" files.
Oh, and I'm also supposed to be teaching them how to write an effective college essay.
All in all it is hard for me to say I am doing any of this well. I can measure types of sources and how well sources are integrated and cited easily, but the rest?
The ACRL standards lean heavily towards primary resources and academic scholarship as the information to be sought out. I think that at the freshman level, this can be instructive but is not as helpful as at a more advanced level. Scholars in the field need primary sources and peer-reviewed journal articles. But, really, do my freshmen, beyond a first-hand experience in how primary sources can be interpreted?
The standards also emphasize, somewhat implicitly, database search engines (through the use of advanced search features as an outcome), thus downplaying the role of the internet search engine and its plethera of secondary sources. Considering I, an MLIS student and holder of an MA in English, with 24-hour access to a few college library catalogs and many databases, still go to Google most of the when I need to know something (sometimes even "expert" stuff - thank you internet forums when my computer did _____), this focus is a bit unrealistic. I wish the librarians would spend more time showing my students how to use the internet better.
Intellectual property rights get another spotlight in the standards, which makes sense given the Western, scholarly perspective. Finally, there is much emphasis on technology in general, which is a separate skill (as the ACRL freely admits) but one that has gotten so wrapped up in information retrieval and has really confounded information literacy with the sheer volume of information now available.
Learning Theories Infographic via Prezi
My first attempt at either an infographic or Prezi software (which is pretty neat, but time-consuming!).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)