Is teaching an art or a science? I think this centers around the idea - are there natural teachers? Can you learn to teach? How does one become an effective teacher?
I think of teaching as more of an art. It's a form of individual expression that can be approached and executed in so many different ways. At the same time, I feel there are some scientific elements as well - rubrics, formulas, grading systems, and the like. Also, I think teaching can be "gotten down to a science" in some instances such as when a teacher teaches the same class for many years and really has found a method that works for that particular class in terms of execution and student success.
I do think some people have more of a knack for teaching than others and seem more natural at it. I think people who are considered "natural teachers" are those who have strong interpersonal, empathetic, and listening skills. Having these skills allows them to communicate effectively and to also see students' perspectives about the subject matter at hand. I do think people can learn to teach, but I think it comes more easily to those that have these skills.
Like most professions, becoming an effective teacher takes practice. I also think the willingness to try new ideas and approaches to teaching helps, along with being flexible. Effective teachers seem to be those that can strike the balance between the needs of the class and individuals in the class. There should be individual attention when needed, but not at the expense of the entire class.
Thursday, December 9, 2010
Monday, November 29, 2010
Collaboration
What is the role of collaboration in understanding? This question reveals my social constructivist nature - how much do we build understanding through collaboration, interaction, etc. 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? As librarians we are often collaborators in teaching, so it helps to understand or at least considered its role in teaching and learning.
I like how Wiggens and McTighe break down understanding into six facets - application, empathy, explanation, interpretation, perspective and self-knowledge. I think maybe collaboration makes all of this happen much faster. At the risk of getting myself into trouble, I'm backing up this assertion with something Mary Ann wrote after we completed our group wiki assignments. Although, may of us couldn't see it from our perspective (I couldn't anyhow), she mentioned how impressed she was with the fruits of our labor (yey!) and how we were less likely to get to our level of understanding of instructional pedagogy without group collaboration. Being a student and never having taught, I'm still not totally clear as to how this can be measured, but since she has more experience in teaching, I'm going to take her word for it. I would love to hear your thoughts on this.
In a virtual environment, I feel collaboration is imperative just to keep motivated. Personally, it is almost impossible for me to finish a course online without some kind of interaction. Why? This brings to mind Lave and Wenger's Situated Learning Theory. Learning is a social rather than strictly cognitive process. Although it's possible to learn without much interaction, don't we learn so much more when we do? I imagine it is a reciprocal relationship between students and teachers. To answer the question, "...if [collaboration] helps in learning, how can it help in teaching?", I would argue that teachers are better teachers when collaboration is involved. There is more give and take. In a sense, student and teachers feed off each other and garner mutual understanding.
I like how Wiggens and McTighe break down understanding into six facets - application, empathy, explanation, interpretation, perspective and self-knowledge. I think maybe collaboration makes all of this happen much faster. At the risk of getting myself into trouble, I'm backing up this assertion with something Mary Ann wrote after we completed our group wiki assignments. Although, may of us couldn't see it from our perspective (I couldn't anyhow), she mentioned how impressed she was with the fruits of our labor (yey!) and how we were less likely to get to our level of understanding of instructional pedagogy without group collaboration. Being a student and never having taught, I'm still not totally clear as to how this can be measured, but since she has more experience in teaching, I'm going to take her word for it. I would love to hear your thoughts on this.
In a virtual environment, I feel collaboration is imperative just to keep motivated. Personally, it is almost impossible for me to finish a course online without some kind of interaction. Why? This brings to mind Lave and Wenger's Situated Learning Theory. Learning is a social rather than strictly cognitive process. Although it's possible to learn without much interaction, don't we learn so much more when we do? I imagine it is a reciprocal relationship between students and teachers. To answer the question, "...if [collaboration] helps in learning, how can it help in teaching?", I would argue that teachers are better teachers when collaboration is involved. There is more give and take. In a sense, student and teachers feed off each other and garner mutual understanding.
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
Online v. F2F
In what ways is online learning qualitatively different than face to face learning? In this instance you get to pull on your own experiences as well as the readings, and answer as well as critically contribute to the debate surrounding online learning.
The major qualitative difference that comes to mind regarding the differences between online learning and F2F learning is time to reflect. In an online learning environment, you are given time to formulate thoughts and come up with more refined questions and responses to inquiries via communication channels such as email or a discussion board. Because of this, learners can also comment long after an initial question is posed allowing for more opportunity for engagement. From a teacher's perspective, it seems there is better opportunity to hear everyone out in the class. In a traditional F2F setting, some people are not comfortable speaking out but they may be more likely to voice their opinions, questions and concerns in an online environment.
The major qualitative difference that comes to mind regarding the differences between online learning and F2F learning is time to reflect. In an online learning environment, you are given time to formulate thoughts and come up with more refined questions and responses to inquiries via communication channels such as email or a discussion board. Because of this, learners can also comment long after an initial question is posed allowing for more opportunity for engagement. From a teacher's perspective, it seems there is better opportunity to hear everyone out in the class. In a traditional F2F setting, some people are not comfortable speaking out but they may be more likely to voice their opinions, questions and concerns in an online environment.
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Assessment
What is the role of assessment in learning? Is assessment a tool for the teacher or student? How can assessment be both?
It seems that assessment was really pushed only within the past 2 decades or so. I remember reading somewhere that it really took off in the 90's. Is that true? Hmmm.
I see the role of assessment in learning as a way to measure learning. Rubrics come to mind. In the lesson rewrite assignment we just completed, the original lesson plan contained a rubric that teachers would use to assess student essays. It spelled out what elements an advanced essay contained, what a proficient essay contained and what a basic essay contained. Other grading rubrics might be something like, if a student gets 5 out of 5, that's an A, 4 out 5, B, 3 out of 5 C, etc.
Assessment is a tool for both the teacher and the student. When the teacher assesses student learning, they can (hopefully) see if the students are actually "getting" what they are trying to get across when they teach. Whether the students are gaining knowledge or understanding requires different assessment tools, I imagine. For instance, out UbD text talks about "authentic" assessment for student understanding as opposed to mere knowledge gain.
It is a tool for students in that students can see if they are really learning what is being taught. This probably goes without saying, but I think assessment is more valuable to a student in the form of an evaluation as opposed to just giving out a grade. Students learn more about their own learning when a written evaluation is provided. Assessment of teachers by students also comes to mind in the form of surveys, such as good ol' SOTEs.
It seems that assessment was really pushed only within the past 2 decades or so. I remember reading somewhere that it really took off in the 90's. Is that true? Hmmm.
I see the role of assessment in learning as a way to measure learning. Rubrics come to mind. In the lesson rewrite assignment we just completed, the original lesson plan contained a rubric that teachers would use to assess student essays. It spelled out what elements an advanced essay contained, what a proficient essay contained and what a basic essay contained. Other grading rubrics might be something like, if a student gets 5 out of 5, that's an A, 4 out 5, B, 3 out of 5 C, etc.
Assessment is a tool for both the teacher and the student. When the teacher assesses student learning, they can (hopefully) see if the students are actually "getting" what they are trying to get across when they teach. Whether the students are gaining knowledge or understanding requires different assessment tools, I imagine. For instance, out UbD text talks about "authentic" assessment for student understanding as opposed to mere knowledge gain.
It is a tool for students in that students can see if they are really learning what is being taught. This probably goes without saying, but I think assessment is more valuable to a student in the form of an evaluation as opposed to just giving out a grade. Students learn more about their own learning when a written evaluation is provided. Assessment of teachers by students also comes to mind in the form of surveys, such as good ol' SOTEs.
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
Information Literacy (continued)
What are the key understandings in teaching about information? Think about how information is conceptualized, both within popular consciousness, and academia. Using Bruce's informed learning, as well as standards what do we think is important in understanding information? This is a continuation of the IL discussion (and maybe this part should have come first) - does this change the way you conceive IL standards?
Primarily, I think teaching about information requires an understanding about where the students are coming from. We have to assess their backgrounds and design the curriculum accordingly. For instance, information literacy instruction would differ depending on the age and educational background of the students. I think of our library's integrated course seminars and how the librarians tailor their sessions to the students, depending on where they are in their level of education (are they undergraduates or graduates?, what discipline it is (political science or public administration?) and where the students are in their research (information resources session at the beginning of the course vs. one-on-one instruction as the course progresses). This also brings to mind Bruce's definition of information as "anything that we experience as informing. Information will appear differently in different contexts and different disciplines" (p.5). Most teaching librarians will understand this and take into account the variant nature of information.
This of course, is an academic handling of information. Information is viewed critically, it is evaluated and presented judiciously. As Jessica mentions in the previous discussion, the ACRL standards make the assumption that people come to college with some of these evaluative skills already in place. Branch out to popular consciousness about how information is conceptualized, perhaps the critical/evaluative component is not part of the definition. In popular consciousness, I see it as something that is taken more at face value. It is presented a certain way (e.g. via television, newspapers, web, etc.) and absorbed as fact. It's is something to be digested and added to someone's knowledge base but stops there. I'm not saying that the non-academic person lacks evaluative skills, but I think the popular definition of information is much narrower than the way it is viewed in academia where it is seen as something that can be truly transformational in one's life.
So, what then is important in understanding information? I agree with Bruce that is is anything that informs, regardless of how is is presented, and that it can also become transformational. At this point, looking at the ACRL standards for information literacy, my conception of the standards hasn't changed in that they are for students who come to the table knowing that information is more than just something to be absorbed at face value. I think the AASL K-12 standards should be made a priority in a student's life so that they can come to the table ready to meet the ACRL standards.
Primarily, I think teaching about information requires an understanding about where the students are coming from. We have to assess their backgrounds and design the curriculum accordingly. For instance, information literacy instruction would differ depending on the age and educational background of the students. I think of our library's integrated course seminars and how the librarians tailor their sessions to the students, depending on where they are in their level of education (are they undergraduates or graduates?, what discipline it is (political science or public administration?) and where the students are in their research (information resources session at the beginning of the course vs. one-on-one instruction as the course progresses). This also brings to mind Bruce's definition of information as "anything that we experience as informing. Information will appear differently in different contexts and different disciplines" (p.5). Most teaching librarians will understand this and take into account the variant nature of information.
This of course, is an academic handling of information. Information is viewed critically, it is evaluated and presented judiciously. As Jessica mentions in the previous discussion, the ACRL standards make the assumption that people come to college with some of these evaluative skills already in place. Branch out to popular consciousness about how information is conceptualized, perhaps the critical/evaluative component is not part of the definition. In popular consciousness, I see it as something that is taken more at face value. It is presented a certain way (e.g. via television, newspapers, web, etc.) and absorbed as fact. It's is something to be digested and added to someone's knowledge base but stops there. I'm not saying that the non-academic person lacks evaluative skills, but I think the popular definition of information is much narrower than the way it is viewed in academia where it is seen as something that can be truly transformational in one's life.
So, what then is important in understanding information? I agree with Bruce that is is anything that informs, regardless of how is is presented, and that it can also become transformational. At this point, looking at the ACRL standards for information literacy, my conception of the standards hasn't changed in that they are for students who come to the table knowing that information is more than just something to be absorbed at face value. I think the AASL K-12 standards should be made a priority in a student's life so that they can come to the table ready to meet the ACRL standards.
Friday, October 1, 2010
Information Literacy
What are the big ideas of information literacy? Look beyond the skills - how are we conceptualizing information literacy (you may want to break it down). What are the unstated biases guiding the way we discuss information literacy - in terms of standards. If you were teaching a course that focused on information literacy what are the overarching understandings you would want students to have at the end of the course?
In terms of conceptualizing information literacy, it is not simply about finding information whether it is in print or electronic format. Real information literacy requires evaluation and ethical use of the information. Information seekers should question where the information is coming from (they should question "the slant" so to speak) and they should be able to use it in appropriate ways. For example, plagiarism should be avoided and credit should be given where credit is due. Also, information is used differently depending on the context (such as a specific discipline.)
The unstated biases guiding the way we discuss information literacy, in terms of standards are assuming the information seeker has the cognitive, physical ability or socio-economic ability to meet information literacy standards. I can't help but think of people with "invisible" learning disabilities, physical disabilities or those with limited access to information due to external circumstances. These people would have trouble meeting the standards suggested by ACRL. (I don't know if I'm approaching this question in the right way. I'm curious to read what others have to say about this.)
The overarching understandings I would want students to have at the end of an information literacy course would be the powerful nature of information and how it informs all of their decision making. It would want them to understand why it is so important to know where their information is coming from and use this as a guide to question why they think the way they do. (Metacognition?) I would also want them to understand what a privilege it is to have open access to information in a variety of formats and how some information is costly and protected. You can't find everything on Google!
(I referred to the ACRL Information Literacy Competency Standards for this post.)
In terms of conceptualizing information literacy, it is not simply about finding information whether it is in print or electronic format. Real information literacy requires evaluation and ethical use of the information. Information seekers should question where the information is coming from (they should question "the slant" so to speak) and they should be able to use it in appropriate ways. For example, plagiarism should be avoided and credit should be given where credit is due. Also, information is used differently depending on the context (such as a specific discipline.)
The unstated biases guiding the way we discuss information literacy, in terms of standards are assuming the information seeker has the cognitive, physical ability or socio-economic ability to meet information literacy standards. I can't help but think of people with "invisible" learning disabilities, physical disabilities or those with limited access to information due to external circumstances. These people would have trouble meeting the standards suggested by ACRL. (I don't know if I'm approaching this question in the right way. I'm curious to read what others have to say about this.)
The overarching understandings I would want students to have at the end of an information literacy course would be the powerful nature of information and how it informs all of their decision making. It would want them to understand why it is so important to know where their information is coming from and use this as a guide to question why they think the way they do. (Metacognition?) I would also want them to understand what a privilege it is to have open access to information in a variety of formats and how some information is costly and protected. You can't find everything on Google!
(I referred to the ACRL Information Literacy Competency Standards for this post.)
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Learning
What does it mean to learn? Explore this both in terms of the face value of the question but also in relation to how you conceptualize knowing and understanding.
Taken at face value, learning is a process. It is the process of creating new meaning/understanding in one's mind. Looking at the example of learning in a classroom setting, students learn as they synthesize information about the course, whether it is from reading a textbook, listening to a lecture, viewing a film or interacting with fellow students. Learning can stem from a variety of forms. Looking at it as a progression, it is the process of going from destination A to destination B. We go from one place of meaning/understanding and end up at a different place of meaning/understanding.
Knowing and understanding are closely related to learning. When we learn something, a transformation has occurred in some way. It takes the nuts and bolts (facts, if you will, but not necessarily scientific) of knowledge to understand something. After learning about understanding for the past could of weeks, the definition (or, understanding) that sticks in my mind is the ability to transfer knowledge from one area to the next. It's having that insightful "Eureka!" moment where you feel like you really "got" something. Learning is the process of that transformation.
Looking at a specific example, such as how to ride a bicycle, we start with the knowledge of how to ride. In order to ride, you know you have to do A, B and C - balance, pedal, steer, etc.. When you hop on a bike and start to work with this knowledge, you are in the process of learning how to ride. Once you have learned how to ride, you have arrived at an understanding about how to ride.
Here's (another) basic visual that can help explain how learning fits in the discussion of knowing, learning and understanding.
Knowing----Learning----Understanding
I also see it as a staircase that keeps going up with one step being beginning understanding, going up vertically (learning), with the next step being a new understanding, then learning again (up), new understanding (step), on up. Sorry, I wish I had the "know how" to post this visual!
Taken at face value, learning is a process. It is the process of creating new meaning/understanding in one's mind. Looking at the example of learning in a classroom setting, students learn as they synthesize information about the course, whether it is from reading a textbook, listening to a lecture, viewing a film or interacting with fellow students. Learning can stem from a variety of forms. Looking at it as a progression, it is the process of going from destination A to destination B. We go from one place of meaning/understanding and end up at a different place of meaning/understanding.
Knowing and understanding are closely related to learning. When we learn something, a transformation has occurred in some way. It takes the nuts and bolts (facts, if you will, but not necessarily scientific) of knowledge to understand something. After learning about understanding for the past could of weeks, the definition (or, understanding) that sticks in my mind is the ability to transfer knowledge from one area to the next. It's having that insightful "Eureka!" moment where you feel like you really "got" something. Learning is the process of that transformation.
Looking at a specific example, such as how to ride a bicycle, we start with the knowledge of how to ride. In order to ride, you know you have to do A, B and C - balance, pedal, steer, etc.. When you hop on a bike and start to work with this knowledge, you are in the process of learning how to ride. Once you have learned how to ride, you have arrived at an understanding about how to ride.
Here's (another) basic visual that can help explain how learning fits in the discussion of knowing, learning and understanding.
Knowing----Learning----Understanding
I also see it as a staircase that keeps going up with one step being beginning understanding, going up vertically (learning), with the next step being a new understanding, then learning again (up), new understanding (step), on up. Sorry, I wish I had the "know how" to post this visual!
Thursday, September 2, 2010
Knowing and understanding
Question:
Define knowing and understanding. This should go beyond the dictionary - how do you conceptualize knowing and understanding? Are they different, or synonymous? How are they related?
Attempted answer:
Reflecting on this idea of knowing and understanding, in my mind, they have different meanings, but are related. I think knowing something is a precursor to understanding something. The first step is "knowing about" something, then knowing it and then understanding it. Here is a basic diagram:
Know about (awareness)-----Knowing ----- Understanding
The difference between knowing and understanding is hard to explain as they are very similar. Anyhow,here goes. I think knowing something is when there is a shared conceptualization about something. You can know something, but not necessarily understand it like someone else does. Understanding is more personal. It's almost like knowing all of the ins and outs of something in one's own way. Understanding implies knowing what something means.
Hmmmm, what do you think?
Define knowing and understanding. This should go beyond the dictionary - how do you conceptualize knowing and understanding? Are they different, or synonymous? How are they related?
Attempted answer:
Reflecting on this idea of knowing and understanding, in my mind, they have different meanings, but are related. I think knowing something is a precursor to understanding something. The first step is "knowing about" something, then knowing it and then understanding it. Here is a basic diagram:
Know about (awareness)-----Knowing ----- Understanding
The difference between knowing and understanding is hard to explain as they are very similar. Anyhow,here goes. I think knowing something is when there is a shared conceptualization about something. You can know something, but not necessarily understand it like someone else does. Understanding is more personal. It's almost like knowing all of the ins and outs of something in one's own way. Understanding implies knowing what something means.
Hmmmm, what do you think?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)