Jason’s Reflection from March 30th
Posted onApril 4, 2010
Filed under Reflections | Leave a Comment
During this week’s discussion, I noticed exactly how unlike true SoTL my article was. I realized how much differently I thought about classroom research after taking part in this course. A few semesters ago when I came across this article I thought it was a great example of how sociologist could study their own classroom. While I still agree with the main point of the article, I know see it as a good starting point in need of serious changes.
What was interesting to me was that the article was, in part, about making sure to not exaggerate because it can strip you of your creditability. However, the author only reports success stories from the proposed teaching techniques. And not just positive responses, really over the top “this course changed my life” kind of quotes from students which is obviously an exaggeration. Surely, some students hated the course, learned very little, or even preferred the other technique of teaching. Looking back the author didn’t even perform a real literature review, and reported the results of the new technique in a blatantly biased way.
Aracelie_Readings_23 Mar
Posted onApril 4, 2010
Filed under Reading logs | Leave a Comment
This week’s articles address scholarship specifically within community college environments. Prager’s article “Scholarship Matters” tells how community college faculty members, though dominant in the educating of first- and second-year students, have little presence outside their own classrooms. Meanwhile, Sperling’s article “How Community Colleges Understand the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning” describes an exception to that argument at Middlesex Community College, where SoTL is prominent.
Prager’s article compares and contrasts various scenarios regarding teachers of first- and second-year students (e.g., faculty at schools associated with four-year universities versus strictly two-year schools). It seems Pennsylvania University (PSU) and City Universities of New York (CUNY) have integrated the scholarship of teaching and learning into their ways of life. Expectations that SoTL is valued and actually used in a quantifiable manner have led to a culture that embraces SoTL. Meanwhile, most other schools consider themselves “teaching schools”.
The rest of my commentary was lost to malfunctioning USB drive. I will have to return to the articles to remember the points I made and add them here at a later time.
Aracelie_Reading Log_30 Mar
Posted onMarch 29, 2010
Filed under Reading logs | 1 Comment
There are so many options available for implementing SoTL. It still boggles me that it is not more widespread. I understand the many challenges that we read about in our articles and talk about in our class sessions, but I still have a difficult time comprehending how it is taking so long to catch on in our education systems. The fact that there are so many definitions of SoTL seems like it would be even easier to implement one or two of the items McKinney mentions in her eighth chapter. Holding campus conversations, promoting SoTL with new faculty, giving away SoTL literature – all seem like they would be the smaller steps necessary to institute a full practice of SoTL. I suggest we send Tiger Teams armed with copies of McKinney’s book to give to select faculty members (i.e. those who have impact within a school) who will commit to selecting one item to try on his campus within a period of three years. I know. There is much more involved than what I am glazing over here. It is just so frustrating to know it does not have to be quite so hard; and this is coming from someone on the outside looking in. I can only imagine what it is like to actually be in the field trying to encourage these changes.
But have no fear because once again my hope is restored by Classroom Research. We are now on Chapter 2 trying to save future Leslies from drowning, or at least feeling like they are drowning, in their future economics classes. The chapter goes through a more layman’s explanation of metacognition and cognition as applied to students’ learning than did How People Learn. Reading about these concepts a third time (Marchese’s article being the first), I used DeGroot’s chess example as my frame of reference. (That study actually then showed up as an example later in the chapter.) Reading through the three steps (review the literature, classroom assessment, and classroom research) for three possible hypotheses highlighted in the instructor’s conversation with Leslie brings the concepts to life in my mind. I feel like anyone who was suddenly put in front of a classroom to teach could obtain a copy of this book and immediately have tools available to begin using in the classroom, such as the Focused Autobiographical Sketches and Building Bridges. As a visual learner, I would appreciate tasks such as those being interspersed into lectures or seminars were I a student. Fear of being chastised in class for participating would dissipate if they were to be regular activities in the classroom, as the authors suggest. Another plus of this text is how in discussing traditional research, they specifically say it is not easy to advise new classroom teachers whether to trust their instincts regarding their field or to listen to research results that may or may not address the true question. It is comforting to know even though you may understand what and how your students are learning, the test results may not always agree with your assessments of the situation.
I suppose my point is that even though this book covers education theories, they are told in such a way that a new teacher can apply them directly to his classroom practice and immediately begin to expand and search for signs of improvement.
Carrie Ann’s Reading Log (Week of March 28th)
Posted onMarch 29, 2010
Filed under Reading logs | Leave a Comment
Though I did read both chapters assigned, I want to focus this reading log on the Steadman text, due to issues I have seen with students that have crossed my path during my educational career. When teaching a class you wonder if all the information that you impart reaches and is understood by all the students in front of you. The group that this chapter brings to light are “The Leslies” and the idea of the learning issues that your students face from their perspective. You wonder when a student has an issue with the understanding of a particular topic, where there was an educational disconnect. Was it the way that I presented the information?… Could it be that I covered too much in class that day?… Or could it be that the student is not effectively reviewing the material on his or her own? All these questions plus a few others come to light and we need to formulate the hypothesis to solve the question at hand. One quotation that we must remember when dealing with “The Leslies” or any other student who crosses our path was presented on page 40, “Existing knowledge structures provide a framework for understanding new information.” The ways that our students learn, combine, and retain information are ingrained specifically to them and we must find ways to help students in our classes, not push them away. (We don’t want to lose students; we need to find new ways to make connections).
One way that we could this is in the Learning Strategies that were presented in this chapter. There were five different strategies that were mentioned in the discussion of “The Leslies”: 1) Rehearsal (highlighting the text/flashcards), 2) Elaboration (Making meaningful connections), 3) Organization (taking large amounts of new information and making connections with previous knowledge), 4) Comprehension monitoring (activities to check attention, avoid mind wandering, and self testing), and 5) Resource management (making a homework schedule, taking advantage of office hours and study groups/sessions). Over the years I personally in my own learning, have used all of these in learning material/concepts for myself. But, my students that I teach I can see do not. Out of a class of 90 or so students, maybe 30-40 will show up for a review session, in a semester I might have 5 ask to meet with me to go over material (and some will wait until the last minute and until they really realize they are in trouble to talk), and though I do in-class activities to keep everyone engaged, only a few will actually talk during class discussions. I am always available to help my students, but few take advantage of that… it is a struggle that I am still battling against. We as educators need to find out why this is, keep enforcing the learning strategies, and keep doing everything we can do to reach “The Leslies” out there.
Teddy’s Reading Log 03.28.2010
Posted onMarch 28, 2010
Filed under Reading logs | Leave a Comment
Teddy’s CTCH604 Reading Log 03.28.2010
For class session 03.30.2010
McKinney’s chapter 8 discusses and explains examples of SoTL work from the perspectives of researchers in both disciplinary and institutional contexts. Various conceptualizations and definitions of SoTL exist among scholars. As I read the chapter, I began to ask certain questions. What similarities and differences will I find in cross discipline research? What similarities and differences will I find in research of interdisciplinary sectors? Such inquiry encouraged me to investigate the challenges presented by McKinney in the chapter. The need for more SoTL on learning, graduate and SoTL work, beyond the classroom levels, students as co-authors, increasing replication of SoTL work within disciplines, across institutions, across disciplines and abroad. I believe that by meeting these goals we can come to a deeper understanding about SoTL work and how it can help us to unify the movement, identify problems and acquire real answers.
In the disciplinary context, SoTL includes reflection and the sharing of results across disciplines. The input of individuals from several disciplines working together on a SoTL project constitutes a work classified as “cross disciplines”. According to Yakura and Bennett (2003), cross disciplinary SoTL focuses on studies about similarities and differences among and between disciplines. Interdisciplinary SoTL involves studies of teaching and learning in interdisciplinary constructs. Benefits suggested by Wiemer includes learning by those in one discipline from the SoTL work of those in another discipline, strengthening of replication and reliability of findings across disciplines that advances our profession, providing a literature that is very helpful to those who work to promote social change related to a teaching-learning agenda and reading a diverse and powerful literature to improve our individual teaching practice. Associations and disciplinary organizations can support SoTL work by identifying SoTL researchers in the field using websites and publications. Also, they can sponsor academies and institutes as well as compile bibliographies of SoTL work by discipline or field. From Management Sciences, Sociology, English to the Liberal Arts, it is clear that certain commonalities will exist throughout the research experience.
From the institution context, incentives for scholarly research such as promotion and tenure should prove to be an effective means of getting faculty to publish. Excellent instruction must be encourage by administrators that set the bar high to ensure success through SoTL best practices. There is no single correct model of support for SoTL. McKinney cites examples in the chapter of strategies to reward, support and promote SoTL work. They include: joining the CASTL Program, self-study, campus conversations on SoTL, promoting SoTL with new faculty, enhanced student involvement, collaboration, starting a SoTL community of scholars, SoTL resources group, SoTL Summer Institute, connect SoTL to institutional mission and many others. Models of support range from well supported programs to poorly supported programs and those in between. With state funding being slimmed, many colleges and universities are experiencing the worst. Student enrollment is high at community colleges and tuition rates too. It is important that academic leaders make certain that the quality of classes remain high and retention of teachers known for their scholarly work support the SoTL movement. As campus models of support experience changes we must keep in mind the most important of matters. The delivery of a quality education to our undergraduate and graduate students!