Teddy’s Reading Log 02.07.2010
Teddy’s Reading Log 02.07.2010
For class session 02.09.2010
My first impression of this article was that it was going to be somewhat a silly document talking about another teaching experience by a professor who had no idea or cared how students learn. Instead, it was just the opposite in theme. I was totally enthralled as I continued reading the article to find that the teacher was quite intelligent and aware of something I’ve known since elementary school. Students are often provided a learning experience where they are simply expected to regurgitate what was taught and provide the same answers on a test. For years, this has been considered an appropriate and acceptable outcome. No deep learning was required whereas the students were required to master and manipulate information beyond what was taught in the sterile classroom setting. In the article from the New Horizons for Learning website, entitled The New Conversations About Learning Insights From Neuroscience and Anthropology, Cognitive Science and Workplace Studies, Marchese (2010) states “What students were good at –and I played right into this—was feeding back correct answers; they had mastered the arts of short-term memory and recall. He continues to discuss the design of college classes that merely produce what he terms as surface learning instead of what is most dearly desired by college teachers, deep learning.
Immediately, I was propelled back to an experience that haunted me for years. It was during a graduate class in the 1990’s that I requested help from a prominent professor on a class assignment. He refused to assist me or any other commercial music student. It became obvious to me that we would all fail if something was not done to correct the situation. The professor taught using language understood by his white non-commercial students and ignored his students of color. In doing so, his students of color were alienated, moved to the back of the classroom and eventually failed or dropped the class. I approached the instructor to make him aware of this injustice and he blew a fuse. I too failed the class that semester! In the meanwhile, his preferred students simply duplicated the given assignments without any deep understanding of the data. I had warned the teacher that this was the case and it would appear in the Part 1 section of the course that was being taught out of sequence during the Spring Semester. The teacher went mad the next semester when his prize students had little or no recall of what he taught the prior semester. It was then that he assisted all of his students!
One moment of deep understanding could have led to a semester or year of success for the students and the teacher. Because the instructor did not consider what did students know, how did they learn it, how should the teacher approach students with new data, what communications are needed to promote retention and what pedagogical course adjustments are necessary, students had limited learning success or failed the prior semester. Like the graduate class experience, the neuroscience experiment using rats, I find to be conclusive. The objective of this test was to provide indicators of how the brain works. Shouldn’t teachers seek to learn how each particular group of their students think, learn and find deeper meaning. Of course, more opportunities to learn in varied environments will produce subjects exhibiting advanced skill sets. Therefore, I agree with the findings of this test and its outcomes suggesting levels of competence induced by situational learning. Similar to Brown, Collins and Duguid (1989), I believe that memorization and rote learning are second to being part of the learning experience and the most important aspects and benefits awaits our mastery of a particular situation and its attributes needing resolution over time.
Carrie Ann’s Reading Log 2/7
Are we only scratching the surface of our student’s learning potential in the classroom? This is something that we as educators need to be very cognizant of when it comes to planning, delivery, and assessment. The reading this week really drove that idea home for me. Are we helping our students to make those deeper connections with the material that we impart on them, or do we just glance “over the top” of the material and assume that our students have learned the topic(s) at hand. The Marchese article looks into the idea of learning through areas such as Neuroscience, Anthropology, and Workplace studies…. Some of these scientific areas I never would have considered looking at, but this reading has changed my viewpoints and has grabbed my attention.
When looking at the area of Neuroscience it was addressed that “No scientist has yet come up with a coherent set of ideas about how the brain works that would be persuasive and usable for those of us who teach.” How is this so? In all that we know of how the brain works, we cannot make any connections on the synthesis of learning material and neuro-pathways… I know that learning isn’t a “big money” area in terms of scientific study, but there is room to branch out.
The one area and topic that really has begun the wheels turning for me is in the area of anthropological studies, primarily the idea of apprenticeship. In generations prior to our parents/grandparents, and ours being an apprentice enabled an individual with “real life” learning and hands on experience. Now in the age of textbooks, media, and lecture learning/teaching, we as teachers can take some guidance from our past. To make those “deeper” learning connections having apprenceships in various courses (outside of areas of teaching, which require a student teaching practicum) can guide our students to synthesize the material and apply it to real life experiences and give them a new level of “learning and assessment” that cannot be accomplished in the classroom.
Looking at the area of learning though other scientific fields of study can help us as educators to look deeper into how we impart knowledge to our students. Gliding along the surface is not going to cut it… we need to jump into the deep end of learning, then and only then can we be effective as scholars and educators.
Teddy’s Reading Log 01.31.2010
Teddy’s Reading Log 01.31.2010
Teaching is an unpredictable occupation that’s full of surprises and leads which spring into a state of existence referred to as the “unknown”. You may find yourself asking what did your students learn or how well did they learn it and realize that you have absolutely no idea. You will make inquiry of questions that possess several or more leads that you must investigated as a problem. Similarly, in the article “The Scholarship of Teaching: What’s the Problem?” Randy Bass (1999), states that having a problem in scholarship and research is at the heart of the investigative process. It is the compound of generative questions around which all creative and productive activity revolves. And like other creative processes, it requires one’s critical thinking, time and resources to study it and refine such inquiry. Bass describes teaching as an extended process that unfolds over time. However, we know that process will require periods of adjustment to which related scholarly research will develop into leads, questions or problems. Outcomes may be favorable or undesirable as the resulting paths of investigation finds new layers of other questionable materials.
It is important that we pose these questions in order to understand how our students learn and develop. Similar to what Howard Gardner refers to as deep understanding of the subject matter. According to Gardner, he assumed that understanding was equivalent and coextensive with mastery. He further states, I assumed that students in a particular course achieved understanding by replicating a partial and incomplete versions of mastery or mimicry of mastery that was like the understanding that developed across a whole course of study.
Our reading this week took us to chapter three of our text where we are given clear cut instructions on how to create a SoTL project. I enjoyed reading this chapter very much, but I feel the need to review it again. It was enlightening to practice posing new problems as research paths to fixing problems in teaching. I hope we can get a distinctive set of practice templates in class this week to assist us in becoming efficient and proficient in doing this task. These articles have truly been a plus and I hope we get the chance to explore this one with lots of practicum in our Scholarship of Teaching and Learning course and create models for posterity.
Aracelie_Reading Log_2 Feb
In this week’s readings, both McKinney and Bass discuss the problem in teaching. I found myself nodding more when reading Bass’ article than when reading McKinney’s chapter. While McKinney’s chapter three addresses how to identify a problem and the steps to begin developing a SoTL project, Bass delves into the connotation and resulting use of the word problem within the academic arena.
In his first paragraph, Bass addresses how a problem in teaching is something that requires fixing or cleanup, whereas in research it is an invitation for insight. He points out that problems should be used as starting points for continuous investigation in the scholarship of teaching, but the way teaching is defined needs to be expanded in order for it to be subjected to ongoing investigation. He goes on to address the five elements Schulman described: vision, design, interactions, outcomes, and analysis. And just as we discussed last week about how it serves little purpose to continue to teach in a way where you know what the outcomes will be almost every time, Bass mentions “interactions that …result in both expected and unexpected results” (p2).
As the article goes on we learn that Bass experienced his own problem, but rather than simply attempt to find a solution to it, he chose to use it to find out more about “how students came to know the material” (p3) he taught them. This is one of the questions that drew me to the DA program in Community College Education. I, too, want to know what it is that makes students, adults in particular, learn the way they do. I want to learn what a teacher would look for to know that students are not just “mimicking” all they have heard or read, but truly learned skills and/or information that they can apply at another time and in a different environment. Bass says on p3 that he “…had taught mostly the way I had been taught, and tended to replicate the pedagogies that worked best – quite frankly – on me (or slight variations of me).” I conduct a great deal of on-the-job training, and I am aware that not everyone learns the way I do, but it does not necessarily mean I teach much differently than the way I have been taught. It is not something I would have considered had I not read that statement in this article. I will have to think about it more and pay attention the next time I do any deskside training.
The final piece of the article to capture my attention was his attempt to make a distinction between a great book and an important book. I actually laughed out loud because before he points out it wasn’t just a flaw in his communication skills, I thought to myself, “Know your audience. Freshman students probably aren’t going to see any difference between great and important”. As we have discussed in class, knowing the backgrounds of your audience, in this case, the students, is key in pursuing a scholarship of teaching.
Moving teaching out onto the front stage
“In one’s teaching a problem is something you don’t want to have, and if you have one, you probably want to fix it. Asking a collegue about a problem in his or her research is an invitation; asking about a problem in one’s teaching would probably seem like an accusation.”
This statement from The Scholarship of Teaching:What’s the Problem? made me think about the “front stage/backstage” divide outlined in Goffman’s sociological writings. He called it the dramaturgical analysis. Without getting into too much detail, Goffman meant that all of life can be analyzed like a play, with people taking on their roles and acting out their performances. He also pointed out that we attempt to create impressions of ourselves by keeping some things “backstage” and offering up some things “front stage”. While research is something to be discussed and public between academics (front stage), teaching is something to be only between that teacher and their students (backstage from other academics). So we perceive any inquiry into our teaching as someone in the audience trying to sneak a peak behind the curtain.
The article also did a very good job of outlining what the author called the “Reverse Pyramid” technique. I learned this technique from “The Joy of Teaching” by Peter Filene. While it does seem backwards to start from learning outcomes and plan a course, it really makes for a better class design. I had always started from “what do I want to cover this semester”, but this approach fails to even consider the overall point of the class. Randy Bass phrases it as making every course component intentional.
Finally, I thought the article outlined a better process than pre/post tests to measure student learning. Having students answer questions the first and last day of class allows the teacher to monitor student growth and brings the student into the process to see the results. I missed this semester, but next semester I will be adding this exercise to my courses. Even if teaching is seen as a private activity, too backstage to be published in the form of complete course portfolios, we can at least attempt to promote self reflection and the monitoring of student outcomes beyond student evaluations.