Aracelie_Reflection_16 Feb Class
In our first class back after the snowstorm of 2010, we took some time to regroup and discuss where we were with respect to assignments and that day’s class. We talked about our presentations for the following week on our assigned books. As of classtime, I had not gotten my book, but from the way Ted and Carrie Ann were describing theirs and from the enthusiasm in their voices, I began looking forward to starting mine.
After talking about pending and upcoming assignments, we began looking through two websites that house course portfolios – the Gallery of Teaching and Learning and the Virtual Knowledge Project. I was excited to see what the famous course portfolio looked like. I must say, I was not at all surprised to find out that they differ from one another. I was a little surprised to see the degree of variation. Just in the few we viewed, two had lots of colors, section headers, and links. And while the other portfolio had the same qualities, it did not use them as effectively. The latter portfolio (Calculus Conversations) reminded me of a Power Point presentation gone bad. It had all the elements present. Unfortunately, they still did not capture the audience’s attention, and the content fell to the wayside.
Following our look at the websites, we moved on to our research proposal questions. Believer or Doubter” – that is the name of the game. I was the lucky volunteer whose question was addressed. First, I read the question. Next, while I was listening and taking notes, the others commented on the more positive aspects of my question and its implications. After the positives were finished, they commented on the more negative aspects. Finally, I was given a chance to respond to all the comments. In doing this exercise, I heard a few of my own thoughts echoed. For instance, focusing on a particular branch rather than all military services was something I went back and forth on when writing the question, but I had no idea whether “more specific” or “broader” was the answer. Hearing some of the reasoning behind why I might not want to be so broad (i.e., different cultures, processes, and vocabulary among the services) will help me to make the decision and decide what I am truly interested in finding out. Additionally, the concepts of “processes” and “protocol” came up. Taking another look at the two from various perspectives on a university – those of the veteran, the student, the faculty, the teacher, etc. – gives me another place to begin my research and refine my question.
Carrie Ann’s 2/16 Class Reflection
I have to admit it was nice to be back in the classroom after two weeks of class absence due to the Snowpocalpyse or Snowmaggedeon, whatever you want to call it. That has been the first time in my academic career to have two consecutive weeks of classes cancelled due to snow and I hope it never happens again. With that being said, I took quite a good bit away from this week and I hope to expand my knowledge on some of the topics that we discussed. First, I enjoyed taking the time to look at the Visible Knowledge Project and the Gallery of Teaching and Learning to see how electronic research projects are formatted and presented. Looking through some of the project and e-portfolios started to get the wheels turning in my head of how I would like to create my own e-portfolio for the music classes that I teach. This is something that I would like to do more research on and I know it would only help to enhance the material presented in my class. Before this class I never knew of the Visible Knowledge Project and the Gallery of Teaching and Learning, and now I feel that I will be looking and visiting these sites a lot in the future.
With regards to our nine questions for research study, the “Believer/Doubter game” that we participated in was an interesting way to receive feedback on our topics. This provides both “positive” and “negative” (and I am using those terms lightly) in a non-abrasive way so that your colleagues can help you take your research to the next level. I am looking forward to continuing this “game” with everyone in class this week and I welcome all critiques on my research topic. Looking forward to the rest of the semester and hopefully… no more snow!
Teddy’s Reflection Log 02.21.2010
Teddy’s Reflection Log 02.21.2010
For class session 02.16.2010
Snowy weather is beautiful, but the sound of our 604 class back in session was a glorious anthem to my ears. As we recovered from the inclement weather, it was clear to me that everyone was eager to make-up the two missed classes. Everyone present, seemed ready to get back to work on the assignments. However, we missed our classmate Jason. He was very sick! Get well soon, Jason! Our professor, Darren Cambridge, led us in discussing SoTL topics. We shifted to many key points and finally segued into portfolios, after revamping the schedule.
I thought it fascinating that the web content, color schemes and design formats for portfolios could depict attributes of the author. Many of the portfolio offered materials or questions necessary for guided learning. Others, were meer resume’s for the teacher or a useless list of things to do to kill class time and the motivation of learners. In other words, they offered, nor suggested a well thought out plan to enhance scholarly teaching and learning experiences. Deep learning was not an objective! I was extremely impressed by the way Carrie Anne and Aracelie pointed out very powerful components in their open educational resources (portfolios). They were very articulate! I too, indulged and pointed out important questions. Some of the questions were unusual and to my shock, not normally posed by researchers for investigation or a syllabus. And in some regards, allowed other scholars access to their paths of inquiry.
The use of hot colors was a significant highlight to to help students on assignments. Such a cool and logically ingenius way to guide learning. We talked about this and other aspects of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning as they relate to the content presented on the world wide web to acquire further integral insights about its use, our roles and responsibilities. It’s use as a promotional tool in student recruitment and other possible framings to obtain student participation, deep understanding and learning while building new synoptic connections from new experiences create from new experiences.
Carrie Ann’s 1/26 Class Reflection
After class this past week I kept thinking about our discussion about the classroom as a private space and how most professors even today view the classroom as “private”. It was interesting to hear how others in the class feel about this issue, as I am only truly versed in my own content area, learning about how this “private teaching area” relates to other content areas is something I would like to discuss more. In music, especially in music performance, we put our product out there for the public to see/hear, so that is where my original viewpoint has come from and I through the upcoming study of the SoTL, I wonder if this will change.
As we were looking at the various definitions of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, it amazed me at how “incomplete” some of the definitions were. As per Rice’s description in 1991, we saw that it was missing the process of what learning is in terms of outcomes. Then Martin in 1999 built on the Rice definition by adding the process of self-reflection bringing us closer to scholarly teaching. Finally, we discussed the Shulman definition, and for me this was the most complete in terms of design and process, having built on the Martin and Rice models of the SoTL. There seemed to be more interdisciplinary connections and this makes it more accessible to a broad audience. As of this point in time, I find more connections to the Shulman definition due to my content area and the classes I currently teach. I need to find interdisciplinary connections with the class content, since I primary teach non-majors and for true learning to occur the class content needs to be synthesized with “real life”.
As we go further into depth into the SoTL, our views of the aforementioned definitions will change and we will develop or own based on our content area of study. After our first class I am truly looking forward to our class discussions on this and other topics and I love seeing what I can learn from other’s content areas and how I can add them into my own teaching.
Aracelie’s Reflection_26 Jan 10
Today’s classroom discussion focused on our first readings regarding the definition of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning. I found the actual readings and definitions a little ambiguous at first. The fact that there is not a single source that everyone goes to for a definition of SoTL still poses a challenge for me. Having my educational and professional backgrounds in math and business, my immediate reaction was to ask why there were so many options. How can I apply SoTL when there isn’t a standard for me to know whether I am doing it correctly?
I was pleased when we discussed whether there should be one definition of SoTL or many. It began to dispense a bit of the fog around what constitutes SoTL and to clarify some of the common elements such as reflection, review, publication, and reuse. Going through a chronology of definitions, so to speak, helped me understand that SoTL is not a single method of teaching. It encompasses teaching as an entire process of vision, design, interaction, outcomes, and analysis (Schulman) where what happens inside the classroom (interaction) is only a single step in the process.
I was also struck by our discussion on interdisciplinary barriers in higher education. Carrie Ann mentioned she would enjoy receiving critiques from teachers outside her discipline because it would be more in line with getting feedback from her non-music major students. Darren then pointed out that there is a fear of having people not within the same discipline affect the decisions made regarding career progression (the selection for tenure, for example). Initially, I wholeheartedly agreed with Carrie Ann’s comments, but after Darren brought up his point, I reconsidered somewhat. In my current workplace, we had just gone to a pay-for-performance evaluation system where the same point was argued, and it’s something my office experiences constantly. We do our work and produce high-quality products for use throughout the agency. However, because not enough of our leaders understand the basics of civilian payroll, it’s difficult to get high ratings in boards for awards and/or promotions that these same leaders oversee. By the same token, though, when it works, when someone outside of our field can communicate what we have taught him or her about civilian pay, it carries weight in those other areas (e.g. human resources). Interdisciplinary barriers can and should be broken, but it is certainly worth first considering the attitudes of the participants before trying to do so.