Teddy’s Reflection for 03.02.2010
Posted onMarch 14, 2010
Filed under Reflections | Leave a Comment
Teddy’s Reflection
For class session 03.02.2010
I was very upset when I could not find the class last session. My arrival to class early was side-tracked by a bathroom run and therefore I was unable to find my colleagues. Sorry about that! Nevertheless, after harrassing a few people to leave our regular class area, I got on the computer to check my email to see if Darren sent a communication. There was none, so I began hunting down the class in Elmer Fudd mode! Behold! Those guys and gals were in the other room, across from the bathroom. Well, I immediately sat down with great relief and Darren very nicely welcomed me into the their midst and the teleconference. It was the most! I was thoroughly enthralled and delighted to speak with our virtual guest lecturer Dr. Elizabeth Barkley. Much of my excitement was due to prior investigation of our speaker. Her work using portfoloios is truly cutting edge in education.
Next, we took time to explain what we read in the various chapters assigned in class. It was a bit overwhelming to attempt to explain such detailed readings in ten minutes. My chapters on “How Children Learn” and the “Mind” were simply awesome. I have read them three more times since our last class. With so much critical information about synoptic connections, retraining the brain and memory development, I find my self feeling less and less of an authority. In essence, I feel like a true amature when attempting to explain these complex topics. We really learn alot of facinating things in CTCH 604!
Teddy’s Reading Log 03.14.2010
Posted onMarch 14, 2010
Filed under Reading logs | Leave a Comment
Teddy’s Reading Log 03.14.2010
For class session 03.16.2010
McKinney’s chapter five makes clear our obligations as teachers and researchers to protect students while conducting SoTL research. Student rights to privacy, informed consent and protection from harm are ethical components of importance to us all. As I read the chapter, I considered my feelings about such sensitive points. It was very clear where I stood on these issues as a student. I approved of the measure without any resentment. However, I questioned my stance as a teacher and researcher. Would I follow through the pain staking process of obtaining student permission for the use of student work? Is it worth my time to go through the experience of an IRB (Institutional Review Board)? After much deliberation, my resolve was a resounding, YES! My pondering over the pros and cons left me no choice but to see the truth in the whole as one of validity. IRB approval would clearly substantiate and validate any SoTL research project. Furthermore, it ensures the safety of all students, faculty members and their perspective institutions from legal ramifications.
The first portion of Chapter Five offers an abundance of useful information and suggestions for beginning research of SoTL. McKinney suggests that we use methodologies that are familiar and relative to our particular discipline or daily professions. This is a great suggestion for newcomers like me and I feel that it will supply the best answer to my research problem or question. The author continues by suggesting that we consider using present knowledge and reputable colleagues with experience in SoTL research. Naturally, she also offers the use of related textbooks by authors Brookfield, Kember, Hatch and Hutchings.
Next, the chapter goes on to describe SoTL work as that which is usually done by people in the classroom and not grant recipients. Herewith, teachers are constantly performing what McKinney refers to as a “juggling act”. Designing a top notch research study requires the balancing of a multitude of concerns and demands. According to the author, we will encounter times when some of the balls of a SoTL project will fall. These balls are the expertise balls, match the research question with the most appropriate type of data balls, the practical restraint balls and the ethical responsibilities balls. Realizing this, researchers must prepare themselves to be more than capable of picking up the fallen pieces of the project and go forward to complete the work.
Finally, the chapter deals with IRB (Institutional Review Boards). Here, McKinney states that there are three basic levels of review for SoTL. They are exempt, expedited and full reviews. Most SoTL work is rated exempt or expedited. Exempt projects involve very low risk to adult students. Usually, there’s no video or audio taping and responses are anonymous. Expedited projects can involve minors and minimal risk or adult subjects and minimal to moderate risk. Full is extremely rare to our SoTL work. These studies involving minors have more than minimal risk and for adults are rated moderate to high.
Jason’s Class Reflection for March 2nd
Posted onMarch 10, 2010
Filed under Reflections | Leave a Comment
Last week’s class began with a video conference of sorts. I thought that the guided tour though the e-portfolios was really eye opening. This is a true example of someone “publishing” SToL research. I also began to think (as I’m sure others in the class did as well) about using e-portfolios as a tool to better my own teaching and make my findings public.
I also enjoyed our discussion of the How People Learn reading. Breaking that book into chapters and having everyone focus and explain a few chapters was a great choice. The reading was very detailed and having everyone read it all would not have worked. I also enjoyed hearing about the other chapters from everyone. I never really considered how important understanding brain functions is to teaching and learning. The “hard sciences” surrounding brain functioning could greatly contribute to teaching and learning if they are willing to write at in an accessible manner to those outside of the discipline.
Teddy’s Reflection Log 02.28.2010
Posted onMarch 2, 2010
Filed under Reflections | Leave a Comment
Teddy’s Reflection Log 02.28.2010
Reflection of class 02.23.2010
First, let me say that we had a superb class last week in CTCH 604! Dr. Darren Cambridge did a super job of executing the opening of class with the Doubter/Believer game. Prior to that, we had a grand time among ourselves conversing about our assigned textbooks. Excitement prevailed as we shared tidbits of our readings. Class began a few minutes later. We were on a high and ready to play the Doubter/Believer game! The game allows us to pose a research question while others give supporting statements that agree. This represents the “Believer” side. Later, the game turns and is representative of the “Doubter” side. Next, the presenter poses the same research question, while others express points of weakness or flaws. Participants are encouraged to make comments as the presenter take notes quietly. The point here is to help each researcher focus or refine the research question.
Second, we individually gave a synopsis of our assigned textbooks and their relevance to the scholarship of teaching and learning. My book, entitled “Opening Up Education”, covered information concerning open teaching, access, agency, ownership, open content, contextual aspects, open data sharing among researchers-teachers-students, open digital libraries and future open learning environments and resources. Jason’s book “Making the Most of College” documented a collaborative study of student conversations and interviews about the lives of college students from the student’s perspective. Carrie Anne’s book “The Art of Changing the Brain” investigates how biological structures in the brain can be taught in order to make newer & deeper connections (deep…….).
Finally, Aracelie reported on the book “Making Their Own Way”. A wonderful textbook that we all need to read again and again about “Self Development”. It was like a fabulous mini-conference exclusively for CTCH 604 educators. I hope this mini-conference can or will be replicated/duplicated in the next semester of Darren’s course the “Scholarship of Teaching and Learning”. We were totally enthralled and engaged during the entire class session!
Jason’s Chapter One Reading Log
Posted onMarch 1, 2010
Filed under Reading logs | Leave a Comment
Chapter one of the classroom research textbook is stocked full of information. The chapter offers a brief history of research done in the classroom, some methodological insights and perspectives, and numerous detailed definition. It is a very diverse chapter including everything from feminist critiques of positivism, to issues of the academic disconnect with the “real world”, to a list seven principles of teaching. Because we will be coving this chapter in detail this week I would like to focus this reflection on two specific elements of the reading; first, the analogy of the dark archery, and secondly the analogy of the messy swamps.
The archery analogy offers a really good insight into the problematic nature of institutional assessment. We monitor the outcomes of students without focusing on the actual classrooms that they are learning in. We are shooting in the dark, then turning the light on and checking to see how we did afterwards. Maybe we should require that all students be able to recite the mathematical formula used to calculate the trajectory of an arrow, but it would be crazy to turn on the light and look at what is actually going on in the classroom, to actually reward intrinsically motivated teachers that strive to constantly modify their courses and utilize previously successful techniques.
The second analogy that struck me was what I call the swamp analogy. That as social scientist we often get so focused on methodology and sound scientific studies, that we become unable to study any of the pressing issues in front of us. In other words, we are too scientific. The analogy compares being able to study the high hard ground with our precise methodology (in sociology’s case continually striving to prove our discipline’s worth by bureaucratically latching to the scientific method), at the expense of even studying the murky swamp that is most of life. Studying the swamp would cause us to give up our precise scientific instruments and we are not willing to sacrifice them, or the legitimacy they assist us in claiming.
This made me think of a story an older sociology professor told me while I was still an undergraduate. I had asked him why sociologist seemed to write such seemingly understandable ideas in such a jargon laden fashion. He told me that although sociologist study society, they can’t always be counted on to be paying attention to society. He then told me that in the height of the AIDS epidemic (which at the time was being widely used to spread hatred and fear of homosexuals in America) he attended an ASA meeting in San Francisco. The streets were filled with protest, counter protests, religious movements, police, political figures, the sociologists were surrounded by a powerful social movement. He then told me that the conference he attended was titled “Micro and Macro Sociology: Bridging the Gap in Theory and Methodology”.