"Andragogy is the process of engaging learners in the structure of the learning experience. The term was originally used by Alexander Kapp (a German educator) in 1833, was developed into a theory of adult education by the American educator, Malcolm Knowles , (April 24, 1913 -- November 27, 1997)." -- wikipedia
Moving from Pedagogy to Andragogy
Hiemstra and Sisco make a great case here for learner-centered education. The goal of "raising up" students who know how to learn, rather that the creating students who are dependent on the instructor for learning is not a new one; and is most often the way instructors of adult learners view their raison d'etre. The article it offers us a reminder of those teaching goals and positive encouragement to "stay the course."
Friday, June 22, 2007
Thursday, June 07, 2007
CTL Tutorials--please comment
We welcome comments about your experience at the CTL Tutorials:
- Grading: Making it Fair, Time Efficient, and Conducive to Learning
- An e-Handbook for New Faculty
- Getting Started Online
- Instructional Design for eLearning
- Active Learning in an Online Environment
- Active Learning in Diverse Classrooms
- Learning to Write in All Fields
- Civility in the Classroom: Classroom Management Strategies
- Effective ESL Peer/Student Tutoring
- Are you a Reflective Practitioner?
- Program Advisory Committee Handbook
- "I Hear You, Do You Hear Me?" Teaching in Racially Diverse Classrooms
- My Story, Your Story: Building Respect for Diversity in the Classroom
- It's Not What You Tell Them That Counts: Getting Started With Active Teaching
- Designing Plagiarism-Proof Assignments: Deterring Scholarly Dishonesty
Tuesday, June 05, 2007
Academics Joining Ranks Declaring 'E-Mail Bankruptcy
The above article appears in the May 29th edition of the Washington Post. I agree that something has to be done to eliminate or at least curtail the amount of time taken up with not just answering emails, but adding email addresses to your "do not trust" list or setting up rules that will block out spam that find their way interestingly enough right through your spam catcher into your inbox.
As a faculty member I would to add to this discussion of email, the perception of students that email, chat and the pager functions offered by some programs like Desire to Learn and Webct translate into 24/7 access to their faculty member.
Feeling compelled to "be there" for my students I have often answered their emails at midnight, on week-ends and during holiday breaks. Of course a lot of that has to do with the "workaholic gene" passed on to me by not one but both parents, but some of it also has to do with the perception of students that now that we have this technology, faculty is duty-bound to use it in their best interest.
I posed the question of emails to one of my colleagues and was given a great bit of advice that I pass on to you. Her syllabi impose limits and offer response times to emails so that it is clear that emails will not be responded to in the evenings over the week-ends or during holiday breaks.
Voila! Of course it makes my already 10 page syllabus a little longer, but it has spared me at least the "student expectation" of an immediate response. Now, I just have to impose those limits on myself!
As a faculty member I would to add to this discussion of email, the perception of students that email, chat and the pager functions offered by some programs like Desire to Learn and Webct translate into 24/7 access to their faculty member.
Feeling compelled to "be there" for my students I have often answered their emails at midnight, on week-ends and during holiday breaks. Of course a lot of that has to do with the "workaholic gene" passed on to me by not one but both parents, but some of it also has to do with the perception of students that now that we have this technology, faculty is duty-bound to use it in their best interest.
I posed the question of emails to one of my colleagues and was given a great bit of advice that I pass on to you. Her syllabi impose limits and offer response times to emails so that it is clear that emails will not be responded to in the evenings over the week-ends or during holiday breaks.
Voila! Of course it makes my already 10 page syllabus a little longer, but it has spared me at least the "student expectation" of an immediate response. Now, I just have to impose those limits on myself!
Monday, June 04, 2007
Fact to Face?
This article "Learners' Perspectives on What is Missing from Online Learning: Interpretations through the Community of Inquiry Framework"discusses a research project of online learners who site missing face-to-face contact. It explores what exactly it is about the face-to-face contact that they miss. The three authors have a background in "ground" and online teaching at the university level and offer their "take" on the five themes that emerged when conducting the resource.
When I read the article I wondered if the concept of "presence" is really due to the fact that it is an online course, or the way those particular courses were designed. Considering the fact that are growing numbers of people who participate in many intimate human interactions via chat rooms, anonymous phone dating, etc. I began to wonder if the concept of "presence" has more to do with a person's perception (as noted in the title) of "presence."
I also wondered how many students in "ground" courses feel the lack of "presence" in courses that have certainly face-to-face contact, but do not strive to create a learning community. Perhaps a larger "look" at the new ways in which community is being perceived and constructed would inform both teaching environments.
When I read the article I wondered if the concept of "presence" is really due to the fact that it is an online course, or the way those particular courses were designed. Considering the fact that are growing numbers of people who participate in many intimate human interactions via chat rooms, anonymous phone dating, etc. I began to wonder if the concept of "presence" has more to do with a person's perception (as noted in the title) of "presence."
I also wondered how many students in "ground" courses feel the lack of "presence" in courses that have certainly face-to-face contact, but do not strive to create a learning community. Perhaps a larger "look" at the new ways in which community is being perceived and constructed would inform both teaching environments.
Friday, June 01, 2007
Questioning Assumptions About Student's Expectation for Technology in College Classrooms
To read this article from Innovate: Journal of Online Education, you will need to register, but not to worry registration is free.
There are many things about not only this article but most of the articles features in the June/July edition focusing on so-called Net Generation students that bear further discussion.
The one that is at the top of the list for me, is the apparent theory that students who can IM, Chat, Pict/Flix, answer emails, surf the web and download are technologically savvy. I wholeheartedly disagree with this. What may be true is that there is a comfortability level with technology, but there must be more evidence of skill and the ability to evaluate these resources, or use them appropriately for some level of "savvy-ness" to be evident.
Second, how does labeling all students "Net Gen" and funneling resources toward revising teaching strategies so that focus on them, impact students from lower incomes or who for some other reason may have a cell phone and a computer, but again, are not at the same level as those mentioned in the studies? Just when you think the "playing field" is becoming more equal another volcanic mountain pushes to the surface.
A couple of stories...
One of the classes I teach at Minneapolis Community and Technical College is a beginning music theory class that uses a cd-rom for exercises. My students all have cell phones, evidence by the rush to check for messages once class is over and the two class periods we go through "enjoying" ring tones until everyone gets used to the procedure of turning off their cell phones at the start of class. Yet getting these same students to become proficient with the cd-rom, and the use of d2l (Desire to Learn) to access grades and upload assignments took sometimes into the middle of the semester. Their "savvy-ness" does not translate.
Second story, I had four "laptop kids" in a class I taught at the University of MN. Since I tend to move around in the class when I lecture, I noticed on several occasions that they were not taking notes or viewing sites that had anything to do with my class., they were in fact asnwering emails, checking game scores, etc. Looking back at these same student's grades it was clear that unlike the student mentioned in the article posted, these students did not already know what I was talking about, as they performed poorly on tests and assignments related to those very lectures. There may be the assumption that portions of lectures aren't important or that they present familiar information, but how valid is that perception? In my students' cases not valid at all. It might have been interesting to test laptop kid's actual knowledge of the material being presented to assess this. So multi-tasking, schmasking.
Rather than implementing changes demanded by students for more "bells and whistles" in the classroom, perhaps we should actually be studying the impact that technology is having on the ability or inability to establish community in the classroom (and the world for that matter) The comment made by the laptop kid when told of the distraction his laptop use was causing was this "You can choose if you want to be distracted by the tablet [PC] . . . or pay attention to the professor" - laptop kid. Clearly the classroom is not his community, nor does he see it as his responsibility to promote rather than to distract from it.
Perhaps there is need for some definitions. What does savvy mean? Is it more than just being comfortable with some forms of technology? Does it involved being able to use this technology appropriately?
Along with new defintions, maybe we should ask if students are actually exhibiting multi-tasking "skills" leading to sucessful learning or are they merely increasing their inability to focus on anything?
There are many things about not only this article but most of the articles features in the June/July edition focusing on so-called Net Generation students that bear further discussion.
The one that is at the top of the list for me, is the apparent theory that students who can IM, Chat, Pict/Flix, answer emails, surf the web and download are technologically savvy. I wholeheartedly disagree with this. What may be true is that there is a comfortability level with technology, but there must be more evidence of skill and the ability to evaluate these resources, or use them appropriately for some level of "savvy-ness" to be evident.
Second, how does labeling all students "Net Gen" and funneling resources toward revising teaching strategies so that focus on them, impact students from lower incomes or who for some other reason may have a cell phone and a computer, but again, are not at the same level as those mentioned in the studies? Just when you think the "playing field" is becoming more equal another volcanic mountain pushes to the surface.
A couple of stories...
One of the classes I teach at Minneapolis Community and Technical College is a beginning music theory class that uses a cd-rom for exercises. My students all have cell phones, evidence by the rush to check for messages once class is over and the two class periods we go through "enjoying" ring tones until everyone gets used to the procedure of turning off their cell phones at the start of class. Yet getting these same students to become proficient with the cd-rom, and the use of d2l (Desire to Learn) to access grades and upload assignments took sometimes into the middle of the semester. Their "savvy-ness" does not translate.
Second story, I had four "laptop kids" in a class I taught at the University of MN. Since I tend to move around in the class when I lecture, I noticed on several occasions that they were not taking notes or viewing sites that had anything to do with my class., they were in fact asnwering emails, checking game scores, etc. Looking back at these same student's grades it was clear that unlike the student mentioned in the article posted, these students did not already know what I was talking about, as they performed poorly on tests and assignments related to those very lectures. There may be the assumption that portions of lectures aren't important or that they present familiar information, but how valid is that perception? In my students' cases not valid at all. It might have been interesting to test laptop kid's actual knowledge of the material being presented to assess this. So multi-tasking, schmasking.
Rather than implementing changes demanded by students for more "bells and whistles" in the classroom, perhaps we should actually be studying the impact that technology is having on the ability or inability to establish community in the classroom (and the world for that matter) The comment made by the laptop kid when told of the distraction his laptop use was causing was this "You can choose if you want to be distracted by the tablet [PC] . . . or pay attention to the professor" - laptop kid. Clearly the classroom is not his community, nor does he see it as his responsibility to promote rather than to distract from it.
Perhaps there is need for some definitions. What does savvy mean? Is it more than just being comfortable with some forms of technology? Does it involved being able to use this technology appropriately?
Along with new defintions, maybe we should ask if students are actually exhibiting multi-tasking "skills" leading to sucessful learning or are they merely increasing their inability to focus on anything?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
