I'm always a little taken aback by the "art versus science" debate since I think there's an implication that one is learned and one is inherent, when in reality I think both art and science are a little of both. Which I guess is also how I approach teaching. I think that there are inherent qualities that make someone an excellent teacher. An ability to read your audience, patience, and a natural knack for communication are a few of these qualities. That being said, I also believe that having these and more qualities isn't enough to make someone a good teacher. A good teacher will also have done their research on how different students learn best, what different ways to assess student's work is, and how to organize a lesson plan. Skills like these I believe are learned, not inherent. Also, teachers in public K-12 settings particularly have to have some understanding of the curriculum guidelines of their specific state, and also know how to best "teach for the test" - while this might not be a positive, there's still no doubt that governments are judging teacher quality on standards assessment, so a "good" teacher needs to be aware of what these standardized assessments are and can't just rely on creative lessons and good rapport with students to succeed.
So I guess ultimately I think the best teaching comes from inherent and learned skills. I think teacher librarians have a little more wiggle-room as they're often not faced with the same students day after day, and can be a little more flexible with lesson planning and engagement with the students. There are two sides to this - on the one hand, I think this is why so many school libraries are facing closure - it's difficult to assess a libraries effectiveness in K-12 education. On the other hand, when a library is supported by its community (including parents, teachers, students, and board of education) it can be a place where students and teachers can really think outside the box and collaborate with librarians on projects that supplement the "standardized" educational experience.
Sunday, December 12, 2010
Monday, November 29, 2010
Can't Get Enough of Collaboration!
My background is actually in theater - so collaborative learning, and the way that a librarian can position his/herself in a collaborative learning environment by developing a virtual learning commons, or working with teachers to come up with innovative supplementary projects to enhance learning is particularly exciting to me. More and more, the "official" library code seems to be embracing collaboration. The AASL Guidelines for School Library Media Programs state “Perhaps a better way to think of 21st century learning environments is as the support systems that organize the condition in which humans learn best – systems that accommodate the unique learning needs of every learner and support the positive human relationships needed for effective learning." (emphasis mine). "Effective learning" is tied to collaboration in practical rhetoric, and not just in the writings of Lave et. al.
21st century librarians who work in education, whether it be academic or K-12, need to embrace collaboration in my opinion. The library is the ideal space outside of the classroom for students to collaborate on projects to enhance learning, and apply the knowledge that they've learned in classrooms to "real-life" situations. Librarians themselves can model good collaborative behavior by encouraging teachers to work with them to develop supplemental learning experiences for students.
21st century librarians who work in education, whether it be academic or K-12, need to embrace collaboration in my opinion. The library is the ideal space outside of the classroom for students to collaborate on projects to enhance learning, and apply the knowledge that they've learned in classrooms to "real-life" situations. Librarians themselves can model good collaborative behavior by encouraging teachers to work with them to develop supplemental learning experiences for students.
Sunday, November 14, 2010
Online Learning vs. Face-2-Face
There are any number of built in differences between online learning and face-2-face learning including nondirect teacher-student interaction and student-student interaction and presentation of material. One of the major differences I've seen as an online student at San Jose that differs from my face-to-face previous experiences with learning is in assessment. I actually think that in the best scenarios, online learning leads to more in-depth feedback - both from the instructor to the student, and in the student's own self-evaluation. I'm not sure what the "scientific" reason for this is, or even if it's more just been my own personal experience, but perhaps because it's one of the few ways that I get to directly interact with my professor (and vice versa) I find the feedback that I receive from online instructors on my work to be more in-depth and organized around assessment principles. By requiring students to submit their thoughts once a week, and reply to each other's work (which is the case with most online courses I've taken), as an individual I'm forced to think about what I've learned and reflect on it on a regular basis, and as a peer, I'm engaging with my fellow students on their thoughts. This doesn't necessarily happen in a 100-person lecture, or even in a small 15-class seminar.
In addition, the lack of opportunities for traditional "sage on stage" lecturing techniques means that online learning tends to be more constructivist which I feel lends itself to more opportunities to self-evaluate and ponder what we learn, rather than just take in knowledge.
As an online student, I often miss the camaraderie of a physical classroom that develops between teachers and students and between students and students. But on the whole, I've found the online experience to be rewarding as it requires me to have more ownership of my education, which ultimately allows me personally to take in and apply knowledge more.
In addition, the lack of opportunities for traditional "sage on stage" lecturing techniques means that online learning tends to be more constructivist which I feel lends itself to more opportunities to self-evaluate and ponder what we learn, rather than just take in knowledge.
As an online student, I often miss the camaraderie of a physical classroom that develops between teachers and students and between students and students. But on the whole, I've found the online experience to be rewarding as it requires me to have more ownership of my education, which ultimately allows me personally to take in and apply knowledge more.
Friday, October 29, 2010
Assessment
Because I agree with Wiggins and McTighe that "understanding is about wise performance - transfer and use of big ideas" (250) I definitely believe that assessment is a core part of educational design. And assessment refers not just to teachers/librarians putting an arbitrary grade on work, but perhaps more importantly assessment is measured best by students' self-assessment - their reflection not just on what they learned, but on how it applies to past and future learnings, and also their reflection on the entire learning process and how they best learn (in order to ensure that they become Bruce-defined "informed learners.")
Wiggins and McTighe write, "Effective assessment is more like a scrapbook of mementos and pictures than a single snapshot. Rather than using a single test, of one type, at the end of teaching, effective teacher-assessors gather lots of evidence along the way, using a variety of methods and formats" (152). Thinking of assessment in this way opens the door for teacher librarian involvement in everyday curriculum. Libraries can be an ideal part of the school community for "outside-the-box" approaches to assessment that call on assessment projects that do more than simply quiz students on what they've learned. The high school TL I work with as part of my school fieldwork is a model for how to build assessment tools for library research that also tie in with larger class learning activities. By demonstrating an ability to create valuable assessment tools, a TL can instill in teacher's the idea that librarians are educators too, and can instill in student's the idea that their is something of value to be learned and reflected on in the library.
Wiggins and McTighe write, "Effective assessment is more like a scrapbook of mementos and pictures than a single snapshot. Rather than using a single test, of one type, at the end of teaching, effective teacher-assessors gather lots of evidence along the way, using a variety of methods and formats" (152). Thinking of assessment in this way opens the door for teacher librarian involvement in everyday curriculum. Libraries can be an ideal part of the school community for "outside-the-box" approaches to assessment that call on assessment projects that do more than simply quiz students on what they've learned. The high school TL I work with as part of my school fieldwork is a model for how to build assessment tools for library research that also tie in with larger class learning activities. By demonstrating an ability to create valuable assessment tools, a TL can instill in teacher's the idea that librarians are educators too, and can instill in student's the idea that their is something of value to be learned and reflected on in the library.
Sunday, October 17, 2010
Students Must Form Their Own Understandings
It seems from both the McTighe and Wiggins readings, and from Bruce, that what is important in understanding information, that we as teachers should strive for with our students, is getting students to understand what their needs are in understanding information. Are they, as Bruce would classify them, "cyclic," "sequential," or "simultaneous" (63) and how does this affect how they gather and process information? McTighe and Wiggins suggest ways of framing questions that allow students to look within and find answers that will lead to their ultimate understandings. Also, work should be assessed in a non black and white fashion - students shouldn't be led to believe that they are "right" or "wrong" but instead should be given clear analysis of their work that continues to ask them questions.
This idea of essential questions is particularly intriguing to me as it begins to point me in a direction of first of all, how to better engage students with questions that will interest them, but also how to frame lesson plans around essential questions that lead to students' own understandings of materials.
Both Bruce's and McTighe and Wiggins' discussions of understanding through engaging students in their own learning experience supplement the AASL standards well. To me, the AASL standards are a decent launch pad for getting teachers/librarians to understand what is needed to qualify a student as "information literate" but they are also easy to gloss over and in terms of assessment, could easily fall into the traps that McTighe and Wiggins' describe - where students are able to complete work successfully, but don't form a lasting impression/understanding of what they've accomplished. But thinking about how to frame the standards with essential questions, projects that engage them at every turn and form broader understandings, and assessment that makes them reflect on what they've learned can help not just define information literacy, but create information literate students.
This idea of essential questions is particularly intriguing to me as it begins to point me in a direction of first of all, how to better engage students with questions that will interest them, but also how to frame lesson plans around essential questions that lead to students' own understandings of materials.
Both Bruce's and McTighe and Wiggins' discussions of understanding through engaging students in their own learning experience supplement the AASL standards well. To me, the AASL standards are a decent launch pad for getting teachers/librarians to understand what is needed to qualify a student as "information literate" but they are also easy to gloss over and in terms of assessment, could easily fall into the traps that McTighe and Wiggins' describe - where students are able to complete work successfully, but don't form a lasting impression/understanding of what they've accomplished. But thinking about how to frame the standards with essential questions, projects that engage them at every turn and form broader understandings, and assessment that makes them reflect on what they've learned can help not just define information literacy, but create information literate students.
Saturday, October 2, 2010
Information Literacy - Mea Culpa
One of the biggest biases that exists in approaching "information literacy" in the 21st century is that information literacy somehow refers to simply how to best use the internet, web 2.0, whatever other new technology has come along. I myself have been guilty of throwing the term "information literacy" around and meaning only teaching students how to search databases beyond google. But as I'm developing my own lesson plans in my school fieldwork this semester, and, more importantly, teaching students, I'm learning that "information literacy" means so much more. As Wiggins and McTighe would put it - focusing on only the new technologies side of information literacy is looking at only the basic ideas, and not delving into the core of what information literacy is.
The best definition of information literacy I've found, that helps me uncover the big ideas about information literacy, is from the ACRL. They state that information literacy “is an intellectual framework for understanding, finding, evaluating and using information -- activities which may be accomplished in part by fluency with information technology, in part by sound investigative methods, but most important, through critical discernment and reasoning” (emphasis mine). To me, its the critical reasoning that students put to practice on what they learn that makes them information literate. To know how to create a website, for example, is one step forward, but understanding when a website will best express their ideas, or when it becomes more than a lot of cool stuff but instead is a perfect expression of what they've learned and are trying to teach others, that's when a student is information literate.
But that being said, as Bruce points out, "Today's digital or virtual environments make it harder for people to be 'information savvy'" (16). So ignoring the way that technology influences learning is equally dangerous and focusing too much on the basics. The key is to find the common ground between being information literate and being technically literate - to plan lessons that draw on the core idea that students need to know how to navigate through information and critically analyze it using the latest technology. I think the AASL standards are a great launchpad for teachers/librarians to approaching this merging of big ideas. They focus in on the importance of simply understanding how to understand what you're learning, but also put an emphasis on the needed skills of 21st century learners.
The best definition of information literacy I've found, that helps me uncover the big ideas about information literacy, is from the ACRL. They state that information literacy “is an intellectual framework for understanding, finding, evaluating and using information -- activities which may be accomplished in part by fluency with information technology, in part by sound investigative methods, but most important, through critical discernment and reasoning” (emphasis mine). To me, its the critical reasoning that students put to practice on what they learn that makes them information literate. To know how to create a website, for example, is one step forward, but understanding when a website will best express their ideas, or when it becomes more than a lot of cool stuff but instead is a perfect expression of what they've learned and are trying to teach others, that's when a student is information literate.
But that being said, as Bruce points out, "Today's digital or virtual environments make it harder for people to be 'information savvy'" (16). So ignoring the way that technology influences learning is equally dangerous and focusing too much on the basics. The key is to find the common ground between being information literate and being technically literate - to plan lessons that draw on the core idea that students need to know how to navigate through information and critically analyze it using the latest technology. I think the AASL standards are a great launchpad for teachers/librarians to approaching this merging of big ideas. They focus in on the importance of simply understanding how to understand what you're learning, but also put an emphasis on the needed skills of 21st century learners.
Thursday, September 16, 2010
What is Learning?
I'm still having a hard time thinking of "learning" as more than an action word. The most successful "learning" experiences are those that lead to the six facets of understanding, eloquently laid out by Wiggins and McTighe. These six facets - explanation, interpretation, application, perspective, empathy, self-knowledge - helped shape an understanding of understanding (no pun intended?) that I hadn't really grasped in the previous reading. The last two facets in particular really resonated with me - and seem to be where educators most often drop the ball in transferring knowledge to students, perhaps because they themselves don't fully understand the material. It makes me go back and think of my most unsuccessful teaching experiences - generally it was when I had the least comfort with the material I was trying to impart, and I suspect that if I thought about whether I could apply these six facets to the material, I would come up lacking. Is it a good test then, or would it be too proscriptive?
I also loved this quote in regards to interpretation of knowledge: "meaning, of course, is in the eye of the beholder." This ties in well with the reading I've been doing on situated learning. Many of the authors of various case studies involving situated learning speak of the importance of taking in your audience of learners when approaching teaching and considering their past experiences - very similar to the ideas of interpretation - that different individuals will take different things from their learning - which is one of the facets of understanding. For example, Pitri (2004) writes, "Planning curriculum appropriate for situated learning should start with observations of children, the identification of peer culture, and more specifically, the interests, everyday questions, likes, and dislikes of children." Understanding is not concrete - and too often mainstream K-12 education in particular seems to emphasize a need for standardization.
REFERENCES
Pitri, E. (2004). Situated learning in a classroom community. Art Education 57(6). 6-12.
I also loved this quote in regards to interpretation of knowledge: "meaning, of course, is in the eye of the beholder." This ties in well with the reading I've been doing on situated learning. Many of the authors of various case studies involving situated learning speak of the importance of taking in your audience of learners when approaching teaching and considering their past experiences - very similar to the ideas of interpretation - that different individuals will take different things from their learning - which is one of the facets of understanding. For example, Pitri (2004) writes, "Planning curriculum appropriate for situated learning should start with observations of children, the identification of peer culture, and more specifically, the interests, everyday questions, likes, and dislikes of children." Understanding is not concrete - and too often mainstream K-12 education in particular seems to emphasize a need for standardization.
REFERENCES
Pitri, E. (2004). Situated learning in a classroom community. Art Education 57(6). 6-12.
Sunday, August 29, 2010
Knowing and Understanding
To me, knowing is the little sister to understanding. To know something means that you have awareness of the subject, perhaps even that you can teach the subject to someone else. But to understand means that you can take knowing to the next level and actually apply the subject to other aspects of your life. It centers around the question I hear so often from my tutoring students when I'm teaching (math in particular) "why do I need to know this?" I tell students, you need to know division/percentages/percentage change/etc. so that when you're at a store you can figure out what 20% off means (for example). So often though students can learn how to do something, but still not understand what the real-life application of that knowledge is and to me, that's the central difference between knowing and understanding - being able to take knowledge and apply it to something else that is not so obvious. A good example of knowledge versus understanding referenced in Understanding by Designwas the teacher's efforts to get his students to not just learn what good foods were, but to apply this knowledge to creating their own diets. By doing so, the students show an understanding of nutritional value that affects their daily lives.
As teachers, this quote from Understanding by Designresonated with me in terms of identifying the difference between knowledge and understanding was that "we must grasp the key idea that we are coaches of their ability to play the "game" of performing with understanding, not tellers of our understanding to them on the sidelines (Wiggins and McTighe, 17). I think it is definitely possible, if not even common, for teachers themselves to forget the difference between knowing and understanding and I wonder if sometimes teachers themselves don't necessarily understand the subject that they are trying to teach to their students. I think this is how the design templates referenced in chapter one of Understanding by Design can be useful - to help teachers organize their own understanding of a subject before they design a lesson plan to teach their students.
As teachers, this quote from Understanding by Designresonated with me in terms of identifying the difference between knowledge and understanding was that "we must grasp the key idea that we are coaches of their ability to play the "game" of performing with understanding, not tellers of our understanding to them on the sidelines (Wiggins and McTighe, 17). I think it is definitely possible, if not even common, for teachers themselves to forget the difference between knowing and understanding and I wonder if sometimes teachers themselves don't necessarily understand the subject that they are trying to teach to their students. I think this is how the design templates referenced in chapter one of Understanding by Design can be useful - to help teachers organize their own understanding of a subject before they design a lesson plan to teach their students.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)