Week 2 Kellogg Institute:
Dr Barbara Bonham: Designing Learning Environments
in Developmental Education
Brief Summary: Dr Bonham had six major themes for
the week: 1) Brain Based Research and Implications for Teaching/Learning, 2)
Strategies for Enhancing Student Motivation, 3) Contextual Teaching and
Learning, 4) Active Learning Strategies and Enhancing Student Engagement, 5) Integrating
Critical Thinking and Problem Solving Skills, and 6) Accelerated Learning
Models (Delivery Formats). She used a
clever theme for the session introduction—butterflies and transformation—to
give the overview for the week, even introducing the topic with the book/film
“The Very Hungry Caterpillar”. She
formed us into six groups and assigned each group to one of the major topics,
By “jigsawing” the class topics, the learners constructed the class material
and gave presentations on Friday, July 13th. Also, many class resources for each of the
topics were uploaded into the ASULearn site for sharing with the entire
class. She also overviewed Instructional
Design, Universal Design, Philosophical Approaches and Theories of Learning,
Learning Styles and Non-Cognitive Assessments, Classroom Assessment Techniques
(MEOW!) and gave us time to work in our small groups to research our topics and
create our interactive presentations.
The group topic I chose was Accelerated Learning, and our group worked
on researching different learning models and delivery formats. The TIDES publication became an important
source for our presentation.
We spent some time developing our personal metaphor
for teaching, and some of us have had to write Statements of Teaching Philosophy
at some time, so we also described the benefits of articulating why we do
things the way that we do. I pondered
that currently my perspective on my teaching is that I’m working to bridge the
gap between what I intend for my learners to get out of the class and what
actually happens in the class. Sometimes
I feel like I’m the pilot of a plane that I’m in the process of building.
Another definition of teaching that resonates for me is that we are decision
makers in ambiguous settings.
Additionally, since the NADE board was on campus
for a meeting we were able to meet briefly with them and make introductions. We
also had a chance to complete the Canfield Learning Styles Inventory and
discuss the results. We grouped ourselves
into peer groups based on result categories and discussed our similarities and
how well we thought the assessment placed us.
Critique: Dr Bonham practiced what she preached—she
had us create concept maps throughout the seminar and invited class members up
to the document camera to share their concept maps. We completed CATs periodically to check for
understanding. At first we students were
grumpy about doing a group project, but eventually we realized that it was very
engaging. It got me working and is very realistic and applicable—virtually
everything I do for my “real job” involves working on a team with others. Also, I don’t always *like* the people I need
to work with, but it is important to develop the skills to work with many
different kinds of people to appreciate others’ different perspectives and ways
to approach tasks.
I really appreciated all of the resources posted in
a central location (ASULearn) and the ability to see the work of the other
teams. It also created accountability—not
only was the instructor seeing my work, my peers also saw it and may possibly use
it.
Dr Bonham explained that she is a global learner,
and explained how she made all of the materials available to us (much more than
we would have time to use in the week), and provided a road map for each day to
support the more linear learners to follow her lead. I too am a global learner, so I appreciated
her style immediately and also appreciated her accommodating others who may have
been bewildered by the massive amount of information and its order of
presentation.
The group presentations gave students a chance to
develop Prezi technology skills, and in fact Derrick gave a mini session Wednesday
afternoon on how to create Prezis. I appreciated seeing all of my classmates in
their familiar role as presenters/teachers—it was a nice way to see people
doing what they love to do.
Description of the implications: One implication, which
I referenced above, is the usage of themes to introduce a topic and set the
tone for the session. I will have to look into using themes more with my
teaching. I also believe creating a statement of teaching philosophy is an
important exercise—putting a name to why we do what we do. An unexpected finding from that discussion:
math faculty/math graduate students don’t really study critical theory so there
was some confusion about terminology and concepts. Another related topic seems to be that math
assignments do not tend to get into the higher order thinking categories such
as synthesis/creation. I’m curious about
what other implications might be related.
Prezis are a new technique for me, and I’m
interested in using the zooming presentation style.
The Canfield Learning Styles Inventory determined
me to be an “independent applied” learner.
I think I answered questions differently now than I would have answered
them when I was 18. In the past I think
I would have answered that I liked to learn things from reading. Now I prefer hands on activities for my
hobbies, for ways of learning my hobbies, such as beekeeping with other people
and learning about historic preservation by volunteering with work crews with
the HistoriCorps non-profit. These
examples make sense for the “applied” part of the category, but I do seem to
learn well by joining a group of people since it gives me a way to set public
goals and deadlines and use my sense of “not wanting to let others down” to
motivate me. However, I also do my best thinking when I have my quiet hour of
writing each morning—solitude and independence get me started with setting my
goals, and group work helps me to achieve them.
No comments:
Post a Comment