I enjoyed the Bradshaw (2002) article, as it reflects the way I think and act in a teaching/learning environment (or attempt to work in a teaching/learning environment!) The social constructivist learning approach is one where students construct their own knowledge and extrapolate meaning from their learning experience. I was particularly interested in the role of the teacher in a social constructivist environment.
I feel comfortable in the role of teacher as facilitator as discussed by Bradshaw (2002), as this relates more to my professional work history as a youth worker and community development worker where facilitation skills are highly prized and practised.
When reflecting upon this article, I remembered how I felt as a new lecturer in Youth Work Studies many years ago, and why I initially experienced such discomfort in this role. I observed the dynamics at play at the time. I realised that I looked upon the students as people bringing a rich and varied life experience into the classroom that I could draw upon and work with (the social constructivist approach). What I found was that the majority of students looked up at me as some kind of expert or guru who had all of the answers. An interesting contradiction was at play. These students seemed very much at home with the didactic approach, and as we were working in an environment that was aimed at producing critically thinking and reflective practitioners, these students were challenged on a daily basis. I also discovered that I had to step into my role as lecturer, and build my confidence as someone who had much to offer my students.
Given that we are now working within an ICT environment, I feel confident that I can apply my facilitation skills within this context. I just need to be very well prepared when using an ICT tool or activity, and research and rehearse my use of that particular tool until it becomes second nature to me. Only then can I concentrate on being there fully for the students.
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
Thursday, July 1, 2010
Analysis of learning styles questionnaire and how it might affect how you learn or teach generally and in the ICT learning environment in particular.
When I consider my profile, it makes sense to me. I am fairly well balanced across the four areas: Visual 6; Aural 10; Read/Write 9; Kinesthetic 8 (VARK a guide to learning styles 2001). I like to understand things fully; starting with conceptual knowledge or ‘big pictures’, then mind-mapping and drawing these concepts; then breaking the concepts down into further areas and making lists; doing further reading and taking notes. Sometimes I feel as if I want to integrate this information into and through my body. I know that this sounds strange, but it’s as if I need a 3D dimension to my understanding (hence the kinesthetic). When attending parent/teacher nights at my daughter’s primary school, I loved the way that the teacher would begin the evening. He would always start with a physical activity that was linked to what the children were learning at the time.
During Class 6 parent/teacher night, we started with getting in a circle and every parent was given a small beanbag for throwing. This activity was modelled on the study of geometry. During main lesson, the children were drawing big circles on the page and then mathematically dividing the circles up into intricate, symmetrical patterns. Each child would colour in their drawing in a different way, resulting in the most beautiful, technical, yet individually coloured geometrical pieces. They were individual works of art.
The teacher gave us instructions to throw our bean bags simultaneously to the person two spaces to the left of us for example. (We were catching and throwing simultaneously). Then the instructions would vary to throw to another parent at a different spacing. We would then reverse the process; laughing and dropping beanbags and trying again to work in a consistent pattern. We were creating geometrical patterns in our throwing circle. I thought that this exercise was fabulous, as I was feeling the geometry and understanding it through my body. The children were beginning each day with these exercises while also being taught geometrical/mathematical concepts on the board, having to work through equations, and then drawing these concepts onto paper. This process seemed to me, to consider different learning styles of the children.
Having a balance of the four learning styles, means that I have the ability to understand the students’ needs for a variety of teaching methods. This also means that if I direct students to do the VARK questionnaire, then together we can work towards catering to their individual learning style needs (Fleming & Mills, 1992). In the ICT environment, I need to select the appropriate tools for a particular learning outcome and work within this framework. The process should not differ – only the tools would change.
During Class 6 parent/teacher night, we started with getting in a circle and every parent was given a small beanbag for throwing. This activity was modelled on the study of geometry. During main lesson, the children were drawing big circles on the page and then mathematically dividing the circles up into intricate, symmetrical patterns. Each child would colour in their drawing in a different way, resulting in the most beautiful, technical, yet individually coloured geometrical pieces. They were individual works of art.
The teacher gave us instructions to throw our bean bags simultaneously to the person two spaces to the left of us for example. (We were catching and throwing simultaneously). Then the instructions would vary to throw to another parent at a different spacing. We would then reverse the process; laughing and dropping beanbags and trying again to work in a consistent pattern. We were creating geometrical patterns in our throwing circle. I thought that this exercise was fabulous, as I was feeling the geometry and understanding it through my body. The children were beginning each day with these exercises while also being taught geometrical/mathematical concepts on the board, having to work through equations, and then drawing these concepts onto paper. This process seemed to me, to consider different learning styles of the children.
Having a balance of the four learning styles, means that I have the ability to understand the students’ needs for a variety of teaching methods. This also means that if I direct students to do the VARK questionnaire, then together we can work towards catering to their individual learning style needs (Fleming & Mills, 1992). In the ICT environment, I need to select the appropriate tools for a particular learning outcome and work within this framework. The process should not differ – only the tools would change.
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
How the characteristics of my students might affect how they learn and what an ideal learning environment might look for them.
My students are a mix of ages, cultures, socio-economic backgrounds and technological abilities. Given that my students are mixed in their technological abilities, I need to cater for a variety of learning styles, include a variety of modes of delivery (including face to face delivery), model good, purposeful use of Web 2.0 technologies, and involve those students who are highly technologically literate, to work with me in supporting those who are not. In order to do this effectively, I need to create a safe space for learning.
I found the readings regarding the digital natives debate both interesting and illuminating. Bennett, Maton and Kervin (2008), discuss the moral panic that has been generated regarding the ‘Net Generation’ or ‘digital natives’, (those born between 1980 and 1994), who supposedly possess a “sophisticated knowledge of and skills with information technologies” (p. 777). McNeely (2005) continues with the theme of Net Gens somehow being more gifted when it comes to their use of technology. What I found fascinating was the feeling of panic rising as I read McNeely!
I found McNeely (2005) making very broad generalisations that were not helpful to the debate, including discussing the digital natives (or Net Gens), as if they were born to work cooperatively and collectively; having done ‘team work’ since kindergarten. My point is - we all learn to communicate from the time we are born – but how well we do that is another matter. Communication and team work skills are not ‘natural’; they are skills that need to be constantly developed and improved upon. The Net Gens are not necessarily gifted collaborators. This is an assumption that requires further exploration.
I found the readings regarding the digital natives debate both interesting and illuminating. Bennett, Maton and Kervin (2008), discuss the moral panic that has been generated regarding the ‘Net Generation’ or ‘digital natives’, (those born between 1980 and 1994), who supposedly possess a “sophisticated knowledge of and skills with information technologies” (p. 777). McNeely (2005) continues with the theme of Net Gens somehow being more gifted when it comes to their use of technology. What I found fascinating was the feeling of panic rising as I read McNeely!
I found McNeely (2005) making very broad generalisations that were not helpful to the debate, including discussing the digital natives (or Net Gens), as if they were born to work cooperatively and collectively; having done ‘team work’ since kindergarten. My point is - we all learn to communicate from the time we are born – but how well we do that is another matter. Communication and team work skills are not ‘natural’; they are skills that need to be constantly developed and improved upon. The Net Gens are not necessarily gifted collaborators. This is an assumption that requires further exploration.
Monday, June 28, 2010
What does the changing environment of higher education in a Web 2.0 world mean to you?
What does the changing environment of higher education in a Web 2.0 world mean to you?
The changing environment of higher education in a Web 2.0 world means that I have to become proficient in using Web 2.0 technologies and build my confidence in this area so that I can support my students to do the same. What I found very interesting from the readings, is that I have been wrong in assuming that the majority of students coming into higher education are very proficient in using Web 2.0 technologies. And, as many students are not proficient in using these technologies, such is the case with staff members. There is a diversity of experiences with technology, and assumptions should not be made.
There is a direct link between the use of Web 2.0 technologies and the employability skills that I use in my teaching of practicum, for example, teamwork, communication, collaboration, technological proficiency. There is an opportunity to practice these skills as part of the teaching/learning component in class. One may assume that this new technology will provide opportunities for a collaborative approach – however do students have the skills and the tools to work collectively? How do I make the process of working collaboratively explicit in class, and further use Web 2.0 technologies to further integrate their learning.
I am a very visual learner; I also learn by doing. I was interested to read that even very young learners, who are not proficient in Web 2.0 technologies, when allowed the opportunity to explore an area of interest, quickly become quite sophisticated at their use of the technology. This means that if I as the educator can find common areas of interest for my students, within their practicum experience, using Web 2.0 technologies could prove very meaningful.
The changing environment of higher education in a Web 2.0 world means that I have to become proficient in using Web 2.0 technologies and build my confidence in this area so that I can support my students to do the same. What I found very interesting from the readings, is that I have been wrong in assuming that the majority of students coming into higher education are very proficient in using Web 2.0 technologies. And, as many students are not proficient in using these technologies, such is the case with staff members. There is a diversity of experiences with technology, and assumptions should not be made.
There is a direct link between the use of Web 2.0 technologies and the employability skills that I use in my teaching of practicum, for example, teamwork, communication, collaboration, technological proficiency. There is an opportunity to practice these skills as part of the teaching/learning component in class. One may assume that this new technology will provide opportunities for a collaborative approach – however do students have the skills and the tools to work collectively? How do I make the process of working collaboratively explicit in class, and further use Web 2.0 technologies to further integrate their learning.
I am a very visual learner; I also learn by doing. I was interested to read that even very young learners, who are not proficient in Web 2.0 technologies, when allowed the opportunity to explore an area of interest, quickly become quite sophisticated at their use of the technology. This means that if I as the educator can find common areas of interest for my students, within their practicum experience, using Web 2.0 technologies could prove very meaningful.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)