Week 3 was a great class!
I was locked-in during class tonight and definitely engaged. The topic was fun and the pace was to my liking. I am discovering the value of "pace" in learning. Moving from element to element without swelling, and being able to recognize when a topic or discussion has run its course enough to either close it off or mark it for further discussion at another time. Much like in a presentation, time management in the classroom is important. No learner wants to feel like the professor has any objective other than your learning, and it has never sat well with me when a lecture starts with "we have a lot of material to cover". A learner-centric environment matches the pace to the learners, and has to prioritize what (if anything) needs to be sacrificed or modified due to some component taking longer to learn than expected. Dr. Robertson has an acute awareness of time in the classroom, and on two occasions already I have marvelled at how she shifts/modifies activities in the name of time.
Anyway, I especially enjoyed the two breakout group discussions.; The first was on multiple intelligences. I had completed the "quiz" before class. These were my results.
Anyway, I especially enjoyed the two breakout group discussions.; The first was on multiple intelligences. I had completed the "quiz" before class. These were my results.
No surprises here. I had high interpersonal (over 80%). I found it interesting that the results categories grouped logical-mathematical together. While I have always placed a high value on things being logical (new information has to make sense or I will challenge/resist it), I am by no means a "math person". Anyway, a multiple intelligence test was a neat idea from an awareness standpoint, and asking students to complete the test offline saved classroom time while also allowing students to prepare for a fulsome in-class discussion. The discussion that followed was insightful as this peer group has so many great ideas! Some criticised the test itself, but all agreed that multiple intelligences exist and in a learner-centred classroom this needs to be considered. The method of instruction needs to incorporate elements that apply to different intelligences, and not shame students when they are not as strong in one intelligence area. For example, I scored very low on naturalistic and kinesthetic intelligence, which means that my physical/natural environment is not one that I care much to learn about. This does not mean that I dislike the outdoors, but rather that I dislike learning about the outdoors, farming, plants, animal species, etc.
I was aware of multiple intelligences before this class, but I learned a great deal nonetheless. I wonder about the limitations of this theory - if I know what intelligence areas I am weaker in, does that incline me to avoid learning when that type of intelligence is the focus? Learners can be labelled by their intelligence (both strengths and weaknesses), which may limit their willingness to learn AND can also negatively impact the teacher's opinion of the learner. The key takeaway is that there are different intelligences to consider, and that students who struggle with certain concepts are not "dumb". The course theme of "Every learner is different" is evidence of this.
The M.I. concept is also highlighted in one of the readings for this week, Bransford, Vye, and Bateman, who, when writing about learner-centred environments, identify that learners need to understand how they learn. A form of meta cognition. an M.I. exercise like this one is one tool to help learners who struggle identify how they - along with the instructor - can modify the learning to make it make sense TO THEM.
I was aware of multiple intelligences before this class, but I learned a great deal nonetheless. I wonder about the limitations of this theory - if I know what intelligence areas I am weaker in, does that incline me to avoid learning when that type of intelligence is the focus? Learners can be labelled by their intelligence (both strengths and weaknesses), which may limit their willingness to learn AND can also negatively impact the teacher's opinion of the learner. The key takeaway is that there are different intelligences to consider, and that students who struggle with certain concepts are not "dumb". The course theme of "Every learner is different" is evidence of this.
The M.I. concept is also highlighted in one of the readings for this week, Bransford, Vye, and Bateman, who, when writing about learner-centred environments, identify that learners need to understand how they learn. A form of meta cognition. an M.I. exercise like this one is one tool to help learners who struggle identify how they - along with the instructor - can modify the learning to make it make sense TO THEM.
We also discussed John Hattie’s Effect sizes in breakout groups. My discussion group was able to form our own definition of effect size in a way that allowed each of us to make sense of the concept. This approach to learning rang true to me as I subscribe to the theory of Andragogy, where adults need to relate new knowledge to their own experiences, as well as framing ideas in ways that make sense. Someone else's definition of effect size would not help me learn this concept, but forming my own definition did.
Essentially, Hattie is placing a value on how much (amount) of an effect some factor has on learning. The higher the effect size, the more impact it has. This instructional approach is one I will use when I have difficult concepts I am teaching to adults.
Essentially, Hattie is placing a value on how much (amount) of an effect some factor has on learning. The higher the effect size, the more impact it has. This instructional approach is one I will use when I have difficult concepts I am teaching to adults.
It was interesting to see Subject Matter Expertise apparently has only a small effect, while teacher "credibility" was far more impactful. I always thought being a SME was one way to earn respect in the classroom, so I struggled to separate SME from credibility. Universities who are hiring professors demand subject matter expertise, to the point where they require an applicant's academic credentials must be “in the field of study”. I will continue to work to understand this effect size - it was very interesting!
It was also eye-opening to read that class size was not a factor in learning. As a dad who sends kids to a private Christian school, I list smaller class sizes as one of my (many) justifications for paying out-of-pocket for my kids' school. This was a revelation to me!
All in all, a great class. I was engaged and participated verbally on the mic several times. Learned a lot about multiple intelligences, effect sizes, and got to work with a peer group in breakouts that I hadn't worked with before. From a teaching perspective, the time provided for discussion, breakout rooms, and the lecture was optimal.
From a learning objectives standpoint, I definitely hit LO#2, as I continue to develop a critical awareness of learning theories (MI and Effect Size) through collaboration in breakout groups. I was able to use my own experience as the complex educational problem on which I performed an inquiry and applied these theories, which is LO#3, and the follow-up discussions in class on the Bransford, Vye and Bateman paper (2002) met Outcome #5, which involves the application of scholarly communication and research.
Now time to prep for next week!
Now time to prep for next week!
No comments:
Post a Comment