The prompt this week asks us to look at how higher education is using social media. When researching this subject I noticed a discussion about how higher education is using social media as a way to further monitor students and at time faculty. This is slightly a different spin than most of the other post, but I think it is an important topic for students and faculty.
In Nico Perrino’s article “Universities: where you go to learn – and be monitored”, Universities new ability to “snoop” on student’s e-mails, Facebook and other social media pages. In the enhanced security environment we live and work in these actions by administrators are justified as safe guarding students. But in reality, these actions are often just heavy-handed strategies colleges use to control their public image – at students’ expense.
The article cites incidents of potential over reach by college administrators across the country, including a recent e-mail scandal at Harvard University. It is clear that social media offers students and faculty an excellent way to communicate and enhance the learning experience, as well as strengthen security around our often vulnerable college campuses; but, it is also clear that more discussions are needed on how Universities are using social media to ensure that the rights and privacy of students and faculty are protected.
The piece by Sarah Deel, “Finding My Teaching Voice,” and the idea of our authentic teaching selves resonated with a blog post I wrote a couple of weeks ago for my co-teaching independent study (I am co-teaching a sophomore-level hydrology course with my advisor this semester). I also reference a humorous article from The Chronicle of Higher Education called, “Desperate to be Liked,” which I think is relevant for this subject as well. The syllabus we devised for the independent study includes teaching a portion of the classes and, among other components, faculty observation. I shadow my advisor on the days I am not leading the class, but we also thought it would be a good idea to observe other professors as well, particularly those I would not necessarily have as an instructor otherwise. At first, I wondered if I would get anything out of this practice: is there really any use sitting in on more classes at this point in my program? So far, I have shadowed two professors in addition to my advisor and highly recommend this exercise to others interested in teaching. The readings this week made me think of the first professor I observed, who teaches an upper-level course in forestry. When my advisor mentioned him, he said something along the lines of “I don’t really get it, but students absolutely love him.” The professor definitely deviates from the master of pedagogy most of us might imagine. He comes across as fairly “old school” when it comes to teaching, and his examples and problems are real-world scenarios students might encounter in a future job. His PowerPoints are not full of animations, pictures, or YouTube videos. He speaks slowly. I doubt that he listens to Morning Edition on NPR. I also doubt that he blogs about it. Do the bored youth of our university cradling their smart phones actually like this guy? Yes, they certainly do, and within minutes of being in his class I understood why. He is extremely friendly, which makes him approachable. Being near retirement, he is exceptionally knowledgeable about the subject matter. His real-world examples strike a chord with students that realize they might need to use a concept from his class one day. I wrote in my other blog about how his voice caught my attention. I always assumed that in order to show enthusiasm and passion for a class, I must speak excitedly, waving my arms about, and shouting like an aerobics instructor. This professor speaks slowly and even quietly (although audibly), which actually has an extremely calming effect and also makes it easier for the students to follow when he works through problems or equations on the board. And he makes eye contact with everyone in the room, searching for confused looks or questions.
After observing his class, I began to think more about what makes a great teacher that inspires students. I reflected on my favorite teachers over the years, and while there are common threads (they were accessible, cared about the students, set clear expectations, etc.), for the most part, they are totally different from one another. In some cases, the teacher of the best class you will ever take may refuse to give tests and encourage everyone to play video games. Another teacher of an equally life-changing class may do the exact opposite. I realized that there is no one way to be a good teacher. We should take advantage of the latest pedagogical research to improve student learning by trying out non-traditional techniques and branching out from what has always been done. However, phenomenal teachers do not, by definition, need to follow each and every accepted convention in either direction (old school versus contemporary) but rather figure out what methods make them (and not necessarily someone else) the best and most effective instructor possible. I like the idea of finding our authentic teaching selves, which I would just call being genuine. We must continually work to modify courses and step up the quality of our teaching, but we should always start with being ourselves. And, in honor of being yourself….
To answer the blog prompt, what is my authentic teaching self? To follow the logic of “being yourself,” I guess I will start by describing myself in general. I am Type A, extremely organized, and detail-oriented. I can also be impatient. I have a dry sense of humor but enjoy humor and laughing in general; as a result, I often make fun of and laugh at myself. I enjoy spending time outside and am terrified at the thought of people being disconnected from the natural world (the most common question I was asked as a raft guide by rafting guests, mostly adults, is why the river does not go in a circle: “We can’t get out here, we’re not to where we put in yet!”), which I think is a veritable problem (it’s like, yeah, of course these people don’t believe in climate change). Despite coming across as an insane tree-hugger, I tend to promote moderation in most things. So, you know, lectures are cool, but not every day, all the time, and they should be high-quality (so, not reading off of slides). Class discussions and hands-on activities are also fine, but, depending on the course, maybe not every day, all the time, and some structure or prompts to the activity can help guide students in that regard. Tests should not ruin people’s lives or stand as a metric of their overall intelligence (other personal life story and aside, I was a lift operator at a ski resort, and–stemming from suggestions in class last week–to anyone that scoffs at mechanical/blue collar knowledge, running a chair lift, in terms of the machine itself, requires more intelligence, hands down, than a Bachelor’s degree, not even a point of discussion. Want to see people with problem-solving skills? Watch your car mechanic after providing the helpful diagnosis: “Yeah, it makes a noise sometimes.”). However, we should not totally overlook tests and other assessments as a learning tool and, additionally, as a source of feedback on our teaching. Technology is the key to solving many of the current problems we face, but let’s not stare at screens all day–it’s really bad for you. Go play outside, so you don’t ever get confused about rivers going in circles (or mountains and hills just being “really tall trees,” another common question from adult rafting guests that do not understand the concept of topography). Let’s allow our students to enjoy being nineteen or twenty years old and learning for the pure joy of learning, but we should also realize that jobs can bring people fulfillment (e.g. my friend wanted to be a doctor so that she could help people; Monica on Friends becomes a chef because she loves cooking, etc.), so we can permit them to think about future career paths without lamenting the death grip of capitalism. My authentic teaching self is some reflection of all of the above, for better or worse.
When a teacher feels at ease and comfortable in class, he/she will be able to deliver lectures with more and lectures will be received with more interest.
“The success of your presentation will be judged not by the knowledge you send but by what the listener receives.” – Lilly Walters
But let’s ask ourselves what students expect from their teachers in order to get educated. Educational Leadership asked this question back in 2008 and this is some of the answers they got back:
To take them seriously
To challenge them to think
To nurture their self-respect
To show them how they can make a difference
To encourage them to try things their way
To point them towards their goals
To make them feel appreciated
To tap their creativity and,
To bring out their best self
I get dizzy just by looking at the number of “demands” from students. How in the world am I going to meet their expectations? I barely have a handle on my expectations from them.
Well, it turns out that when I tune my expectations to their expectations coupled with my understanding and ease of the subject I am teaching, teaching them is not so difficult after all. They want to feel heard, acknowledged and respected. They want me to be their guide on a learning journey but they want to do the discovering on their own. I want to fulfill their needs as best as I can, that’s when the magic happens.
As an instructor, crafting your teaching philosophy that you believe is the most effective for your students is not an easy task. As Sarah Deel mentioned, you probably as a new instructor will try to imitate the way your professors used to teach you when you were in school. However, everyone has his own personality and not all instructors can do the same thing and be effective for students. In addition, students are different from each other and accordingly, one method of instruction is not effective for all students. So, how to figure out a method of instruction that suits your personality and is effective for your students is really a challenging task.
According to me I believe in active learning as a good way of conveying knowledge to students. It was mentioned in several educational research papers that engagement is a key factor in student understanding. Active learning turns the student from a passive receptor of knowledge (less engagement) to an active generator of knowledge (high engagement). So how can this be achieved?
I will take an example from a computer science course named “Data Structures and Algorithms” which is a critical course in any computer science curriculum and contains a lot of abstract concepts with no physical manifestation. This makes it really hard for students to easily grasp these concepts. The old traditional way of teaching this course is to present the idea behind a particular algorithm and show its pseudo code and try to discuss what this code is doing. For example here is the pseudo code for one of the most important sorting algorithms named Insertionsort.
As you see this code describes the dynamic process of sorting a list of numbers. It is really hard to make your students understand this mechanical process using static pseudo code representation. I bet the students will not be engaged to this method of presentation.
Another method of presenting this is to provide a visual animated depiction to this dynamic sorting process. I believe this to be a large leap from the traditional pseudo code approach, but still the students are passive in that they are just viewing what is going on in the animation without being actually active. Look at this animation.
What about making students learn this sorting algorithm with dancing? Believe me we can do that.
If we can make our students learn this hard and abstract concepts by performing a joyful engaging act like dancing, then we have turned our students from passive receivers to active generators of knowledge. The only drawback of this method is that it is embarrassing to most of the students. But I totally agree with Sarah Deel when she mentioned that if you as an instructor described the reason of doing this type of activities to your students as to make them learn better, I believe they will like to participate.
“The audience is always part of the performance, if they think something is funny then you’ll play to them. If they think something is serious you’ll stay on it longer before leaving so you don’t rob them of that experience. That’s what makes it unique.” -K.K Barrett (Director)
Performance and teaching go hand in hand. Effective teachers are always performing and good performers are constantly teaching. In both cases, the example of presenting your “authentic self” is what ultimately connects the stage to the classroom. And why shouldn’t it?
Good actors have the ability to make you forget they are acting. There is a term in theatre called the suspension of disbelief where as an observer, you temporarily pause reality and allow yourself to believe in the imaginary circumstances being presented to you on stage. This is a silent agreement between the actor and the audience. Truly talented actors have the ability to make you forget about this agreement. They have the ability to make you forget that they are acting. This is a skill that takes an enormous amount of training, time, skill, technique, and talent. Nothing destroys the suspension of disbelief more quickly than an actor who is trying to act or trying to force a performance. Performances that lack this sense of authenticity only serve to widen the gulf between the actor and the audience. Suddenly, the audience is fully aware they are sitting in a theatre watching a performer fake their way through an imaginary set of circumstances that no one believes in.
To me, teaching is the same thing. It uses the same set of skills that take an enormous amount of training, time, technique, and talent. In essence, good teachers have the ability to make you forget they are teaching. The suspension of disbelief creates an environment where observers become students, reality is temporarily paused, and we allow ourselves to believe in the set of circumstances being presented to us. Similar to a theatrical context, nothing destroys the suspension of disbelief more quickly than a teacher who is forcing a performance from a place that is unauthentic. We’ve all been there. We’ve all been in the lecture hall and witnessed the complete destruction of the relationship between teacher and students because suddenly the teacher is trying to teach. Trying to force a learning objective through some type of prescriptive method that robs the students of a genuine learning experience.
Authenticity is a difficult thing. Too much and you come off over exuberant, too little and you come off fake. Authenticity essentially means presenting your true self, in the moment, in the context of what you are presenting. On stage, you are creating an imaginary world and reacting to that world as truthfully as possible. In the class room, you are creating a learning environment and responding to that environment as honestly as you can. The audience will always recognize a fake. Be it a fake performance or a fake lecture.
A lot of knowledge is socially constructed. People learn from interacting with others, reading books where the author has expressed his/her/their thoughts, and learning from the socio-cultural surrounding. One could argue that a child could learn well by interacting with a computer. However, computers and the accompanying application that make learning possible was created by developers who have put their thoughts and ideas into the system. Hence, people are interacting with the developers and constructing knowledge henceforth. Vygotsky puts it beautifully when he says, “Every function in the child’s cultural development appears twice: first, on the social level, and later, on the individual level; first, between people (inter-psychological) and then inside the child (intra-psychological).This applies equally to voluntary attention, to logical memory, and to the formation of concepts. All the higher functions originate as actual relationships between individuals.”
If we accept this argument then we can further argue that that a knowledge machine need not be a theoretical machine.The idea of the knowledge machine is to provide learners with the opportunity to explore any situation while engaging the learner completely. A well-designed learning environment that allows students to explore their interests while encouraging participation, providing appropriate scaffolding, and creating several opportunities for formative self-assessment would achieve all the goals of the knowledge machine.
Interest-driven learning is an effective way to keep learners motivated. If we allow learners to work on projects that they care about then the learners would be intrinsically motivated to do well in the work. Rather than forcing projects and work because a syllabus requires it to be covered, we should let students explore the project they want to work on. We could try different methods such as using problem-based activities to spark interest in a particular topic. However, we should allow students to determine the project and subsequently negotiate the learning goals.
Constant feedbacks are important so that students can self-assess and progress further. One big advantage of video games arises because of the fast-paced feedback that the players receive – scores increase (or decrease) continuously, progress over a task is known throughout – which creates a compelling and rewarding experience. More importantly, seeing the feedback, the learner can improve their activities/actions and ultimately achieve “epic wins“. These feedbacks could be used as a tool to support students to learn further as argued in my previous post. We can adapt this pattern of continuous formative feedback while designing our learning environment.
When we think of knowledge machine, we are usually bound to think of a computing system of some sort that allows students to learn on their own and be totally immersed in the learning process. I urge us to think beyond the machine. Borrowing from Dr. Fowler’s note, we should keep in mind that students learn with the machine and not from the machine. It is the surrounding socio-cultural structures that supports the sense of agency in the learner, and the subsequent learning behavior, process and goals. Hence, I feel that, the knowledge machine that Papert envisioned is not a typical “machine” but rather a socially-situated, well-designed learning environment.
One of the things that we have discussed this semester is the value of unquantifiable learning. Before this class, I just assumed that all the things that fall into that category such as, motivation for life long learning, creativity, and imagination, were just the product of “good teachers”. What I mean is that they were things that you could not formulaically develop in students, they were just fostered in students who just intuitively knew how to do it.
Non-quantifiable learning, like we learned about in class, was the domain of superior teachers. As we delved deeper into these topics I’m not entirely sure this is not true. Maybe it really takes a special person to stir up a students imagination and that is a skill that can not be taught.
What I am sure about at this point is, that we can very formulaically and systematically dampen a students imagination and creativity. The type of factory school that the general public is cycled through appears to have just that effect. Students overwhelmingly have more trouble connecting to the creative and imaginative pieces of their brain after a public education, than before.
While I keep working on trying to find that elusive magic to inspire the students I teach, I realize that sometimes on the tough days the best I can do is to not diminish the passion that they already have within them.
This week you have a great opportunity to explore your teaching style and approach. What kind of a teacher are you? How would you like to teach? Please consult the readings for next week — they range considerably in tone and intent, and then tell us about your “authentic teaching self.”
We’ve talked a lot in class about the importance of creating a learning space where students are encouraged to use their imagination to solve problems in class instead of working toward a prescribed solution or answer. This open-ended methodology allows students not only to engage in content based on their strengths, to make a more individualized learning environment.
We are beginning to see these trends become more and more prevalent throughout the country, the resurgence of hands-on learning, combining both theory and practice in activities that help make learning relevant and fun for students. At first glace, perhaps it appears to be a rather obvious notion. When asked his opinion on the nature of education, and the “teaching to the test” mentality that seems inherent in America’s school systems today, television personality, special effects extraordinaire, veritable geek Adam Savage of Discovery Channel’s Mythbusters, had this to say: “If you want the kids’ test scores up, bring back band and bring back shop and get kids actually learning stuff instead of teaching them how to take a test.” Savage also added that STEM education (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) should be changed to STEAM “because you need art in there to complete an education.”
But we have this stigma around learning, that it has to be content-heavy, focusing on measurable results, that lead to productivity and ultimately that will produce students who can help boost the economy. And we forget that, when it comes to education, we are dealing with kids, and kids want to play. One of the best experiences that I had in school occurred in 8th Grade. We were in West Virginia History, in the last quarter of the year. We had already taken the Golden Horseshoe (an examination given to all 8th Graders in the state, which tests their aptitude about West Virginia history–those who perform well-enough earn the titular horseshoe as a consolation of their hard work and dedication), and state-sanctioned standardized tests were over. To cap off the year we, as a class, performed a mock trial, based on events that occurred during and immediately following the Civil War. Each member of the class had to take on a role, either as a witness, legal counsel, or even the accused and for the remaining four weeks of class, we had to carry on a trial. (The role of the jury was played by a class of 6th graders–who were a notoriously tough crowd). I was part of the defense counsel and I was in charge of a group of witnesses, one of whom, according to the script, died while giving testimony. I had to coach them on the appropriate answers to help ensure that our defendant avoided conviction. Navigating through special interests, hidden loyalties, even avoiding perjury, it showed how tedious and thrilling (not to mention, sketchy) the job of a lawyer can be. It was one of the best learning exercises that I’ve had in my life. Instead of merely learning or watching a video about the trial (which actually occurred, and centered around the alleged misdeeds surrounding a prisoner-of-war camp), we were able to recreate the actual trial itself, and in the case of our class, change history (the jury found our client not guilty).
This is the sort of thing Savage, and so many of the readings in this course, are talking about. Hands-on, active learning, providing an open-ended problem with limited constraints and then allowing a classroom to utilize their collective knowledge and individual abilities to collaborate toward a solution. In other words: to make students learn, without them knowing they are learning. I call this concept ninja learning.
This week’s readings were awesome. I especially enjoyed the discussions about the educational benefits of video games (and only partly because it helps justify how many I play). The most powerful idea that I came across was that a truly excellent educational curriculum doesn’t require assessment because it is impossible to finish without learning the requirements – like a video game. Once you beat a video game you can be pretty damn sure you know have some proficiency in all its elements. I also found it an interesting prediction that violence in games will fade as complex dialogue becomes easier to implement. Teaching children to design video games seems like a wonderfully worthwhile goal. It exposes them to advanced technology, it requires them to teach something through the game and empathize with the players experience, and most importantly, its fun! The kids seemed to be enjoying themselves in the video and that’s the first step to making life-long learners.
The distinctions between 20th and 21st century learning also seemed spot on. Whereas the 20th C. learner did well to simply learn facts and enough literacy to be a factory worker, the 21st C. learner wades through orders of magnitude more information than their predecessor. This requires different skills such as the ability to evaluate the reliability of information you come across and the ability to tie multiple pieces of information from multiple sources together into some cohesive narrative or solution.
