One of the areas that are covered in this, the second week
of Blendkit 2016 is the role of the educator. Coming from a predominately
constructivist perspective which I have come to understand over the years is
not all-inclusive in its effectiveness, this is of great interest to me.
The first question that resonated with me was that of whether
learners require guided learning or can construct understanding by themselves.
This is a tension between constructionist and constructivist ideas that have
been present since I first started in this profession. The answer that I have come
to myself is that there is really no right answer to this question. It is
entirely situational. If you are teaching low level skills, the types of things
that one would find, coincidentally or not, easily translated to a self-study
tutorial, then yes, minimal guidance is appropriate. But there are other
variables to take into account.
If the content being presented is higher level and requires
a degree of prior knowledge that students are not guaranteed to have, then
available guidance is a an important part of assuring that learners are able to
understand the materials. Another aspect, which is not as obvious, is learner
motivation in learning. If the person engaging with the content has a strong
desire to master the materials then there is more internal incentive to go the
extra steps to assure that they understand the materials. If there is not that
level of engagement, then an outside voice serving in a guiding capacity may
help the student over whatever hurdles may have been discouraging otherwise.
This is strength of peer to peer communication in classes following a
constructivist model, that voice can be another student providing clarity.
Another question in this is the overall makeup of the
learner themselves. I have been involved in three programs over the years. One
is a graduate program in education, the second and third are continuing
education programs. In all cases the makeup of the students attending these
courses causes the formation of different communities with different personalities
and levels of engagement and collaboration overall. Because of this there are,
across multiple offerings of the same course, times when more guidance is
needed for the group as a whole, and times when students are more
self-directed, and times when they are in need of guidance.
So to me there really isn’t any one-size fits all approach, at
least in my experience, to the question of guidance. It is critical for the
instructor to be involved and to be able to “read” the group of learners with
whom they are dealing, and provide the appropriate level of support as needed.
-------------------------------------------------------
I also found very interesting the section constructing
assignments that encourage expression. This is by its nature a question of
engagement, as to my mind one cannot express some creative product without having
a context to work from, which, if we are doing the instructional design right,
means interacting with the materials presented at the highest level of Bloom.
The first question posed is who the learners will express them
to. I have to confess that audience above and beyond the class itself had not
occurred to me. I suppose that hearkens back to my insular traditional
undergrad and being, at least then, a product of a direct instruction model
where the only real two way interaction possible was with the instructor and
the other members of my classes (usually accompanied by a PowerPoint). So the
idea of “student” (and I use this is the traditional classroom sense) work
being available to the public is not an idea that I automatically gravitate to
because of my traditional college experience.
Based on what I am doing right now, posting this reflection
to my blog, I was really missing the boat on this approach.
The second question is how students will express themselves?
That is almost an infrastructure question really. It has more to do with what
the instructor/facilitator is comfortable and capable of accepting than it is
possibilities. Portfolio, Storify, podcasts, blogs, wikis, Infographics, and so
on, can all be valid depending on the . Perhaps that is a question that is
better addressed in a syllabus based upon the goals of the instructor and the
their comfort level with embracing new forms of expression?
Next is the need to provide some sort of guidelines or
framework for this expression. Again this depends on the comfort level of the
instructor and whatever level of structure is required. The reading points out that clear instructions and guidelines for
plagiarism are two examples of guidelines. Other guidelines might be a list of
potential platforms for creating the assignment for submission, as is mentioned
above, and an example of an exemplary submission or two certainly wouldn’t hurt
in setting expectations based on example.
Finally, we have the need to acknowledge student views, or
providing feedback on the assignment. There are so many potential means of
accomplishing this. In a hybrid setting this might include voting or student
peer review (in Canvas, our current LMS, “likes” are even an option), classroom
review by students and facilitator, or perhaps even bringing in an outside
expert to talk about the assignments where appropriate.
All in all, this reading was thought provoking and pointed
out the myriad ways in which we can provide valuable experiences for learners
in the classroom and online. Clearly, even if a single well designed exploratory
assignment is offered through a face to face class using a web enhanced model,
the possibilities for creative and engaged responses are limitless.
No comments:
Post a Comment