Here are the group discussion items I pulled from the two readings:
Effective use of group learning—How does one truly gauge the effectiveness of group (informal and formal) learning? Is the assessment more valuable when conducted by the students or the instructor? I believe that both types of group learning are extremely valuable in my courses. I, also, believe that they are easily over and improperly used—no accountability or “bringing it back” after the group learning, viewed as a “replacement” to teaching/learning, used as “free time,” etc. I think that students need to see the usefulness or practical application of the information or task(s) they complete in group learning situations.
Appropriate intervention in group work—How far should students expect the instructor to intervene on participation matters in group work? Most of us have probably been in a group learning situation and have been “stuck” with a less-than-favorable partner. Many of us would probably just do our and the other person’s work so that your own grade is not reduced. Likewise, we would probably not say anything to the instructor about our partner. As the instructor witnessing this, at what point should you intervene and how much is too much that it negates the intent of group work in the first place? I think TT (pp.198-201) has some very valid points and effective solutions—these would be beneficial to re-cap in class.
Effective use of Web 2.0 tools—What would you say are the top 3-5 criteria an instructor should use when determining which Web 2.0 tool to use? I know that TT (Ch.20) talks about a lot of different tools, but what are some of the top questions that we should be asking ourselves when we include them in our curricula? I have a hard time determining exactly which tool serves the best purpose and I think that many of them are used similarly, thus they are not used the way they were designed.
KWL: a pre- and post-assessment—(TT, p.210-211) I like seeing KWL explained like it is. I have used this approach in my own courses and I found it extremely helpful and the students more receptive to the course objectives. My advisor shared a similar approach he uses as a post-assessment that is similar to this idea…red light/green light survey. He structures his survey such that the Red Light is indicative of something that should not be continued in future offerings of this course; Yellow Light signifies something that was used in this course that should be continued in the future with modifications; and Green Light are indicators of practices that were very beneficial and should be continued as is. This really wasn’t a question, but I thought it would be valuable to see how the KWL approach can be used with similar results.
Overcoming undergraduates’ animosity toward research—I think that the first sentence of Ch.27 (TT) says a lot! Why not help undergraduates experience educational research? As educators, I think that we actually include research informally already. I have witnessed some students’ animosity toward their professors who conduct research because they feel the professor should be available to them 24/7 and all of their focus should be on teaching. However, that is not what a University system is geared toward and they have not seen the bigger picture of the research their professor(s) are conducting will benefit them in the future.
Service learning—Ch.26 made several great points about effectively utilizing service learning in education. I think the key (educationally) is making sure the opportunity relates to educational goals/standards. Sandbagging could even be an effective S.L. project—communication skills, interviewing, case studies, multi-cultural, etc. How do you decide which S.L. project(s) would be the most beneficial to your students and curriculum? (depends on your goals/standards for your course and students) J
No comments:
Post a Comment