I was a little disappointed with the structure of the WIT Mentoring Module, with its primary focus on Peer-Observation. Many of us have engaged with Peer Observation over the past few years. Personally, I've been peer Observed twice and I've been asked to observe four or five times over the past 18 months. Peer Observation can be a valuable component of mentoring, a valuable reflective technique. But Peer Observation is not mentoring.
What is mentoring for me? I’ve been lecturing for over twelve years and I was heavily mentored at the early stages especially (thanks mostly to Thelma Chambers) in lecturing, course structure and design, writing curriculum, assessment and feedback.
Modularisation and increased expectations have changed what our students need to learn and how our students learn. Our role as lecturers is changing all of the time – it’s now much
less about knowledge transfer and ‘teaching’ and much more about facilitating student
learning, reflection and critical thinking. We’re faced with more and more new ways of
doing our job, new tools, new learning environments, new potentials and challenges of our
media world.
And we’re faced with increasing numbers of part-time lecturing staff. As more experienced
‘staffers’, we’re expected to (informally) answer questions, give some guidance, facilitate
the part-timers assimilation onto our courses – this is a Mentoring role. At a more formal level, we understand that we’ve grown some expertise in the Teaching and Learning practice, through experience and through more formal T&L study. Many of our part-timer lecturers are coming to us as accomplished and experienced practitioners in our specific disciplines… But they’re also coming to us as hugely inexperienced lecturers. We understand that much of what we’ve learned (on lecturing, course design, assessment and feedback) can and should be passed onto more inexperienced colleagues. This too is a Mentoring role.
What I’m now discovering is that we have opportunities (or responsibilities) at an
Institute level too. Whether through short courses, Brown Bag presentations, workshops,
discussion groups or training courses, we act as leaders in our individual Institutes
– helping to introduce new software or hardware tools and environments (Prezi, UDK, Nuke or Maya for example), sharing best practice when it comes to T&L (doing workshops or
discussions in Group Work and Peer Assessment), or attempting to explain the potentials of
newer teaching environments to our lecturer peers (for example, explaining the Teaching and Learning benefits, potentials and challenges of using our Institute’s VLE). For me, these are Mentoring roles.
I understand that I’m fortunate to lecture in a small, progressive Institute, where we're granted a fair degree of autonomy. Perhaps we can expand these leadership roles to a national and a sectoral level too? This is a Mentoring role too...
Thursday, 24 May 2012
Andragogy Versus Pedagogy, Again...
As progressive constructivist or social constructivist lecturers, working with high degrees of autonomy on ‘cool’ courses in progressive Institutes of education, we’d all love to believe in andragogy.
But, as far as we can make out, andragogy is a disputed concept, with a pretty thin theoretical basis (feel free to correct me on this – point me to some decent ‘supportive’ literature on the subject). Also refer to my previous blog entry…
http://quindpdp.blogspot.com/2012/03/androgogy.html
But wait… What differentiates young lads (on the early stages of a trades course for example) from mature students? Surely pedagogical methods are appropriate for one group, whereas andragogical methods are possible with the other group? Surely young fellas on practical courses learn in a different way to mature students? Surely pedagogy is appropriate with young fellas, whereas andragogy is necessary with more ‘adult’ learners?
Or… Maybe it just comes down to appropriate pedagogical approaches? In these cool and progressive times, behaviourism may be a dirty word but perhaps a more behaviourist approach is appropriate for some students? On courses where (as one observer put it) ‘crowd control is a major pedagogical component’, perhaps some constructivist pedagogical approaches might not be so appropriate?
But, as far as we can make out, andragogy is a disputed concept, with a pretty thin theoretical basis (feel free to correct me on this – point me to some decent ‘supportive’ literature on the subject). Also refer to my previous blog entry…
http://quindpdp.blogspot.com/2012/03/androgogy.html
But wait… What differentiates young lads (on the early stages of a trades course for example) from mature students? Surely pedagogical methods are appropriate for one group, whereas andragogical methods are possible with the other group? Surely young fellas on practical courses learn in a different way to mature students? Surely pedagogy is appropriate with young fellas, whereas andragogy is necessary with more ‘adult’ learners?
Or… Maybe it just comes down to appropriate pedagogical approaches? In these cool and progressive times, behaviourism may be a dirty word but perhaps a more behaviourist approach is appropriate for some students? On courses where (as one observer put it) ‘crowd control is a major pedagogical component’, perhaps some constructivist pedagogical approaches might not be so appropriate?
Wednesday, 25 April 2012
Consumers or Publishers?
I was shocked by Melissa Cole’s (2009,
p.4) discovery that most students were not ‘publishers’, were passively
grazing online content and had never “…written a
blog, tagged an item or uploaded a video.”
Would you object
to receiving college module feedback through email? Yes
⃝ No ⃝
I’d have assumed that my digital-native media students
would already universally be publishers (especially by 3rd Year).
But let’s not make assumptions about anything… In DIT's Vincent Farrell's words... 'let's get some data...'
I’ve started an informal straw poll
amongst our IADT DL041 Animation students… Could and should be expanded in time to cover entire School of Creative Arts student body… And lecturers…
Do you have…
A
Youtube Channel ⃝ A Vimeo Channel ⃝ A Dailymotion Channel ⃝ None ⃝
Do you regularly upload videos to… Youtube ⃝ Vimeo ⃝ Dailymotion ⃝ No ⃝
Do you have a
Facebook page? Yes ⃝ No
⃝
Do you have a G+
page Yes ⃝ No
⃝
Do you have a
blog? Yes ⃝
Multiple blogs ⃝ None ⃝
Do you use Flickr
⃝ Tumblr ⃝ Deviant Art ⃝ Other
Media Sharing Site ⃝ None ⃝
Do you have a
Twitter account? Yes ⃝ No
⃝
Do you have your
own website ? Yes ⃝ No
⃝
How many active
email accounts have you?
Do you think
college work and social media should be kept separate? Yes ⃝ No
⃝
Original Article: 'Using Wiki technology to support student engagement: Lessons from the trenches' Melissa Cole - Computers & Education 52 (2009) 141–146 - Department of Information Systems, Brunel University, Uxbridge, West London UB8 3PH, UK
Tuesday, 3 April 2012
Challenges For Online Assessment and Feedback
This is a more negative version of a submission.
(elss2011 refers to DRHEA eLearning Summer School 2011)
‘Think of the learners and don’t think about the technology.’ Dr. Richard Thorn (elss2011)
Online assessment and feedback present both challenges and opportunities, for students, lecturers and for programme design. The biggest challenge is to keep our pedagogical focus. Our pedagogical intent must be clear to students, lecturers, managers, stakeholders and ourselves. As Sally Brown ((et al) 1996) puts it in her Assessment Manifesto… ‘Staff, students and the outside world need to be able to see why assessment is being used and the rationale for choosing each individual form of assessment in its particular context.’
We can broaden Sally Brown’s assessment principle to include T+L and the use of technology in education. As DIT’s Fionnghuala Kelly argued (elss 2011) ‘We must always ask ourselves – why are we using this technology?’
In our privileged undergrad media courses, with small classes and big creative potentials in course content and in pedagogy, we’re lucky to have a very strong Real Learning Environment, with ample opportunities for face-to-face tutorial contact, peer support, team and individual learning. Towards the latter stages of our courses, we cut many pedagogical umbilicals, pushing students towards group work, self-reflection and increasing self-direction, in a version of Kolitch and Dean’s (1999) ‘engaged critical model, in which teaching and learning are seen as a creative dialogue.’
Central to this learning model is the student’s ability to assess and feedback. As Nicol (2010) asserted… ‘If you really want to improve learning, get students to give one another feedback. Giving feedback is cognitively more demanding than receiving feedback. That way, you can accelerate learning.’
As p.22 of The JISC book encourages such a variety of assessment strategies, alternative assignment formats and lists multiple appropriate technologies… podcasts, online assessment tools and e-portfolios. But many of these assessment innovations (alternative assessment strategies, alternative assessment formats, increasing the learner’s opportunity to self-assess and peer-assessment) can be introduced without any technology. Palloff and Pratt (2009) asserted that ‘the use of multiple measures of assessment is simply good pedagogy.’ I agree.
Technology presents dangers too… As Dr. Richard Thorn (elss2011) observed… ‘Technology is extremely seductive. Hardware is seductive. Software is addictive. It can take over your life. Technology is not an end in itself.’ In our media courses, we’ve long seen how the power of world-creation in CGI and in games technology can swallow students, effectively terminating studentship. Lecturers must be careful that they’re not just using technology for the sake of it, in some pedagogical form of ‘a solution looking for a problem’. Over the next few years, we’ll be faced with all sorts of non-pedagogical rationales for ‘alternative delivery’ and ‘new ways of doing things’.
In her webinar (230312), TCD's Michelle Garvey demonstrated Universal Design’s preoccupation with visual and structural design. I’m not convinced that UD adequately considers the psychological or theoretical aspects of software and online design. Michelle Garvey asserted that… ‘Universal Design must aim for low physical effort and accessible appropriate spaces – but this doesn't really apply to digital.’ I absolutely disagree. When creating a software learning resource, we are creating a communications space for human beings, an immersive space in which our users will have to function and learn. From a student perspective, even our current Moodle or Blackboard environments have hugely problematic aspects.
Students and lecturers are also faced with relentless, incessant digitisation. As DCUs' Jean Hughes said ‘we want this to be very much a real classroom, a real student experience.’ But a classroom with no time limits, no clock, no weekend, with little potential for escape, for reflection?
When I first introduced Blackboard Journals to my students, the notion was novel and exciting, for students and lecturer alike. By the end of the module, student and lecturer fatigue meant that alternative methods needed to be introduced.
I’m not arguing against technology, I’m merely pointing out that our focus should always be on learning, not on technology.
(elss2011 refers to DRHEA eLearning Summer School 2011)
‘Think of the learners and don’t think about the technology.’ Dr. Richard Thorn (elss2011)
Online assessment and feedback present both challenges and opportunities, for students, lecturers and for programme design. The biggest challenge is to keep our pedagogical focus. Our pedagogical intent must be clear to students, lecturers, managers, stakeholders and ourselves. As Sally Brown ((et al) 1996) puts it in her Assessment Manifesto… ‘Staff, students and the outside world need to be able to see why assessment is being used and the rationale for choosing each individual form of assessment in its particular context.’
We can broaden Sally Brown’s assessment principle to include T+L and the use of technology in education. As DIT’s Fionnghuala Kelly argued (elss 2011) ‘We must always ask ourselves – why are we using this technology?’
In our privileged undergrad media courses, with small classes and big creative potentials in course content and in pedagogy, we’re lucky to have a very strong Real Learning Environment, with ample opportunities for face-to-face tutorial contact, peer support, team and individual learning. Towards the latter stages of our courses, we cut many pedagogical umbilicals, pushing students towards group work, self-reflection and increasing self-direction, in a version of Kolitch and Dean’s (1999) ‘engaged critical model, in which teaching and learning are seen as a creative dialogue.’
Central to this learning model is the student’s ability to assess and feedback. As Nicol (2010) asserted… ‘If you really want to improve learning, get students to give one another feedback. Giving feedback is cognitively more demanding than receiving feedback. That way, you can accelerate learning.’
As p.22 of The JISC book encourages such a variety of assessment strategies, alternative assignment formats and lists multiple appropriate technologies… podcasts, online assessment tools and e-portfolios. But many of these assessment innovations (alternative assessment strategies, alternative assessment formats, increasing the learner’s opportunity to self-assess and peer-assessment) can be introduced without any technology. Palloff and Pratt (2009) asserted that ‘the use of multiple measures of assessment is simply good pedagogy.’ I agree.
Technology presents dangers too… As Dr. Richard Thorn (elss2011) observed… ‘Technology is extremely seductive. Hardware is seductive. Software is addictive. It can take over your life. Technology is not an end in itself.’ In our media courses, we’ve long seen how the power of world-creation in CGI and in games technology can swallow students, effectively terminating studentship. Lecturers must be careful that they’re not just using technology for the sake of it, in some pedagogical form of ‘a solution looking for a problem’. Over the next few years, we’ll be faced with all sorts of non-pedagogical rationales for ‘alternative delivery’ and ‘new ways of doing things’.
In her webinar (230312), TCD's Michelle Garvey demonstrated Universal Design’s preoccupation with visual and structural design. I’m not convinced that UD adequately considers the psychological or theoretical aspects of software and online design. Michelle Garvey asserted that… ‘Universal Design must aim for low physical effort and accessible appropriate spaces – but this doesn't really apply to digital.’ I absolutely disagree. When creating a software learning resource, we are creating a communications space for human beings, an immersive space in which our users will have to function and learn. From a student perspective, even our current Moodle or Blackboard environments have hugely problematic aspects.
Students and lecturers are also faced with relentless, incessant digitisation. As DCUs' Jean Hughes said ‘we want this to be very much a real classroom, a real student experience.’ But a classroom with no time limits, no clock, no weekend, with little potential for escape, for reflection?
When I first introduced Blackboard Journals to my students, the notion was novel and exciting, for students and lecturer alike. By the end of the module, student and lecturer fatigue meant that alternative methods needed to be introduced.
I’m not arguing against technology, I’m merely pointing out that our focus should always be on learning, not on technology.
Friday, 30 March 2012
Creativity
I was struck by this suggestion
at the end of Phil Race’s ‘If I Were In Charge’ blogpost… http://phil-race.co.uk/if-i-were-in-charge/
From Sarah Wall: GMIT,
Ireland…
if I was in charge for a day I would encourage (mandatory seems almost intuitively counterproductive…but maybe not)….. a module in creativity, regardless of disciplines, i.e. across the board.
I would go one step further and request that both “educators” and “students” participate in these modules together….the them and us scenario can be a barrier. Being creative together may help in trust and “comfort” levels for students.
Creativity would involve problem solving, imagination work, the impact of choice, artistic and craft elements, music and song….play and improvisation.
My logic/reasoning is that creativity is absolutely fundamental to life and both inspires and sustains. We are repeatedly told in society (particularly when times are hard) to be innovative in our solutions. If we brainwash our students and ourselves to only absorb other peoples thoughts and deeds and suppress their/our own originality and imagination, then what are we doing to their/our innovation and indeed their/our passion.
if I was in charge for a day I would encourage (mandatory seems almost intuitively counterproductive…but maybe not)….. a module in creativity, regardless of disciplines, i.e. across the board.
I would go one step further and request that both “educators” and “students” participate in these modules together….the them and us scenario can be a barrier. Being creative together may help in trust and “comfort” levels for students.
Creativity would involve problem solving, imagination work, the impact of choice, artistic and craft elements, music and song….play and improvisation.
My logic/reasoning is that creativity is absolutely fundamental to life and both inspires and sustains. We are repeatedly told in society (particularly when times are hard) to be innovative in our solutions. If we brainwash our students and ourselves to only absorb other peoples thoughts and deeds and suppress their/our own originality and imagination, then what are we doing to their/our innovation and indeed their/our passion.
In IADT School of Creative Arts, I think we assume that
creativity is a core component of our Teaching and Learning, because a lot of us are creative, coming
from creative disciplines and teaching creative disciplines (or rather helping
our Learners to Learn creative disciplines in the most progressive and constructivist ways). As creative lecturers, we
assume there are no ‘wrong answers’. We try to push the imaginative aspects of
everything we do, all the time (some
of us more than others, I admit (stretching this point can lead to all sorts of
psychotic and problematic areas)
So, it’s easy for us to be rather
dismissive of Sarah Wall’s suggestion… However, I’m only realising that this
‘problem’ of creativity is probably a daunting prospect for many of our IADT
lecturing staff, admin staff and students.
With this in mind, I've already suggested a series of short, fun, evening workshops in lateral thinking, brainstorming and creativity, starting in September 2012, for all IADT staff, with students invited too... I'm sure they'll find some idiot to run such workshops...
Tuesday, 20 March 2012
Teaching Philosphy - A Start
‘to get students past technical crap, to a creative space
(where I believe most of them want to be)’
In our 4 year ab initio course, we notionally simplify our
course concept to claim that Stage 1 and Stage 2 concentrate on the development
of ‘skills’ (be they artistic or technical), whilst Stage 3 and Stage 4
concentrate more on the development of ‘authorship’. The early stages tend
towards a more Behaviourist teaching style and course delivery, whilst the
latter stages present far more
Constructivist potentials and challenges. Perhaps the differences between the
early and latter stages could be framed as the difference between ‘Makers’ and ‘Creators’?
Some students struggle with the ‘maker’ role, whilst others never gather the
multidisciplinary aspects of their practice together enough to become accomplished
‘creators’. In the world and industry of animation (and in the broader world of
media), there are fulfilling lifelong career opportunities for both ‘makers’
and ‘creators’.
‘to get students past technical
crap, to a creative space…’ let’s examine my philosophy again… Whilst
technical problem solving and corner-cutting always forms part of any animation
or media project (in college or in the big wide world), the technical tends to
become just one problem in a pantheon of problems. I call this ‘inflicting
yourself on the software, inflicting yourself on the tools’. But beyond the technical, what is this ‘creative
space’, this place where our students begin to become authors, world-creators,
film-makers?
The ‘creative space’ is where authors have the confidence to
move beyond concepts such as ‘ideas are cheap’ into a realm where they are the creative, they live and breathe
concepts and ideas. The authors have the skills to work independently or to supervise
teams of creative people, using diverse craft and technical techniques to create
something from scratch, something wholly original, something wholly their own.
Authors have the ability to discover and create even within this process of
creation, changing concepts and ideas up to the very moment of completion. And,
in the end, the best projects are never quite finished, they are merely
abandoned.
A word of caution – the creative space is not an entirely
comfortable place. Because creative work and the self become synonymous,
problems, doubt and failure become hotwired into the author’s self, in a very
raw and difficult way. Authors tend not to view any past accomplishments, but only
the challenges of today and of the future. As I frequently tell my students ‘creativity
is a life sentence, inescapable’. Indeed, when creative cease to do their own
work, it strikes into their beings, like the removal of their limbs.
‘to get students past technical crap, to a creative space (where I believe most of them want to be)’
Monday, 12 March 2012
BBC article on internet education revolution
This is a BBC video article on the internet
sparking an educational revolution… ‘Blackboards and textbooks are so old school.’
In contrast to Eric Mazur (an experienced educator behaving as an amateur media
communicator), these people strike me as experienced media communicators and new-business
people behaving as amateur educators…
‘we really designed what we call a campus…’ - Adam Pritzker – General Assembly Co-Founder
‘students can design their own curricula.
Students can figure out what they want to learn, based on their experience,
their aspirations, the job they want, what they want to do and then they can go
off and create that…’ - Christina Cacioppo – School of Visual Arts, Design
co-teacher
‘…students don’t have to do things that they
don’t want to do, and not just paper things that they don’t need, things a
traditional university would have them do…’ - Christina Cacioppo – School of Visual Arts, Design
co-teacher
‘diy
education offers a wider array of potential experiences. You’re not committing
to paying a huge amount of money and to give a huge amount of time to a program
which, if you look at the statistics, may not have a definite outcome.’ - Adam Pritzker – General Assembly Co-Founder
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)