Tuesday, March 19, 2013

Evaluating Styles!


Take a step back. How would you evaluate the prompt, posts, and comments in response to the “Pedagogical Frameworks and You” homework?
We are not asking you to critique individual posts, but rather to think about evaluation styles in a larger sense.
Consider what you were able to learn about your group members on the blog that you might not have learned in person (building community), what you understood about their approaches to pedagogical frameworks (pedagogy), and what platforms they are considering (Web 2.0).

Post this on the blog!

12 comments:

  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The prompt and posted comments were valued as they provided each participant two things;

    First, the ability to truly be introspective regarding our teaching styles and how we consider course structure. By reflecting personally it permits us to dig deeper into understanding not just what we do, but why.

    Secondly, it permitted us to present our perspectives to one another, bounce ideas and similarities or contrasts, and learn from one another. We all approach teaching and learning differently and knowing more about our approaches is important to me.

    I believe that allowing us to post our perspectives, as compared to discussing prior to the prompt does what social asynchronous interaction permits - the ability to reflect and form our thoughts that best represent us, not spur of the moment live communication.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Just the similarities and differences among our experiences. Fact is, even though our contexts may have been different, the conclusions we came to are striking in their similarity, a la in the way that we all have come to see a student-centered approach as preferable.

    On the other hand, as I mentioned in class just now, Wynne utilizes Vygotsky's theories in a way that's different from mine. However, I am going to incorporate her approach a bit more into my teaching. I think 2.0 technology will certainly facilitate this.

    ReplyDelete
  4. When I've incorporated low-stakes, reflective writing into my composition classes, I've struggled to articulate my evaluation criteria to myself and to my students. I'm acutely aware of differentiating between informal writing and high-stakes, formal, MLA-formatted at-home essays, largely because I want to create a space for (somewhat) freer, less stressful, more exploratory writing. That being said, I still emphasize criteria like "genuine engagement," "depth," "effort," etc. I realize these are vague and supremely subjective.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Its interesting to know that faculty who got their education in a foreign country including myself had a different learning and teaching styles/experience. I think that this experience has made us assess our teaching and experiment different pedagogical approaches. I also noticed that although we are teaching different courses by using various teaching methods, our goal and ambition remains the same - enhance student learning.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Building Community. prose voice is so different than what we have time to get across in a short face to face session. I learned a lot more about peoples' backgrounds and training, and how that informs their work at LaGuardia.

    Pedagogies--Running out of time for this one, but I think it's safe to say most people are comfortable blending methods for their own use. I think that we could spend some time looking at how people learn in different fields, too, whether it is case based teaching in health, or others.

    Platforms. Reading about the choices people are making with technology is most interesting for the ways they plan to adapt some tool for their goals. It is always interesting to read about peoples' varying approaches to curriculum development, whether they start from the content, skills, objectives, or tools. The effort to seamlessly align the tool to the existing course materials and teaching methods is what's most challenging about teaching with technology.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Because the writing prompt included a few hyperlinks that allowed me to review each framework, I was very happy to first re-acquaint myself with the material and then see other people's interpretations. The frameworks do reinforce my own teaching, but it was great to see that we all had a few things in common.This helped me to feel like I am doing something right! It also expanded my understanding of these theories in practice. I do things similarly to Lisa. I want to improve my teaching with things I can learn from Milena. I am anxious to find out how their teaching styles will translate to online persona (will we become Fernando Pessoa?).

    ReplyDelete
  8. I found it interesting that several group members not only discovered that they adhered to a particular style of pedagogy, but also were informed by their own experiences as a "learner." There also seemed to be a wide range of pedagogical strategies that 2.0 participants were planning to use -- and there explanation(s) of their implementations were helpful to see how these might be used in their application. In particular, I will be interested to see how blogging or sharing across different classes/sections work to encourage participation and collaboration.

    ReplyDelete
  9. The prompt was, for me, quite engaging and encouraged me to reflect on my teaching in ways I hadn't done for some time. Although I'm not a fan of pedagogical theory, I'm not unfamiliar with the theorists discussed. I must admit, however, that I don't view or reflect on my teaching through the lens of pedagogical theory. I teach in a manner consistent with how I best learn. My team members' posts in some ways reinforced that, and I found it comforting that they in some ways approach teaching the same way I do. What was most interesting to me, both in the posts and in our subsequent discussion, was that we each embrace the idea of acting more as a facilitator than a fountain of knowledge created to pour information into our students (a la Friere), while at the same time working to motivate them to WANT to learn, to build on their existing knowledge (which many don't believe they have), and to find ways to apply what they are learning or discussing to their actual lives. Honestly, though, we did not discuss technology and frankly, I'm absolutely unsure and anxious about incorporating technology into my current courses (all sections of public speaking). Other courses seem like a more logical fit, so it will be interesting to see how others implement the technology into their courses.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I think that the most valuable element of the exercise is that we reach the same goal that we'd have with students in a Web 2.0 world/class/what-have-you, which is finding connections that we didn't see in actual conversation, getting the space to let ideas play out. This hits on all of the elements of the C2.0 trivium, and we see it in action and can measure in some way its success before we quite understand it.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I will define a simplify rubric to divide 100 points available:
    1. Presentation [20/100 points]
    2. Content:
    2.1. Check if the keywords are included. For these Blog entries, keywords are: pedagogical frameworks, Dewey’s cycle of Inquiry, Bloom’s taxonomy, Vygotsky and sociocultural Theory, ZPD, Proximal, Freire, Critical, community, technology, pedagogy. [20/100 points]
    2.2. Articulation of ideas. [30/100 points]
    3. Comments to other posts [30/100 points]

    ReplyDelete
  12. -Understanding/ Insight into pedagogical framework
    -How pedagogical style is used in classroom activities
    -Ideas for learning platform

    ReplyDelete