Yesterday was my first class with my PBEY students. It was interesting to meet all of them again. There are many things which I want to share with them and learn from them at the same time. Hopefully, there is time for me to give input before they step into the teaching world.
Taken from www.joyoftech.com
Something caught my eye. Fake cover magazine. For those who wish to be on a front page magazine but never had the chance or will never have that chance. There are lots of them on the net. Most of them are free services. Of course, templates are provided while some providers give you the chance to change the layout and title etc. It was fun putting my photos on those cover page. You feel famous though the feeling is superficial.
Create Fake Magazine Covers with your own picture at MagMyPic.com
Something that should be read and give thought upon.
http://www.nmc.org/pdf/2008-Horizon-Report.pdf
This was an article I stumbled upon when I was reading an entry in an online forum.
Our descent into “porn” began innocently. Our Preparing Future Faculty (PFF) course, Teaching in Higher Education, filled with 30 doctoral students and post-doctoral fellows enthusiastically seeking guidance as future professors. We held a particular session, Technology Enhanced Learning, in a cutting-edge campus lab, where all students participated throughout the interactive session on individual computers that were linked to a huge screen in front.
All went according to plan . . . until the Scavenger Hunt activity. As planned, students worked in small groups of four to six with their assigned, intriguing, education-related websites, with the expectation of presenting the website and their highlights to the rest of the class. One group of future family social science profes-sors was particularly enthusiastic when it came their turn to share their assigned “Virtual Autopsy” site. They eagerly came to the head of the class and typed in the URL to share their treasures.
In their excitement, they accidentally typed in a few inaccurate symbols, and the huge screen (and 30 individual computers!) instantly displayed an obscene porn site in all its “glory”! With the entire class stunned, the group furiously tried to access the (clean and educational!) “Virtual Autopsy” site, succeeding only in dragging all of us further and further through the porn site. The class quickly shifted from shock to uncontrollable laughter.
Eventually the class resumed. Our technology-enhanced scavenger hunt, now permanently etched in students’ memory, had set a serendipitous precedent. Little did we know that such a glaring faux pas would set teaching and learning expectations for the remainder of the semester. Our course continued in infamy, generating once in a lifetime course evaluations. Word quickly spread about our fun “porn” class. Students from other sections attended in record numbers. The “bar” of teaching and learning had been raised. We, in turn, planned each session to rival the previous in using playful and meaningful strategies to teach difficult, complex content. Our future professors experienced and incorporated into their repertoire the significance of both content and process in teaching and learning.
Rationale: Why Play During Class?
Why should students play during class? Keep in mind four principles. First, a sense of play engages the experiential mind of students. Sivasailam Thiagarajan (2003) reminds us that our experiential mind tends to think and learn fast, in concert with impressive long-term retention. Former Harvard University President Derek Bok (2006) concurs in his book, Our Underachieving Colleges, contending that research has long shown the value of teaching with diverse and interactive strategies, while the continuing tendency to lecture traditionally and cover massive amounts of content adversely impacts students’ critical thinking and ability to solve problems. Bok reports that the average student retains only 42% of the material by the end of the lecture, and only 20% one week after the lecture.
Second, play provides the opportunity for students to apply a variety of multiple intelligences. Rather than focusing narrowly on traditionally passive forms of teaching and learning such as lectures and taking scrupulous notes, playful strategies frequently incorporate at least one or more of Gardner’s multiple intelligences (2003), impacting a wider range of students:
* Linguistic (e.g., reading, discussions)
* Logical-mathematical (e.g., charts, thinking games)
* Kinesthetic (e.g., doing, demonstrations)
* Spatial (e.g., handouts, overheads)
* Musical (e.g., using/creating songs)
* Interpersonal (e.g., small group activities)
* Intrapersonal (e.g., journal writing, reflecting)
* Naturalist (e.g., outdoor activity, treasure hunts)
Third, lively strategies provide significant opportunities for the professor to plan for, and students to further develop and apply, skills in both emotional literacy and interpersonal relations. Students work with others in diverse situations requiring teamwork, collaboration, and, perhaps, friendly competition. This provides ample opportunity for students to refine a multitude of interpersonal skills, such as: sharing ideas, asking for clarification, checking understanding, providing support, offering constructive criticism, encouraging teamwork, etc. Likewise, students can gain invaluable skills regarding emotional maturity, including: identifying and expressing emotions, identifying constructive (or destructive) thoughts and feelings in oneself and others, calmly expressing emotions, focusing criticism on behavior rather than people, expressing empathy toward others, and overall monitoring and managing the affective dynamics of given circumstances.
Fourth, classes that employ a variety of strategies, accommodate highly diverse groups of students.
Historically, teaching in higher education has accommodated students who excel in passive lecture listening and note-taking. As Felder (1993, 1996, 2005) noted, students with diverse, non- traditional types of learning preferences left higher education in high numbers. When Brigham Young University researchers (Harb, et al., 1993) documented this phenomenon, they intervened by developing curricula to accommodate diverse groups of students with increased engaging learning strategies, including play. Results indicated that the computer science department was now retaining highly qualified students, who represented widely diverse learning preferences. Revised curricula now included activities to connect students with meaningful, deeper learning applicable to their lives.
Just What Are These Playful Strategies?
A wealth of engaging strategies already exists, thanks to brilliant contributions from Ken Jones (1997), Bernie Dodge (2005), and, especially, Sivasailam Thiagarajan (2003). These strategies include a wide range of activities, such as: role-plays, case studies, constructive controversies, simulations, jigsaws, scavenger hunts, labs, group presentations, projects, group panels, peer grids/frames, etc. Other popular activities include: Classroom Millionaire, Classroom Jeopardy, Ultimate Game Show, Classroom Quiz Bowl, Classroom Feud, and No Whammies (details available at http://jc-schools.net/ tutorials/PPT-games/ and http://www.ppt4teachers.com/ testcreation.html).
We have connected complex content with our own designed games: BINGO, Stump the Class, Name That Stage, Scholar-Bee, and Bull (Wingert and Molitor, 2005). “Stump the Class” is patterned after David Letterman’s/Johnny Carson’s “Stump the Band.” In this case, the students (in teams of four to six) first design a question that requires high levels of critical thinking (i.e., upper levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy), and then pose their challenging question; the teams attempts to answer within a given time limit, earning graded points for accuracy. BINGO, played like the regular game, can be designed to require critical thinking in applications, analysis, and evaluation.
“Name That Stage,” a variant of a game show, “Name That Tune,” requires students (or teams) to answer high level questions relative to any course content organized in stages, phases, levels, timelines, dates, sequences, categories, etc. Like the previous game, students earn points for accuracy.
“Scholar-Bee,” based on an old-fashioned spelling bee, requires students/student teams to process course content and critically analyze cases, problems, or applications posed by the professor. Given teams of four to six or the class divided into two sides, students in turn answer the question posed when their assigned number is called, again earning points for accuracy.
“Bull,” vaguely resembling the game of B.S. (Being Sneaky!), gives students/student teams the opportunity to critically analyze course content posed as cases, problems, or applications, as in the other activities; in this case, however, students must determine if the information presented by the instructor is fully accurate/logically reasonable, or identify the error, the faulty reasoning . . . the “bull.”
Conclusion
Since our unexpected dalliance with porn, we have applied various play strategies, with considerable success, to other courses from educational psychology to the hard sciences, and from small classes to large classes of over 100, from labs to seminars to journal clubs. Short of endorsing porn, we embrace the path begun by our faux pas of incorporating highly diverse and interactive processes, facilitating deep learning of difficult content in every class session.
References
* Bok, D. 2006. Our Underachieving Colleges: A Candid Look at How Much Students Learn and Why They Should Be Learning More. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
* Dodge, B. 2005. WebQuest Page: http://webquest.sdsu.edu/ (Learn from Bernie Dodge how to create your own interactive online learning materials).
* Felder, R. 1993. “Reaching the Second Tier: Learning and Teaching Styles in College Science Education,” Journal of College Science Teaching, 23(5): 286-290. An updated presentation of the Felder-Silverman model.
* Felder, R. 1996. “Matters of Style,” ASEE Prism, 6 (4): 18-23.
* Felder, R.; Brent, R. 2005. “Understanding Student Differences,” Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1): 57-72. An exploration of differences in student learning styles, approaches to learning (deep, surface, and strategic), and levels of intellectual development.
* Gardner, H. April, 2003. “Multiple Intelligences after Twenty Years.” Invited Address, American Educational Research Association.
* Harb, J.; Durrant, S.; Terry, R. 1993. “Use of the Kolb Learning Cycle and the 4MAT System in Engineering Education,” Journal of Engineering Education, 82(2): 70-77.
* Jones, K. 1997. Games and Simulations Made Easy: Practical Tips to Improve Learning Through Gaming. London: Kogan Page.
* McKeachie, W.J.; Svinicki, M. 2006. “Dealing with student problems and problem students,” Chapter 14 (pp. 172-190) in Teaching Tips: Strategies, Research, and Theory for College and University Teachers, 12th Edition. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
* Thiagarajan, S. 2003. Design Your Own Games and Activities. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
* “Virtual Autopsy.” http://www.leac.uk/ pathology/teach/va/titlpag1.html
* Wingert, D.; Molitor, T. June, 2005. “But We Didn’t Mean To Teach Porn: The Power of Play in Teaching and Learning,” Teaching For A Change (National) Conference, Westminster, Colorado.
Contact:
Deborah A. Wingert, Ph.D.
Director of Educational Development
College of Veterinary Medicine
Preparing Future Faculty Coordinator
Center for Teaching and Learning
University of Minnesota
315 Science Classroom Building
222 Pleasant St. S.E.
Minneapolis, MN 55455
Telephone: (612) 625-3405
Email: winge007@umn.edu
Tom Molitor
Professor in Veterinary & Population
Medicine
and Early Career Resource Teacher
University of Minnesota
1365 Gortner Ave.
St. Paul, MN 55108
Telephone: (612) 625-5295
Email: molit001@umn.edu
24 Jan 2008.
IPIK Cheras.
1330
The afternoon session was conducted by William.
The students were less than the expected number. Another team of lecturers attended the session. Some came late, and those early sat at the back. The lecturers didn’t present a commanding presence unlike the morning team. Most of the students in this group brought their own laptop. While William was explaining the SMARTBOARD tools and calling up volunteers, we have other students doodling away with their new tool.
William was skilled in using the SMARTBOARD. It was obvious the way he positioned his laptop.
The laptop was put next to the LCD projector. Where he put the laptop reflects that he didn’t need to use laptop to manage the SmartBoard functions. He amazed the students with his jutsu(s) e.g. the cloning jutsu. His hand was pretty fast.
Similar to Fenny, he did call for student volunteers. The difference was the lecturers were not invited to volunteer. One striking characteristic that William had during the training was the ability to humour. I presume he hold firm to the belief that activity conducted should be fun. Well, he had the audience laughing which was good. People tend to snooze off or mind-wander off in the afternoon.
Before I forget, pre-test forms were distributed. Period. I did glanced briefly at some comments on “why you want to be a teacher?” This group had also the usual comments similar to the morning session but TWO stood out which share the same feedback:
-Teaching is an iron rice bowl.
Reality!!
The afternoon session did have the group activity. Unlike Fenny, William did not emphasise on the time limit, group name, slide limit, how many minutes for a presentation. Would William have interpreted being fun would mean do whatever you want as long as you utilised the SMARTBOARD? Would that be the main objective? Yours truly did remind him to do that and also added Learning Objectives as the purpose of their activity. It was also interesting to notice that William decided the group for them, and he almost wanted to name every group.
Let’s look at the progress of the teams.
Now let’s move on to the presentation.Feedback was given to every group by William. How to use the Smartboard as a tool for teaching was loosely connected. There was no invited feedback from the lecturers.
The first one was the PRESTO group. No LOs. Nothing was mentioned about who the activity was designed for.
Another group didn’t have LOs, target audience, let alone rubrics.
Interesting concept of food chain. Unfortunately, it was not potrayed correctly. Some of the images used were merely for decorative purposes. The group has lackadaisical attitude.
The following group has half-hearted attitude. No LOs. Nothing was mentioned about who the activity was designed for though the concept of the activity was agreeable. The issue on MONEY was brought up because it was something that this batch was not happy about. They were given an RM300 to spend every month which they felt was an insufficient amount.
Again, I assumed the activity was meant for their group. GRIN ><
Activities presented in both sessions gave this obvious HINT that a lesson or an activity will fail in terms in achieving the learning outcomes without proper context or content no matter how good the tool is. The phrase SUPPORTING TOOL is apparent during the whole training.
24 Jan 2008.
IPIK Cheras.
0730
We, Hafiz and I were asked to join the SMART training at IPIK Cheras.
The greenery that surrounds IPIK Cheras
From the looks of it, the training might be an annual event for EP-Tech Malaysia. Anyway, we were there for experience. We went to see how the training was conducted for such specific audience. We were part of the team to understand the training process. The training was done in 2 sessions, both morning and afternoon. Each session has 2 different groups (36 per group).
The morning session was conducted by Fenny.
William did the afternoon session.
From my observation, both trainers were similar yet different (discuss later).
Let’s talk about the morning session which lasts for 3 hours : 0830-1130. The morning session had 4 attentive and supportive lecturers observing the session. One of them is Ms.Aziah, the coordinator for this workshop.
Mr.Kuruvilla got the most claps from the audience for being the first to volunteer.
Another method to write. The lecturer wanted to experience. Then experience was narrated to the audience on the spot. Kudos for the sharing approach.
It started off with the usual pre-test procedure.Pre-test is a form of knowing your audience first or in short, audience analysis. In this case, unfortunately, the function of the pre-test was not fully utilised. The information from the pre-test were not adapted during the training. Sometimes, during training, we tend to forget the full function of an item. Or was there another function which I missed out.
While the pre-test was conducted, we were busy installing the software in most of the students’ laptop. The comments for “why being a teacher” were noble and passionate such as
-Teaching is a noble profession,
-Influence from the parents,
-Would like to impart knowledge,
-I love kids.
Then Fenny moved on to introduce what is SMARTBOARD.
It was a 45 minutes interactive-all-rounder (if there is such a word) training. Explanation was clear enough for the audience to comprehend. Clear with step-by-step instruction and repetitive if some were still vague. The lecturers were also immersed in the training. They (the lecturers) will be asking further questions. There were time allocated for student-volunteers for certain activities. We heard lots of OOOhhs… and AAhhhs… everytime Fenny showed them amazing new items one can manipulate with the SMARTBOARD.
Boy, were they having fun! This group was serious yet lively. Student-volunteers have full support from the audience including the lecturers.
The audience was indeed attentive from the beginning to the end. After the talk, it was the group activity session. Instructions from Fenny were:-groups of three, name your group, a limit of 5 slides, 5 minutes presentation time, the content-activity designed using the smartboard as a tool, preparation time: 30 minutes. Those without laptops proceed to the computer lab to do their work.
It was fascinating to see how the students design the activity with the basic compressed newly received knowledge. Looking at the prior knowledge, most students are well-versed (scale of 4-5 – quick scan from pre-test) with the Internet, usage of Microsoft Words, PowerPoint. At the same time, judging from the laptops, and the items they had on the laptop like p2p software, computer games, I would say, this group is OK with technology.
Now, time to present. Despite the fact that Fenny did not mention anything about target audience or learning objectives per se, each group had one slide with the target audience, and learning objective(s). Something to take note of. By the way, lecturers did not say anything about it.
The first group presented a simple Maths activity for lower primary.
After presenting, there were feedback from Fenny and yours truly. The feedback for this activity was the numbers were too small for kids to see plus the graphic book picture would prove to be a distraction for kids.
Next group is Haiku. Another activity on Maths.
For this group, we had the lecturers to give feedback. The most verbal lecturer was none other than Mr.Kuruvilla.
The following group had another feedback from Mr.K. It would be better to put fish instead of stars. Objects that are used must have relations with one another. Make sense.
The next group, Successful Park, had the activity which didn’t quite match the LO.
This group created the activity for Standard One kids!! Look at the amount of words use for one activity. 100% words. Small and big words. Small in the sense of size and big in the aspect of vocabulary. 7 year-old kids would be turned-off.
J.A.C.S was the next group.
This group was able to apply what Fenny has used in her presentation. The application of covering the screen. Reminder: This method was not taught during the training.
The third last group.
The group illustrated on spelling activity. First, they show what are the stationery which will be taught. Next, rearrange the letters of each stationery.
The second last group.
Level:pre-school. Activity:How to write alphabets. A simple yet effective activity.
The final group.
Feedback (from Mr.K)-They could have used the interactive dice. Get rid of the LOVE graphic. No connection. Take out the leaves background. Again, no relation. It also proven to be a hindrance. Cannot see the number “1″ clearly. Colours too light.
To sum up morning session, the students had proven themselves quite skilled in using the smartboard. If given the time, they could have designed marvellous lessons. Of course, the content and the context part need more practice and understanding and exposure.
-End of morning session-
A short documentary that deals with integration of new technologies and their impact on the academic universe.
The short video is created by Michael Wesch in collaboration with 200 students at Kansas State University.
The 4 minutes illustrates some of the most important characteristics of students today – how they learn, what they need to learn, their goals, hopes, dreams, what their lives will be like, and what kinds of changes they will experience in their lifetime.
Here are some pictures which cannot be put in words.
All i can say these pictures reflect the process of the training.
Picture 1
Picture 2
Picture 3
Picture 4
Picture 5
Picture 6
Picture 7
Picture 8
Picture 9
Acknowledgment:Pictures taken by Elisabeth Ng Lye Ti.
…more photos.
Recent Comments