Since I'm doing this well after the fact, it's easier now to see how far I've come in constructing my own personal learning theory. However, I'm not sure I would say that I've constructed the theory so much as I have discovered into which theory my style fits.
I am strongly a proponent of the constructionist theory, both educational and social. I believe that we learn best -- and I know that I learn best -- when I am allowed to construct my learning based on what I already know, then adding more construction to my foundation as I gain new knowledge and insight. I have to be able to relate the knowledge I'm gaining to the knowledge I already have in some way -- my style of learning is to perceive relationships between past knowledge and current information, so that I can fit the current information into my existing framework of knowledge, or adjust the framework in order to accommodate the new information.
I would say that the greatest impact on my own personal learning theory has been the research I've done with regard to the synthesis paper. When I started this course (and the other one I'm in, EdTEch 561), I thought I knew what my thesis would be, what area interested me for research. As the course progressed, I changed my focus a bit, and started looking at constructionism in general, but I was still floundering when it came time to submit the learning theories assignment. The articles I found were interesting and informative, but not particularly useful in some respects, so I started to dig deeper into constructionism, trying to find some relevance for myself. I found it in the article by Catherine Veninga, "Fitting in: the embodied politics of race in Seattle’s desegregated schools". It struck a chord in me, mostly because I was one of the students whose experiences Veninga was researching. I wasn't one of the kids who was bused; rather, my parents had moved to the South End of Seattle when I was 6, and I had grown up in the ethnically diverse schools in that area. I was one of the "white kids" Veninga spoke about who were radically different from my North End counterparts -- and it was most interesting to read her theories as to why we were so different. Ethnically, we were white -- but culturally, we weren't. We had been raised in such a strong multicultural environment that culturally we were no longer "white".
Because of this paper, and because of the further research I did on multicultural education, my thesis direction has completely altered. I am now becoming increasingly interested in the progress (or lack thereof, actually) of multicultural education, and in researching solutions that will enable us to finally educate our students appropriately to not only accept or tolerate diversity, but to embrace it and value it.
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
Module 3 Summary and Reflection
I enjoyed Module 3, with its introduction to sociocultural theory, which I believe is an important way of viewing how we structure our classes. I particularly like the TARGET approach, which gives the instructor a framework on which to plan and evaluate lessons. I found that framework to be particularly helpful when it came to planning my own lesson; it provided me with clear-cut method for structuring my lesson and for evaluating that structure, in order to determine whether I would be able to meet the various needs of the students. I can see that perhaps in some instances -- as we covered in our discussion -- TARGET would not work in certain classrooms, but I think that most of us could find some general applicability for the sociocultural theory.
Looking back on it, and looking at what I am doing in the classes I am teaching now, I can evaluate my classes as follows:
T(ask): One of my classes by its very construction is mostly unidimensional and undifferentiated, because the class must progress at roughly the same rate together. However, I try to permit some flexibility even in this class with how they structure their assignments. My second class, however, is far more multidimensional and differentiated, as students are working on a variety of tasks all at different times, and in different ways. Some students are ahead, because they have taken portions of this course before; others are moving more slowly because they are still gaining familiarity with the software. And I have utilized T(ask) further in the planning, as I have planned further units to become increasingly differentiated, so that students can work at their own pace and on the project of their choice.
A(utonomy): Again, in the one class, the students have less autonomy, because it is a basic computer course. However, I have tried to provide them with some autonomy when it comes to making choices within their assignments -- style and color, for example, or which graphics to use. Because of their lack of experience -- and in some cases, lack of language skills -- it is simply not feasible to provide them with more choice. The second class, however, has a high level of autonomy, as they are exercising their own creativity in generating the assignments; as well, as the course continues, they will have increased autonomy as to choice of assignment.
R(ecognition): This is where I seem to fall down a bit in both classes, but the public nature of the computer screens in general means that the students frequently get peer feedback and teacher feedback on their work. All work is clearly visible, so the peers surrounding each student often critique, assist, and provide a variety of feedback, as do I as I circulate throughout the classroom.
G(roups): Group work is not as easy in a computer lab setting and in the courses that are currently structured, because the skills they are learning are quite individualized. However, I have planned future group activities in the one class, as the skill levels increase.
E(valuation): I evaluate the students' work, of course, but I also provide opportunities for them to evaluate their own work, requiring them to choose their five best examples to submit, or requiring them to justify in writing why they chose the examples they did. Each assignment of this nature requires the student to evaluate their own work and develop criteria mentally which they feel are important features of the assignment.
T(ime): We work both within the limits of a class period (56 minutes) and within the constraints of a semester system, which is broken into quarters. The students are for the most part cognizant of the time constraints, and aware that they have to turn their work in on time in order to get credit for it in the quarter. I provide them with some flexibility with regard to time, however, as the range of skill levels means that some students work ahead, and other students work more slowly.
Looking back on it, and looking at what I am doing in the classes I am teaching now, I can evaluate my classes as follows:
T(ask): One of my classes by its very construction is mostly unidimensional and undifferentiated, because the class must progress at roughly the same rate together. However, I try to permit some flexibility even in this class with how they structure their assignments. My second class, however, is far more multidimensional and differentiated, as students are working on a variety of tasks all at different times, and in different ways. Some students are ahead, because they have taken portions of this course before; others are moving more slowly because they are still gaining familiarity with the software. And I have utilized T(ask) further in the planning, as I have planned further units to become increasingly differentiated, so that students can work at their own pace and on the project of their choice.
A(utonomy): Again, in the one class, the students have less autonomy, because it is a basic computer course. However, I have tried to provide them with some autonomy when it comes to making choices within their assignments -- style and color, for example, or which graphics to use. Because of their lack of experience -- and in some cases, lack of language skills -- it is simply not feasible to provide them with more choice. The second class, however, has a high level of autonomy, as they are exercising their own creativity in generating the assignments; as well, as the course continues, they will have increased autonomy as to choice of assignment.
R(ecognition): This is where I seem to fall down a bit in both classes, but the public nature of the computer screens in general means that the students frequently get peer feedback and teacher feedback on their work. All work is clearly visible, so the peers surrounding each student often critique, assist, and provide a variety of feedback, as do I as I circulate throughout the classroom.
G(roups): Group work is not as easy in a computer lab setting and in the courses that are currently structured, because the skills they are learning are quite individualized. However, I have planned future group activities in the one class, as the skill levels increase.
E(valuation): I evaluate the students' work, of course, but I also provide opportunities for them to evaluate their own work, requiring them to choose their five best examples to submit, or requiring them to justify in writing why they chose the examples they did. Each assignment of this nature requires the student to evaluate their own work and develop criteria mentally which they feel are important features of the assignment.
T(ime): We work both within the limits of a class period (56 minutes) and within the constraints of a semester system, which is broken into quarters. The students are for the most part cognizant of the time constraints, and aware that they have to turn their work in on time in order to get credit for it in the quarter. I provide them with some flexibility with regard to time, however, as the range of skill levels means that some students work ahead, and other students work more slowly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)