Continuing my thoughts on the perceived problems in MOOCs as presented by David Youngberg's April 13, 2012 commentary in the Chronicle, I come to the second perceived problem: that the "star student can't shine." WHAT?
What is a star student? Is it the one that get's the A because they know how to take multiple choice tests? Is it the student that has learned to cram and flush so effectively that in one night they can game the course content to get a good exam grade? Is the student kisses up by always coming by your office to ask you a minor question (and really never gets around to asking about anything useful)? Or is it the arch manipulator? These are all negative stereotypes, but I've seen colleagues holding these people up as star students. Once their in a challenging class (such as a course taught through case studies), they flounder and complain.
Both in online and face-to-face, I can spot the students that are trying. I can spot the students that are giving it their all, even if they struggle through the whole course. I've had students that I've said are some of the brightest and best, but they still only got a B out of my class. Why? Because they were great students. They learned. Even after years, they still remembered what they learned in my class. They can still point to AHA moments (now in the dictionary) where they either learned something about the content or about themselves. In my class they may not have been an A student, but they were a star student. They were higher achieving than those that got the A.
The question is not can star students shine, but what do you consider a star student? Ask yourself, have I given possibilities for students to shine? How do I acknowledge a student's achievement? The idea that a person can not shine in different media is ludicrous. It makes me wonder if David Youngberg felt under appreciated in the Udacity course, and what he considers a star student.
About being under appreciated, we all feel that way at some point or another, but do you participate in a MOOC or online course to feel appreciated? When I participate in something like a MOOC like #MOOCMOOC going on right now, I'm doing it to learn something, gain inspiration or build connections (networks). What is strange, those students who shine for me, are the ones who are trying to learn the material in the course, those who struggle with concepts, ask good questions, and sit in my office near to tears because they don't understand something. In short, those that are taking the challenge of the learning opportunities.
Tuesday, August 14, 2012
Perceived Problems in MOOCs - (part 1: cheating)
In the chronicle yesterday, David Youngberg wrote a commentary titled 'Why Online Education Won't Replace College - Yet'. While he makes one good point, there are many other problems I have with his position. Some are just different ways of thinking about education and assessment, while others are perspective.
Youngberg's first criticism is in cheating, namely that if a MOOC (his central concern in online education) were for credit, cheating would be rampant. Well, cheating is already rampant in higher education, and it is sometimes very difficult to catch. My favorite was the student who took pictures of the test, sent them to other students waiting outside, who then came in "late" for the exam (the first person showed up early). Yes, they got caught.
For me the issue of cheating revolves around the goal of the assignment. Youngberg does point out that in the Udacity course he enrolled in did allow collaboration on discussions, but then goes on with the idea that there would be cheating if the course was for credit. I state again, your concept of cheating is ultimately tied up in what you view as the GOAL of the assignment.
In my classes, I use a number of online quizzes as formative assessments. Students have unlimited attempts, and the database of questions that randomize between each quiz is large. I encourage the students to cooperate in answering the questions. The goal is to get them thinking, to reference their textbooks, and online sources. I want them to work on finding the answers. Colleagues have accused me of allowing students to cheat, because a quiz "should reflect what the student knows." How do you argue with someone whose perception of assessment is so myopic? Even online exams (which are not worth a killer amount of points) are not proctored. Could the students be sitting next to each other? Could they be comparing? Could they be looking thing up? Yes, and I expect that they are doing that, but they are still learning.
Let me state again, these are not punitive exams point wise. These exams are not worth 1/3rd of their grade, like most people post exams. If they do poorly, it doesn't stop them. Instead, it shows them where their still struggling.
This past semester, my students only had one in class exam: the final. Even then, they had a second chance to take it if they did poorly (new question set though). I had fewer suspicious students during that final exam than I've ever had before. Fewer students with stray glances, furtive looks at what could be a crib sheet, or even the tell-tale bulge of a cellphone. I took the pressure off the exams, and the cheating went down.
When I asked students how much help they got when taking the exams, they said a little. When I asked them to explain, they said they sat near someone, but that the other person wasn't that helpful (they had 50 minutes to do a 50 question multiple choice). Some admitted that they looked up an answer they couldn't figure out. Strangely, it didn't both me. I still saw it as learning. That, and I ended out with the highest average on the final exam (first round) than I've ever had.
So, to sum up, I think cheating is predicated on the goals you have for your assessments.
Youngberg's first criticism is in cheating, namely that if a MOOC (his central concern in online education) were for credit, cheating would be rampant. Well, cheating is already rampant in higher education, and it is sometimes very difficult to catch. My favorite was the student who took pictures of the test, sent them to other students waiting outside, who then came in "late" for the exam (the first person showed up early). Yes, they got caught.
For me the issue of cheating revolves around the goal of the assignment. Youngberg does point out that in the Udacity course he enrolled in did allow collaboration on discussions, but then goes on with the idea that there would be cheating if the course was for credit. I state again, your concept of cheating is ultimately tied up in what you view as the GOAL of the assignment.
In my classes, I use a number of online quizzes as formative assessments. Students have unlimited attempts, and the database of questions that randomize between each quiz is large. I encourage the students to cooperate in answering the questions. The goal is to get them thinking, to reference their textbooks, and online sources. I want them to work on finding the answers. Colleagues have accused me of allowing students to cheat, because a quiz "should reflect what the student knows." How do you argue with someone whose perception of assessment is so myopic? Even online exams (which are not worth a killer amount of points) are not proctored. Could the students be sitting next to each other? Could they be comparing? Could they be looking thing up? Yes, and I expect that they are doing that, but they are still learning.
Let me state again, these are not punitive exams point wise. These exams are not worth 1/3rd of their grade, like most people post exams. If they do poorly, it doesn't stop them. Instead, it shows them where their still struggling.
This past semester, my students only had one in class exam: the final. Even then, they had a second chance to take it if they did poorly (new question set though). I had fewer suspicious students during that final exam than I've ever had before. Fewer students with stray glances, furtive looks at what could be a crib sheet, or even the tell-tale bulge of a cellphone. I took the pressure off the exams, and the cheating went down.
When I asked students how much help they got when taking the exams, they said a little. When I asked them to explain, they said they sat near someone, but that the other person wasn't that helpful (they had 50 minutes to do a 50 question multiple choice). Some admitted that they looked up an answer they couldn't figure out. Strangely, it didn't both me. I still saw it as learning. That, and I ended out with the highest average on the final exam (first round) than I've ever had.
So, to sum up, I think cheating is predicated on the goals you have for your assessments.
Monday, August 13, 2012
Good MOOC/Bad MOOC
1. I like to have conversations with other participants. If the MOOC facilitators start talking at me, then I'm not likely to stay. When I sign up for a MOOC, I'm not neccessarily looking for a "class" in discipline X. What I'm generally looking for is connection to an ever widening community of people interested in new models of learning. Since I have a tendency to become a hermit when I focus on a problem, MOOCs and other discussion help provide a touchstone and a group willing to bounce around ideas (or even tell me when I'm going the wrong direction).
Being part of a MOOC where the facilitator gets in the way...well that becomes a problem. Example: When the facilitator becomes the dominant voice of the MOOC.
2. A central repository of objects, such as blogs, that can be reviewed and reflected upon. This requires some web framework or system, but provides the participant a place to go to just reflect on what is going on across the MOOC. If I have to go to four different sites just to keep up with the main thought lines of the MOOC, then I'm going to go to take what I can and my own way.
As a clarification: we all make our own paths through a MOOC, and that is one of the strengths of a MOOC. If the framework though does not support building that path, and instead it is just a jumble of various tools being used, then you're looking at building your path through a briar patch (most likely getting stuck or lost).
One very important element I've found in what I call good MOOCs is that there is a repository where I can go and scan through things looking for posts/tweets/discussion that inspire me. I can find and follow central threads, or what I've come to call the thought lines of the MOOC. Fishing for tought lines is a pain, as is trying to tease them out of multiple disconnected tools. (The take home message: you need connected tools).
3. Time: Change 11 was one of my favorite MOOCs, but it went on for a long time. My life changed, the semester changes, and I started a number of projects. As a result, I went into lurker mode in the MOOC. While I can see why people may like a long duration MOOC, I myself like MOOCs that are about two-three months in length. It gives you time to get your feet wet and really get involved. It also provides more opportunities to actually build networks.
While I like what I've seen and gotten from #MOOCMOOC, I have to say it feels like a speed dating session. I can barely remember what I commented on today. There are advantages to this (you see and do very quickly, and there is very little chance of burning out as the weeks drag on), but there are disadvantages (namely going so fast you're not sure what you've done).
4. Newsletters: Having daily contact with the MOOC is essential and inspiring. Having something in my email box to remind me about a topic, or better yet, showing me some important threads, is amazingly helpful. Getting an admin note with no content, not so inspiring. With that said, having 10+ messages every day (or every hour in one case) is not so great (I really had to change my notifications on that one). With no newsletters, I feel a little left on my own. With 10+ coming from the facilitator, I feel harassed.
One thing that needs to be emphasized, is that the newsletters are most helpful when it has content or links that help you bring the previous day/week content into focus.
____________________________________________________________________________
If you've read my previous posts, you may have seen that I feel that everyone can adapt the foundations of MOOCs to their own situations and audience. Most of my courses are for undergraduates, and as such, they are not ready for what is seen by many as a MOOC (they are not ready to self-organize). My comments here are a reflection of what I like when I join a MOOC. What I do in my classes is different because my audience is different. If I were to do an open course dealing with an audience use to self-actualized learning (what we're doing in #MOOCMOOC), then my interactions and framework would be different.
What is a MOOC?
Today's topic in #MOOCMOOC is "What is a MOOC?" There are some collabrative documents being worked on to answer that question, to which I have commented, but I realized that I needed to take a moment to really think about the question myself.
To answer the question, a MOOC is inspiration.
Huh? It is a learning opportunity that a person accepts, and then they are inspired to chart their own path to knowledge. The best MOOCs I've participated in have been able to inspire me to explore, read and write (even if it notes to myself). The worst one inspired me to leave (I hate being talked at...as opposed to having a conversation with).
The concept of the MOOC is also inspiring, and that is what I love about it. George Siemens, Stephen Downes and Dave Cormier have each done an amazing job building the foundation of what we see today as MOOCs (specifically connectivist MOOCs). These foundations are then available for us to use, reuse, remix and adapt.
Earlier today, Roy B posted a comment to #MOOCMOOC about different kinds of MOOCs. He made a great comment: I am concerned by what I perceive to be a counter-productive "mookier than thou" theme that runs through many of these references. The references that Roy B is referring to are the papers that have been published about MOOCs in the past year or so. I love the idea of something being MOOKIER, and he is right that it is concerning. It also is at the heart of why I hate questions such as: "What is a MOOC?"
Why hate the question? First off, it sets up conditions where people try to pimp competing definitions or nitpick specific, and often irrelevant, details. Second, it diminishes the inspiring quality of the core foundation of a MOOC. Do we want to define it so we can credential it? Do we want to define it so we can package it?
Answering the question in a collaborative way is a great exercise for us to ferret out our own preconceptions and ideas, but it can also lead to division and exclusion. It is also a great cognitive exercise. Still, much can be lost in the process, so I'm glad that the process is only lasting for a day.
Since I think it important, I'm going to repeat what I said about MOOCs: They are inspiring, both in terms of content and framework.
I don't use the term MOOC for the courses I teach, save as in reference to the inspiration. Why? Because it is not a MOOC in the sense that most people use the word. It is inspired by MOOCs, and is based on many tools used by MOOCers, but it is not a MOOC. Why do I say that? It deals with the audience.
Undergraduate students, for the most part, are not adult learners. They have not made the transition from being passive learners to self-actualized active learners. MOOCs require initative, they require active participation, and even if your just lurking, you have to go out of your way to read things. That does not sound like most undergraduates. My courses therefore put me in the role of both Teacher and Facilitator, where as a MOOC needs a facilitator more than a teacher. The goal is to have students to become more active in their learning. Yes, I have to hold them to task at the beginning, but if Spring 2012 is any indication, many of them can then fly.
To answer the question, a MOOC is inspiration.
Huh? It is a learning opportunity that a person accepts, and then they are inspired to chart their own path to knowledge. The best MOOCs I've participated in have been able to inspire me to explore, read and write (even if it notes to myself). The worst one inspired me to leave (I hate being talked at...as opposed to having a conversation with).
The concept of the MOOC is also inspiring, and that is what I love about it. George Siemens, Stephen Downes and Dave Cormier have each done an amazing job building the foundation of what we see today as MOOCs (specifically connectivist MOOCs). These foundations are then available for us to use, reuse, remix and adapt.
Earlier today, Roy B posted a comment to #MOOCMOOC about different kinds of MOOCs. He made a great comment: I am concerned by what I perceive to be a counter-productive "mookier than thou" theme that runs through many of these references. The references that Roy B is referring to are the papers that have been published about MOOCs in the past year or so. I love the idea of something being MOOKIER, and he is right that it is concerning. It also is at the heart of why I hate questions such as: "What is a MOOC?"
Why hate the question? First off, it sets up conditions where people try to pimp competing definitions or nitpick specific, and often irrelevant, details. Second, it diminishes the inspiring quality of the core foundation of a MOOC. Do we want to define it so we can credential it? Do we want to define it so we can package it?
Answering the question in a collaborative way is a great exercise for us to ferret out our own preconceptions and ideas, but it can also lead to division and exclusion. It is also a great cognitive exercise. Still, much can be lost in the process, so I'm glad that the process is only lasting for a day.
Since I think it important, I'm going to repeat what I said about MOOCs: They are inspiring, both in terms of content and framework.
I don't use the term MOOC for the courses I teach, save as in reference to the inspiration. Why? Because it is not a MOOC in the sense that most people use the word. It is inspired by MOOCs, and is based on many tools used by MOOCers, but it is not a MOOC. Why do I say that? It deals with the audience.
Undergraduate students, for the most part, are not adult learners. They have not made the transition from being passive learners to self-actualized active learners. MOOCs require initative, they require active participation, and even if your just lurking, you have to go out of your way to read things. That does not sound like most undergraduates. My courses therefore put me in the role of both Teacher and Facilitator, where as a MOOC needs a facilitator more than a teacher. The goal is to have students to become more active in their learning. Yes, I have to hold them to task at the beginning, but if Spring 2012 is any indication, many of them can then fly.
Sunday, August 12, 2012
Adapting the MOOC model
Tonight I joined the Twitter intro social for #MOOCMOOC. It got me thinking that I needed to really spell out what I did last year in my biology course. While doing this might help some people, I realized that I needed to do it for myself. Being somewhat absent minded, I need a little space to reflect on what I did, what worked, and what went wrong.
To start of, the course I am speaking about is Principles of Biology I here at Georgia State University in Atlanta, GA. This is the first biology class for those majoring in biology (or pre-med), and is generally considered a Freshman level course. Spring semester is actually when we get most of the Freshmen to take it, so it was my big course for the year.
While in #change11 mooc, I decided to take a leap of faith and do my spring 2012 course in a new way; call it a petite mooc. For years I've had my students do online quizzes, discussion boards, lists, and even blogs, but in my mind I never got the assignments to gel the way I wanted. Ultimately, I wanted the students to form into one large learning community (that was the idea I got from #change11). So, I completely restructure my course.
Now remember, these are mainly freshmen. They are not yet adult learners. This may change in the next 10 years, but they are not coming to college (at least not GSU) with the motivation seen in most adult learners. They are also still very much novices when it comes to biology. They may know some content, but they don't understand the context. While I consider myself a mentor, I also recognize that I am still a teacher. There is a need to explain what I mean here, and it spans pedagogy to andragogy.
The simplest way of saying it is that a teacher is one who TEACHES; meaning one who is going to provide content and context for a student in a given subject. This does not necessarily mean a "Sage on a Stage," but it does mean that the teacher (the Master) is helping to build an information framework for the student (the Novice).
I really like the model of situational leadership in helping to explain what I mean about the role of the teacher at this point. I know that situational leadership has been modified for education, but I really like some of the simplicity of the original model, especially when it comes to hybrid pedagogies and MOOCs. Put simply, there is a development curve (learning curve) when people start something new; novices need direction, then coaching. More advanced students then need support.
So my role as a "teacher" is to help them build the mental framework they will use in their chosen discipline, BUT it is also my role to help them develop into more adult learners. That is the part I think many people leave out.
As I work with a class, I need to provide ways to help them move from novice to journeyman; from being passive recipients of knowledge to active seekers of knowledge. That takes us to the mentor.
A mentor then is one who takes on the Coaching and Supportive roles. This is also where we enter the realm of andragogy. You are not dealing with passive learners who are in it just for a grade, but with people engaged in the material.
That brings me to what I did in my last class. First off, here is the syllabus for you to look at: Hybrid BIOL 2107. There are things that I have changed from this, but it will give you an idea where I started.
Each week of the semester had a broad topic to cover (like Energy Harvesting). Each day of the week students received a newsletter that gave them specific information on the topic and a Daily Challenge. Here is a copy of one of the first newsletters: Daily Newsletter January 10, 2012.
Students were to blog about the daily challenges. Sometimes the challenge was content based, and at other times it dealt with context. Students got points just for submitting a blog (minimum 100 words) that was on the topic. I could go in and find students who were having problems with information, and correct their errors kindly without a grade being hung over their head. I also didn't have to sit there and try to "figure" out a grade. I could skim, read, rate. I could also bring feedback into the classroom.
Three times during the semester, the students had to write a milestone paper. Many students quickly realized that they could "steal" from their blogs to write the paper, and that was the idea. To use what they had already written about, and bring it into a logical format. These were graded by peer review, and students were told that this would be the basis of their final paper. I got to go in again and give feedback that was not linked to a grade.
At the end of the semester, the students combined all of their milestone papers into a learning reflection paper (and they were required to reflect on what they had learned). This was graded by me through a rubric built from their peer review work. It worked amazingly well.
There was one student who complained that she did not learn anything through this process, and that she felt that she wasted her time. She said this to me the day I was putting grades in from their comprehensive final. One thing she said is that she knew she failed the final because the blogs and writing didn't help her. I showed her the final and her jaw hit the floor. We went through it, and I asked her if she had know (some content point) before the class. Jaw still on the floor, she shook her head. Yes, she had gotten an A on one of the toughest finals I had given. She looked at me and said "I take it all back."
She was not alone. Over the summer, I had students come to me and ask when they could take me again. They all commented on how writing had helped them, and how they had built friends and study buddies through my course. Most also said that even though other instructors didn't require it, they were still trying to write out information as if I had given them challenges.
I said I would mention failures. The biggest one was my badge idea. Not because it was bad, but because I could not implement it in a way that didn't distract from other things. We'll see how it works this year.
To start of, the course I am speaking about is Principles of Biology I here at Georgia State University in Atlanta, GA. This is the first biology class for those majoring in biology (or pre-med), and is generally considered a Freshman level course. Spring semester is actually when we get most of the Freshmen to take it, so it was my big course for the year.
While in #change11 mooc, I decided to take a leap of faith and do my spring 2012 course in a new way; call it a petite mooc. For years I've had my students do online quizzes, discussion boards, lists, and even blogs, but in my mind I never got the assignments to gel the way I wanted. Ultimately, I wanted the students to form into one large learning community (that was the idea I got from #change11). So, I completely restructure my course.
Now remember, these are mainly freshmen. They are not yet adult learners. This may change in the next 10 years, but they are not coming to college (at least not GSU) with the motivation seen in most adult learners. They are also still very much novices when it comes to biology. They may know some content, but they don't understand the context. While I consider myself a mentor, I also recognize that I am still a teacher. There is a need to explain what I mean here, and it spans pedagogy to andragogy.
The simplest way of saying it is that a teacher is one who TEACHES; meaning one who is going to provide content and context for a student in a given subject. This does not necessarily mean a "Sage on a Stage," but it does mean that the teacher (the Master) is helping to build an information framework for the student (the Novice).
I really like the model of situational leadership in helping to explain what I mean about the role of the teacher at this point. I know that situational leadership has been modified for education, but I really like some of the simplicity of the original model, especially when it comes to hybrid pedagogies and MOOCs. Put simply, there is a development curve (learning curve) when people start something new; novices need direction, then coaching. More advanced students then need support.
So my role as a "teacher" is to help them build the mental framework they will use in their chosen discipline, BUT it is also my role to help them develop into more adult learners. That is the part I think many people leave out.
As I work with a class, I need to provide ways to help them move from novice to journeyman; from being passive recipients of knowledge to active seekers of knowledge. That takes us to the mentor.
A mentor then is one who takes on the Coaching and Supportive roles. This is also where we enter the realm of andragogy. You are not dealing with passive learners who are in it just for a grade, but with people engaged in the material.
That brings me to what I did in my last class. First off, here is the syllabus for you to look at: Hybrid BIOL 2107. There are things that I have changed from this, but it will give you an idea where I started.
Each week of the semester had a broad topic to cover (like Energy Harvesting). Each day of the week students received a newsletter that gave them specific information on the topic and a Daily Challenge. Here is a copy of one of the first newsletters: Daily Newsletter January 10, 2012.
Students were to blog about the daily challenges. Sometimes the challenge was content based, and at other times it dealt with context. Students got points just for submitting a blog (minimum 100 words) that was on the topic. I could go in and find students who were having problems with information, and correct their errors kindly without a grade being hung over their head. I also didn't have to sit there and try to "figure" out a grade. I could skim, read, rate. I could also bring feedback into the classroom.
Three times during the semester, the students had to write a milestone paper. Many students quickly realized that they could "steal" from their blogs to write the paper, and that was the idea. To use what they had already written about, and bring it into a logical format. These were graded by peer review, and students were told that this would be the basis of their final paper. I got to go in again and give feedback that was not linked to a grade.
At the end of the semester, the students combined all of their milestone papers into a learning reflection paper (and they were required to reflect on what they had learned). This was graded by me through a rubric built from their peer review work. It worked amazingly well.
There was one student who complained that she did not learn anything through this process, and that she felt that she wasted her time. She said this to me the day I was putting grades in from their comprehensive final. One thing she said is that she knew she failed the final because the blogs and writing didn't help her. I showed her the final and her jaw hit the floor. We went through it, and I asked her if she had know (some content point) before the class. Jaw still on the floor, she shook her head. Yes, she had gotten an A on one of the toughest finals I had given. She looked at me and said "I take it all back."
She was not alone. Over the summer, I had students come to me and ask when they could take me again. They all commented on how writing had helped them, and how they had built friends and study buddies through my course. Most also said that even though other instructors didn't require it, they were still trying to write out information as if I had given them challenges.
I said I would mention failures. The biggest one was my badge idea. Not because it was bad, but because I could not implement it in a way that didn't distract from other things. We'll see how it works this year.
Tuesday, July 24, 2012
New Projects
It has been a while since I last posted, but it has been a productive (and frustrating) summer. Doing the mini-MOOC with my biology class last semester taught me a great deal, and I've had to go back and reconsider/revise some of my tactics. I also started working with our university's public relations arm to brand my new project (one day our tech people will let me use .edu with my domain...but I won't hold my breath).
The project is Biology Open Learning Opportunities, or BOLO for short. The home for the project can be found at http://www.bologsu.us/BOLO_project/. The BOLO Project website is ultimately a gateway to a site constructed using MOODLE. From here, I have a platform where I can deliver open content for my courses. Anyone who participates will have the opportunity to earn badges (I have the start of this system, but will continue to work on it), and there will be a final badge for course completion. Since this is linked to the courses I teach at Georgia State University, the course will correspond with the GSU semester. Hopefully though, the information, assignments and extras will be of help to anyone with an interest in biology.
If you visit the BOLO project site, you will find a message saying that it is still under construction and that the opening date will be August 10th. That is my general timeline to open things up to the public.
Well, here's hoping it works the second time around.
The project is Biology Open Learning Opportunities, or BOLO for short. The home for the project can be found at http://www.bologsu.us/BOLO_project/. The BOLO Project website is ultimately a gateway to a site constructed using MOODLE. From here, I have a platform where I can deliver open content for my courses. Anyone who participates will have the opportunity to earn badges (I have the start of this system, but will continue to work on it), and there will be a final badge for course completion. Since this is linked to the courses I teach at Georgia State University, the course will correspond with the GSU semester. Hopefully though, the information, assignments and extras will be of help to anyone with an interest in biology.
If you visit the BOLO project site, you will find a message saying that it is still under construction and that the opening date will be August 10th. That is my general timeline to open things up to the public.
Well, here's hoping it works the second time around.
Wednesday, May 9, 2012
Grade Focused v. Learning Focused
Currently, I am participating in the BONKOPEN MOOC. This weeks discussion of R2D2 (Read, Reflect, Display, Do) got me thinking about some of the issues that came up with my course redesign in biology (GOALS). My students worked through concepts, wrote about what they learned, reflected on what they learned,...they WORKED. One of the biggest stumbling block though was getting the students to realize that their work was not about the grade at the end, but the learning opportunity.
Apart from the grumbling, many of the students admitted that they actually learned. Some didn't believe that they had learned anything, then they saw their comprehensive final. After the surprise abated, they looked at me and admitted that all the writing had put something in their head (i.e., they had learned).
What is surprising is that most of these same students would spend hours learning about something that "interested" them. They would look things up, explore, read, etc.... When I asked if they were interested in biology, many of them said, YES. When I asked if they independently studied biology, they said....wait for it...NO. There is a disconnect in their mind between "academic" knowledge and what they find as interesting.
Add to this that most of our students are trained that they need to achieve a certain grade in a class, and we have a problem. It doesn't matter if you learned a subject, only that you got an A in it. One strange thing that happened this past semester, those students who were good "test takers" (i.e, they had learned to cramp and dump) did not excel. They became the average student. They did not participate in the learning opportunities, and it showed.
So my question to the general audience: Do you want your students to be grade focused or learning focused? How will you change your class to switch them to being learning focused?
Apart from the grumbling, many of the students admitted that they actually learned. Some didn't believe that they had learned anything, then they saw their comprehensive final. After the surprise abated, they looked at me and admitted that all the writing had put something in their head (i.e., they had learned).
What is surprising is that most of these same students would spend hours learning about something that "interested" them. They would look things up, explore, read, etc.... When I asked if they were interested in biology, many of them said, YES. When I asked if they independently studied biology, they said....wait for it...NO. There is a disconnect in their mind between "academic" knowledge and what they find as interesting.
Add to this that most of our students are trained that they need to achieve a certain grade in a class, and we have a problem. It doesn't matter if you learned a subject, only that you got an A in it. One strange thing that happened this past semester, those students who were good "test takers" (i.e, they had learned to cramp and dump) did not excel. They became the average student. They did not participate in the learning opportunities, and it showed.
So my question to the general audience: Do you want your students to be grade focused or learning focused? How will you change your class to switch them to being learning focused?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)