Teaching as an art

My understanding of teaching has changed as a result of my experience in LIBR 250 this semester. Prior to this exposure, I believed that the education that you received to be a teacher was straight forward and pragmatic (teaching as a science). In my mind, I equated it with the preparation that one would take to be an accountant (learning in the classroom, some direct experience in the field, and then certification by means of the CPA exam).

I now lean more towards teaching as an art. Teaching is more nuanced than I ever imagined, and because of this is more of an art than a science. Teaching is a remarkably creative process, and is highly dependent on motivating others. These two elements--creativity and motivating others--lead more to art than science. By saying this, I do not mean to discount the research studies contained in the textbooks that we used this semester (Wiggins & McTighe, Bruce, and Orellana) that demonstrate successful teaching. As a foundation, you can learn to teach but it requires more than that to be successful. In the end, teaching is different learning paradigms and theories and can not be narrowed down to a simple check list.

Becoming an effective teacher is not a one-off process, but rather is continually on-going. I think it requires the ability to not remain static, to recalibrate when something is not working, self reflection, embrace a culture of risk-taking, and a determination to not make the process about yourself (teacher) but to remain learner-centered.

Collaboration and the augmentation of understanding

My belief in the role of collaboration in understanding and knowledge has been transformed as result of my experience in the SLIS program and online learning environments such as LIBR 250. Even though at times group work seems more burdensome, I now understand the importance of collaboration in understanding and knowledge. Two examples from LIBR 250 demonstrate the efficacy of collaboration and interaction in the learning process. To prepare this blog, I went back and reviewed the 250knowledgecenter that we collaborated on this semester. What started as a few entries grew, and became emblematic of an organic and interactive dialog that fostered understanding. My understanding of learning paradigms, learning theories and instruction is all the more richer because this learning process was driven by collaboration and engagement with the material and my peers. My experience with blogging this semester in LIBR 250 also reinforces to me the importance of collaboration in understanding. For me the understanding in this experience comes from the interaction that I have with my peers, whether it's me responding to your blogs or the responses that you all provide to me.

As a result of the experiences that I have had, I firmly believe that virtual environments have the potential to increase the efficacy of collaboration. Virtual environments afford not only recognition of different learning styles but also modes of collaboration. Collaborative modes that may be leveraged in virtual environments include Wikis, blogs, discussion boards, online productivity and collaboration tools (Zoho and Google Apps), and even multimedia sharing (something that Mary Ann does frequently). LIBR 250 has embraced many of these collaborative modes, and has favorably impacted understanding as a result.

In terms of collaboration in teaching, I will instead transfer this to collaboration in the workplace. The company that I work for just launched a new product that identifies leakage and fraud in the auto insurance industry. This product took over 5 years to launch, and was result of collaboration by 200 staff members each contributing something unique. My contribution to the product was to negotiate and acquire datasets from various entities that would be used for the algorithms. Traditional predictive modeling in the insurance industry assigned too much risk to urban drivers with lower income. The new model that my company released more accurately and fairly assigns risk to suburban drivers with higher income, and will be used by the California Department of Insurance. The success of this product was predicated by the collaboration and contributions of many staff members.

Differentiating Factors: Collaboration, Interaction and Feedback

The growth in online learning in higher education has been nothing short of prodigious, and has emerged as a viable option to learning in the traditional classroom. Although research indicates that students can and often do learn effectively in an online environment, qualitative differences  exist between online and face to face learning. According to McConnell (2000), major areas where online learning differs from face to face include "group dynamics, accessing other groups, and the total effect of the group". These elements that McConnell has identified indicate that collaboration is a major differentiating factor between online and face to face learning. More specifically, online technologies have the ability to alter the dynamics of learner collaboration. Groups in the online environment may be less hierarchical and less intimidating for some learners. Online collaboration also affords more ways of expression of individual strengths (multiple intelligences theory), so the likelihood of active participation by all learners in a wide variety of groups is improved.

Beyond the collaboration explicated by McConnell, Orellana, Hidgins, and Simonson (2009) indicate that interaction is a major determinant in learning and satisfaction in the online environment (p.425).  Interaction in an online environment is qualitatively different from that in face to face, and can take several forms. These forms of interaction include "learner-learner, learner-instructor, learner-content, and learner-interface" (Orellana, Hidgins, and Simonson, 2009, p.432-3). The various forms of interaction that are exhibited in online learning allow for greater  expression of different learning styles, and favorably impact the potential for transferability and engagement.

My experience with online learning indicates that collaboration, interaction, and the provision of feedback are differentiating factors. I initially was resistant to online collaboration, and felt uncomfortable working in this type of mode with peers that were time zones away. At some point during my first semester in this program I let go of that hesitancy, started to trust in the process, and now enjoy working in collaboration. Interaction in the online learning environment has also been an area of difference, especially in terms of how I interact with the content and the interface. I struggled at first when I read about different learning paradigms. But when the same material was presented in the form of a video by the instructor or even better an infographic that I constructed, my learning grew. Lastly, a major way that online learning is different for me is the desire for almost continual feedback. Whether it is in the form of a graded assignment, a practice quiz, or an exchange of ideas on a discussion board, I crave feedback in the online environment as a means of reassuring me as learner.

Sources:

McConnell, D. (2000). Implementing computer supported cooperative learning. London: Kogan Page Limited. Retrieved November 14, 2010, from http://jabba.edb.utexas.edu/it/fc_resta_courses_files/itpm/m0_7.html

Orellana, A., Hudgins, M., & Simonson, M., eds. (2009). The perfect online course: best practices for designing and teaching. Charlotte, NC: Inf

The tools of "Teacher Assessors" and "Learning Consumers"

Although assessment is tenuous to neatly define and deploy, it plays an essential role in the learning process for both the teacher and the student. For the teacher, formative or summative assessment is a means of determining whether or not students are learning and understanding.  There is a seamlessness in the relationship between the teacher and assessment, and  Wiggins and McTighe (2006) go so far as to propose a "teacher assessor" role. These authors place assessment in the context of teaching by posing two questions in Stage 2 of the UbD matrix: "what is evidence of the desired results" and "what is the appropriate evidence of desired understanding" (Wiggins and McTighe, 2006, p.147). Assessment varies by the teacher, but is almost always not a one-off and occurs along a continuum. Wiggins and McTighe (2006) argue that "rather than using a single test, of one type, at the end of teaching, effective teacher-assessors gather lots of evidence along the way, using a variety of methods and formats" (p.152). Types of teacher assessment may be evidenced as "performance tasks, academic prompts, quiz and test items, and informal checks for understanding" (Wiggins and McTighe, 2006, p.153). Although it may be easier to assess for learning based on rote memorization, the emphasis should be on assessment for knowledge that represents transferability. Wiggins and McTighe (2006) explicate that "understanding is revealed in performance" and "assessment for understanding must be grounded in authentic performance-based tasks" (p.153). This would include the transference of  knowledge to the real world, and how understanding in one area may lead to content mastery in others. Holistic and analytical rubrics have utility in terms of assessment of student performance.

Assessment is also a tool for the student and heavily impacts the learning experience. Lombardi (2008) notes that research has shown that "students engage with subject matter based in part on their expectations about how their achievement will be evaluated" (p.1).  Effective assessment as a tool guides the student, and will allow for recalibration in the learning process. The type of assessment used by the teacher influences the student's engagement with the subject matter. Students are able to modify their use of assessment as a tool, as they progress in the learning experience. Lombardi (2008) argues that there has been a change in undergraduate attitudes towards assessment, and that these students now view themselves as "learning consumers" (p.4). As such, these students are using assessment as a tool for "increased transparency from instructors" and they also want "processes in place to help them improve and develop, guided by clear, practical, and specific feedback" (Lombardi, 2008, p.4).

Sources:

Lombardi, M. (2008, January). Making the grade: the role of assessment in authentic learning. Educause Learning Initiative. Retrieved October 30, 2010 from http://www.educause.edu/ELI/MakingtheGradeTheRoleofAssessm/162389

Wiggins, G. & McTighe, J. (2006). Understanding by design (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc.

Key understandings in teaching about information?

            In an era of the overabundance of information, it is useful to conceptualize not only what it means to know or to learn but also how we teach about information. Bruce's principle of informed learning provides a foundation for teaching about information.  Bruce (2008) developed the Seven Faces of Informed Learning as a means of describing the information-use experiences of professionals and discipline experts. The Seven Faces of Informed Learning are "wisdom, extension, knowledge construction, process, control, sources and information awareness" (Bruce, 2008, p.40). This author proposes that "as we use information differently, information appears or presents itself to us differently" and that information "engages with and transforms us" (Bruce, 2008, p.53).  Information from this perspective is seen as being subjective, and is highly influenced by the individual.

            Bruce's principle of the Seven Faces of Learning indicates that information is not only subjective but presents itself in different ways. When we experience information as transformational, it is "an integral part of ourselves" and involves our "beliefs, values, and attitudes" (Bruce, 2008, p.53). Information experienced as subjective involves a "focus of reflection" and enhances our knowledge base (Bruce, 2008, p.53). Information that is objective and contextualized "presents itself as part of an external environment, and knowledge is required to access it" (Bruce, 2008, p.54).  And information that is objective and decontextualized is primarily about "technology and sources" (Bruce, 2008, p.54). The implications of the Seven Faces of Learning for teaching about information are significant. Information is experienced and can be engaged with in different ways. Technologies that afford different ways of experiencing and engaging with information should be emphasized.

            The advent of Web 2.0 technologies has greatly impacted the information seeking process, and necessitates the need for teaching about information. These Web 2.0 technologies are characterized by user-generated content and high user participation. Bruce's principle of informed learning and the ACRL information literacy standards couple together quite nicely and reflect this same theme of user-centeredness. Both principles indicate that there is a relational dynamic between information and the learner. Information is not static in this paradigm, but is evolving and builds upon previous experience.

Sources:

Association of College & Research Libraries (2000). Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education. Chicago, Illinois: American Library Association.

Bruce, C. (2008). Informed learning. American Library Association.

Information Literacy vs. "Scanning, satisficing, and muddling through"...

I will be premising my reflection and response to the LIBR 250 guiding question this week on information literacy standards developed by the Association of College & Research Libraries (ACRL). The emergence of a society in which there is an overabundance of information has been the genesis for a discussion regarding information literacy. According to the Association of College & Research Libraries (2000), an individual in an academic setting is considered information literate when they "recognize when information is needed and have the ability to locate, evaluate, and use effectively the needed information". Many theorists have acknowledged the need for information literacy competency standards, and time and energy continues to be devoted to defining information literacy and pursuant standards. This blog will argue that some of the time devoted to definitions and standards would be better utilized if it was directed at the challenging the engrained information user's sense of not needing to be information literate.

When conceptualizing information literacy standards, it is essential to acknowledge the inherent ambiguities in this term. This is because it encompasses such expansive concepts as "information" and "literacy". Despite this, I would argue that information literacy is predicated on metacognition about information and literacy. It is really the ability to have awareness throughout the information-seeking process, and the ability to recalibrate when necessary. It is fundamentally the ability to actively engage in information encountered in the information-seeking process, and to be able to synthesize disparate sources of information into a coherent framework. And it is critical to develop a sensitivity towards the ethical, legal, and financial dimensions of information.

A major unstated bias regarding the discussion of information literacy standards in higher education is that this movement overlooks the fact that many users don't feel the need to develop a critical awareness of their information-seeking process. Actual research demonstrates this point. In the seminal "Don't Make Me Think", the leading Web usability analyst Steve Krug argues that the information-seeking process on the Web is markedly different from that prior to the Information Age. Krug (2006) demonstrates through ground-breaking usability research that the process of information seeking on the Web can be categorized as "scanning, satisficing, and muddling through". Simply put, many users do not feel compelled to develop a methodical information-seeking process that incorporates information literacy standards. And it seems to this blogger that overcoming this engrained user sense of "scanning, satisficing, and muddling through" is where more energy should be devoted in this discussion.

References

Association of College & Research Libraries (2000). Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education. Chicago, Illinois: American Library Association.

Krug, S. (2006). Don't make me think. Berkeley, California: New Riders.

What does it mean to learn?

The guiding question for the reflective blogging assignment in LIBR 250 this week is "What does it mean to learn? Explore this both in terms of the face value of the question but also in relation to how you conceptualize knowing and understanding".

Learning as a paradigm is incredibly complex, and includes many elements. Learning is the process by which you acquire new knowledge and understanding, or expand upon that which you already have. Learning is also habituation. There are various learning theories that have been devised to describe the process of learning. Some of these paradigms include Behaviorism, Cognitivism, Constructivism, and Humanism. Each of these learning paradigms exhibit some truth. Learning is not a static process, as learners usually evolve in their techniques. Responding to positive and negative stimuli may give way to something more subjective like transferring knowledge contextually to gain a new understanding.

To understand what learning is, it is important to examine the concepts that were blogged about in Week 2—knowing and understanding. Although knowing and understanding are interrelated, it is possible to differentiate the two by the concept of "transferability". According to Wiggins and McTighe (2005):
Knowledge and skill, then, are necessary elements of understanding, but not sufficient in themselves. Understanding requires more: the ability to thoughtfully and actively "do" the work with discernment, as well as the ability to self-assess, justify, and critique such "doings". Transfer involves figuring out which knowledge and skills matter here and often adapting what we know to address the challenge at hand. (p.41)
Understanding is the process of transferring knowledge to a new context. Paradoxically, "transferability" does not guarantee understanding. It is possible to transfer knowledge to a new context and have misunderstanding. Beyond "transferability", Wiggins and McTighe (2005) propose that understanding is predicated on six facets: "explanation, interpretation, application, perspective, empathy, and self-knowledge" (pp.85-100). Understanding is vital for learning, and as witnessed by Wiggins and McTighe's theory is also incredibly nuanced.

As difficult as it is to define learning, it may be even more tenuous to assess the efficacy of it. The ongoing brouhaha over performance-based testing indicates that assessments of learning are highly contentious. The assessment of learning would hopefully acknowledge different types of intelligence. As a means of describing the diverse intellectual abilities of learners, Gardner proposed a multiple intelligences theory. According to Gardner (1983), there are eight intelligences that impact learning: "spatial, linguistic, logical-mathematical, bodily-kinesthetic, musical, interpersonal, intrapersonal, naturalistic, and existential".

Beyond knowing and understanding, habituation is a component of the learning process. My experience with the SLIS online program demonstrates this contention. My learning process at the onset of this program was dominated by habituation of learning techniques from the formal classroom. When I read, I prefer to do so from printed material. I have struggled with reading long articles or lectures notes online. But slowly over the course of two semesters, I have learned how to read without relying upon printed material. In this instance, a habituation which impacted my learning process was slowly overcome by modification of technique. Habituation can facilitate learning, or can cause the learner to struggle.

The advent of information technologies and the rise of online learning is reshaping what it means to learn. The design and implementation of instructional strategies now incorporates the importance of interface design. Kushnir (2009) examines the "information overload" contention of some online learners. He concludes that:
for students, this study suggests that keeping focused and goal oriented is very important, especially in online environments where one can easily stray beyond the relevant and necessary information that facilitates learning. It seems that, at least for e-learning, more (information, experience, etc.) does not necessarily mean better or more effective learning. (p.298)
Kushnir's article demonstrates that online learning environments are changing what it means to learn.


Sources:
Gardner, H., Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences, Basic Books, New York, 1983.
Kushnir, L. (2009). When Knowing More Means Knowing Less: Understanding the Impact of Computer Experience on e-Learning and e-Learning Outcomes. Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 7(3), 289-299. Retrieved from Education Research Complete database.
Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2006). Understanding by design. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.

Knowing v. Understanding

The guiding question for the reflective blogging assignment in LIBR 250 this week is to "define knowing and understanding".

According to Merriam-Webster, knowing is defined as:
1 a (1) : to perceive directly : have direct cognition of (2) : to have understanding of (3) : to recognize the nature of : DISCERN b (1) : to recognize as being the same as something previously known (2) : to be acquainted or familiar with (3) : to have experience of
2 a : to be aware of the truth or factuality of : be convinced or certain of b : to have a practical understanding of
My life experience of knowing suggests commonalities with this definition. A definition of knowing to me would include: being aware of, or familiar with, by means of a factual experience. Knowing is distinct from understanding. It is possible to know, but not to understand. Through memorization, I know some of the elements on the Periodic Table of Elements. But I do not understand the elements that I know on the Periodic Table of Elements. For me, knowing often is based on a factual basis.

According to Merriam-Webster, understanding is defined as:
1 a : to grasp the meaning of b : to grasp the reasonableness of c : to have thorough or technical acquaintance with or expertness in the practice of d : to be thoroughly familiar with the character and propensities of
2 : to accept as a fact or truth or regard as plausible without utter certainty
3 : to interpret in one of a number of possible ways
4 : to supply in thought as though expressed <"to be married" is commonly understood after
My life experience of understanding shares commonalities with this definition. A definition of understanding to me would include conceptualizing by thinking, often as an intellectual act. Sometimes knowing is a component of understanding. But it is possible to understand, but not to know. My friend explained to me how to ride his motorcycle. Even though I understand what he told me, I do not know how to ride his motorcycle. Understanding can often require the ability to place things in context, and synthesizing disparate sources of knowledge.

As this blog demonstrates, definitions of knowing and understanding are tenuous at best. Knowing and understanding are both are components of the learning process. But it might be possible to provide a definition by identification of differences and commonalities. According to Wiggins and McTighe (2005), one way to differentiate knowing from understanding is through the concept of transferability:
Understanding is about transfer, in other words. To be truly able requires the ability to transfer what we have learned to new and sometimes confusing settings. The ability to transfer our knowledge and skill effectively involves the capacity to take what we know and use it creatively, flexibly, fluently, in different settings or problems, on our own. (p.40)

The author Kuhn proposes a commonality between knowing and understanding, by claiming that "one cannot fully understand the processes of knowing and knowledge acquisition that people engage in without investigating their understanding of their own knowing" (Kuhn, p. 7). In other words, to know you must first understand your knowing.

At this early stage in LIBR 250, what I can say definitively about knowing, understanding and the learning process is that it is incredibly complex.


Sources:
Kuhn, D. (2001). How do people know? Psychological Science, 12(1), 1-8. Retrieved September 2, 2010 from Education Full Text.
Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2006). Understanding by design. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.