Excited about Guided Design!

As I do every week, I first watched the camtasia presentation on guided design before reading the research articles. I immediately was connecting with the method of instruction and already thinking about what the topic of my module was going to be using guided design. Then I read the Casada/DeShazer article where it talks about how this method was used in an introductory engineering class to help students learn problem solving for design, professionalism, and communication. This captured my attention even more! One of my undergrad degrees is in engineering, so I immediately connected with the point that these skills are important and need to be taught. It is unfortunate, however, that the University of Idaho used the instruction method, which is intended to help students learn problem-solving skills, to teach problem-solving skills. Just doesn't seem to make sense, and, according to the report of how the course went, it didn't make sense to the students either. It would seem to me that the problem-solving skills should be learned and taught through the process of actually solving real-life problems - like the method is intended to be used.
I like the idea of using guided design as a method of teaching and learning because I believe strongly in real-life applications of knowledge. Additionally, decision-making is a skill all people must learn to be successful in life and I think guided design puts these two together nicely. I strive to provide realistic problems and projects in my technology classes for my students. Granted, it is not hard to come up with practical applications for a podcast or, say, a web page, but I think in any course we as educators really need to focus on providing real-life problems for students to solve and help them develop one of the 21st C. skills: decision-making.

The Audio-Tutorial Method Fails to Impress

In my review of the material surrounding the individualized instruction method of Audio-Tutorial (A-T), I must say that I am not impressed. The data that reported on the results of comparisons between the A-T and conventional teaching methods seem to be stretched and distorted to show that the A-T method is sometimes favored. From what I can tell, it looks like the A-T approach is too much work for the instructor and too much time and work for the student. There is a general session EVERY week, plus small group sessions EVERY week (at least once per week), AND the individual work sessions at least once per week. It seems to me that as a student, I'd rather sit through the potentially boring lecture to receive my material as opposed to having to make the time to attend all of the required sessions under the A-T method. Furthermore, as an instructor, I have to prepare for more sessions that the traditional lecture approach to teaching. Too much work!
I like the idea of supplementing a conventional instruction approach with A-T components, but, I do not favor an entire course being delivered in this method.

Effectively Grading Students

Watching the classroom presentation of PSI got me to thinking about the practice of evaluating students for grades. My professional training began in corporate america and my academic subjects covered math and engineering, not education, so, I preface this post with the admission that I do not posses some of the formal training that most teachers do. My personal education training has been very rigorous and my professors expected a lot from me. Thus, I expect a lot from my students. As a teacher of technology, I look for my students to be precise, timely, and accountable. Grading is such a subjective process. I was struck by the mention of how grades should be awarded in the PSI presentation. I agree with the original Keller plan that just the basic learning of the material presented warrants a grade of "C," and B's and A's should be reserved for students who go above and beyond what is asked of them from the basic course material. This is how I try to operate in my classes. Assignments, projects, and formal assessments are developed/designed to separate the good students from the excellent students - I think this is only fair to the students that exceed what is expected.
Remember, a "C" is supposed to be average, a "B" is good, and an "A" is excellent!
What do you think? What is your grading philosophy?

Just a start

I'm looking forward to all of the learning and collaboration ahead of us in ECI 515 and ECI 517. Here's to a wonderful semester!