About this Blog

I am taking two classes this semester and BOTH classes require me to maintain a weekly blog. Because the topics are similar, I've decided to combine the reflections for both classes into one blog. So, each reflection post will be labeled with the appropriate course title (e.g. ECI515, ECI517) to enable those who wish to comment to know which entry to comment on.
If my method of organization is not beneficial, please feel free to let me know!
Enjoy, and happy blogging!

Saturday, February 21, 2009

What is old becomes new again

Remember how your mother, father, or grandparents would always talk about how things that are in style today like sayings, hairstyles, clothing trends were in style back when they were young? That's the image that comes to mind when I read about the "new" teaching models that are popular today. For instance, Herrington and Standen state that "little credence is now given to learning theories that propose that learning is no more than the transmission of a body of knowledge from teacher to student." (p.196) And we are reminded in our reading and the presentation that the way knowledge was transferred "back in the day" was through apprenticeships. In fact, I always find it interesting that the same verbiage is still in use today: lawyers practice law, doctors practice medicine, because that is how they learned and, quite frankly, how they still learn today. Theories today support the notion that knowledge should be transferred through real-world experiences; authentic experiences. Experiences that are relevant and provide the appropriate context for students to learn. The Cognitive Apprenticeship appears to be a process that can help educators achieve the goal of teaching by modeling and coaching and letting the students take more control over their own learning process. It will be interesting to see if anyone chooses this model and has the ability, nay, talent, to make this model web-based.

Friday, February 13, 2009

PBL seems ideal

The way you hear the terms "21st Century" learning and skills thrown around these days, you'd think that it wasn't thought of before a couple of years ago! As I am fairly new to the K12 teaching profession, I wasn't aware of all the research and work that had been done prior to this century on the topic and urgency of 21st Century Skills and learning. From what I've read and learned over the past 4 or so years, PBL seems to me to be the poster child for 21st C. learning. It contains some of the major elements: self-direction, coaching/guidance from the teacher (as opposed to lecture), knowledge-sharing, collaboration, problem-solving, student-centered, and the list continues. But here's the question: if it's so great, has so much potential, and is beneficial for teaching the 21st C. skills we profess students must have, why isn't it ubiquitously used in schools? For that matter, why isn't it even moderately used? Please let your voice be heard!

Do you employ the PBL model in your classroom? How often if yes. Why not if no.

I will begin with my answer. I do use the PBL method in my classroom. And I'd say for 1/3 of my semester.
First, I love, love, love using projects in my class to enable my students to participate in hands-on learning, to learn by doing, and to demonstrate their understanding of the material and general knowledge. The way the PBL model is set up, it seems you have to present a problem FIRST and then coach the students through gaining the knowledge needed in order to solve the problem. I think at a college level that this sounds great. Because a lot of core or foundational information is already learned and understood and the students can at least conceptualize a problem initially while building new knowledge and skills in order to solve it. At a lower education level where students are still building their foundational knowledge, I'm not sure it makes as much sense - at least not for EVERY lesson. And that's just it - I don't think it's fair to students or teachers to expect only one method of instruction or knowledge-delivery to be used in a classroom. Every person is unique, every student learns best in different ways, and, ultimately, we as teachers should seek to vary our delivery methods in order to reach every child.

Shouldn't we?

Wednesday, February 4, 2009

A different perspective on women in math, science, and engineering

I must admit at the outset of this post that my perspective of women in the sciences must be different from the norm. If you've read any of my other posts, you know that I am a trained engineer. What I haven't disclosed is that my aunt is also an engineer (metallurgical) and my mother a physician. So, I grew up assuming and knowing that women are very capable of succeeding in math, science, and engineering - it was my norm. I attended Spelman College (all female HBCU) which was and still is rich with women in math, science and engineering. I pledged a sorority at GA Tech (which is where I obtained my engineering degree) and there were 20 of us that pledged together and all but one of us were science or engineering majors. The concept of there being some "issue" of women in the sciences was not my reality. It wasn't until I started interacting with people and women NOT in the sciences that I began to realize that there is some idea floating out there that women can't or don't do science and engineering because they are women. Now, granted, I know that more men go into the sciences, but I have a hard time instantly attributing that to women/girls being intimidated by the field. Maybe it's the people who are always talking about the "issue" that are actually creating the issue - like a self-fulfilling prophecy. :-) No one EVER told me or even mentioned to me while I was coming up that women are scarce in the sciences, or that it was hard or too hard for girls, etc., etc. I just don't get it....
Now, I was moved to write about my perspective because of the article by Haller, et. al. about cooperative learning in an introductory engineering course. It was mentioned throughout the article that groups should be designed with consideration for gender make-up. It was even stated that "several studies of cooperative learning indicate that setting up engineering groups to include only one female jeopardizes the female's chances of a full participatory role in the group." The article went on to admit that data was limited in the studies and this suggestion needs to be further investigated. Let me offer that it may not be a gender issue, but a personality issue. In many of my classes I was the only female (the aerospace discipline was not highly populated) and for two years, in my steady study group of 3, I was the only female. If you talked to other female engineers I'd bet they could affirm this by citing their own experiences. As the only female, it was not difficult for me to speak up, participate, learn, or teach in my groups or classes. But that's my personality. IMHO I think society should give women a little more credit for what they are capable of, and not beat itself up if women happen to choose to go into law instead of engineering :-)