Looking at Angela's stenography of our May 26 class--http://castilans2011.blogspot.com/2011/05/may-26-2011-notes.html--it seems that much of what I could say here is moot. I'll keep it short.
We're handily combining theory and practice. I saw this expressed poignantly in your Reading Studio group discussions, when facilitators asked elicitive questions as "students" put together a reading of the chapter; and, in turn, encouraged students to consider what their self-theories were, how they've changed, how they act on those theories, and what actions aid self-regulation and learning. Of course, this was usually done comfortably, informally, and without specialized language. That is, though goals were discussed, I rarely heard the word "goal." This seems to be one of those choices we ask facilitators to make to increase candor and safety in Studio groups. I also saw that facilitators had recourse to "protocols" as a last resort when dealing with difficult students. This came up in our discussion, and it was reiterated that we should revise protocols; yet, more importantly, we want part of Facilitator Training to include facilitators writing their own scripts and protocols, devising solutions for what to do when the facilitator "gets stuck." This is great studio work because--rather than imposing our own experience, "accurate" though it may be--it allows the facilitators to utilize and pool their own experience and knowledge about how incoming freshmen will work in groups. This should allow them to apply what they learn in training while serving to empower them as facilitators, as well as improve those protocols.
We reviewed our assigned elements of the Program, identifying points for revision. From these suggestions, a few principles emerged that will guide the actual revision that will be assigned as we head into the next week.
1) Emphasizing critical awareness and pedagogy. This should be emphasized in our revisions of facilitator training and echoed in our "Objective."
2) Student focus of Studio. Ditto above.
3) Emphasizing "safety" and candor thereby in Studio groups. In keeping with Thirdspace theory, we're outside the classroom, helping students become aware.
We finished by signing up to revise the Language Strategies. Please do this with your ideal in mind: revise it to be exactly what you want it to be, considering all that you know and feel about studio so far. Revising this language is for you to gain ownership of the space, to figure out and enact what you really care about. On Tuesday, we'll bring our revisions to the group to engage a conceptual discussion about these revisions to determine our agreed-upon principles before we can revise the actual language.
For Tuesday, May 31:
Language Strategy revisions (see above)
Schunk and Zimmerman: Ch. 14 & 15, 4, and 5
Saturday, May 28, 2011
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
May 24
We're all together, and doing much necessary footwork. We're positioning ourselves to accomplish a great deal as we begin to form a more collaborative, equalist approach in handling that work. We're also recognizing the pragmatic benefits that our respective informed perspectives offer the group, as we begin to see how each of us is an asset.
This, in itself, is a lot. (!)
To begin responding to Lakey's text, we discussed whether trying out a "container building" exercise for ourselves would be an sound evaluative way to determine the usefulness of such exercises and the assumptions they are built upon. Happily, the diversity of our group began to show itself in our various initial responses:
Sounds like fun, so why not?
"Container building" isn't fit for our student population.
The idea is interesting; it could work.
The concept of the "container" as Lakey describes it is based on several assumptions that posit such containers as good things, yet is it?
Students will need help with learning how to work as a group while realizing the value of their personal identity.
Our responses developed into a conversation that allowed us to foreground our individual personal & professional concerns as our group revises the Studio Program and Facilitator Training, and this, in turn, led us to form "Strategic Groups." In keeping with aspects of thirdspace ideology, these groups serve as spaces outside of our class in which we can collaborate and build knowledge. Additionally, as I see it, the objective of these Strategic Groups is to assure that perceived shortcomings in the Studio Program are addressed during our revision. To do so, Strategic Group members will communicate directly with those charged with reviewing and revising their respective elements of the Program; and, of course, there is overlap between these two.
I am concerned that some of our voices and concerns were marginalized during this discussion and group-forming bustle. That is, this "strategic group-forming" stuff is not part of everyone's established sets of assumptions, values, beliefs, & proclivities (primary or secondary Discourse). So, please let me know if you have concerns that you feel have not been addressed.
So far, here are our Strategic Groups:
Assessment, Admin Expectations: Musheera, Nic, Sam, Eric
Diversity Interests: Angela, Eric, Tim
Technology: Eric/Nic/Tim
Liaison EEO Admin: Vanessa
Here are those charged with reviewing and revising Program planning and design elements:
Vanessa, Eric: Purpose; Objectives; Admin & Staffing; Admin Plan
Musheera, Marie, Simone: Job Descriptions; Program Components
Sam, Nic, Angela, Eric: Conceptual Timeline; Supporting Documents
Tim, Sam, Nic: Protocols
Language Strategies
Interactive Activities
We said that we needed more time to develop adequate strategies for revising these two elements, and that we could do so collectively and cumulatively. However, we will need someone in charge of finalizing these revisions...Any takers?
For the sake of coherence, it's pleasant for me to note that the necessity for the aforementioned revisions grew from a brief review of the "Recommendations" noted in last year's Program report, as well as our Strategic Groups' concerns. Those were noted and elaborated as follows:
+Develop, implement, and utilize a learning-style survey
+Improve physical learning places--each group needs their own actual room [place] in order to adequately foster a collaborative learning atmosphere [space].
+Facilitator-specific attention [one Mentor per Facilitator "buddy-pair" was mentioned]
+Studio Session Time--1 hour per day?
+Continual assessment; student self-assessment
+Improve facilitator training, esp. for writing studio; invest facilitators in the success of Studio
+Improve Technology mgmt training
+Day 1: Clearly communicate with students what studio is, how it works, what is expected of them
+Develop strategies to address both L2 and basic reading & writing learner difficulties
Looking over these lists, I'm eager for us to make this progress. As Angela, Nic, and Eric have mentioned, we need to get Nic and Simone familiar with Reading & Writing Studio ideology and practices; they are reading up on Grego & Thompson, and reviewing the sites. Of course, having various Studio scenarios modeled for them, then allowing them to practice leading sessions will be immensely helpful. We'll get started with this on Thursday, as we perform studio sessions with Schunk and Zimmerman's collection. [Thanks for the suggestions, folks.]
For Thursday, Meeting in 120 EEO Building:
For contribution to Reading Studio, please bring specific questions about the reading to class.
Please revisit and offer up revisions to your elements of the Writing Studio Program, listed above. While doing so, utilize whatever is helpful in Lakey. Of course, we needn't take "direct education," or even its individuals strategies wholesale; you may find it helpful to incorporate selected aspects of his offerings, as many of them seek to put into practice much of the ideology that Writing Studio trumpets. As almost always, it's up to us, the practitioners, to alter these methods to fit our purposes.
This, in itself, is a lot. (!)
To begin responding to Lakey's text, we discussed whether trying out a "container building" exercise for ourselves would be an sound evaluative way to determine the usefulness of such exercises and the assumptions they are built upon. Happily, the diversity of our group began to show itself in our various initial responses:
Sounds like fun, so why not?
"Container building" isn't fit for our student population.
The idea is interesting; it could work.
The concept of the "container" as Lakey describes it is based on several assumptions that posit such containers as good things, yet is it?
Students will need help with learning how to work as a group while realizing the value of their personal identity.
Our responses developed into a conversation that allowed us to foreground our individual personal & professional concerns as our group revises the Studio Program and Facilitator Training, and this, in turn, led us to form "Strategic Groups." In keeping with aspects of thirdspace ideology, these groups serve as spaces outside of our class in which we can collaborate and build knowledge. Additionally, as I see it, the objective of these Strategic Groups is to assure that perceived shortcomings in the Studio Program are addressed during our revision. To do so, Strategic Group members will communicate directly with those charged with reviewing and revising their respective elements of the Program; and, of course, there is overlap between these two.
I am concerned that some of our voices and concerns were marginalized during this discussion and group-forming bustle. That is, this "strategic group-forming" stuff is not part of everyone's established sets of assumptions, values, beliefs, & proclivities (primary or secondary Discourse). So, please let me know if you have concerns that you feel have not been addressed.
So far, here are our Strategic Groups:
Assessment, Admin Expectations: Musheera, Nic, Sam, Eric
Diversity Interests: Angela, Eric, Tim
Technology: Eric/Nic/Tim
Liaison EEO Admin: Vanessa
Here are those charged with reviewing and revising Program planning and design elements:
Vanessa, Eric: Purpose; Objectives; Admin & Staffing; Admin Plan
Musheera, Marie, Simone: Job Descriptions; Program Components
Sam, Nic, Angela, Eric: Conceptual Timeline; Supporting Documents
Tim, Sam, Nic: Protocols
Language Strategies
Interactive Activities
We said that we needed more time to develop adequate strategies for revising these two elements, and that we could do so collectively and cumulatively. However, we will need someone in charge of finalizing these revisions...Any takers?
For the sake of coherence, it's pleasant for me to note that the necessity for the aforementioned revisions grew from a brief review of the "Recommendations" noted in last year's Program report, as well as our Strategic Groups' concerns. Those were noted and elaborated as follows:
+Develop, implement, and utilize a learning-style survey
+Improve physical learning places--each group needs their own actual room [place] in order to adequately foster a collaborative learning atmosphere [space].
+Facilitator-specific attention [one Mentor per Facilitator "buddy-pair" was mentioned]
+Studio Session Time--1 hour per day?
+Continual assessment; student self-assessment
+Improve facilitator training, esp. for writing studio; invest facilitators in the success of Studio
+Improve Technology mgmt training
+Day 1: Clearly communicate with students what studio is, how it works, what is expected of them
+Develop strategies to address both L2 and basic reading & writing learner difficulties
Looking over these lists, I'm eager for us to make this progress. As Angela, Nic, and Eric have mentioned, we need to get Nic and Simone familiar with Reading & Writing Studio ideology and practices; they are reading up on Grego & Thompson, and reviewing the sites. Of course, having various Studio scenarios modeled for them, then allowing them to practice leading sessions will be immensely helpful. We'll get started with this on Thursday, as we perform studio sessions with Schunk and Zimmerman's collection. [Thanks for the suggestions, folks.]
Ch. 2 & 11: "Foundation"
Ch. 14 & 15: Angela, Eric, Tim
Ch. 4: Sam, Musheera, Simone
Ch. 5: Vanessa, Marie, Nic
[Looking at this, I'm concerned that it may be too much material for us to cover in so short a time; if you have concerns likewise, please let me know.]
For Thursday, Meeting in 120 EEO Building:
For contribution to Reading Studio, please bring specific questions about the reading to class.
Please revisit and offer up revisions to your elements of the Writing Studio Program, listed above. While doing so, utilize whatever is helpful in Lakey. Of course, we needn't take "direct education," or even its individuals strategies wholesale; you may find it helpful to incorporate selected aspects of his offerings, as many of them seek to put into practice much of the ideology that Writing Studio trumpets. As almost always, it's up to us, the practitioners, to alter these methods to fit our purposes.
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Notes from May 17. Considerations for May 24.
Leading off with the "cups of water activity" borrowed from Lakey, we discussed the initial strangeness and restrictiveness of having various amounts of water poured (by AJ) into our cups, and we contrasted that with the relative "fun" we had with strategizing how to share water with each other. We discussed the process as an illustrative allegory for two education models : 1) The "student vessel" model in which the student is a relatively empty vessel that is filled by the teacher, who is the dispenser of knowledge; 2) A learning- and learner-centered model that allows students to work cooperatively to build knowledge both individually and collectively. We discussed our experiences with these two models--as teachers and as students--and we considered whether or not the "cups of water activity" would be an effective tool to help the student facilitators (and their students) to consider the effects of such educational models. In turn, this led us to consider a few of the difficulties experienced during last summer's facilitator training; there was productive debate about whether such "difficulties" aided or hindered student group cohesiveness, learning, and endurance. This discussion helped clarify our respective perspectives on how what needs to be "improved" in the training program; it also led into our discussion of how we maximize and minimize learning experiences, a "tool" also taken from Lakey.
To maximize our learning experiences we do a lot of different things: we put it to use, and transmit that use to others; we form our own personal learning goals; we figure out whether the teacher is going to help us with our goals; we put information into musical and graphically engaging formats; we figure out the spoken and unspoken "rules" of the situation, and decide how to work with & against them; we find a way to personally relate to what needs to be learned (~somehow); we need to gain "ownership" of info so that it relates to higher-order goals and therefore motivates us; we need to have "authority" to solicit, select, and interact with the information--it has to be important to us, not simply someone else (authority = teacher?) who says that info is important (which then gives the info more authority than the learner).
This led to considerations of how we minimize our learning experiences. We tune others out; we tune ourselves out; we imagine savannah vistas and baboon attacks (distractive fantasies = autostimulation [as a result of not getting enough from the class?]); we simply refuse any teaching method or material that asserts its authority over us; when our interest goes down; or when the material no longer seems interesting, we find ways to both disagree with the material and the teacher (perhaps we do this to interact with the info in a dialogic format, to make it more "ours"?); when the material is "overspecific" or without context, we lose our self's orientation to that material; we allow our identity as part of the group's "mainstream" or "margin" to position us as either passive recipients of info or as opponents of the info.
I pointed out that these are problems that WE will probably encounter during our class. To solve them, many of us pointed to the methods that said we used to "maximize" our experiences. Yet we added that our sophistication as learners, along with our work as a cohesive group, would serve us in preventing those "minimizing" behaviors. My question now: Do YOU/WE need to work on maximizing our learning? If so, what do we need to work on, as a group and individually, to maximize our learning? And: Can doing so help us to improve the facilitator training program? How?
To ensure we have a more equal understanding of our class's purpose, we had roundtable explanations from last year's Studio members to clearly place our class in the context of the EEO Writing Studio Program and the Facilitator Training. To help this along, I assigned, er, "buddies" [as I write this, I'm aesthetically opposed to this term; anyone else? We could do a little language analysis...] to make sure that the "mainstream" is informed by this equally valuable "margin" of relative newcomers. I'd like to amend those a bit; these groups are not writ in stone; if you're interested in changing these arrangements, let's talk:
Sam + Nic + Marie
Musheerah + Simone + Eric
Angela + Tim + Vanessa
So, how can we ensure that Nic, Simone, and Tim are empowered with a clear understanding of the knowledge you gained while planning and leading Studio last year? [Is there a better question to ask in this situation?]
We agreed that it would help if Nic, Simone, & Tim reviewed the sites made last year:
Our explanation of the EEO/Studio/Facilitator Training organization served as a lively context for discussing overt and covert power structures within organizations. And this led us to talk about where we thought we fit into such structures, and the typical discourses we use to position ourselves within those. Some of us were comfortable with the notion of hierarchies, so long as they are supportive in their power; some of us questioned whether the power in such supportive hierarchies couldn't be more evenly distributed. I think this helped us to "build our container." It allowed us to share perspectives, and illustrated for each other what identities we have as individuals. In turn, we got at (notice: discourse shift) real concerns that we and our students have about "the game" that the academy drops in our lap. "Games." We discussed "whether we should tell students about the game." We disagreed about this. It was pointed out that--whether or not we call it a "game"--many of us consider academia (and, sometimes, any social arena): 1) in light of "rules"; and 2) to have a varying importance, depending on the extent to which specific long and short-term tasks overlap with "other aspects" of our lives" (like larger goals?).
I'm looking forward to hearing your takes on this, as we consider incorporating "direct education" into your Facilitator Training. Is this a case of Lakey's "elephant in the living room"?
We handed out books and laptops.
I asked you to generate a list of three goals relevant to our class that you would like to accomplish. This was presented generally, to elicit broad response. Then, I asked you to consider how those goals worked with/against the guidelines that Lakey points out as helping students take responsibility for their learning:
1) Use everything to your advancement.
2) Take care of yourself so that you can take care of others.
3) Complete the training
My intention here is manifold. Of course, if we know each others' goals, we can better help one another achieve them. Please visit each other's blogs, listed on this site.
As many of you noted in your responses to my prompt, this process isn't merely to encourage self-regulation in each of us, but also to have you begin thinking about how direct learning and experiential training can be helpful in revising your Facilitator Training Program. That is: Will it benefit the program to incorporate (new, more?) goal-setting and intention-harnessing activities? If not: fine; why not? If so: which ones? In what order?
That seems to me to be an inviting and helpful initial inquiry to ask when reading Lakey and Schunk & Zimmerman. Please, if you have others to add, post comments &/or email me.
For Tuesday, May 24, 5:30pm
Read all of Lakey, and the Preface & Ch. 1 of Schunk & Zimmerman. Come to class with questions & concerns about the S & Z, to contribute to a Reading Studio session. Also, considering the Preface and Ch. 1 of S & Z, what other chapters do you think are especially important to cover?
While reading Lakey, consider the usefulness of "direct education" in altering Studio Program design and planning, as well as Facilitator Training design and planning.
Visit/Revisit the Studio & Facilitator Training sites above. This will be quite a learning curve for Simone, Nic, & Tim; I encourage you to write emails and otherwise communicate to make sure that you have a clear notion of what these programs are and do.
Post to your blog:
Sam, Marie, Musheerah, Eric, Angela, Vanessa: From your vantage of having developed this program, reflect on the usefulness of "direct education" in altering Studio Program design and planning, as well as Facilitator Training design and planning. Please do so with Tim, Simone, and Nic in mind as your audience.
Tim, Nic, Simone: [Ammended: Since I don't see post from you guys yet, I figure I'll improve this a bit.]
Considering what you know about the Studio program so far, reflect on whether it would benefit the program to incorporate "direct education" learning experiences. If not: okay; why not? If so: Why? Which ones? In any particular order?
Please focus on issues and experiences that Lakey details in Part III.
Reflect on whether it would benefit the program to incorporate goal-setting and intention-harnessing activities? If not: fine; why not? If so: which ones? In what order?
All:
Do YOU/WE need to work on maximizing our learning? If so, what do we need to work on, as a group and individually, to maximize our learning? And: Can doing so help us to improve the facilitator training program? How?
So, how can we ensure that Nic, Simone, and Tim are empowered with a clear understanding of the knowledge gained while planning and leading Studio last year? [Is there a better question to ask in this situation?]
To maximize our learning experiences we do a lot of different things: we put it to use, and transmit that use to others; we form our own personal learning goals; we figure out whether the teacher is going to help us with our goals; we put information into musical and graphically engaging formats; we figure out the spoken and unspoken "rules" of the situation, and decide how to work with & against them; we find a way to personally relate to what needs to be learned (~somehow); we need to gain "ownership" of info so that it relates to higher-order goals and therefore motivates us; we need to have "authority" to solicit, select, and interact with the information--it has to be important to us, not simply someone else (authority = teacher?) who says that info is important (which then gives the info more authority than the learner).
This led to considerations of how we minimize our learning experiences. We tune others out; we tune ourselves out; we imagine savannah vistas and baboon attacks (distractive fantasies = autostimulation [as a result of not getting enough from the class?]); we simply refuse any teaching method or material that asserts its authority over us; when our interest goes down; or when the material no longer seems interesting, we find ways to both disagree with the material and the teacher (perhaps we do this to interact with the info in a dialogic format, to make it more "ours"?); when the material is "overspecific" or without context, we lose our self's orientation to that material; we allow our identity as part of the group's "mainstream" or "margin" to position us as either passive recipients of info or as opponents of the info.
I pointed out that these are problems that WE will probably encounter during our class. To solve them, many of us pointed to the methods that said we used to "maximize" our experiences. Yet we added that our sophistication as learners, along with our work as a cohesive group, would serve us in preventing those "minimizing" behaviors. My question now: Do YOU/WE need to work on maximizing our learning? If so, what do we need to work on, as a group and individually, to maximize our learning? And: Can doing so help us to improve the facilitator training program? How?
To ensure we have a more equal understanding of our class's purpose, we had roundtable explanations from last year's Studio members to clearly place our class in the context of the EEO Writing Studio Program and the Facilitator Training. To help this along, I assigned, er, "buddies" [as I write this, I'm aesthetically opposed to this term; anyone else? We could do a little language analysis...] to make sure that the "mainstream" is informed by this equally valuable "margin" of relative newcomers. I'd like to amend those a bit; these groups are not writ in stone; if you're interested in changing these arrangements, let's talk:
Sam + Nic + Marie
Musheerah + Simone + Eric
Angela + Tim + Vanessa
So, how can we ensure that Nic, Simone, and Tim are empowered with a clear understanding of the knowledge you gained while planning and leading Studio last year? [Is there a better question to ask in this situation?]
We agreed that it would help if Nic, Simone, & Tim reviewed the sites made last year:
EEO Summer Academy site--descriptive: https://sites.google.com/site/
Facilitator Training sites, student projects/planning documents:
Site for use for Facilitator training program:
Our explanation of the EEO/Studio/Facilitator Training organization served as a lively context for discussing overt and covert power structures within organizations. And this led us to talk about where we thought we fit into such structures, and the typical discourses we use to position ourselves within those. Some of us were comfortable with the notion of hierarchies, so long as they are supportive in their power; some of us questioned whether the power in such supportive hierarchies couldn't be more evenly distributed. I think this helped us to "build our container." It allowed us to share perspectives, and illustrated for each other what identities we have as individuals. In turn, we got at (notice: discourse shift) real concerns that we and our students have about "the game" that the academy drops in our lap. "Games." We discussed "whether we should tell students about the game." We disagreed about this. It was pointed out that--whether or not we call it a "game"--many of us consider academia (and, sometimes, any social arena): 1) in light of "rules"; and 2) to have a varying importance, depending on the extent to which specific long and short-term tasks overlap with "other aspects" of our lives" (like larger goals?).
I'm looking forward to hearing your takes on this, as we consider incorporating "direct education" into your Facilitator Training. Is this a case of Lakey's "elephant in the living room"?
We handed out books and laptops.
I asked you to generate a list of three goals relevant to our class that you would like to accomplish. This was presented generally, to elicit broad response. Then, I asked you to consider how those goals worked with/against the guidelines that Lakey points out as helping students take responsibility for their learning:
1) Use everything to your advancement.
2) Take care of yourself so that you can take care of others.
3) Complete the training
My intention here is manifold. Of course, if we know each others' goals, we can better help one another achieve them. Please visit each other's blogs, listed on this site.
As many of you noted in your responses to my prompt, this process isn't merely to encourage self-regulation in each of us, but also to have you begin thinking about how direct learning and experiential training can be helpful in revising your Facilitator Training Program. That is: Will it benefit the program to incorporate (new, more?) goal-setting and intention-harnessing activities? If not: fine; why not? If so: which ones? In what order?
That seems to me to be an inviting and helpful initial inquiry to ask when reading Lakey and Schunk & Zimmerman. Please, if you have others to add, post comments &/or email me.
For Tuesday, May 24, 5:30pm
Read all of Lakey, and the Preface & Ch. 1 of Schunk & Zimmerman. Come to class with questions & concerns about the S & Z, to contribute to a Reading Studio session. Also, considering the Preface and Ch. 1 of S & Z, what other chapters do you think are especially important to cover?
While reading Lakey, consider the usefulness of "direct education" in altering Studio Program design and planning, as well as Facilitator Training design and planning.
Visit/Revisit the Studio & Facilitator Training sites above. This will be quite a learning curve for Simone, Nic, & Tim; I encourage you to write emails and otherwise communicate to make sure that you have a clear notion of what these programs are and do.
Post to your blog:
Sam, Marie, Musheerah, Eric, Angela, Vanessa: From your vantage of having developed this program, reflect on the usefulness of "direct education" in altering Studio Program design and planning, as well as Facilitator Training design and planning. Please do so with Tim, Simone, and Nic in mind as your audience.
Tim, Nic, Simone: [Ammended: Since I don't see post from you guys yet, I figure I'll improve this a bit.]
Considering what you know about the Studio program so far, reflect on whether it would benefit the program to incorporate "direct education" learning experiences. If not: okay; why not? If so: Why? Which ones? In any particular order?
Please focus on issues and experiences that Lakey details in Part III.
All:
Do YOU/WE need to work on maximizing our learning? If so, what do we need to work on, as a group and individually, to maximize our learning? And: Can doing so help us to improve the facilitator training program? How?
So, how can we ensure that Nic, Simone, and Tim are empowered with a clear understanding of the knowledge gained while planning and leading Studio last year? [Is there a better question to ask in this situation?]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)