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?]
No comments:
Post a Comment