-----------------Learning Activities------------------
Aud: Direct Instruction (in comp lab) Self-directed Tools (data base)
Teacher x
Student x
Public
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
Topic: Service-learning Assessment
Dr. Schaffer says there are some ground work (in literature) for assessment. But mostly, "reflection based" assessment. I should pursue something like "comptency based" assessment.
Things to do:
1. Do THORS research with "service learning" "assessment" "evaluation".
Things to do:
1. Do THORS research with "service learning" "assessment" "evaluation".
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
Possible New Directions (based on Dr. Schaffer's new advice)
Consider how to:
1. best make sure that service and learning are integrated in the course.
2. assess students' service learning.
3. influence attitudes and behaviors related to community work.
1. best make sure that service and learning are integrated in the course.
2. assess students' service learning.
3. influence attitudes and behaviors related to community work.
More on my possible topic for the course
1.
Service-learning is generally taken as a teaching method. But this method also determines a large part of instructional design that is needed for the method. I mean service learning comes with a lot of pre-determined design when it is considered for your teaching. Service-learning method itself is similar to an instructional design. If someone is asking, "What instructional design should I use for teaching (this and that)?" It would be OK to answer, "The design you should use is service-learning; it is a good design to increase motivation with the authentic activities via participating in the community."
2.
I think there is a degree of what connecting course learning goals and service-learning goals. In cases like EDCI 592, service-learning goals are not very salient. Service-learning is there as a component of the course; but it is mainly for giving students authentic activities. So, for example, if asked at the end of the semester, "How did this course help you develop or increase your sense of civic responsibility?" the stuents will have problems answering the question. On the other hand, for classes such as where 4th graders are vounteering to take care of sheltered animals, students will reflect a lot on their civic responsibilities that they learned from the experience. This degree would be parallel to what the table shows at p. 49 (Billig & Furco).
Shigetake
Service-learning is generally taken as a teaching method. But this method also determines a large part of instructional design that is needed for the method. I mean service learning comes with a lot of pre-determined design when it is considered for your teaching. Service-learning method itself is similar to an instructional design. If someone is asking, "What instructional design should I use for teaching (this and that)?" It would be OK to answer, "The design you should use is service-learning; it is a good design to increase motivation with the authentic activities via participating in the community."
2.
I think there is a degree of what connecting course learning goals and service-learning goals. In cases like EDCI 592, service-learning goals are not very salient. Service-learning is there as a component of the course; but it is mainly for giving students authentic activities. So, for example, if asked at the end of the semester, "How did this course help you develop or increase your sense of civic responsibility?" the stuents will have problems answering the question. On the other hand, for classes such as where 4th graders are vounteering to take care of sheltered animals, students will reflect a lot on their civic responsibilities that they learned from the experience. This degree would be parallel to what the table shows at p. 49 (Billig & Furco).
Shigetake
Class on October 2nd
Last night, I had to miss the last half of the class due to a conflict with my work. I will document what the first class was about: 1. Declarative Knowledge 2. Concept 3. Procedure 4. Principle 5. Problem Solving 6. Attitude (All presentations by students. At the end of each presentation, how each type of process would applied to ArtSmart or Climate Change projects was discussed.) Further thoughts about my "Service-Learning Design" -Reciprocal process between the course (students) and the community partner (stake-holders)
Reciprocal processes occur between the two different perspectives in service-learning:
Students:
Principle-based (Structured instructional design-based)
Process-based
Heuristic process (redundancy)
Concentric/centrifugal
Single perspective
Principled
Stake-holders:
Customer service-based (Situation-based)
Product-based
Efficient process (practicality)
Eccentric/centripetal
Multiple perspectives
Intuitive
One example of reciprocity is that, in the case of EDCI 572 students will make recommendations to Climate Change authors: some of their lesson plans exhibits misallignment. Although they want the lessons are problem-solving based inquiry oriented learning, some lessons are declarative knowledge based. These lessons will have to be converted into problem-based.
All above might be related to the discussion of "engagement vs. service."
Another idea is that, as far as students’ perception, it really does not matter if the community partner is within the community or not. It could be anywhere. It could be a company outside Indiana. Students don't care if this activity is enhancing their sense of civic responsibility. The activity is authentic, which is what all matters to them. However, if it is community, it might be easier to see the product later. It might be easier to conduct interviews with 4th graders, teachers, and stakeholders. However, it is a company (entity pursuing profits), students might be more interested in future possibility of employment with them (if they are in the market the students would go in).
Either way, a reciprocal, constructive process is expected for a good result of the course.
Shigetake
Reciprocal processes occur between the two different perspectives in service-learning:
Students:
Principle-based (Structured instructional design-based)
Process-based
Heuristic process (redundancy)
Concentric/centrifugal
Single perspective
Principled
Stake-holders:
Customer service-based (Situation-based)
Product-based
Efficient process (practicality)
Eccentric/centripetal
Multiple perspectives
Intuitive
One example of reciprocity is that, in the case of EDCI 572 students will make recommendations to Climate Change authors: some of their lesson plans exhibits misallignment. Although they want the lessons are problem-solving based inquiry oriented learning, some lessons are declarative knowledge based. These lessons will have to be converted into problem-based.
All above might be related to the discussion of "engagement vs. service."
Another idea is that, as far as students’ perception, it really does not matter if the community partner is within the community or not. It could be anywhere. It could be a company outside Indiana. Students don't care if this activity is enhancing their sense of civic responsibility. The activity is authentic, which is what all matters to them. However, if it is community, it might be easier to see the product later. It might be easier to conduct interviews with 4th graders, teachers, and stakeholders. However, it is a company (entity pursuing profits), students might be more interested in future possibility of employment with them (if they are in the market the students would go in).
Either way, a reciprocal, constructive process is expected for a good result of the course.
Shigetake
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
A couple of thoughts
1. All I know is that this course EDCI 590 is titled "Service-Learning Design." I have thought about possible topics for my inquiry of EDCI 590:
-Engagement vs Service
-Design Model of Computer-Mediated Service-learning Instruction for School Settings
(My problem is "Design" is a big concept. I don't know where to start. I read Smith & Ragan, but I was only confused about what to do. But "Design Model" might sound more "tangible" to me.)
2. I have noticed two big differences between ArtSmart Project that I was involved and ArtSmart Project that is happening now in this course.
Last year: We created a simulation of digitized Art-Smart project. This was designed for 4th grade teachers (not for students). There was no "generative" feature to it.
This year: This year. We are creating something also for students as well as 4th grade teachers.
Also, it is open to teacher creativeness; teacher can choose their ArtSmart images on their own.
ArtSmart is more "generative" (Smith & Ragan).
Shigetake
-Engagement vs Service
-Design Model of Computer-Mediated Service-learning Instruction for School Settings
(My problem is "Design" is a big concept. I don't know where to start. I read Smith & Ragan, but I was only confused about what to do. But "Design Model" might sound more "tangible" to me.)
2. I have noticed two big differences between ArtSmart Project that I was involved and ArtSmart Project that is happening now in this course.
Last year: We created a simulation of digitized Art-Smart project. This was designed for 4th grade teachers (not for students). There was no "generative" feature to it.
This year: This year. We are creating something also for students as well as 4th grade teachers.
Also, it is open to teacher creativeness; teacher can choose their ArtSmart images on their own.
ArtSmart is more "generative" (Smith & Ragan).
Shigetake
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Instructional Strategies
9/25/2007
Instructor: Dr. Schaffer
Students: Everyone
Agenda: (1) First 75 minutes: Task Analysis, Instructional Strategies, Scaffolding, Events of Instruction, Types of Learning, etc. (2) Sedond 75 minutes: (I was absent during this time.)
Task Analysis Revisited:
-We will make recommendations to Dan (and the other authors) concerning misallignments of the learning outcomes (Smith & Ragan, p. 79) identified in the current lessons. We will point out to them that there are some outcomes that are not allighed with an "inquiry-based" instruction. although we will not disregard instructional values of them as far as they are good but minor portions of the lessons.
Instructional Strategies (Dr. Schaffer's PPT presentation):
-See Links -> Instructional Strategy & Deliveries (Blackboard)
-Categories of Instructional Strategies: Organizational, Delivery, and Management.
-Gagne's 9 Events
-Smith & Ragan's Expanded Events of Instruction (p. 130)
-Merrill's 1st Principles (Merrill's work will be used for our formative evaluation)
-Generative and Supplantive
ArtSmart Project:
Cathy Trout has been working on lesson plans for teachers to teach in Art Education.
(June's proposal was accepted and we got a 1,500 dollar grant for this project.)
Shigetake
Instructor: Dr. Schaffer
Students: Everyone
Agenda: (1) First 75 minutes: Task Analysis, Instructional Strategies, Scaffolding, Events of Instruction, Types of Learning, etc. (2) Sedond 75 minutes: (I was absent during this time.)
Task Analysis Revisited:
-We will make recommendations to Dan (and the other authors) concerning misallignments of the learning outcomes (Smith & Ragan, p. 79) identified in the current lessons. We will point out to them that there are some outcomes that are not allighed with an "inquiry-based" instruction. although we will not disregard instructional values of them as far as they are good but minor portions of the lessons.
Instructional Strategies (Dr. Schaffer's PPT presentation):
-See Links -> Instructional Strategy & Deliveries (Blackboard)
-Categories of Instructional Strategies: Organizational, Delivery, and Management.
-Gagne's 9 Events
-Smith & Ragan's Expanded Events of Instruction (p. 130)
-Merrill's 1st Principles (Merrill's work will be used for our formative evaluation)
-Generative and Supplantive
ArtSmart Project:
Cathy Trout has been working on lesson plans for teachers to teach in Art Education.
(June's proposal was accepted and we got a 1,500 dollar grant for this project.)
Shigetake
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)