Enseñar vs aprender invited lecture   inacap
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Like this? Share it with your network

Share

Enseñar vs aprender invited lecture inacap

  • 446 views
Uploaded on

En estudios e investigación, tener un "problema" está en el centro del proceso investigativo y es el compuesto básico para generar preguntas creativas, alrededor de las cuales gira la actividad......

En estudios e investigación, tener un "problema" está en el centro del proceso investigativo y es el compuesto básico para generar preguntas creativas, alrededor de las cuales gira la actividad investigativa.
¡Cómo debemos mirar la prácitca docente y la evidencia del aprendizaje de los estudiantes, como un problema a investigar, analizar y discutir?

More in: Education
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
446
On Slideshare
446
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
3
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide
  • Bernstein simulation stuff; Fisher chemistry stuff; Nowacek Full Circle Seminar
  • Note difference between authentic and non-authentic assessments
  • Mention Bernstein and Ginsberg piece in Journal on Centers for Teaching and Learning
  • Examples – presentism, differences between personal and professional ethics
  • And maybe where we are

Transcript

  • 1. Why We Need a Vigorous Scholarship of Teaching and Learning Jeffrey L. Bernstein Department of Political Science Eastern Michigan University International Seminar on Pedagogical Innovations INACAP – Universidad Tecnological de Chile 10 September 2013
  • 2. E-mail from a Student IF POSSIBLE I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW THE RESULTS OF THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SIMULATION… WAS IT BETTER TO HAVE THE PANEL PICKED OR RANDOMLY SELECTED? PLEASE E-MAIL ME BACK BEFORE 3 PM
  • 3. E-mail from a Student Dr. B, I’m writing my post-simulation paper and I missed the last day. Can you tell me if school prayer should be allowed? Thanks.
  • 4. Teaching vs. Learning
  • 5. The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning Starts with a Problem In scholarship and research, having a "problem" is at the heart of the investigative process; it is the compound of the generative questions around which all creative and productive activity revolves. But in one’s teaching, a "problem" is something you don’t want to have, and if you have one, you probably want to fix it. Asking a colleague about a problem in his or her research is an invitation; asking about a problem in one’s teaching would probably seem like an accusation. Changing the status of the problem in teaching from terminal remediation to ongoing investigation is precisely what the movement for a scholarship of teaching is all about. How might we make the problematization of teaching a matter of regular communal discourse? How might we think of teaching practice, and the evidence of student learning, as problems to be investigated, analyzed, represented, and debated? Bass (1998, p. 1, italics in original)
  • 6. How Do We Make Our Teaching More Inquiry-Based? • Observation: Begin with what you see … questions unanswered, problems perceived. What’s going on? • Inquiry and Evidence: Construct an investigation into student learning. Look for artifacts and examples of student learning. How can you make sense of what you see? • Go Public: Figure out how you want to share what you have learned with the broader community.
  • 7. Lee Shulman on Scholarship “For an activity to be designated as scholarship, it should manifest at least three characteristics: it should be public, susceptible to critical review and evaluation, and accessible for exchange and use by other members of one’s own scholarly community.” Shulman 2000
  • 8. Scholarship Reconsidered Ernest Boyer (1990) •The result of examining what faculty do •The four scholarships: –Discovery –Integration –Application –Teaching
  • 9. Scholarship Assessed Glassick, Huber and Maeroff (1997) •All forms of scholarship (including teaching and learning) require: –Clear goals –Adequate preparation –Appropriate methods –Significant results –Effective presentation –Reflective critique
  • 10. Beginning from a Teaching Problem What is a teaching problem (in Randy Bass’ sense) with which you are struggling? • What works? What works better? • What is it? What does it look like? • A vision of the possible – what can be done? Adapted from Hutchings (2000)
  • 11. Designing Your Inquiry What types of evidence can you find? • Student work – exams, papers • Student journals or reflection papers • The instructor’s own reflection – blogging? • Videotaping or audio taping of class activity • Talking to and working with your students
  • 12. A Progression of Teaching Good teaching Scholarly teaching Scholarship of teaching and learning McKinney (2004)
  • 13. An Integrated Model Stage 1: Growth in Own Teaching Stage 2: Dialogue About Teaching & Learning Stage 3: Growth in Scholarship of Teaching Good Teaching Scholarly Teaching Scholarship of Teaching & Learning
  • 14. Why Should We Do this Kind of Work? The best reason to do this kind of work is so that we can feed our investigations of student learning back into our teaching practices, and into our students’ learning.
  • 15. Why Should We Do this Kind of Work? I’ll repeat: The best reason to do this kind of work is so that we can feed our investigations of student learning back into our teaching practices, and into our students’ learning.
  • 16. Why Should We Do this Kind of Work? One more time: The best reason to do this kind of work is so that we can feed our investigations of student learning back into our teaching practices, and into our students’ learning.
  • 17. Unpacking the Reasons to be Inquiry- Based Teachers 1. Institutional reasons 2. Disciplinary reasons 3. Personal reasons
  • 18. Inquiry-Based Teaching and Campus Conversations Where do conversations about teaching and learning take place on campus? Assessment/Accreditation General Education Program Review Recruitment/Retention Tenure/Promotion
  • 19. Commoditization of Higher Ed How do we avoid our courses, and our universities, being seen merely as commodities? - Craig Nelson
  • 20. Unpacking the Reasons to be Inquiry- Based Teachers 1. Institutional reasons 2. Disciplinary reasons 3. Personal reasons
  • 21. SOTL in the Disciplines “At the core of the entire project of a scholarship of teaching and learning is the belief that disciplinary thinking is crucial to learning. Therefore, a central goal of this work is to define as clearly as possible the kinds of thinking that students typically have to do in each academic field and to devise strategies for introducing students to these mental operations as effectively as possible.” Pace 2004
  • 22. SOTL in the Disciplines “*B+y making visible the ‘invisible’ cognitive work of historians, scholarship in history-specific cognition creates a richer, more nuanced picture of cognition than linear lists of skills or general taxonomies of thought.” Bain 2000, p. 333
  • 23. Bottlenecks “places where significant numbers of students are unable to grasp basic concepts or successfully complete important tasks.” Díaz, Middendorf, Pace and Shopkow (2008, p. 1211)
  • 24. The Puzzle •What does expert thinking look like? •What does novice thinking look like? •What can we learn from the way experts approach the task (the bottlenecks) that can inform how we teach our undergraduates?
  • 25. The Think-Aloud Method • Hearing thoughts as they occur • Pull back the curtain – better view of student work • Valuable tool for understanding learning and informing our teaching
  • 26. Wineburg’s Think-Alouds Think-alouds of high school National Merit Scholars and history professors No knowledge differences, but….
  • 27. Wineburg’s Think-Alouds Dramatically different ways that experts and novices approach the task: •Ordering •Sourcing •Arguing
  • 28. A Typology of Bottlenecks General Bottlenecks • Biases in sources • Links between sources Issue-Specific Bottlenecks • Politics as a contact sport • Efficiency as the holy grail • Majority rules/minority rights
  • 29. Unpacking the Reasons to be Inquiry- Based Teachers 1. Institutional reasons 2. Disciplinary reasons 3. Personal reasons
  • 30. Wisdom from Parker Palmer “We teach who we are.” So who am I? And what does that mean for my teaching?
  • 31. References Bain, Robert B. 2000. “Into the Breach: Using Research and Theory to Shape History Instruction.” In Stearns, Peter N., Peter Seixas and Sam Wineburg, (editors). Knowing, Teaching and Learning History: National and International Perspectives. New York: New York University Press. Bass, Randy. 1999. “The Scholarship of Teaching: What’s the Problem? Inventio, Volume 1, Number 1. http://www.doit.gmu.edu/archives/feb98/randybass.htm Bernstein, Jeffrey L. and Sarah M. Ginsberg. “Toward an Integrated Model of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning and Faculty Development.” Journal for Centers for Teaching and Learning 1: 57-72. Boyer, Ernest L. 1990. Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate. Princeton: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Díaz, Arlene, Joan Middendorf, David Pace and Leah Shopkow. 2008. “The History Learning Project: A Department ‘Decodes’ Its Students.” The Journal of American History 94 (4): 1211-1224. Glassick, Charles E., Mary Taylor Huber and Gene I. Maeroff. 1997. Scholarship Assessed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Huber, Mary Taylor and Pat Hutchings. 2005. The Advancement of Learning: Building the Teaching Commons. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  • 32. More References Hutchings, Pat. 2000. “Introduction: Approaching the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning.” In Hutchings, Pat (ed.) Opening Lines: Approaches to the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning. Menlo Park, CA: Carnegie Publications. McKinney, Kathleen. 2004. “The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning: Past Lessons, Current Challenges, and Future Visions.” To Improve the Academy 22: 3- 19. Pace, David. 2004. “The Amateur in the Operating Room: History and the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning.” American Historical Review 109 (October): 1171-1192. Shulman, Lee S. 2000. “From Minsk to Pinsk: Why a Scholarship of Teaching and Learning.” Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning 1:48-52. Shulman, Lee S. 1993. “Teaching as Community Property: Putting an End to Pedagogical Solitude.” Change 25: 6-7. Smith, Michael B., Rebecca S. Nowacek and Jeffrey L. Bernstein, eds. 2010. Citizenship Across the Curriculum. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Wineburg, Sam. 2001. Historical Thinking and Other Unnatural Acts: Charting the Future of Teaching the Past. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
  • 33. Thank You! Questions/comments/criticisms? Jeffrey L. Bernstein Department of Political Science Eastern Michigan University 734-487-6970 jeffrey.bernstein@emich.edu