Comment on Time for Co-Learning by A. Nelson

Your situation sounds ideal in so many ways — good for your students, good for your research, and good for you! I’m in a field (history) where books and articles are the most valued kinds of scholarship.
My “recalibrations” this term weren’t particularly innovative — just a more mindful allocation of how I spent my time. While I still saw my courses as 24/7 engagements, I carved out some regular hours for research (not as many as I used to, but more than I’d managed in my first semesters of mostly on-line interaction). I also figured out how to work with my student editors in ways that helped us curate the content on a predictable weekly schedule, and gave me more time to read, comment and reflect on what the class was creating (because the student editors managed lots of the technical / formatting details). And honestly, I think I might have felt like everything was quite manageable if we hadn’t had so many technical glitches. Our WordPress platform was incredibly slow and unstable all semester, which just ate….into…..the….hours…..we……all….could…..have….used……..much….more….effectively. It’s maddening to be at the mercy of forces you don’t control, and to see your students suffer as a result. So I’m really looking forward to the final unit of Connected Courses to get some insight on best practices for keeping my courses out of the blogtalk garage in the future!

Comment on Time for Co-Learning by Maha Bali

This is a great post and I wish i had answers! Would be curious to know how you re-callibrated your time?

For me, as a non-tenure-track faculty with a full-time faculty job and adjunct teaching (funny combo, i know) – and someone who works in education/faculty development, i find synergies by doing research about my teaching and my online activities in MOOCs. I don’t *have* to teach or do research, so i have a lot of leeway in how much i do of each. But i think if i had been tenure track, i could have made it work this way too, volume of research wise.

Then again, not everyone’s tenure committee accepts scholarship of teaching and learning publications as “real research”, nor do faculty e.g. In the sciences know how educational research is done…. So….easier for some disciplines but not all?

Comment on PBL in the Humanities? by claudiodamato

Thank you for posting this. I’ve been struggling with a similar issue. In a sense, most of what we do in the humanities is “problem-based”… it’s just that the problems aren’t practical and/or likely to be very interesting to the students! Say, in a literature course: “How does the critical approach that we choose to apply to a text say about our values?” Or, in an ethics course: “What should we do about global famine?” These are problems, and they may be put to the class on day one, and most of the course can be structured to solve them. In this sense, we mostly already do this. But students are less likely to see them as problems in the conventional sense of puzzles or practical challenges to solve; more like abstract exercises.

Comment on Teaching Philosophies by Miko

The issue of consistency is huge for me. And I believe is a major disappointment for students, colleagues, and departments to see that a wonderful teaching statement is not consistent at all with the teacher. So, I see why writing these statements can be super challenging. It is not a matter of writing something marketable and catchy, but that is aligned with our practices as teachers. We are looking forward to reading your statement!

Comment on Metaphor and Computers by A. Nelson

I think Jon is onto something here, especially if we think about human-computer interaction (as opposed to considering “the computer” as a distinct unit / technology of its own. One of the things I like about Brenda Laurel’s selection is the possibilities it opens up for thinking about agency and interaction (between agents) that move past the human-tool / human-technology binary.