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?
I just posted excerpts from humanities teachers’ experiences implementing PBL at one US high school. Check them out: https://blogs.lt.vt.edu/learninganew/?p=159
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.
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!
[…] (1) More focused responses to “The Six Elements and the Causal Relations Among Them” are here and here. […]
[…] More focused responses to “The Six Elements and the Causal Relations Among Them” are here and […]
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.
However, we can still act in a way that’s just “doing what the computer told me to do.” Computers don’t have to become the authority, but they can become more powerful as suggesters, because the computer knows all, it is unbiased. I’m not suggesting that human agency will disappear, but the metaphors will shift (and maybe already have shifted) to something that puts the computer as director and writer for the stage.
You are completely right. People tend to be scare of what they know or of what is new, especially when it gains popularity so fast. And the same apply to the overall use of technologies in the classroom. That is why I think we should get started with more and better professional development for teachers, so they can know how to improve their teaching with technology.
Yep, really sorry I missed this last week! I won’t ask everyone to re-run the session, but I’m intrigued by the prospect of creating pieces of the puzzle (are they even part of the same puzzle?). It certainly does feel that way sometimes…and yet this is the opposite of what Viola advocates for and Andi identified as the “subtractive elements of creation” (http://blogs.lt.vt.edu/alop/2014/11/06/the-sacred-the-profane-and-the-porcupine-thoughts-on-bill-violas-will-there-be-condominiums-in-data-space/).
And thank you for working Vonnegut into this! A random time quote: “Here we are, trapped in the amber of the moment. There is no why.” But there has to be a why, right? Otherwise why would he remind us to “Wear sunscreen”?