This document discusses aligning teaching philosophy and practice through a shift from lecture-based teaching to task-based learning. It describes Jane Vella's framework for task-based learning, which involves open-ended learning tasks, questions that promote reflection and critical thinking, and integrating new content. The author reflects on applying this framework to make their teaching more engaging for students and better aligned with their philosophy of participatory and transformative education.
Course Design on the Fly, Supporting a New Colloaborative Nursing Program (My...
Task based learning in a blended environment
1. Aligning Philosophy of Education and Practice:
Moving from Lecture/PowerPoint to Task-based Learning
Marion R. Synnott, Ph.D.
Conference Title
Conference Dates Conference Location
3. I experienced similar frustrations . . .
And decided something had to change!
(LIKELY ME)
3
4. What was modeled for
me as an undergraduate
What was modeled for me
in my graduate program
4
5. In spite of what was modeled for me as a grad student . . .
5
6. What I knew:
I wasn’t engaging and
motivating my students.
I was disappointing myself.
If not lecture and PPTs,
WHAT?
6
7. I broke each class
into a series of • Videos
mini learning
• In-class
activities
exercises (and
that included
competitions)
(but were not
limited to): • In-class and
online discussions
and research
activities
7
8. What I lacked was a
pedagogical
framework to
build my
approach
on . . . then,
serendipitously,
along came
Jane Vella.
8
10. Vella’s assumptions about learners and learning
1. Learners arrive with the
capacity to do the work involved
in learning.
2. Learners learn when they are
actively engaged – cognitively,
emotionally, and physically –
with the content; i.e., what we
do is what we learn.
3. New content can be presented
through learning tasks and
these learning tasks can
integrate lecture and laboratory.
4. Learning tasks promote
accountability.
10
11. VELLA’S CLAIM:
EVERYTHING CAN BE TAUGHT
USING LEARNING TASKS.
She defines a
LEARNING TASK
as . . .
an open question
put to members of a
small group, who
have been given all
the resources they
need to respond
11
12. Open questions . . .
• Invite • The “right” answer
reflective emerges from an
response honest response by the
learner in his/her
• Invite critical
context.
thinking
• Demand
reflection
• Stimulate
creativity
12
13. • Can present new content in an
infinite number of ways (e.g., mini
lecture (never longer than 10 mins.),
video clip, learned article,
demonstration, etc.)
• Can use an inductive-deductive or
deductive-inductive approach
– Can begin inductively by examining the
life, history, and context of the learner
as they relate to the topic (e.g., the way
we did today)
– Can begin deductively by examining the
latest theoretical content (e.g., if I had
begun with Vella’s theoretical
framework)
13
14. THREE KEY
QUESTIONS 1. What learning has occurred
RELATED TO EACH during the session?
LEARNING TASK 2. How will students transfer
that learning, i.e., how will
they use their new skills,
knowledge, and attitudes
(KSAs) in non-classroom
settings?
3. What impact will the learning
and transfer have in other
settings?
14
15. SEVEN STEPS
1. Who (participants, leaders, the
OF PLANNING number of participants)
2. Why (the situation that calls for
this educational program)
3. When (the time frame)
4. Where (the site)
5. What (the content – knowledge,
skills, attitudes (KSAs))
6. What for (achievement-based
objectives)
7. How (learning tasks and
materials)
15
16. FOUR TYPES
OF LEARNING
1. Inductive work
TASKS
2. Input
3. Implementation
4. Integration
16
17. 1 2
-from Jane Vella -from my Career
Development class
17
19. An informal evaluation of my practice then and now
Chickering & Gamson’s (1987) Seven Principles of Lecture/PPT
Good Practice in Undergraduate Education Modality Task-based Learning
1. Good practice encourages student-faculty contact.
2. Good practice encourages cooperation among
students.
3. Good practice encourages active learning.
4. Good practice gives prompt feedback.
5. Good practice emphasizes time on task.
6. Good practice communicates high expectations.
7. Good practice respects diverse talents and ways of
learning.
19
20. It’s easy to lose sight of the
basics of good adult
education.
There are
SO MANY
distractions!
20
21. Philosophy of education
• In his seminal writings on
participatory education, Myles Horton
refuses to separate education from
life and life from education. He sees
education as a lifelong process that
involves experience and the whole of
the person.
• In We Make the Road by Walking,
Horton discusses educational practice
with Paulo Freire and comments, “I
am less interested in methodology or
techniques than I am in a process
that involves the total person,
involves vision, involves total
realities.” (Horton & Freire, 1990, p.
176)
21
22. My philosophy of education
Adult Education = Social Change
• The transformative power of adult
education is limited only by the
restrictions superimposed on it by
practitioners and learners.
• My students and I are co-creators of the
learning community we inhabit. There is
a reciprocity that exists between me as
a facilitator, the learners (including me),
and knowledge. If I engage in dialogic
teaching, it will result in a form of
transformative exchange in which we as
a community co-learn and co-teach.
What is your philosophy
of education? 22
23. Assumptions about learners and learning
I agree with Vella that learners:
• Arrive with the capacity to do the work involved in learning.
• Learn when they are actively engaged – cognitively, emotionally, and
physically – with the content; i.e., what we do is what we learn.
• Can learn new content through learning tasks and these learning tasks
can integrate lecture and laboratory.
• Will hold themselves more accountable for their learning if they
engage in learning tasks.
What I’ve learned about myself is that it is imperative
that I maintain a strong and meaningful connection between
my philosophy of education and my practice in the classroom.
What are you doing to ensure your philosophy
and practice are, and remain, connected?
23
24. Are decisions about practice lecturer-
driven, i.e., will a great lecturer make up
for minimal student
engagement?
My claim: ABSOLUTELY NOT!
While the deep learners (Atherton, 2011)
may be able to retain and integrate new
KSAs with minimal engagement, the
surface learners (Atherton, 2011) will
most assuredly not.
For most of us, it’s not the deep learners
that are our biggest concern. They could
learn with or without us!
24
25. A final assumption about learning . . .
Learning is messy. We as educators need to be prepared to get in and muck
about, to take risks, to not be afraid to try new things, to get over our tendency
to make excuses for our inability to engage and motivate our students.
25
26. My next steps . . .
• Step #1: Overlay Vella’s
framework with Josie
Baudier, Stephanie Foote,
and Traci Stromie’s
“Curriculum Alignment
Matrix”*
*http://tinyurl.com/sloan-cam
26
28. My next steps . . .
• Step #2: Apply this
multidimensional framework
to other courses I teach
• Step #3: Continuously
monitor the connection
between my philosophy and
practice
• Step #4: Continue to look for
other ways to do what I love
better
28
29. References
Atherton, James. (2011). Learning and teaching: Deep and surface learning.
Retrieved 21 October 2012 from:
http://www.learningandteaching.info/learning/deepsurf.htm.
Baudier, Josie, Foote, Stephanie, & Stromie, Traci. (n.d.). Curriculum
Alignment Matrix. Retrieved 16 October 2012 from:
http://tinyurl.com/sloan-cam.
Chickering, Arthur W. & Gamson, Zelda F. (1987). Seven principles for good
practice in undergraduate education. Washington Center News, Fall
1987. Retrieved 16 October 2012 from:
http://wwwtemp.lonestar.edu/multimedia/SevenPrinciples.pdf.
Horton, Myles, & Freire, Paulo. (1990). We make the road by walking:
Conversations on education and social change. Philadelphia, PA:
Temple University Press.
Vella, Jane. (2001). Taking learning to task: Creative strategies for teaching
adults. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
29
30. Other books by Jane Vella
Vella, Jane. (1995). Training through dialogue: Promoting effective learning
and change with adults. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Vella, Jane. (1997). How do they know they know? Evaluating adult learning.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Vella, Jane. (2002). Learning to listen, learning to teach: The power of
dialogue in educating adults. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Vella, Jane. (2007). On teaching and learning: Putting the principles and
practices of dialogue education into action. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.
30
38. Images were sourced from the following websites:
• Lose sight poster: Image retrieved 10.19.12 from:
http://www.google.ca/imgres?q=lose+sight&hl=en&rls=ig&biw=1280&bih=595&tbm=isch&tbnid=knESBFRW9sQj5M:&i
mgrefurl=http://www.pedlars.co.uk/vintage-poster-we-must-not-lose-
sight.html&docid=3aUDxOOTnImgeM&imgurl=http://www.pedlars.co.uk/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/1280x12
80/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/V/2/V21MELSU.jpg&w=1280&h=1280&ei=CwKEUL2uKcGYiQKk4IH4Aw&zo
om=1&iact=hc&vpx=108&vpy=117&dur=4680&hovh=225&hovw=225&tx=123&ty=141&sig=112878518443330486557&
page=4&tbnh=122&tbnw=125&start=68&ndsp=25&ved=1t:429,r:13,s:68,i:330
• Guy and question mark: Image retrieved 10.19.12 from:
http://www.google.ca/imgres?q=question+mark&hl=en&rls=ig&biw=1280&bih=595&tbm=isch&tbnid=YYfg_RPwQBzTlM
:&imgrefurl=http://liongadgets.com/wordpress/most-important-ten-questions-to-ask-yourself/question-
mark/&docid=el4ufHamgZaiEM&imgurl=http://liongadgets.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/question-
mark.jpg&w=4000&h=4000&ei=3wWEUIGyL6H6iwK_vYDgDw&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=843&vpy=110&dur=2090&hovh
=225&hovw=225&tx=87&ty=129&sig=112878518443330486557&page=2&tbnh=130&tbnw=147&start=28&ndsp=29&v
ed=1t:429,r:27,s:28,i:309
38
Notas del editor
-IT’S A WAY OF STRUCTURINGDIALOGUE TO ENSURE EFFECTIVE TEACHING-IT’S A WAY OF ENSURING ENGAGEMENT OF LEARNERS WITH NEW CONTENT
-OPEN QUESTIONS PROVIDE A WAY OF STRUCTURING DIALOGUE TO ENSURE EFFECTIVE TEACHING,A WAY OF ENSURING ENGAGEMENT OF LEARNERS WITH NEW CONTENT-EX. “WHAT DO YOU SEE AS A REASONABLE EXCHANGE BETWEEN STARCHES AND PROTEINS FOR YOU ON ANY NORMAL WORKDAY?” (OPEN) VS. “WHAT IS A PROTEIN?” (CLOSED, I.E., TEACHER KNOWS THE ANSWER)-USING LEARNING TASKS INVOLVES HUMILITY; A GOOD TEACHER DOES NOT TEACH ALL SHE KNOWS; SHE TEACHES ALL THAT THE LEARNERS NEED TO KNOW AT THE TIME AND ALL THAT THE LEARNERS CAN ACCOUNTABLY LEARN IN THE TIME GIVEN (AS TEACHERS, THIS CAN BE A REAL STRUGGLE, I.E., TO NOT WANT TO AND TRY TO TEACH ALL THAT WE KNOW)-EX. “BY THE TIME WE FINISH THIS CLASS, YOU WILL HAVE (1) …, (2) …, (3) …, ETC.”
-WHO COMPONENT CONTROLS EVERYTHING; FITTING THE HOW TO THE WHO (I.E., THE LEARNING TASKS TO THE PARTICIPANTS, IS VITAL IN DESIGNING EFFECTIVE PROGRAMS)-WHEN – IT’S EASY TO PREPARE TOO MUCH WHAT AND HOW FOR THE WHEN-THE WHAT FOR (ACHIEVEMENT-BASED OBJECTIVES) ARE WHAT THE LEARNERS DO TO LEARN THE CONTENT (I.E., THE WHAT FOR IMPLEMENTS THE WHAT)-
-INDUCTIVE WORK CONNECTS LEARNERS WITH WHAT THEY ALREADY KNOW AND WITH THEIR UNIQUE CONTEXT (USES VERBS LIKE DESCRIBE, TELL THE STORY OF, DEFINE, SKETCH, SHOW, NAME, COMPARE, ETC.)-INPUT INVITES LEARNERS TO EXAMINE NEW INPUT (CONCEPTS, SKILLS OR ATTITUDES) (NEW CONTENT IS PRESENTED AND LEARNERS ARE EXPECTED TO DO SOMETHING WITH IT IN ORDER TO LEARN IT, I.E., CONSTRUCTED KNOWING)-IMPLEMENTATION GETS LEARNERS TO DO SOMETHING DIRECTLY WITH THAT NEW CONTENT, SOMEHOW IMPLEMENTING IT (INVITE LEARNERS TO IMMEDIATELY USE THE NEW KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS, ATTITUDES IN THE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT; DONE TO GET FEEDBACK ON THE LEARNER’S INTERPRETATION OF THE CONTENT AND ALSO TO OFFER THE LEARNER THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRACTICE; VELLA SUGGESTS THAT AT LEAST ONE IMPLEMENTATION LEARNING TASK BE USED FOR EVERY INPUT LEARNING TASK AND THAT WE USE ITERATIONS, NOT REPETITION)-INTEGRATION INTEGRATES NEW LEARNING INTO LIVES OF LEARNERS (INVITE LEARNERS TO APPLY WHAT THEY HAVE LEARNED TO THEIR LIFE AND WORK AND EXAMINE TRANSFER (THE USE OF NEW KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS, ATTITUDES IN OTHER CONTEXTS, E.G., WORK, PERSONAL LIFE)
-FOR VELLA, VERBS ARE REALLY IMPORTANT-MUST BE STRONG, SPECIFIC; FALL INTO THE COGNITIVE, AFFECTIVE, PSYCHOMOTOR DOMAINS OF BLOOM’S TAXONOMY-MUST BE TOUGH (I.E., DEMAND ACTION, CHALLENGE THE LEARNER; E.G., DESIGN, EDIT, DECIDE, SELECT, WRITE, DISTINGUISH X FROM Y, ILLUSTRATE, ORGANIZE, SOLVE, RESOLVE, REALIGN), PRODUCTIVE (MUST PRODUCE FOR LEARNERS WITH PRODUCTS BEING INDICATORS OF LEARNING THAT IS TAKING PLACE; E.G., LIST, DESIGN, COMPOSE, WRITE, PREPARE, REORGANIZE, SELECT, DEVELOP, DIAGRAM, ILLUSTRATE), RESPECTFUL (FIT THE LEARNERS YOU ARE DESIGNING THE TASK FOR)-SHOULD TARGET MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCES
OUTCOMES?I FEEL MUCH BETTER ABOUT MY PRACTICE; STUDENTS SEEM TO BE MORE ENGAGED; THEY ACTIVELY TRY TO GET INTO MY CLASSES; AND WE HAVE A LOT MORE FUN – ALL GOOD SIGNS.BUT WHAT ABOUT MORE EMPIRICAL METRICS?-MY COURSE EVALS ARE CONSISTENTLY HIGH AND MY RESPONSE RATE ON COURSE EVALS IS CONSISTENTLY HIGH – TWO METRICS WHICH ARE CONSIDERED VERY IMPORTANT AT DEVRY.
-I LEFT THE LECTURE AND PPT BEHIND BUT I’LL APPLY VELLA’S FRAMEWORK TO ENSURE RIGOUR-I’M GOING TO SEEK MORE TRAINING IN VELLA’S MODEL-TALK ABOUT APPLYING CURRICULUM ALIGNMENT MATRIX