Slide 1: Li-chin (Crystal) Huang
Univ. of Minnesota- Twin Cities
Chippewa Valley Technical College An Experiential Teaching Journey
- Lesson Learned From Multiple Delivery Formats (MDF)(Pan-classroom Facilitation) Slide 2: Some questions for pondering . Is MDF a solution?1. What can/will educators process when social technologies have been creating anytime, anywhere, anyhow , any-what life long learning demand?
2. How do educators facilitate the rapidly increasing diverse, disadvantaged , and underserved student s who need more access and life chances of success via 2-year colleges’ affordances?
3. How can educators engage in “formal” scholarly endeavors in the unique and controversial 2-year college setting? Slide 3: Situated Experiential Teaching What is the lived experience of facilitating multiple delivery methods - face to face (f2f), hybrid, online, and web conference for 6 classes of social science (soc, psy, red, and cas) in a semester (spring 2009) at a 2-year technical college setting (2-year)? Slide 4: Research Method: An auto-bio ethnographical case study
1. Learners’ Basic Demographic Info
2. PALS Teaching Style – Self Report
3. Self Report of Satisfaction of the Interface between
Pedagogies and Delivery Formats Slide 5: 3 levels of themes (macro, meso, and micro) emerged from the coding and reduction of class logs and communication documents. Due to time constraints, mainly I focused on the micro level’s interface between teaching- learning and pedagogy
The need of differentiated instructional strategies drawn from a wide spectrums between Instructionism and
To equip with resources of open source software with flexibility for diverse learners to enhance individual learning experience.
3. Meeting school mission statements to facilitate diverse students’ access and intended success4. and…. Slide 6: Organic Cognitive Migrant Slide 7: Learn to be a 4A Facilitator:Anytime, Anywhere, Anyhow & Any-what Slide 8: Serendipitous Learner
and Collaborator Slide 9: Lesson Learned:
At the psychological level:
Enhancing self efficacy.
Being aware of technological affordances in each environment.
Being adaptive to the pedagogical adjustments within and between different delivery formats.
At the pedagogical level:
Being responsive to diverse students’ characteristics and learning needs in different formats.
Being able in evaluating hardware and software capacities and limitations.
Being at ease to integrate contents, pedagogies and technology.
At the socio-cultural level:
Creating opportunities to network with IT department and relevant administrators.
Being a better problem solver.
Being a part of change agent team. Slide 10: The non-positive effects are:
Community of practice: it is not a popular journey because not many faculty members choose to deliver multiple methods. Thus the community of practice is inadequate for further professional development via the wisdom of the crowd.
Idiosyncratic features: expose my idiosyncrasy in certain delivery format, such as the audio web-conference which does not manifest my pedagogical strength.
Teaching loads and scholarship climate: the emphasis on teaching with an average of 21 credits or 7 class teaching loads (per semester) leads to the “love of labor” phenomenon – You do it because you love to taste the bitter-sweetness: no pressure of publish or perish.
So how to nurture a scholarly environment to promote the Pasture’s Quadrant is an imminent yet complicated task. Slide 11: Suggestions for future research:
What are the socio-economic and pedagogical values of multiple delivery formats?
2. In what kind of environments, can multiple delivery formats be
promoted or nurtured?
3. What are the measurements of effectiveness and efficiency
in outcomes generated from multiple delivery formats?
4. Studies focus on the perceptions and connection of learners who
are multiple delivery format takers and educators who are multiple
delivery format facilitators.