As for seminar 2, we focused on yet another key aspect of teaching in formal and informal settings: implementation. Again, all aspects are connected and coherence between planning, implementation and assessment without forgetting flexibility is crucial.
We can plan amazing things that when put into practice can turn into something completely different and that do not reflect the planning at all. Or we can have a lesson plan in a brilliant way, but at the time we are about to deliver the lesson something contextual gets in the way and it becomes a great way to learn in real-world situations, without a script or specific guidelines. Many things can happen during implementation and dealing with uncertainty is one of the skills needed to navigate this adventure of learning, teaching, exploring, and building on a daily basis. Again many things to take into consideration in terms of the context of the institution, program, type, modality, teacher and student role, different styles of teaching and learning, theories, models and methods, outcomes, need analysis, prior knowledge, group dynamics and specifics just to name a few.
This time the dynamic for the seminar was a bit more relaxed and even though in the seminar we worked with different people the atmosphere was relaxed and enjoyable. As for the preparations for the seminar in our basic group, we enjoyed preparing the lesson, the pre-task and discussing our main subject, but as it was mentioned in the literature we faced some of the challenges mentioned for group work and collaborative work, so we took this as an opportunity to learn and reflect on how to improve some situations, cope with them and see it as part of the growing process and recognition of group dynamics.
Learning beyond the lesson So many things to take into consideration, but one aspect that keeps turning and turning in my head is what is called in the “Handbook for teachers – course structures, teaching methods and assessment” high-quality learning, on learning on a learning-based approach. This concept considering a combination of factors such as the teaching process and methods, learning environment, conceptions about learning, and pedagogical development that can affect the studying and learning of students has generated a lot of reflections for me on how to generate deeper, meaningful, comprehensive understanding and more proactive learning on students (adults) on educational settings.
The diagram that I’m copying from the book mentioned is located on page 15 (reference 1) , which took me immediately to the question of how to truly engage students and to an additional concept mentioned by a group in the seminar. It is the concept of flow, and how it can be used in education.
The concept of flow, and of “flow state” was originally introduced by Mihály Csíkszentmihályi in 1975 and has been used in education where the main idea is to balance in learning environments the skills vs. the challenge, then the activities that involve learning are appropriately challenging to one’s skill level, and at the end, the result can be deep learning and high levels of personal and work satisfaction. Students and teachers get so involved in a situation that they can reach a “flow state” or optimal psychological state, where nothing else seems to matter and the experience is so enjoyable that the person can continue to do it even at great cost, for the sheer sake of doing it. The sense of control, loss of sense of time and allowing the possibility of failure as part of the learning process are totally acceptable.
Csikszentmihalyi ‘s Flow Model (Beatson, 2015) . (reference 2)
Now several approaches in order to access or achieve this flow state have been developed since the establishment of this theory some decades ago, but for the purpose of this exercise I would share the findings of dos Santos et.al (2018) (reference 3) “Csikszentmihalyi (1990) describes nine necessary dimensions in order for an activity to prompt a flow state: (1) clear goals; (2) immediate feedback; (3) a match between personal skills and challenges; (4) merge of action and awareness; (5) facilitate concentration on the task, (6); aid a sense of control; (7) loss of self-consciousness during the task; (8) sense of time changed; and (9) the experience of becoming “autotelic”. Hoffman and Novak (1996) summarized the dimensions proposed by Csikszentmihalyi into five dimensions: (1) enjoyment; (2) telepresence; (3) focused attention; (4) engagement; and (5) time distortion. On the other hand, Rodriguez-Sanchez and Schaufeli (2008) stated that the previous dimensions could be simplified into just three key aspects: (1) absorption, (2) enjoyment, and (3) intrinsic interest.”
Now, taking into account some of the key factors from the teacher’s perspective, how can we generate such a space where intrinsic motivation is at its peak, each participant owns their own learning process and we achieve a flow state at least some of the time? What is the role of a teacher in such an endeavour? Which methods and models should we prioritize? even though the word empower is kind of overused, how can we facilitate processes where students are in charge of their own education path and process even beyond a specific level or educational space?
Team context – group dynamics, realities…. How to “flow” while working in groups and collaboratively.
As mentioned in other entries, our group worked has faced many moments and we are learning to reach the right dynamic. First of all, we are working to generate a safe space, where we can learn from each other and get to know one another. We hope to be able to manage - what if something does not work learning from failure, what if things work out – learning from the process and being able to articulate it.
Our internal working dynamic involves individual work before and after a meeting and setting goals and now even dates/deadlines in order to be more efficient. We also save the meetings in case someone can not attend.
We are working on finding the right way to keep a learning and working journal so we can keep track of all the agreements, personal and group responsibilities, and outcomes.
During the meetings, there’s space also for reflection, feedback and supporting each other.
In terms of challenges and as described in prior entries the management of time and getting together is not always easy. Also, keeping of the way to work and following prior agreements can be tricky. Time differences and day-to-day life can also play a big part in generating the right dynamic.
The same issues can be expected when working with students and selecting the participants of a group, the tasks, timing and so on.
References:
1 Olli Hyppönen and Satu Lindén. Opettajan käsikirja – opintojaksojen rakenteet, opetusmenetelmät ja arviointi (Handbook for teachers: course structures, teaching methods and assessment). Publications of the Teaching and Learning Development Unit. Helsinki University of Technology 5/2009. Espoo, 2009.
2 de Byl, Penny. (2015). A conceptual affective design framework for the use of emotions in computer game design. Cyberpsychology. 9. 10.5817/CP2015-3-4.
3 dos Santos W. O., Bittencourt, I. I., Dermeval, D., Isotani, S., Marques, L. B., & Silveira, I. F. (2018). Flow Theory to Promote Learning in Educational Systems: Is it Really Relevant?. Brazilian Journal of Computers in Education (Revista Brasileira de Informática na Educação - RBIE), 26(2), 29-59. DOI: 10.5753/RBIE.2018.26.02.29
Image by pexels. Free use. https://www.pexels.com/es-es/foto/cielo-hombre-persona-playa-5895429/. Photo by Elle Hughes
Comments
Post a Comment