Facilitate Wonder

As I left the conversation yesterday I had written the following:
1. Start: show portions of two VFEs and compare/contrast
2. Use compare/contrast as “springboard” into discussion of how we learn vs. how we teach
3. Discussion of resources utilized
4. Have a cd of supplementary materials

I think it might also be beneficial at this time to establish a timetable to outline how long we would like to spend on these areas. We could probably spend four hours on all of the above individually.

I also thought we might consider adding:
1. technical show and tell (how we animated slides, imported photos, etc.)
2. student response and feedback to our VFEs
3. time for participants to work on their VFE, even if it involves only brainstorming and outlining (groupthink). Participants could return with VFEs to share at next workshop.

We will be in a PC lab and we’ll also have a regular classroom that also has a projector. In there, we’ll be able to switch easily between Mac and PC, I think. That might be the place for show and tell. I’ll also have two Mac laptops, my almost 4 year old (but still very functional) Powerbook and an iBook of the same generation.

As for timeline, I wonder about splitting the day in two, with the first two hours showing what the current ones look like and connecting that to how people learn. Then use the next two hours for people to work on their VFEs.

The classrooms are across the hall from each other, so moving back and forth will be easy if we wish to do that. I do think it makes sense to start with the exploration of the VFEs in the lab with Jud and Sarah each giving an overview of theirs.

And then, somehow getting into a discussion on how people learn and the inquiry orientation we’re working toward.

I like Jud’s idea of showing the technical how to’s of some of the features of the technology- maybe after the participants have had some time to think about what they would like to do we can address this. I also think a time line of how much time will be spent on each part would be great.

It would be really nice for people to leave with at least an outline or concept map of what they intend to do and pictures picked out to go with their framework (?). I think that is actually the hardest part. I still struggle with this. A big question here is: do I start with what I see at the site or do I start with some piece of the curriculum I want to illuminate through this? Where the heck to start? With a second gathering after this workshop, we can maybe help people troubleshoot with whatever they haven’t been able to get off the ground or help them take whatever they created further (maybe expand it?). I think a big part of it is that without a doubt you have to go back to your site at least more than once to refine, take pictures, figure things out, etc. and the time lapse might give people the chance to do that too.

This may just be my pet peeve, but I hate when presenters talk about how people learn and constructivist/inquiry stuff, but they don’t model it.

I see this as starting out (after initial introductions) in the computer lab, ask people to do the first stop on my trip and whatever Jud feels appropriate on his. Ask them to jot down a few questions (they can be geology, pedagogy, technology, procedural, etc).

Then we go back into the classroom, people can ask their questions, which hopefully we can answer through an illustration of our fieldtrips (or if there is a projector in the computer lab, we can split up the group and then switch). Smaller groups means more personalized.

I think that it is much more meaningful to show teaching that looks different (even if its not perfect) than talking about teaching that looks different (no matter how perfect).

If we can make this learner centered, we have a much better chance of having these teachers create vfe not vft.

I agree that this should take no more than the first two hours.

The second half of this should be focused on meeting the needs of the teachers, as they are likely to be in very different places. Perhaps an effective way to address their needs is to give a post-introduction-to-vfe-pre-assessment. In other words, after teachers have a chance to play with the vfe and Jud and I have answered some basic questions, over lunch we should find out who needs technology help, geology help, procedural help, peodagological help, etc and create small (but flexible) groups or stations.
For example if you want to learn how to import pictures in a MAC environment, go see Jud over there, if you need a procedural help about going into field, see Sarah over there. While the exact grouping will be determined on the day, I’m pretty sure that we can anticipate relatively well what those areas will be and where the presenters’ strengths are.

Just my two cents.

I agree with Sarah. Modeling behaviour is powerful…obviously. I like how the day is split also, with lunch “sandwiched” in the middle. Cheesy pun intended. Wow, I need to stop. Anyway.

I agree with Melisa that we’ll need to help people get started with the materials that they bring. Part of my hesitation in starting my own VFW (outside of technology constraints) is that I still am stuck with a starting point. I guess I just need to go with it and see what happens. Similarly, we’ll need to see where everyone is and divide ourselves accordingly. Meet your students where they are. Obviously.

I’m not sure I have much to add here. I’m spending my time under a lot of DayQuil and NyQuil these days and it isn’t fun…

I do think the idea of sort of centers (to swipe terminology from our elementary colleagues) where you can work with the kind of technology and pedagogy you want to work with…

As soon as a bug in the blog server is fixed, I’ll add a page for the workshop in the side menu. I’m also going to send you all a note tonight as a precursor to sending to the ESPRIT list.

Thoughts about the CD contents?