Monday, May 18, 2015

Week 3 - learning styles

One: Theory


For my project I think using constructivism and behaviorism would make the most sense to me. Though when I think of constructivism I tend to first think of: Constructivism!  My art history background is showing.

First: behaviorism.
I want students to get into the HABIT of logging into the library and working from there.  That's a habit built up over time.  It's like playing the piano.  You condition yourself to do it.  Eventually it becomes an automatic behavior.  Oh looky, there it is: behavior.

The reason that behavior becomes important in learning source types is that Google, as lovely as it is, does not include that neat little "Source Type" check box that library databases do.

Next: constructivism
This would be a good time to ask a question and see if students will construct the necessary knowledge.  An activity may be actually to bring several source types and have students figure out when they would use each.  Or devise a question and ask students to develop of list of characteristics of the ideal publication that would answer the question.

I appreciated that Teacher Tony did NOT use constructivism for long division, but rather cognitivism.  There is room for constructing a concept, but there is a certain elementary school math curriculum that uses constructivism in developing student algorithms for long division.  We need to respect knowledge in students, but we also need to respect ignorance and not expect students to develop concepts out of whole cloth.

Two: Motivation

This is tricky because I believe a lot of resistance to using the library comes from improper motivation and a disregard for the information found here.  If the questions posed are intriguing and relevant enough I would think their inquiry arousal would be stimulated enough to help students follow through.  The most motivated students are the ones who ask questions, who want to know why a search did or did not work.  Until a student has a real need, they are just not concerned about where their information is coming from.  Faculty must be involved in developing that need.  The one shot library session is pointless if there are no assignments requiring library use and the instructor is cool with wiki results.


1 comment:

  1. The Source Type box is pretty handy - if students know what they need. Scholarly doesn't mean "peer-reviewed" (editorials, news shots, etc.) and trade journals have useful info for many disciplines. It's an opportunity to explain the different types and their differences/commonalities - though, I don't think I'm clear what ProQuest considers "other sources".
    Is it disregard of information or the inability to find what they want easily? Unless they've already gone through the critical pedagogy wringer, I think the dislike of finding information from library databases stems from their frustration in with the complexity and fruitless searches.

    ReplyDelete