This week I'll start my blog off talking about the different ways students can be assessed. First I will make a distinction between two different forms of assessment.
First is Formative assessment. This is when an assessment is made to gather information about what previous knowledge the student or group of students has. I have a perfect example of this. While studying in my Instrument ground school class, my instructor would periodically give us ungraded pop-quizzes from the Gleim-software. These quizzes were not graded, and we did not study from them. However, they were very valuable in letting us know how well we were learning the information we needed.
Second is Summative assessment. This is the typical end-of-course exam that gives a summary of the course in one exam. The teaching of that group of students is not influenced by the results of the assessment.
There are a couple more ways to assess performance that especially work well in the aviation field.
The first is a Criterion referenced assessment, and is based on the performance needed for that specific field. For example, a pilot is assessed in an airplane and is put into specific situations and evaluated on his/her performance compared to Practical Test Standards (usually anywhere from 80-90% correct).
Another is a Norm-referenced assessment, which doesn't have any standards to be graded on, and the grading is subjective. For example an English essay that is graded without any sort of agreement on what a person must know to pass the test. It is based on how well it is written in comparison to other members of the class, or the "norm" of the class.
Third is self-referenced assessments. SRA are based on personal, private goals. These tests are kept private, and the results are based on the student's opinion of how well he/she did.
On a slightly different topic, Self-directed learners are people that are very self-motivated, and want to learn just to learn, and do not want to regurgitate information in the way the a multiple-choice test will demand. They want to apply the learning to real situations and want feedback after the performance has been made.
All of these ways of learning have been applied to me as an aviation student, and I'm sure that I will have to use these things as I teach other students how to fly.. It should be a blast..
Sunday, January 23, 2011
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
The Way to Teach
Teaching is a learning process. While there are multiple ways of teaching someone how to fly, a role play is successful. Example:
Tim is flying with his student pilot Mark. They start to work on ground reference maneuvers, and Mark is having a hard time understanding how they will help him later on in his aviation career. Tim remembers that Mark asked him about Aerial photography, and so he decides to change circle around a point to an aerial photo-shoot. Mark becomes excited to do the maneuver, and excels at it from that moment on.
With a normal approach to teaching some students find it difficult to apply themselves. Role playing something applicable to them creates a better environment for learning.
These are some other ways of teaching.
The Lecture method, which is what most classroom teachers use. It can involve the students, but for the most part the instructor stands in front of the group and conveys his/her knowledge to the class.
The Cooperative Learning method splits the students into small groups, and encourages active participation from all the students.
The Guided Discussion method is similar to the lecture method, but involves the students and is a much more informal way of learning. The instructor is more of a facilitator of topics to discuss, making sure that the topics are applicable, and ensures that the students follow a specific path.
The Demonstration-Performance method is more of a hands-on method. This is the type of teaching done in an airplane. The instructor teaches, demonstrates, and then the student performs. The method concludes with an evaluation by the instructor.
Age is an important aspect of adult learners. Each age group holds different assumptions than others. Gender is another factor. In aviation women are heavily out-numbered, and a woman aviator can be intimidated. Language and background can form barriers to learning if not properly addressed. In aviation English is standard, but an understanding of the background of a student will help immensely.
Teaching aviation students presents a unique challenge. The average aviation student is 30 yrs old, and needs a completely different approach than a group of teenagers. Adults learning a skill are motivated and have a reason to learn. They are also very independent and self-directed. The average adult has many experiences, and draws on them to guide decisions. It is important to establish clear goals, and to provide the students with a specific schedule/syllabus. Teaching to the level of the student is important. There shouldn't be any "spoon-feeding" and the student should be treated with respect.
Tim is flying with his student pilot Mark. They start to work on ground reference maneuvers, and Mark is having a hard time understanding how they will help him later on in his aviation career. Tim remembers that Mark asked him about Aerial photography, and so he decides to change circle around a point to an aerial photo-shoot. Mark becomes excited to do the maneuver, and excels at it from that moment on.
With a normal approach to teaching some students find it difficult to apply themselves. Role playing something applicable to them creates a better environment for learning.
These are some other ways of teaching.
The Lecture method, which is what most classroom teachers use. It can involve the students, but for the most part the instructor stands in front of the group and conveys his/her knowledge to the class.
The Cooperative Learning method splits the students into small groups, and encourages active participation from all the students.
The Guided Discussion method is similar to the lecture method, but involves the students and is a much more informal way of learning. The instructor is more of a facilitator of topics to discuss, making sure that the topics are applicable, and ensures that the students follow a specific path.
The Demonstration-Performance method is more of a hands-on method. This is the type of teaching done in an airplane. The instructor teaches, demonstrates, and then the student performs. The method concludes with an evaluation by the instructor.
Age is an important aspect of adult learners. Each age group holds different assumptions than others. Gender is another factor. In aviation women are heavily out-numbered, and a woman aviator can be intimidated. Language and background can form barriers to learning if not properly addressed. In aviation English is standard, but an understanding of the background of a student will help immensely.
Teaching aviation students presents a unique challenge. The average aviation student is 30 yrs old, and needs a completely different approach than a group of teenagers. Adults learning a skill are motivated and have a reason to learn. They are also very independent and self-directed. The average adult has many experiences, and draws on them to guide decisions. It is important to establish clear goals, and to provide the students with a specific schedule/syllabus. Teaching to the level of the student is important. There shouldn't be any "spoon-feeding" and the student should be treated with respect.
Sunday, January 9, 2011
CFI Blog post #1
Epistemology: Positivist vs Constructivist
Now, before I go off on the differences between positivists and constructionists, let me explain what an epistemology is.
Epistemology is essentially the study of knowledge. It attempts to answer what knowledge is and how we receive it. For the sake of this blog post I'll divide it into two separate forms, Positivist and Constructivist. My purpose in this blog is to give my opinions on Flight instructing, and so I'll apply these two forms into aviation, and teaching/learning how to fly.
Positivist learning focuses on learning actual facts, and using rote memorization to ingrain something into the mind. Personally I find positivist learning to be useful in some situations, but there is a lack of understanding. When I first learned how to fly an airplane I was taught what things were, but not really why. This was helpful at the beginning, but in order to operate in a safer way I needed to understand why things worked, and why the airplane behaved the way it did. For example, I was taught that the airplane stalled when I was going slower, and when the angle of attack of the wing exceeded the critical angle. However, I didn't know how or why that happened.
Constructivist learning focuses on the way things are learned, with more emphasis on why and how something happens. For example, while working on my commercial license I learned how aerodynamics worked, and now I understand that an airplane can stall at any airspeed, and an increase in bank, or load factor can drastically raise the stall speed.
I feel like the constructive learning method is much better because the motivation included is much better. I work as a manager at a carpentry mill and have found that when I teach why something is the way it is, my fellow employees are more efficient and I don't have to remind them as often. Constructivist learning is what I feel is better.
Now, before I go off on the differences between positivists and constructionists, let me explain what an epistemology is.
Epistemology is essentially the study of knowledge. It attempts to answer what knowledge is and how we receive it. For the sake of this blog post I'll divide it into two separate forms, Positivist and Constructivist. My purpose in this blog is to give my opinions on Flight instructing, and so I'll apply these two forms into aviation, and teaching/learning how to fly.
Positivist learning focuses on learning actual facts, and using rote memorization to ingrain something into the mind. Personally I find positivist learning to be useful in some situations, but there is a lack of understanding. When I first learned how to fly an airplane I was taught what things were, but not really why. This was helpful at the beginning, but in order to operate in a safer way I needed to understand why things worked, and why the airplane behaved the way it did. For example, I was taught that the airplane stalled when I was going slower, and when the angle of attack of the wing exceeded the critical angle. However, I didn't know how or why that happened.
Constructivist learning focuses on the way things are learned, with more emphasis on why and how something happens. For example, while working on my commercial license I learned how aerodynamics worked, and now I understand that an airplane can stall at any airspeed, and an increase in bank, or load factor can drastically raise the stall speed.
I feel like the constructive learning method is much better because the motivation included is much better. I work as a manager at a carpentry mill and have found that when I teach why something is the way it is, my fellow employees are more efficient and I don't have to remind them as often. Constructivist learning is what I feel is better.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)