The Other AR: The Good, the Bad, and the To Plan For of Students

4 March, 10 March Reflections:

4 March - I need to incorporate ways to interface and train with the other students that I haven’t worked a lot with in the past… to get them working with my students more.

They need to work on some processes together and iron out some coordination and collaboration of each co-worker.

I need to craft some craft some ‘problems’ that they need to work on… challenging ones that they will really have to work through.  These problems need to challenge them as well as stress system limitations (technology wise).

10 March – Frenetic thoughts/Observations/Reflections

Problem Based Learning/Project Based Learning/Inquiry Based Learning – Training and Instruction:

·         Has to incorporate ‘team’ collaborative learning

This has to be supplemented by individual decisions that agree with cohesive goals!

ME: Design “unstructured problem(s)” for collaborative TEAM work to solve

-          I may utilize Inquiry-based principles that require student research

-          Seek our pertinent facts – do research – use others & resources – trial & error iterations (experimentation?) – prove/disprove – “do these”...

Has this solved “the problem”? + other methods if needed

Iterative learning (?) – to create the best, most-comprehensive product

Reflections & acknowledgements of student characteristics –

-          They learn things FAST & I mean they don’t have much inhibition to thought of how to work things out – they also don’t have much patience for shortcomings in the system (software use) – This is good and bad.

-          Good – Their expectations are high and their thinking is relatively clear and wide open… they’re not scared of “hurting the system”. They are very willing to experiment.  This shows deep care for the fundamentals they are being taught and willingness to work around software confines to achieve what they want to.

-          Bad – they are reluctant/skeptical/untrusting of system limitations or issues that they are taught (this can be a positive – as noted above- as they are or may be capable of deeper cognition). Questioning & skepticism is often what brings about positive use, manipulation, and maturation of the system, architecture.  Creative use of software coupled with system knowledge should ultimately help them achieve their goals.

Most importantly of the bad – often when the ‘trained way’ is deviated from – it yields a broken (software) system that they lack the knowledge or time required for recovery…

IF THIS IS NOT UNDERSTOOD OR HEEDED to = distress and detriment overall.

Takeaway: How do we maximize both the good and bad characteristics to prepare for the best training?

The Other AR: Cycle 3 Ideas and Planning for Student Training

29 Feb Reflections:

Transcribed from hand-written notes-

I need to draw up a couple problems for them (students) to solve

                -data

                -System issues

***Also maybe have them “identify a process” as a way of dealing with a particular issue- either known or unknown.

                -Then have them refine it- (cycle 3?) 

From 03 March class – notes from Adam- create “Student Agency” – student purchase of ideals…

I could have them come up with some ‘cheats’ or items to prepare for when they may need them.

-In addition, this will give them some training materials they can work up for their trainees  or co-workers.

Later notes from 29 Feb – I went out looking for voice recorders to see if one would help me to organize and record thoughts, plans, and reflections away from work.

The Other AR: 2 Days of Beatings + 1 Day of Pummeling

Transcribed from original hand- -written notes

23 -25 Feb. 2015 Reflections-

True Student-Led Learning:

-Advanced class (3 students) – 1^st day realized a ‘miscommunication’ about wheat we (my organization) thought the class would cover vs. what the student thought they were coming to learn…

After gathering perspective for the next couple days’ training with the students, we drew an agenda on a white board.

-They listed their goal items,

-I listed our goal items,

(Later notes 29 March 2015: we used our collective list as a road-map to guide us over our days of training… this showed the students that I was flexible to their expectations and needs as well as exercise elements that were important to me to cover, and additionally we covered a large number of items as they presented themselves).

·         This was used as a template/framework for the class… to keep us on track so that as many things that could be covered were covered.

·         I specifically told students “you lead the direction of training for this class, whatever you need I or we will do the best to accommodate your learning for long as you’re here”.  Fortunately I have enough rapport with these students that they know this statement extends to nearly any training or time I can offer with them. 

      Every step- group oriented- each student completing/executing specific new tasks

·         1:3 Instructor to student ratio for the subject matter is challenging, taxing, rewarding –

Three people thinking & learning brings learning & challenges for the instructor.

Sidebar: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1:3 complete collaborative learning… instructor often works with students as peers through points of material.  This ACTUALLY increases rapport between students and instructor, but more importantly enables students to feel respected for their knowledge and experience.  Simultaneously, students respect instructor expertise while understanding instructor will gainfully acknowledge and sometimes defer to student perspective on topics. 

Training information I have thought about adding or documenting came up throughout training (and was commented on in survey responses)

                Maybe add:

·         Troubleshooting & anomalies –

Possibly a troubleshooting scenario…

Other Notes:

Training was so useful to students that they asked if it could be extended to three days (instead of two).  We were not behind in our pseudo-white boarded agenda, but it was seen as a great achievement that students felt that training was useful enough to extend it a day (they traveled out to us for this training, and the additional costs further denote the usefulness of the training they attended).

Closing thoughts:

Three days of 6+ hours of 1:3 instruction was really too much information for the students-

 

-Instructor fear of how much is enough & how much is too much work/learning/instruction?

I talked to another instructor (of different material,) and we concluded  –for now—that this may be hard to work on.  Every learner has a different threshold…

-Maybe I can incorporate (more) self-inquiry play time (like we did, prior to lunch for 45 mins of the last day of training).  Then they would have more interest or patience with material?

Maybe for my continuation training of them I can give them more system time and anomaly training of system and data and have examples to have them work on…. ?

Possibly I can develop some weekly “tech-bits”?  To share opinions, further their development?