Liz Jones
Dina Rodrigues
Megan Lovelace
Group discussion:
1. The year the students entered the program could reflect the improvement or changes on the program over the course of five years between 2008 and 2012. Changes in administration, technology, and other factors, could create a difference in the experience people have when going through the program.
2. Before going through the program, students used a more informal sentence structure and context. Also, students were pretty vague with what they actually wanted to do. For example, “I am not sure yet. I am open to options”, “Teach at a community college” and “teach and go for my doctorate”, were all responses from various students entering the program. Although students showed interest in the education field, (for the ones that knew they wanted to teach), they were still unclear about what they actually wanted to teach. The program helped crystalize what they wanted to do. They became aware of their future career paths and narrowed in on certain job positions within the field they wanted to work in, such as a “high school English” or “sports journalist”.
3. Going through the program, students understood the importance of the coursework in relation to their future careers and were very specific on what classes would help and why. One student leaving the program wrote, “The thesis coursework was the most beneficial because I plan to implement the program I studied during the thesis work.” This example tells us not only that the thesis coursework was most important, but also why it was most important, because the person plans on implementing it during the thesis work.
4. After the program, students provided more relevant and thorough descriptions about what courses they wish they could have studied in relation to the writing field. When entering the program, students didn’t know what programs to take because they hadn’t taken them yet and might not have been aware what was offered. Students leaving the program wanted to take classes in creative writing to develop writing curriculum and journalistic writing to blend personal research and storytelling skills. The ability to determine which classes students would have liked to take indicates progress in the program and exposure to multiple classes that give students a feel for what they want to study. For students just entering the program, they should be made aware of what all their options are class wise. Since communicating information is a problem, this would be something to change, so students can take the classes they want to take instead of wishing they took them but didn’t get to.
5. After completing the program, students felt more confident in their writing abilities, including page length, research, using technology, and using writing in their future professions. Students entering the program felt weaker in all of the categories listed on the survey than students who completed the program. Overall the program needs to improve upon preparing students to write in the teaching profession, networking, and connecting with organizations. This is strongly evident in the 9th question, “I have strong writing networks with my colleagues”, where 4 out of 5 people said they disagree with this question, and only 1 person put strongly agree.
6. The results differed in the theorists students were familiar with entering verse graduating the program. After completing the program, students were familiar with a wider range of theorists. When entering the program, students were familiar with 5 theorists and when students left the program they were familiar with 9 theorists. Also, students who completed the program realized that they didn’t actually know who John Dewey was. This shows improvement in exposure to different theorists with writing studies. Someone reading the survey results would have to question the validity of the responses when taking into account what to change in regards to what theorists in writing to teach.
7. When students entered the program, no one was familiar with research paradigms. When leaving the program, students were much more familiar with different research paradigms, in particular with social constructivism and pragmatics. It’s interesting to find that in general, not many students were familiar with positivists and liberatories. This data reflects the need to improve upon these areas in the future.
8. When entering the program, students were familiar with using interviews, surveys, observations, sample work, and rubrics to conduct research. When students left the program, they were familiar with many more ways to conduct research, including: Case studies, focus groups, textual analysis, action research, ethnographic research, grounded theory, statistical research and coding, video and audio recordings, and periodical data. Clearly, the program is helping students learn new ways of conducting research and has been very helpful.
9. At the beginning of the program, students had no idea what the pedagogical approaches for teaching writing were. The only responses listed on the survey were: “Don’t know” and “I don’t know”. After completing the program, students were familiar with numerous pedagogical approaches for teaching writing, including writing as a process, collaborative writing, Inquiry based writing, using models, expressivist, and social constructivists. The reason that the data differs so drastically in this question is that before going through the program, students most likely had little to no exposure to these approaches. However after completing the program and participating in the writing approaches themselves, students became familiar with these techniques. The length and description to each piece of the response shows the clarity in understanding what each approach actually is. This shows strength in the program.
1. The year the students entered the program could reflect the improvement or changes on the program over the course of five years between 2008 and 2012. Changes in administration, technology, and other factors, could create a difference in the experience people have when going through the program.
2. Before going through the program, students used a more informal sentence structure and context. Also, students were pretty vague with what they actually wanted to do. For example, “I am not sure yet. I am open to options”, “Teach at a community college” and “teach and go for my doctorate”, were all responses from various students entering the program. Although students showed interest in the education field, (for the ones that knew they wanted to teach), they were still unclear about what they actually wanted to teach. The program helped crystalize what they wanted to do. They became aware of their future career paths and narrowed in on certain job positions within the field they wanted to work in, such as a “high school English” or “sports journalist”.
3. Going through the program, students understood the importance of the coursework in relation to their future careers and were very specific on what classes would help and why. One student leaving the program wrote, “The thesis coursework was the most beneficial because I plan to implement the program I studied during the thesis work.” This example tells us not only that the thesis coursework was most important, but also why it was most important, because the person plans on implementing it during the thesis work.
4. After the program, students provided more relevant and thorough descriptions about what courses they wish they could have studied in relation to the writing field. When entering the program, students didn’t know what programs to take because they hadn’t taken them yet and might not have been aware what was offered. Students leaving the program wanted to take classes in creative writing to develop writing curriculum and journalistic writing to blend personal research and storytelling skills. The ability to determine which classes students would have liked to take indicates progress in the program and exposure to multiple classes that give students a feel for what they want to study. For students just entering the program, they should be made aware of what all their options are class wise. Since communicating information is a problem, this would be something to change, so students can take the classes they want to take instead of wishing they took them but didn’t get to.
5. After completing the program, students felt more confident in their writing abilities, including page length, research, using technology, and using writing in their future professions. Students entering the program felt weaker in all of the categories listed on the survey than students who completed the program. Overall the program needs to improve upon preparing students to write in the teaching profession, networking, and connecting with organizations. This is strongly evident in the 9th question, “I have strong writing networks with my colleagues”, where 4 out of 5 people said they disagree with this question, and only 1 person put strongly agree.
6. The results differed in the theorists students were familiar with entering verse graduating the program. After completing the program, students were familiar with a wider range of theorists. When entering the program, students were familiar with 5 theorists and when students left the program they were familiar with 9 theorists. Also, students who completed the program realized that they didn’t actually know who John Dewey was. This shows improvement in exposure to different theorists with writing studies. Someone reading the survey results would have to question the validity of the responses when taking into account what to change in regards to what theorists in writing to teach.
7. When students entered the program, no one was familiar with research paradigms. When leaving the program, students were much more familiar with different research paradigms, in particular with social constructivism and pragmatics. It’s interesting to find that in general, not many students were familiar with positivists and liberatories. This data reflects the need to improve upon these areas in the future.
8. When entering the program, students were familiar with using interviews, surveys, observations, sample work, and rubrics to conduct research. When students left the program, they were familiar with many more ways to conduct research, including: Case studies, focus groups, textual analysis, action research, ethnographic research, grounded theory, statistical research and coding, video and audio recordings, and periodical data. Clearly, the program is helping students learn new ways of conducting research and has been very helpful.
9. At the beginning of the program, students had no idea what the pedagogical approaches for teaching writing were. The only responses listed on the survey were: “Don’t know” and “I don’t know”. After completing the program, students were familiar with numerous pedagogical approaches for teaching writing, including writing as a process, collaborative writing, Inquiry based writing, using models, expressivist, and social constructivists. The reason that the data differs so drastically in this question is that before going through the program, students most likely had little to no exposure to these approaches. However after completing the program and participating in the writing approaches themselves, students became familiar with these techniques. The length and description to each piece of the response shows the clarity in understanding what each approach actually is. This shows strength in the program.
No comments:
Post a Comment