11B: Reflections in Instruction in Libraries and Community-based Technology Education

Before starting the readings for this week, I happened to see this Tweet from Pew Research scroll across my feed:

Many Americans have high expectations for their local libraries services. https://t.co/wfSXEgMcx8 pic.twitter.com/PDndYcs1gJ

— PewResearch Internet (@pewinternet) November 29, 2016

The fact that 80% of Americans DEFINITELY want to learn digital skills in their public libraries is so exciting! I loved the experience of designing and teaching basic computer classes in a public library as a Community Technology Empowerment Project Corps member in 2011-2012, and I'm only just realizing that the community interest in tech skills have only increased over the years. This is all to say that I approached the readings very much with the question: "how could instructional practices translate to transformational opportunities to learn and discover programming/making/technology in the public library setting?"

Understanding by Design provides a strong set of processes and suggestions that center meaningful learning rather than teaching or curriculum for curriculum's sake. I find the idea of designing backwards to be especially helpful when approaching technology education -- when setting out to teach skills like programming, what is the intended learning one wishes patrons and students to experience? It could be learning to understand the parameters and nature of problems and use analytic skills to craft solutions - in other words learning to think like a computer science more generally. It could be to learn concrete skills that could be applied in school or the workplace -- and indeed, a lot of my classes back in 2011-2012 were designed to help adult jobseekers navigate basic professional software in a workplace, as well as demonstrate their ability to pursue continuing education and pass a course. Often the pursuit of "coding" as a self-evident goal is a mix of both of these ways-of-thinking and professional goals without much clarity.

It would be interesting to break down the "think like a computer science" further and, for example, help community members be able to pursue their own learning/research/activist goals in a way that draws meaningfully upon electronic research. How great would it be if every community in Michigan experiencing situations like the Flint water crisis or the Detroit public education crisis could go to their libraries to fluently navigate public data sets, and in doing so gather data to bring to their elected representatives or to use in their own lives? Perhaps this is overly ideal, but there must be some more meaningful learning objectives to be designed around other than a nebulous hope that code = better job = more money somewhere down the line!

If I were to apply the backward learning model as laid out in the text, it might look something like this:

1. Identify desired results - In this case, increasing community awareness of public data and creating new opportunities to investigate important issues in the community

2. Determine acceptable evidence - This could be demonstrating knowledge of how to access a particular data set at Data.gov, or how to use a free mapping tool to visualize a set of data, or how to pose an appropriate research question and identify a plan of action in pursuing it, or all of the above!

3. Plan learning experiences and instruction - Here's where I see a tutorial in something like Data.gov or ArcGIS Online or perhaps another local open data tool, followed by a session on posing research questions, and a self-guided final mini-project that involves using a tool to answer a question of personal importance. (I'm seeing this as a three-session public library class, with each session being a two-hour mix of lecture, guided tutorials, and self-guided exploration). Here's where I can also see an artfully designed hook problem (to Wiggins and McTighe's framework) could bring students into a compelling and appropriately-difficult sequence of learning, rather than presenting a tool in an overly technical and intimidating manner.

In thinking through this example, I realize that the assessment/evidence piece (#2) is definitely my weak point. On a personal values level, I tend not to value quantitative/measurable results for their own sake and prefer more open-ended creative exploration of ideas. However, I can already see the value of the backwards-first approach in that it's much easier to be detailed and focused about assessment if it's in the service of those ultimate learning goals/results, rather than a more detached measure of quality. This is also a nice affirmation of how thoughtful design processes can really challenge our assumptions of the value and function of different aspects of instruction/education/learning.

Wiggins and McTighe's exploration of the long-term purpose of schooling reminds me again of our conversations about the civic/democratic/educational role of libraries in our communities. To what extent should librarians solicit specific learning objectives from patrons, or perhaps study community dynamics to hypothesize those goals and develop appropriate community-based education opportunities? How does life-long learning relate to learning for professional advancement, or learning for children designed to address gaps and inconsistencies in public education, or specifically as ways to increase engagement in the democratic process and community life? These goals all overlap and intersect, and it seems that in designing community-based technology education we would have to confront and engage them in some manner.