Cary Alburn

Comment on Cary Alburn's post: Another thought: are you asking about how far your relationship with students should go? That's a real boundary issue. The danger is that creating a friendship of any kind, but especially a romantic one, might erode the teacher/student relationship. So the issue is always, how far can we go as teachers in creating a friendly environment before we go too far and cross the boundaries that maintain our leadership position in the classroom. The line is not a fine line--it's a fuzzy one that requires careful analysis on a constant basis, and it may… >>>

Comment on Annvernette Green's post:

More information would be helpful. How old are they? Is one or the other asking for help with the relationship? Is it too extreme, either way (touchy/feely, or violent/antagonistic)? Is it impacting one or the other's performance? Most important, why do you think you should be involved?

I learned that there are several facets to attrition, almost like "building blocks" toward quitting. Most importantly, though, early intervention is more likely to succeed than after the stress has built to the point where the student only sees quitting as the option.

Like it or not, instructors are the front line "actors" regarding student retention. They're the first ones likely to see a retention problem before it becomes insurmountable. But rarely are instructors given the tools (other than their own innate interpersonal skills) to do something concrete. 

Reading through many of the comments, I can see that others are very positive about gamification. For myself as a non-gamer, I'm still having problems accepting the idea of incorporating gaming principles into the classroom filled with adults. I don't play video games, so I'm not at all familiar with the gaming terminology, I don't play cards, and the only board games I've ever played are Monopoly, Parcheesi, Checkers, and Chinese Checkers--and those were all when I was a kid. Maybe I've played Monopoly once or twice as an adult. 

Comment on Cary Alburn's post: To add to what I said, I'm teaching paralegals in Colorado. If I use a case that is vaguely on point from another jurisdiction but which totally conflicts with Colorado law, that brings up the "so what?" factor. It's unhelpful. If I continually bring up such cases, not only is the "so what?" factor involved, but now my students are likely to find what we're studying to be irrelevant, boring, and quickly lose any motivation. But if I can bring up cases that dovetail with Colorado law and are directly on point, they can… >>>

To me, the biggest impact on motivation is relevance--how will what is being learned impact the student's future, both regarding employment and other aspects of his/her life. It's hard to be motivated when there seems to be no relevance.

I'm a bit puzzled. Previous courses have emphasized that adult learners want involvement--they're not passive learners. But now we're being told that the majority prefers to be lectured. 

The idea that the student is a customer seems antithetical to the idea that the student is there to learn. When a customer buys a product or a service, the only thing that the customer needs to do to get that product or service is to pay for it. But the student has to pay for the education and then has to learn--so there's a huge difference--at least, I think so. I'll be interested to see how this idea is developed.

I'm actually surprised a bit by the idea of a portfolio for most employment. I'd always thought of portfolios as useful for demonstrating artistic talent, such as painting or photography. So my question is this: do employers really look at portfolios? Or are they fluff that would only make a difference if a couple of apparently identical candidates were being considered? Or are they only useful in very high profile positions?