Here’s the meta on day 2:

1. From day 1 I knew most people had an expected outcome of getting more experience with groupwork, active learning, etc. That will inform all of the classes, starting with this one. I wanted a clear example of how active group work could convey the information as well as (or, really, better) than I could in a lecture.
2. Knowing that librarians who are adults and have completed masters degrees are quite competent in the tasks we’d be tackling, I just said “figure it out and make a poster in 20 minutes.” If the group had been undergraduates, I would have hand-held a lot more. I would have said something like “take 5 minutes to check Wikipedia, Britannica, and another source for definitions of your model,” then “take 5 minutes to discuss what the likely definition is given the information you found,” then maybe 8 on making the poster and 2 on finalizing what they’d say.
3. The point of this class wasn’t to learn about the different models out there. It was to learn the commonalities between them and to recognize the trend. Every librarian doesn’t need to know every model, but it is valuable to see how the models can inform teaching behaviors. That’s all I wanted the group to take away.
4. I knew that the models were pretty self explanatory. They should be; we all teach and have to use these models to do so. I wanted the group to see how much we had internalized them and to see the areas that are perhaps overlooked in each of our individualized teaching personalities.

Luckily, someone pointed out that the models were missing the motivation piece of the puzzle. The next three classes will discuss exactly that.