During my short time as a Graduate & Postdoctoral Programs at CTE, I have come to realize how outstanding CTE’s graduate and postdoctoral programs really are. Our programs support UWaterloo graduate students and postdocs in their knowledge and skill development as university TAs and current and future instructors. The three programs offered, at no cost to the student, include the Fundamentals of University Teaching and the Certificate of University Teaching for graduate students and the Teaching Development Series for postdoctoral fellows. Continue reading Graduate and Postdoctoral Programming Updates – Jessica Jordao
Since next month marks my last workshop as a TA Workshop Facilitator (TAWF), I wanted to use my last blog post to reflect on my experience over the past year.
When I first started as a TAWF last September, I had no way of anticipating all of the wonderful additional opportunities for professional and personal development. As a member of the graduate staff you are welcomed into the CTE community. Living out of town and only occasionally coming to campus, I’ve found it difficult at times to feel a sense of belonging at the university. So the chance to connect with like-minded people and engage in conversations about teaching and learning has been wonderful and proven invaluable.
TAWFs are generally paired with one or two workshops that they will be responsible for for the duration of their appointment. These workshops are offered at least once per term. This means that you have several chances to deliver the same material and receive feedback on your delivery. As a teacher, this is a wonderful opportunity to flex your facilitation skills and gain a greater appreciation for your strengths and areas that may need improvement.
Multiple iterations of a workshop also mean that you will learn about at least one teaching and learning topic in-depth. Before I became a TAWF I had never thought to consult the literature on best teaching practices, and yet there is an entire body of work devoted to this very topic. Referred to as the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (or SoTL for short), post-secondary practitioners share their experiences of their own classroom successes and failures so that others can reflect on their findings and build upon teaching and learning processes.
The TAWF position also opens the door to other opportunities. There’s the option of getting involved with teaching and learning projects that are happening at the Centre or elsewhere within the University. Several TAWFs have also gone on to take on a GID (Graduate Instructional Developer) position.
I leave this position not only with a greater understanding of my approach to teaching and learning and improved knowledge in this field, but also with invaluable connections to both my graduate colleagues in other faculties and the staff of CTE. It’s been an honour and a privilege!
Follow your passion; the mantra that successful people will preach to inspire those who will listen. I become a little weary every time I hear it. I have heard it preached from the likes of spokespeople, teachers, parents, mentors, and so on. I soon learned that this is not always the case, and in fact, it can be a hindering concept to believe in.
I recently watched a video of a commencement speech by Mike Rowe, best known as the host for the television series Dirty Jobs, given to PragerU graduates. In five minutes, he explained why he thinks following your passion is terrible advice. The main idea of his speech, what he referred to as “The Dirty Truth”, is this; just because you’re passionate about something, doesn’t mean you won’t suck at it . This implies that the hard work and effort that you put into your passion, does not necessarily mean you will obtain a successful lifestyle in that passion.
He goes on to describe the ineffectiveness of telling someone to follow their dreams, since it may not actually be clear as to what they are dreaming, and if that dream is feasibly attainable. The fact remains that passion and ability are two separate things.
To be successful, Rowe explains how following opportunity will more likely lead to prosperity, and that following passion can mean missing out on plenty of available opportunities. He uses the “skills gap” to illustrate his point; there are plenty of jobs that are available to which very few people are trained to do. This compares to the large number of people who are skilled at certain jobs, to which have few openings. Imagine how successful you could be if you went against the current and followed the path less beaten?
This was, personally, a very eye-opening concept that I had never really thought about. For most of my life, I was under the impression that hard work and perseverance meant that you could do anything you wanted. However, I believe much of what Rowe said is very true.
Now, this is not to say that following one’s passion is completely illogical; it’s not impossible to be successful at your dream. It is, however, important to gauge the pay-off towards your goal, versus how much effort, time, and money is going into it. To paraphrase Mike, staying the course only makes sense if you’re headed in a sensible direction. Learn to pick your battles, and know when to tap out of the ring and take on a different battle that you believe can be concurred.
So now what? Instead of following passion in advance, what should be done instead? I decided to do some research and see what others had to say, and much of it was a relative reiteration of Rowe’s speech.
In an interview, Cal Newport, an author and 30-year-old assistant professor of computer science at Georgetown University, advocated for cultivating your passion, instead of following it. In essence, pay-off is greater when one decides to build a passion for their job. This is done by sharpening your skills and abilities within your work like a craftsperson, then shaping your working life towards the lifestyle that you desire .
Here are a few guidelines to help navigate you through your passion cultivation in the job market:
- Understand what skills and activities you excel at. Are you a good listener, or problem solver, or have always taken the leadership role in a group setting? What are you good at which you believe has been impactful or has made you particularly happy at one point?
- Understand where your skills can be applied. In what jobs and industries would you be able to hone your skills like a craftsperson, and gain more opportunities as a result of your improvement? Think broadly about your possible opportunities. For example, I love using Microsoft Excel, so I know there are a number of positions that would require proficiency in Excel than just Data Analysis jobs.
Seeing that it is convocation season for many University students, this might have some valuable insight for a number of graduates. Some will be entering the workforce, and may have hopes of landing that dream job, or pursuing that one thing they are passionate about. The real takeaway point: keep a mindful and realistic goals, and allow your passions to drive you throughout the journey. Take the time to understand if your passion is really what you’re meant to do, or if it is just meant to be a dream to hold on to.
Sources: Mike Rowe – Don’t Follow Your Passion  Joshua Fields Millburn – ‘Follow Your Passion’ Is Crappy Advice  Nathaniel Koloc – Why “Follow Your Passion” is Pretty Bad Advice  Lauren Friese – Gen Y career advice: Don’t follow your passion. Do this instead.
The dream of creating a device that can replicate human behaviour is longstanding: 2500 years ago, the ancient Greeks devised the story of Talos, a bronze automaton that protected the island of Crete from pirates; in the early thirteenth century, Al-Jazari designed and described human automata in his Book of Knowledge and Ingenious Mechanical Devices; in the eighteenth-century, the clockmaker Henri Maillardet invented a “mechanical lady” that wrote letters and sketched pictures; and in 2016, Ashok Goel, a computer science instructor at Georgia Tech, created a teaching assistant called Jill Watson who isn’t a human – she’s an algorithm.
Goel named his artificial teaching assistant after Watson, the computer program developed by IBM with an ability to answer questions that are posed in ordinary language. IBM’s Watson is best known for its 2011 victory over two former champions on the gameshow Jeopardy! In Goel’s computer science class, Watson’s job was to respond to questions that students asked in Piazza, an online discussion forum. Admittedly, the questions to which Watson responded were fairly routine:
Student: Should we be aiming for 1000 words or 2000 words? I know, it’s variable, but that is a big difference.
Jill Watson: There isn’t a word limit, but we will grade on both depth and succinctness. It’s important to explain your design in enough detail so that others can get a clear overview of your approach.
Goel’s students weren’t told until the end of the term that one of their online teaching assistants wasn’t human – nor did many of them suspect. Jill Watson’s responses were sufficiently helpful and “natural” that to most students she seemed as human as the other teaching assistants.
Over time – and quickly, no doubt – the ability of Jill Watson and other artificial interlocutors to answer more complex and nuanced questions will improve. But even if those abilities were to remain as they are, the potential impact of such computer programs on teaching and learning is significant. After all, in a typical course how much time is spent by teaching assistants or the instructor responding to the same routine questions (or slight variations of them) that are asked over and over? In Goel’s course, for example, he reports that his students typically post 10,000 questions per term – and he adds that Jill Watson, with just a few more tweaks, should be able to answer approximately 40% of them. That’s 4000 questions that the teaching assistants and instructor don’t have to answer. That frees up a lot of their time to provide more in-depth responses to the truly substantive questions about course content.
More time to give better answers: that sounds like a good thing. But there are also potential concerns.
It’s conceivable, for example, that using Watson might not result in better answers but in fewer jobs for teaching assistants. Universities are increasingly keen to save money, and if one Watson costs less than two or three teaching assistants, then choosing Watson would seem to be a sound financial decision. This reasoning has far broader implications than its impact on teaching assistants. According to a recent survey, 60% of the members of the British Science Association believe that within a decade, artificial intelligence will result in fewer jobs in a large number of workplace sectors, and 27% of them believe that the job losses will be significant.
Additionally, what impact might it have on students to know that they are being taught, in part, by a sophisticated chatbot – that is, by a computer program that has been designed to seem human? Maybe they won’t care: perhaps it’s not the source of an answer that matters to them, but its quality. And speaking for myself, I do love the convenience of using my iPhone to ask Siri what the population of Uzbekistan is – I don’t feel that doing so affects my sense of personal identity. On the other hand, I do find it a bit creepy when I phone a help desk and a ridiculously cheery, computerized voice insists on asking me a series of questions before connecting me to a human. If you don’t share this sense of unease, then see how you feel after watching 15 seconds of this video, featuring an even creepier encounter with artificial intelligence.
With constant media stimulation, increase in competitiveness, and stress overload, “Is it possible to slow down” (1)? Our culture can be self-driven and individualistic so it is no surprise that for many, time is a finite resource that is draining away. As a result, we try to do as much as we can in a very short time period. Our minds are filled with constant distraction, thus limiting opportunities for self-reflection to ask oneself “Am I well or am I happy?” (1).
We’d like to believe that we have been a good friend, partner, or child at various points in our life. However, upon remembering that significant person in your life, do you know or have you ever asked what were the moments when they were the happiest? The times when they were crying from tears of joys to the time when they felt the most accomplished? Surprisingly for many, we are unaware of these stories that ultimately define whom that individual has become today. We mindlessly pass every day without pondering about the conversations that we had or the connections that were made. By simply being mindful of the questions that we pose, more specifically “questions that people have been waiting for their wholes lives to asked … because everybody in their lives is waiting for people to ask them questions, so they can be truthful about who they are and how they become what they are,” as beautifully said by Marc Pacher (2).
So what is the action plan?
1.Invite people to tell stories rather than giving answers. Instead of “How are you” substitute
- What’s the most interesting thing that happened today?
- What was the best part of your weekend?
- What are you looking forward to this week? (3).
2. Enter a conversation with the willingness to learn something new
- Celeste Headlee in her TED Talk 10 Ways to Have a Better Conversation describes how she frequently talks to people whom she doesn’t like, and with people whom she deeply disagrees yet is still able to have engaging and great conversations. She is able to do this as she is always prepared to be amazed and she seeks more to understand rather than to listen and state her own opinion and thoughts.
3. Lastly “being cognizant of [your] impact is already the first step toward change. It really does start at the individual level” my friend once said (5).
- Brene Brown in her Power of Vulnerability talk said, “Many pretend like what we’re doing doesn’t have a huge impact on other people”. But we’d be surprise of what we are capable of when you allow yourself to be vulnerable as this “can be the birthplace of joy, of creativity, of belonging of love… the willingness to say, “I love you” the willingness to do something where there are no guarantees” (6).
That being said, you don’t have to be the most intellectual or outspoken person in the room, but what is key is the willingness to be open and the questions that are posed. There are many simple things that can be easily integrate into our daily lives, by being more mindful of the question that we ask to ultimately have a more memorable and enriching conversation. In the end it is to have better connections, new understanding and awareness to savor the moment.
At CTE, Microteaching Sessions are offered where you can choose from various topics to conduct an interactive teaching lesson. For my first topic I will be talking about the importance of communication. All participants will not only be giving feedback but will receive constructive feedback and ways to improve from knowledgeable facilitators. It’s a safe environment where you have the chance to present to fellow graduate students from various departments. Many have found these sessions beneficial as you are working on skills relevant to work, field of study or for your own personal growth. I am excited and nervous for this opportunity to talk about something I am passionate about and I hope I can successfully engage others and deliver the content well. In order to help participants formulate an effective teaching plan, the Centre for Teaching Excellence website has provided many resources such as well written guidelines, lesson plans outlines, and facilitators review the lesson before you present.
As a follow-up post, I had the chance to facilitate an hour session for an AIESEC conference for participants from various universities such as Toronto, Waterloo, Laurier, and York, that recently returned from their international exchanges. There were lots of discussion so thank you to the Graduate Instructor Developers, Charis Enns and Dave Guyadeen, and Instructional developer, Stephanie White for their great feedback and helping me make this session more successful!
- Carl Honore – TED Talk: In Praise of Slowness
- Mac Pacher – TED Talk: The Art of the Interview
- Chris Colin and Rob Baedeker- How to Turn Small Talk Into Smart Conversation
- Celeste Headlee – TED Talk: 10 Ways to Have a Better Conversation
- Taaha Muhammad – Musings of a 20-year-old who aspires to inspire
- Brene Brown – TED Talk: The Power of Vulnerability
- Centre for Teaching Excellence – Microteaching Session
As a way to recognize and celebrate teaching development efforts of Waterloo graduate students, the Centre for Teaching Excellence (CTE) and the Graduate Studies Office (GSO) offer the Certificate in University Teaching (CUT) Award. This annual award is given to a graduate student who demonstrates a strong commitment to teaching development and the highest achievement upon the completion of the CUT program. We are pleased to announce that Alexander Howse, PhD candidate in the Department of Applied Mathematics and a recent graduate of the CUT program, was selected as the recipient of the 2016 CUT Award.
With a little more than a year left in his PhD program, Alex Howse’s CV already boasts an impressive record of teaching accomplishments: three teaching certificates from two Canadian institutions and a course instructorship in MATH117: Calculus for Engineering. Alex became interested in learning about university teaching while pursuing his master’s degree at Memorial University where he completed a teaching development program for graduate students offered through the teaching and learning centre. The program piqued his interest in learning about university teaching and helped him to successfully manage his teaching responsibilities when he taught his first undergraduate course at Memorial as a master’s student.
Upon starting the PhD program at Waterloo, Alex heard about teaching certificate programs for graduate students offered by CTE and decided to continue learning about university teaching while working on his doctorate. After he successfully completed CTE’s Fundamentals of University Teaching program, he enrolled in the Certificate in University Teaching (CUT), a comprehensive teaching development program for PhD students who are interested in academic careers. Although some of the topics discussed in the program, such as learning-centred teaching approaches, were not new to Alex, he believes that the learning activities that participants are asked to undertake as part of the CUT, such as creating a teaching dossier, are helpful not only for immediate teaching responsibilities at Waterloo but also as a preparation for the academic job market.
When asked to reflect on his recent teaching experience as an instructor, Alex credits the improvements that he made in his teaching to the feedback that he received from two sources: CTE staff members who observed his classroom teaching as part of the CUT program and a faculty member in his department who observed his class as part of a departmental lecturing requirement for math PhD students. The feedback that Alex received from his observers and the discussions that took place after the classroom visits addressed different aspects of his teaching approach and gave him ideas for the upcoming classes, such as ways for effective presentation of material and increasing student participation during lectures in his class with more than 100 students. “Often you think that as an instructor, you are doing what you intend to do but then you get caught up in the flow of the lecture and lose sight of student learning. It’s nice to have someone come in, observe your class and discuss it with you,” says Alex.
Using the feedback from his observers, Alex worked hard to improve his lectures and to help his students do well in the course. He fine-tuned his questioning strategies, resisted the urge to give out answers and experimented with the use of a think-pair-share technique which offered his students opportunities to solve problems on their own before discussing them with pairs and eventually as a large class. He looked for ways to explain the material in a way that would allow him to reach students with different levels of knowledge. When he heard about the muddiest point technique at one of the CUT teaching workshops, he implemented it in his class to identify areas of material that students found difficult. Based on student feedback about the material that was not clear to them, he created summary sheets as a supplementary study tool for his students.
For the CUT research project which is intended to familiarize graduate students with the research on teaching and learning in higher education, Alex decided to examine the higher education literature on math anxiety. He felt that this is an important topic for math instructors and something he encountered frequently when working with undergraduate students who were comfortable with math as high school students but were struggling with the subject at the university level. According to Alex, reading the research on math anxiety helped him to understand the issue more effectively and prepared him for conversations with students on learning strategies and ways to cope with math anxiety.
Looking back at his experience in the CUT, Alex is convinced that the time that he devoted to developing his teaching knowledge and skills by completing the program was well worth it. “I took the program seriously and put a lot of effort into it. It helped me to improve my teaching skills and put me in a good position for future academic job applications. I would strongly recommend the program to PhD students, especially if they plan to teach at the university.”
Congratulations on the CUT Award, Alex!
Because I do research in philosophy, it might be confusing to some people why I talk about the hard sciences so much in relation to teaching. The reason is simple: philosophy is very abstract, and abstract things are not so easy to understand, thus I look to outside disciplines for strategies to concretize ideas. It turns out, of course, that philosophy has no monopoly on abstraction. Dorothy Gale (1999) shows that even elementary chemistry, that is, the kind of material covered in grade school, is abstract and “inexplicable without the use of analogies or models.” It is easy to assume that because a subject has to do with the natural world (for example) that it is de facto concrete, but this assumption is harmful to pedagogy.
Chemistry—like so many other things—is taught through dividing the world into hierarchical levels of abstraction: we establish the relationship between macro level phenomena like a glass of water, and the sub-micro level (H20) of that same phenomena. Simple, right? Well, as Gale notes in the aforementioned article, there are numerous obstacles to strengthening the understanding of each level and how they are interrelated. One obstacle is language choice. Many technical terms have different meanings when used in everyday communication, which can lead to a situation where a “student will be thinking one thing, the instructor another” (ibid.). Surely this situation is a nearly universal academic experience, a kind of growing pain for students and (hopefully) a wakeup call for instructors. Philosophers could be more self-aware that the term “realism” refers to a class of ideas that probably seem anything but realistic, and what counts as a valid argument in formal logic can look like a completely invalid argument from a common sense perspective. So, one thing we can all learn from Chemistry is to anticipate a struggle to “override” intuitive, non-technical definitions and concepts. From the privileged perspective of hindsight bias, these struggles might seem trivial, but they are not.
Perhaps the problem of technical language use is obvious, but what is likely less obvious is how we do—and how we should—use analogies in teaching. If Chemistry (taken here to be paradigmatic) is “inexplicable without the use of analogies or models” then we need to be very aware of the strengths and weaknesses of analogies. A convenient example is the Bohr “solar system” model of the atom. Because atomic particles are unobservable, they are much more difficult to conceptualize than dogs, trees, or even the components of cells which can at least be viewed through microscopes. But since planets are observable, a solar system is relatively easy to conceptualize. Drawing an analogy between a solar system and an atom (where the “star” is the nucleus and “orbiting planets” are electrons) allows for some visualization and a sort of functional template of understanding. This is extremely powerful! Unfortunately, sometimes these templates can cause misunderstandings. The Bohr model of the atom, despite its elegant simplicity, is not the best model. In fact, we now know it is misleading; yet for many the cognitive damage is already done and the inherent virtue of learning through connections will consequently be difficult to reverse. Thus we have a ubiquitous example of how analogies can help and hurt all at once; although we need them to teach and learn, we also need to learn how to teach with them carefully. While it is unlikely that many of us will be able to anticipate specific paradigm shifts, such as transition from classical mechanics to quantum mechanics, we need to at least anticipate that some paradigm shifts are likely on the horizon. Analogies and models are indispensable, but promoting a critical stance and stressing the limitations of our best knowledge-generating tools might be even more so.
Although the objects of analysis differ substantially from discipline to discipline, ultimately we all face the same difficulty: making the leap from unknown to known. For both the arts and sciences this leap is theoretical and requires special attention to methodology. Since our theoretic knowledge of, well, almost everything, is so dependent on analogy, we are impelled to reflect on how it factors into our teaching in order to use it to its full potential.
Gale, D. 1999. Improving Teaching and Learning through Chemistry Education Research: A Look to the Future. Journal of Chemical Education, 76(4).