Publishing SoTL Work in Unusual Places – Jane Holbrook

Although it’s tempting to blog about the Royal Wedding this morning (yes, I did get up and rush down the street to watch the event with a group of “girls” , young and old), I’m instead going to carry out  some advice from the recent Opportunities and New Directions Conference, which was to share our research in unusual ways – this is pretty unusual for me  so here goes ….

I displayed my poster “What drives students’ preferences for face-to-face, online or blended courses?” at this event on Wednesday and had some good conversations with other participants. The poster describes some student feedback that was gathered through an end of term questionnaire that I was using to help instructors evaluate activities in five blended courses last fall. The students who responded to the questionnaire were all on campus, fulltime students in Soc 101, Earth 235, Psych 340, Cive 292 and Enve 292. The students were primarily Arts, Science and Engineering students in 1st, 2nd and  3rd year, aged 23 and under.  They were asked to choose which type of course they preferred: face-to-face courses with no online activities; fully online courses with no face-to-face activities; courses that have both online and face-to-face activities; or if their preference depends on the discipline of the course being taken; or on the level of the course being taken. They were asked to explain their choice.

The responses fell into three main categories with about 36% choosing courses that have both online and face-to-face activities, 32% choosing that their preference depends on the discipline of the course being taken and 26% choosing face-to-face courses with no online activities, (n=298). What were their reasons for these choices and what can we learn from their responses?

Those who chose courses with both online and face-to-face activities focussed on the usefulness of the online tools and the flexibility of time and pace of learning (including repeatability of online lectures) and how this has a positive impact on their learning. Half of them articulated how both environments contribute to their learning in some way, but the face-to-face environment was singled out as the preferred environment for asking questions because the answers are immediate.

Those whose preference was dependent on the discipline of the course being taken commented that they prefer face-to-face courses in their own discipline, but that online elements or online courses are useful in disciplines other than their own. Fifty percent commented that they prefer to learn mathematics in a face-to-face environment. A few respondents said that difficult concepts in their own field were better learned online through simulations.

The face-to-face course advocates communicated that, for them, the instructor’s presence in the classroom is important and they want to be in the classroom while the instructor presents concepts and solves problems, answers their questions, emphasises important concepts and communicates information about assessments. They believe that being with the instructor increases their understanding and retention of concepts. They also appreciate the ease of social interactions and communication with the instructor and peers in the classroom. Their comments clearly conveyed that asking questions and getting answers quickly is key for them. Another common theme was that these students perceive that the online environment has a negative impact on their motivation to learn and on their attention span.

This is by no means  a “rigorous” research project,  it’s more of a fishing expedition for next questions. This feedback could be the springboard for formulating interesting research questions. For instance, what is the optimal mix of face-to-face, blended and fully online courses in undergraduate programs? Which courses in a program might be most effectively developed as blended or fully online courses? How can we help students develop online learning skills;  skills they will surely need during co-op terms, in graduate school, or for life-long learning in their professional and private  lives?  What are the most effective ways to design online and blended courses that provide the modelling of conceptual thinking and problem solving for students who are at the “dualistic thinking” stage of development? How do synchronous question and answer opportunities, both in the face-to-face classroom and online, impact learning?  What are the perceived barriers to learning Math online;  do we need to design online math-based courses differently?

Some would argue that students don’t know “what’s good for them” or what’s best for their learning,  but I think that we do need to understand their perceptions of the strengths and weaknesses of different learning environments and to use this information to improve learning designs and help them become effective and engaged learners in a variety of learning environments.

_______________________________________________

The Centre for Teaching Excellence welcomes contributions to its blog. If you are a faculty member, staff member, or student at the University of Waterloo (or beyond!) and would like contribute a posting about some aspect of teaching or learning, please contact Mark Morton or Trevor Holmes.

Musings on feedback — Gina Passante

 

As a Graduate Instructional Developer at the CTE I spend a lot of my time observing graduate students teaching and providing them with feedback.  I have also recently set up a peer feedback system for research presentations at the Institute for Quantum Computing (where I do my graduate work).  Needless to say, I’ve been giving other people feedback on their teaching quite a lot recently.  But the other day I was the one receiving feedback on my research presentation.  I was nervous, and quite surprised by it.  I’m confident about my presentation abilities, and I know very well that feedback is constructive, and that everyone can improve, but none of this seemed to matter.  It reminded me of how terrible I feel when I get bad student evaluations (even one bad comment out of 100 students is enough to temporarily crush my spirits).

Now, I can understand why student evaluations are often upsetting (many students don’t know how to give constructive feedback, they sometimes pick on aspects of your personality, …), but why was I so scared to receive constructive feedback from my peers?  Indeed, this fear was completely unfounded as the feedback I received was not the least bit scary – but the fear reminded me of something very important: many people get very defensive when they receive constructive criticism.   For example, my mom gets defensive when I suggest a different ingredient into a familiar recipe, as does my partner when I suggest he drive a little further from the car in front of us, and it happens every once and a while when I give feedback on teaching or a presentation or an assignment.  I know that there are things I can do to help prevent this response from my end, and as luck would have it, a few days after these thoughts crossed my mind, a helpful post was written on the Faculty Focus blog on how to give students better feedback.  Although the post written with grading assignments in mind, the advice can be applied in a much broader context.  I suggest you take a look: http://www.facultyfocus.com/articles/teaching-professor-blog/giving-students-more-effective-feedback/)

__________

The Centre for Teaching Excellence welcomes contributions to its blog. If you are a faculty member, staff member, or student at the University of Waterloo (or beyond!) and would like contribute a posting about some aspect of teaching or learning, please contact Mark Morton or Trevor Holmes.

Maryellen Weimer at 2011 Presidents’ Colloquium – Trevor Holmes

Annually, Waterloo’s two presidents (the President, and the Faculty Association President) host a special guest on campus to talk about teaching and learning. These guests are recognized specialists in some branch or another of higher education. This year we are honoured to hear from Maryellen Weimer, whom I’ve hosted in other settings and with whom I’ve been lucky enough to spend time at teaching conferences. Dr. Weimer is the long-time editor of the Teaching Professor Newsletter, and has also published books about pedagogical scholarship, learner-centered teaching, and techniques for instructional improvement. She manages both to be generously humane and caustically funny (sometimes in the same breath). Last time we spoke, I recall a debate erupting about why she rejected the “Scholarship of Teaching and Learning” (SoTL) label in favour of “pedagogical scholarship”; and yet she has been invited to speak at a SoTL conference about SoTL work. I’ll be very curious to hear how she frames this more defined field of study now that its name and practices have become somewhat more solidified by way of journals, professional organisations, and books.

Can Scholarly Work on Teaching and Learning Actually Improve my Teaching?
Presidents’ Colloquium: Opening Keynote: Dr. Maryellen Weimer

“Books, journals, and articles on teaching and learning date back to the early 1900s – some even before that. All these materials have one thing in common: few educators read them. What can be learned from this literature? Is research a useful resource faculty need for self-improvement as teachers? Are fellow teachers the ones best suited to research and write about teaching and learning? How is this pedagogical scholarship alike and different from discipline-based research? In this keynote, Maryellen Weimer explores answers to these questions. Whether engaging in a thoughtful reflection of classroom experience or an empirical endeavour that answers a pragmatic question, post-secondary teachers can use the scholarship of colleagues not only to enlarge their understanding of teaching and learning, but also to increase their effectiveness in the classroom. Illustrative examples will offer a range of new ideas, interesting findings, and provocative points to consider.”

Please join us for the Presidents’ Colloquium April 27 2011 in Hagey Hall 1101 (the new wing of Hagey). No registration required for this special keynote event (a free and open part of the longer Opportunities and New Directions Conference, for which registration is required — we can still take a few more people for OND if you are interested!).

Routledge Education Journals Free for April… – – Trevor Holmes

Great news for those who are intrigued by the idea of academic journals on teaching and learning in higher education: for the entire month of April, Taylor and Francis has made available for free all its Routledge holdings related to education.

Although you will of course find journals listed that are aimed at early years, elementary, and secondary education, there are also journals related to higher education on the list. Some journals will be discipline-specific; others, generic.

The text from their email alert::

“EDUCATION FREE FOR ALL… Free online access to 228 education research journals!”

“Routledge is delighted to announce that free online access is available NOW through Education Free for All. Throughout April 2011, Education Free For All gives you free access to all our top quality education research journals. This includes content from the entire archive of each journal, as well as the most recent articles.”

see www.educationarena.com/effa

 

______________________________________

The Centre for Teaching Excellence welcomes contributions to its blog. If you are a faculty member, staff member, or student at the University of Waterloo (or beyond!) and would like contribute a posting about some aspect of teaching or learning, please contact Mark Morton or Trevor Holmes.

Peter Jensen: Igniting the Third Factor — Shirley Hall

When I was asked yesterday to write something for today’s blog, thoughts rushed through my mind, the first being ” Oh my gosh, what will I write about? The second – it needs to be something, profound – worldly even. The third thought was – yikes!  I can’t do it, and I have no time. Then, fear set in.All these thoughts raced by in a few seconds as I was checking my email between sessions of the OHD Staff Conference yesterday. It simultaneously occurred to me that I could simply write about my experience of attending the conference. Great! I was in a hurry to get back and hear the next speaker. But why?  Why was I in such a hurry

Well, I wanted to hear the second speaker simply because the first speaker had been so inspiring. I love learning, love listening to people speak and share about their passions. For an hour I was able to be the student with Peter Jensen, my teacher.  What inspired me about Peter Jensen’s talk? So much, and there is not enough space for many details here, so I encourage you to find out a bit more. Talk to someone who attended his talk. Or read his book, Igniting the Third Factor. (I won’t spoil it for those of you who did not have the chance to hear his lecture – I will let you find out for yourself what that “third factor” is).  In brief, he described “Igniters” as those who take on the fulfilling mandate of making others better.

What I found memorable is the way in which Peter spoke, his approach.  He spoke of people, events, life. I could relate to the stories he shared, how people felt, and therefore, I was engaged.  He spoke of the importance of getting to know yourself, becoming self- aware, to take time to learn about your limiting beliefs, (our “blocks”) and to learn to exercise self-control.  Then, take conscious action to manage yourself, understand your impact on others – (to borrow one of his many quotes “Manage yourself so others won’t have to. – John Wooden).

As he spoke, the distance between where I sat and where he stood on the stage began to shrink.  His talk became comfortable. Like sharing stories over coffee. He spoke of himself, (we got to know him as a person, just recovering from cancer) of famous people, events and situations, in a profoundly moving and meaningful way. He shared the emotional journey of how to work through adversity, and embrace it. Make it your best teacher. He spoke about how people felt (himself included) when faced with challenges. I can identify with that. I do not know what it is like to be an Olympic athlete, preparing for the Olympic Games, but I do know what it FEELS like when I think I have failed in some way, (usually  to meet my own expectations of myself).  I could relate to and identify with the feelings of those athletes, and therein was the connection, once again. The one common denominator was the shared human experience.

I will take the ideas that Peter spoke about and do my best to apply them to my life; in the classroom, with co-workers, family and friends. Peter‘s talk has inspired me to imagine more, play more, dream more. I am going to my best to “become an agent of conscious choice” around my own personal development. I hope in some small way I might inspire others to do the same.

As Peter showed us… in the end, all you have left is the person – Doug Leigh.


www.peterjensen.ca

______________________________________

The Centre for Teaching Excellence welcomes contributions to its blog. If you are a faculty member, staff member, or student at the University of Waterloo (or beyond!) and would like contribute a posting about some aspect of teaching or learning, please contact Mark Morton or Trevor Holmes.