Teaching & Learning Theories – Page 4 – Centre for Teaching Excellence Blog

Teaching Courses = Delivery + Design — Donna Ellis

Late last term, I designed and delivered a workshop with my CTE colleague Julie Timmermans regarding peer review of teaching (PRT). Julie and I have been guiding a learning community (LC) on PRT for the past year and a half with departmental administrators. One key question that has continued to plague our group is: how do you define “effective teaching” in your context? This would seem to be a straightforward question, and yet it’s not. It’s also a very critical question as departments consider what criteria they will use to provide feedback on and/or assess teaching. One way to approach the question that the LC group asked us to explore involved identifying key principles of learning and how they might intersect with and inform PRT practices.

It was a challenge to organize the results from multiple decades of research on human learning, and yet we knew this task was important to help inform the work of the group. In the end, we categorized the main principles into three dimensions:

Cognitive
Motivational
Social

The cognitive dimension includes theories about students’ prior knowledge – the need to link new learning to existing knowledge and find ways to identify and address misconceptions. It also includes theory regarding the differences between novice and expert learners, particularly how they organize information. Cognitive theories also focus on the necessity for students to acquire, practice, and apply learning (knowledge and skills) and the value of metacognition.

Motivation, in the context of learning, “influences the direction, intensity, persistence, and quality of the learning behaviors in which students engage” (Ambrose et al., 2010, p.69). Expectancy-value theory from motivation identifies learning as goal-oriented behavior that is influenced by the value of the goal for students and the expectancy of success. Finally, theories within the social dimension indicate that learning involves building knowledge by interacting with others – both teachers and peers – and benefits from positive, encouraging environments.

The workshop participants worked together to identify specific instructional strategies that could be used to implement these theoretical principles of learning as well as evidence that could be collected for PRT purposes. PRT practices often include a classroom observation component in which behaviours such as organization of material or ways to engage students in class are assessed. But one “a-ha moment” from this activity was that observing classroom instructional behaviours won’t provide a holistic picture of the effectiveness of an instructor’s teaching: teaching also involves course design decisions. For example, social learning may be assessed in class if small groups are used, but social learning may be implemented via group assignments outside of class. Reviewing the course materials related to that assignment would be the only feasible source of evidence about this form of learning. Similarly, reviewing the learning assessments used in a course would provide insights into whether students may perceive they could succeed. And reviewing the results of the students’ learning would provide information about the outcomes achieved as a result of the course delivery and design, in addition to students’ attributes and behaviours as learners.

Recognizing the role of course design fits clearly with the advice we provide in CTE about the amount of time a student should spend on a course: 3 hours in class and 5 to 7 outside of class. This out-of-class time typically involves student work that is directed by an instructor’s course design (e.g., assignments, readings).

This session left me with one key takeaway:

To truly review our peers’ teaching, we need to focus on more than what happens in classrooms – course design materials are critical sources of evidence of effective teaching as well.

If you or one of your colleagues wants to explore more about course design, the Teaching Excellence Academy may be a great next step. Contact your department Chair or School Director in mid-February to discuss being nominated. Let me know if you have any questions about this multi-day workshop or about the peer review of teaching.

Reference:

Ambrose, S.A., Bridges, M.W., DiPietro, M., Lovett, M.C., Norman, M.K. (2010). How learning works: Seven research-based principles for smart teaching. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Universal Design, Accessible Lectures, and Other Fun Buzz-Words — Michelle Ashburner, AccessAbility Services

I love the chalk-and-talk lecture in math. I have had the pleasure of teaching thousands of first-years, and with lots of questions, discussions, pauses, and well-formatted notes, the chalkboard lecture can go a long way. It forces students to attend lectures if they want notes directly from the instructor, allows for the presentation of dynamic visual and symbolic material, and most importantly allows for quick correction of mistakes.

Ever since I have been working with the AccessAbility Services office, I have met many students who have disabilities that interfere with their learning in the classroom environment. These students, most of whom have an above-average to superior IQ, have found wonderful ways of compensating. They have inspired me to work on making my lectures more user-friendly to persons with disabilities (Accessible Lectures), as well make my course more readily absorbed by students in general (Universal Design).

The most challenging thing to do here was with regards to testing. The main idea of creating an accessible assessment is to provide choice. In the humanities, for example, students might choose between a 40% exam, a 40% essay, or 20% split between the two. Perhaps in a history class a student could perform an exam orally while another could write a paper exam. Everyone has a preferred learning style and strength of expression, and for students with learning disabilities, being able to use this strength is of even more importance.

Well, what choice can one give with math exams? Traditionally the math midterm is a collection of questions on paper, and the possibility of an oral exam, or an essay in lieu of a problem-style written exam is out of the question. There aren’t enough resources to issue oral exams to 400 students, nor can we ensure that students understand mathematical reasoning and calculations if they are to write an essay composed entirely of text.

The exam that I gave this term was made with large font in LaTeX (which looks like 14-16pt when printed), lots of white space, and clear instructions for each question. After two common questions, the exam splits into a Part 1 and a Part 2, and students are instructed to complete one part or the other. Part 1 is mostly composed of word problems, while Part 2 is mostly composed of algorithmic problems. Part 1 does contain algorithmic, calculation-based material, and Part 2 does require students to create problem spaces and to translate wording into math; they are just presented differently.

Of 400 exams, about 230 students chose to do mostly word problems, while the rest chose the algorithmic thinker option. Keep in mind that deconstructing a word problem and going through the steps of solving takes time, so that there were more questions in Part 2 (yet the points per part were the same).

Students with a case of math anxiety (there are SO many in my classes!) can consider the algorithmic part as opposed to freezing when coming in contact with only word problems under a time constraint. They will continue to hone their word problem solving skills within the tutorial environment, where they may choose to work on a group assignment or on their own. Come the final exam, they will be more prepared for the word problems that await them.

In my experience, those who are verbally strong and are more comfortable learning the “soft” sciences tend to be more linear and algorithmic mathematics students, while those that are more comfortable going through an unpredictable journey with a math puzzle and have a more developed mathematical intuition tend to be less restricted to linear thinking. They could be characterized as “global,” or “intuitive” learners. Honestly, learning styles change and studies continue to bring light to the learning styles and strengths that tend to go together. All I have to go on is what I’ve learned from my students thus far.

It has helped me immensely to see the perspectives of my students at AccessAbility Services. When I present a word problem, I always read the text after having them read it on their own; I give breaks to process information; I try to have the learning as active as possible by prompting discussion, asking questions, and holding votes (we have very poor voter turnout in my classes. I am worried about the future of democracy). I have digitized note outlines posted on LEARN in 14 point font, which are optional to use, but require attendance to have a complete set. My tutorial assignment instruction sheets encourage any student with difficulty producing written solutions to contact me by email, phone, or in person to discuss alternatives. I allow technology in the classroom (a whole other discussion on its own!), and I try not to assume ability to see in colour.

I have enjoyed the challenge of making an accessible math course so far, and I am looking forward to updating you all when term is over. Your thoughts will make this venture more of a success. Contact me any time.

Designing assessments that curb academic dishonesty (and increase learning too!) – Jane Holbrook

I recently listened to a segment on the Current on CBC, about academic integrity and the effect of technology on cheating. The main guest was Dr Julia Christensen Hughes, Dean of the College of Management and Economics at the University of Guelph, who talked about the findings of some of the research that she has conducted on Canadian university students. A whopping 80% of Canadian university students admit to having cheated. They admit to at least one of over 30 behaviours that are considered cheating at university ranging from outright cheating on exams, to plagiarism, to working in groups when specifically asked to work individually on an assignment. Interestingly this isn’t a new problem. American studies in the ‘60s found that 75% of students admitted to cheating in college. And it’s not a new behavior for students when they get to the post-secondary environment. In one recent Canadian study 60% of high school students admitted to cheating on tests, and 75% to cheating on written work that is handed in. Although technology provides more ways for students to cheat (buying “internet” papers, using online paper mills and just good old cut and paste from internet sites) it hasn’t impacted the overall rate of cheating. Technology has however increased instructors’ ability to detect plagiarism thanks to online services such as Turnitin that use huge data bases of accumulated student work, web pages and online journals to compare submitted work to common sources.

What interested me most from the conversation with Dr Christensen Hughes was her finding that students were less likely to cheat if they respected the instructor, if they felt that the quality of the education that they were receiving was high and if the instructor was using assessments that were truly assessing the skills and knowledge that students were learning in the course. This last point dovetails nicely with a book that I have just been reading, “Cheating Lessons – Learning from Academic Dishonesty” by James M. Lang. Lang discusses how the ways that we teach and assess can impact student’s academic integrity and how instructors can design assessments that reduce academic dishonesty and also create better learning.

Lang proposes that students are more likely to cheat if:

there is low intrinsic motivation to actually learn what they are being assessed on;
there is an emphasis on one-time performance rather than continuous improvement towards mastery;
the stakes are high on a single assessment;
they have a low expectation of success.

So what can an instructor do to decrease cheating and increase learning?

When students are intrinsically motivated, find the subject matter meaningful and can connect it to their own lives, they will learn more and retain their learning. Students driven by extrinsic rewards, such as grades, use strategic or shallow approaches to learning and will have more motivation to cheat. Posing authentic, open-ended questions to students or challenging them with problems or areas of investigation of their own choice can give students the opportunity to demonstrate their knowledge and reflect on what they have learned. Learning portfolios that include journal entries, short essays, and reflections can assess the student learning experience and understanding of concepts (and are darn hard to cheat on).

Learning for mastery (a deep approach to learning) rather than one time performance can be encouraged and assessed. Giving students multiple attempts on assessments or offering students choices on how they will be assessed can promote a mastery approach. These tests can also provide students with feedback so that they can learn from the assessment and then apply their learning again to show mastery. Scaffolded assignments or essays, where drafts and reworked versions are submitted for feedback, can provide evidence of learning and are not likely to be purchased in the internet.

There is evidence that repeated low stakes assessments have the largest impact on learning and retention of learning, particularly if the testing is in the format of short answer questions. Known as the “testing effect” it can be achieved through the use of short online quizzes or one-minute papers. Creating opportunities for students to retrieve knowledge and rehearse answering questions not only measures learning, but also produces learning (Miller, 2011). Lang discusses how taking the emphasis off a one big, high stakes assessment and introducing multiple low stakes assessments helps students rehearse for more substantial assessments and actually reduces cheating.

When students feel that they have no chance of success they are more likely to give up rather than attempting to master concepts, and they may look for alternative, dishonest ways to pass tests. Lang argues that helping students be aware of their level of understanding throughout a course will help them gauge how much work they need to do to be successful on major assessments. Activities like think-pair-share, clicker questions and other in-class activities or formative assessments help instil self-efficacy, and help students identify what they need to do to become capable rather than relying on cheating.

All sounds like more work for the instructor, yes, but with two great results – better learning and less cheating and presumably less time spent following up on academic integrity cases as well.

Lang, J.M. 2013. Cheating Lessons: Learning from Academic Dishonesty. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass, USA.

Miller, M. 2011. What College Teachers Should Know About Memory: A Perspective from Cognitive Psychology. College Teaching, 59:117-122.

Contemplating Quality + Teaching at Waterloo – Donna Ellis

Over the last few months, I have been working on a multi-institutional project on identifying indicators of an institutional culture that fosters “quality teaching”. One report that our group has been reviewing comes from the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development’s Institutional Management in Higher Education group. Published in 2012, the report entitled Fostering Quality Teaching in Higher Education: Policies and Practices outlines seven policy levers that institutional leaders can use to foster teaching quality. The levers provide reasonable actions to take: raising awareness of quality teaching, developing excellent teachers, engaging students, building organization for change and teaching leadership, aligning institutional policies to foster quality teaching, highlighting innovation as a driver for change, and assessing impacts. But what constitutes “quality teaching”?

At its most basic level, the authors indicate that “quality teaching is the use of pedagogical techniques to produce learning outcomes for students” (p.7). More specifically, they explain that quality teaching includes “effective design of curriculum and course content, a variety of learning contexts (including guided independent study, project-based learning, collaborative learning, experimentation, etc.), soliciting and using feedback, and effective assessment of learning outcomes. It also involves well-adapted learning environments and student support services” (p.7). These definitions focus on student learning, the honing of instructional and critical reflection skills by teachers, and the need for institutional infrastructure to support learning. What they do not focus on is the adoption of any particular pedagogical method nor the specifics of an instructor’s performance in a classroom (think about what course evaluations tend to highlight…).

The authors also identify the need to ground any efforts to shift the quality of teaching – or the culture in which teaching happens – within a collaboratively developed institutional teaching and learning framework. This framework should reflect the identity and differentiating features of an institution and define the “objectives of teaching and expected learning outcomes for students” (p.14). At uWaterloo, we have endorsed the degree level expectations (undergraduate and graduate) as the benchmarks for program level outcomes. But we do not yet have a succinct statement about our goals regarding quality teaching.

Our newly released institutional strategic plan asserts that one way we will offer leading-edge, dynamic academic programs is by “increasing the value of teaching quality and adopting a teaching-learning charter that captures Waterloo’s commitment to teaching and learning” (p.11, emphases mine). I wrote about another institution’s teaching and learning charter in the September 2012 issue of CTE’s Teaching Matters newsletter. What will our charter entail? What do we value about teaching and learning? What kind of institutional culture do we want to promote with regard to teaching quality at Waterloo? These aren’t small questions, but they’re very exciting ones to contemplate.

Doing is Believing – Carsen Banister

Traditional lectures often consist of an instructor showing students a theory or skill. This habit is a relic of old times, originating in an era void of printing presses. Gutenberg invented the printing press in the 15th century, revolutionizing the distribution of information. Since students no longer have to write their own copy of a textbook through dictation, instructors should not merely be providing students with information. Instructors should instead focus on engaging students and involving them in their lessons.

Participatory and experiential learning have been used for quite some time, and many instructors use these teaching methods in their courses. The focus shifts away from the instructor and towards the learners, creating an environment which emphasizes the acquisition of skills and knowledge. In courses centered on problem solving, it is quite practical to allow students to work with their peers and receive guidance from the instructor. This is the shift that I have been making in courses that I serve as a Teaching Assistant (TA).

Over the past few years, Prof. Michael Collins, myself, and other TAs have restructured Tutorials in an Engineering Thermodynamics course by adding interactivity and peer-guided instruction. Rather than solving example problems for the students, the TA guides students through a problem, allowing them time to work independently or with their peers. Solution methods are discussed at various points during the process, with input provided by students. The instructor is able to add details or reinforce key ideas along the way.

It is true that moving away from ‘traditional’ Lectures and Tutorials requires careful planning and does consume more class time. Rather than bombarding students with 2 or 3 examples during a Tutorial, only 1 or 2 examples are presented for experiential learning in the example course discussed above. The remaining examples are offered as a take-home assignment, where students can practice the material in a more independent environment. To supplement the interactivity further, many in-class demonstrations are used in the Tutorials to reinforce key concepts.

In engineering, the focus is often on teaching problem solving strategy. This can lead to students memorizing solution techniques without understanding the key underlying theories and concepts. A teaching methodology that focuses attention on the important theories and concepts and allowing students to develop their own problem solving strategies has the potential to instill a higher level of education.

Introvert vs Extrovert: Classroom Edition – Victoria Faraci

Recently, I’ve been plagued with thoughts about introverts and extroverts. It is a common belief that everyone fits neatly into only one of these two categories: you’re shy or you’re loud, you speak or you don’t. However, excessive thought on the issue makes me feel like maybe that line isn’t so clear. Maybe it’s a bit blurred.

A couple of years ago, a professor recommended that I read a book called Please Understand Me, by David Keirsey. He said that until he read this book, some time in his 40s, he hated himself and couldn’t understand his wife. So, naturally, I went out and bought the book. The thing is, though, I skipped the 70-question quiz at the beginning and instead, I combed through potential types of people until I read one profile that sounded just like me: ‘the counselor.’ This passage described me so well that it felt like I was reading my own biography. The passage even predicted what degree I was likely to get.

Here is where it gets tricky, though. As I skimmed other potential types of people, I read a not-so-hopeful profile. In fact, it was kind of a sad one. When I looked at the breakdown of categories that made this type, I realized that this could have been me. The only thing making me ‘the counselor’ was the fact that I self-identified as an introvert. This poor person, ‘the healer,’ was an extrovert. Now, I’ll never take the quiz.

After this, I stumbled upon a blog posting about ‘how to deal with an introvert.’ It basically said to leave them alone and let them be in their own bubble where they could recharge in peace. I suppose that is easily done, but what about when you work with a group of people? In terms of teaching, what are poor introverts to do when they are charged with the task of instructing a course?

My experience with in-class teaching was short-lived, but it was a challenge. People said it was a ‘confidence thing’, but that wasn’t it. I often wondered how I, a poor introvert, was even given the task of leading an in class tutorial while some of my peers got online courses. Something remarkable happened, though. I did it. Every week after my tutorial ended, I was always in a state of mental exhaustion. For those couple of hours, it was exhausting to pretend that I was wholeheartedly an extrovert.

I realized that this forceful categorization of one or the other isn’t right. Maybe, just maybe, we can be both.

I think that everyone has the ability to be both an introvert and an extrovert, especially as a teacher, you have to be able to operate in both realms. You need to rise to the occasion while you are instructing your class, but you also need to possess the ability to experience long bouts of solitude while you grade, read, and prepare. I guess what I am trying to say is that it’s okay to be shy, and it is equally as okay to be loud, but one is always going to feel more comfortable than the other.

If you buy this book, which I highly recommend that you do, will you take the quiz? Do you want to know who you really are, or are you content with just being…you?

This is Real Life – Katherine Lithgow

“For the things we have to learn before we can do them, we learn by doing them” –Aristotle

We know that students learn best when learning is personally meaningful and when they are able to use knowledge and concepts to solve real-world, complex problems. They retain that knowledge longer when they learn-by-doing. Authentic learning experiences have the following ten design elements (Lombardi, 2007)

Real-world relevance
Ill-defined problem
Sustained investigation
Multiple sources and perspectives
Collaboration
Reflection (metacognition)
Interdisciplinary perspective
Integrated assessment
Polished products
Multiple interpretations and outcomes

Authentic learning experiences are effective because they help learners make connections between new concepts and existing knowledge structures. When learners can see how new knowledge is personally meaningful, they are better able to retain and assimilate that knowledge into their existing knowledge structures. Working with the concepts regularly and repeatedly in different contexts with others helps with retention and understanding. Including a cycle of reflection on action gives students the time and space they need to consider why they acted as they did, consider the group dynamics and begin to develop the habit of questioning their actions and ideas to help inform future action. Finally, authentic learning experiences help students connect the concepts to the ‘big picture’ which includes the richness of the social setting- the people, the environment, and the activity. This helps the learner explore the concepts in different contexts.

Qualtars (2010) contends that “experiential education needs to be viewed as a unique form of pedagogy involving deep reflection, collaboration and assessment” (p.95). There are a number of courses on campus that offer authentic learning experiences; some of these have been presented at the Integrative and Experiential Learning Series. Examples include the following. Students in Knowledge Integration complete an undergraduate senior research project and present their findings at a poster session- (See the abstracts for the 2013 class projects). Mary Louise McAllister (Environment) offers an integrative, blended course which combines lectures with field trips, peer teaching and tutorial–based project work. The students present their qualitative research findings in a multi-media journal format. Troy Glover (Rec & Leisure Studies) offers a course on program management where students work with a community partner to offer a program. During the course, the students work in small groups with the community partner to conduct a needs assessment and design, implement and evaluate a program. The course is designed so that the students have a number of opportunities to reflect on the experience. In addition, the students participate in a weekend retreat which serves as a team building exercise as well as providing them with a program to critique and use to inform their own program planning. Students in Kelly Anthony’s (SPHHS) course can opt to work on a project with a community partner rather than complete traditional forms of assessment. These students enrich the class readings and discussions by sharing their experiences with their classmates throughout the term.

Initially, students may experience frustration as they deal with the ill-defined problems but they are motivated to carry on because the activity connects the course to the ‘big picture’. Participating in an authentic learning experience helps students relate to the concepts and processes on a personal level and better appreciate nuances that cannot be adequately captured by reading or listening to a lecture. They begin to immerse themselves in the practices of the discipline- both the social structures and the culture of the discipline; they begin to envision themselves as members of the discipline’s community.

There are challenges associated with implementing authentic learning experiences. Risk-taking for both the learner and the instructor is involved; as with any real-life ill-defined problem, neither the student nor the instructor can accurately predict how the experience will unfold. Authentic learning is a collaborative effort. Taking the time to develop teams…well it takes time, effort and requires support. But, the advantage of placing such an experience in an early course is that students can use these skills in later courses as well as outside the academic environment. And it helps students get to know people in their class and program.

Qualtars ( 2010) raises a point worth considering- “unless experiences outside the classroom are brought into the classroom and integrated with the goals and objectives of the discipline theory, students will continue to have amazing outside experiences but will not readily connect them to their in-class learning….Without a careful curriculum involving structured, reflective skill building, students may never learn what we hope they will outside the four walls of the classroom” (p. 95-96). This raises a number of questions and challenges – How can we ensure that students have the opportunity to experience authentic learning at least once during their time at university? What kind of support structures have to be in place to support authentic learning experiences?
How can these courses be identified so students can take advantage of the opportunity? [Some university websites provide a list of courses that offer experiential learning components. These can be further categorized according to faculty or department. See for example:
o Elon University , Kent State, DePaul University Catalogue
o Simon Fraser University – a place where students can find the curricular and co-curricular EE opportunities

If we agree that authentic learning is beneficial to students, is it worth leaving to chance?

Resources:

Qualtars, D.M. (2010). Making the most of learning outside the classroom. In D.M. Qualtars, (Ed), Experiential Education: Making the Most of Learning Outside the Classroom. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, Number 124, (pp. 95-99). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. ISBN: 978-0-470-94505-6.