Teaching Strategies – Page 10 – Centre for Teaching Excellence Blog

Safely Exploring Unsettling Questions — Julie Timmermans

Photo by Wink, Creative Commons, flickr.com

Last month, I attended a conference on the theory and practice of adult development. The conference left me feeling profoundly unsettled and yet, inspired, in a way that no other conference ever has. I see this state of “unsettledness” in a positive way. Organisms need something to disturb their current state of balance in order to grow. For humans, this kind of disturbance of our current ways of knowing and being can lead us to new, more expansive, ways of understanding and being in the world.I’d like to share some of the questions and ideas I found unsettling during conference, as I think they may be of value as we design learning experiences for students and for ourselves – experiences that may be unsettling, but that may ultimately lead to growth.

• What are the big questions in our field?
• Are there deeper levels to the questions we’re asking?
• What does the theory not explain?
• What is the larger stage for the work of our field?
• Is there a deeper purpose behind this work?
• Imagine the best society. What would it look like? What am I doing (through my work) to contribute to this vision?

At the conference, we were invited to explore these questions. To fully engage in exploring them, both individually and collectively, required a certain amount of courage. Yet, rather than leaving each day of the three-day gathering feeling disheartened or disillusioned in the face of these rather unsettling ideas, participants appeared to feel uplifted and hopeful. And this is where the very intentional design of the learning environment seemed to play a crucial role. The conference hosts designed a program that accomplished two goals: it invited people not only to share knowledge, but it also provided a safe environment in which to explore the frontiers of our knowing – that is, our not knowing. This reminded me of the powerful potential of course design to create learning spaces that fill us up, shake us up, lift us up, and ask us to make connections to the world beyond the classroom.

Acknowledging Cultural Variation during Classroom Participation- Karly Neath

In 2012, 32% of graduate students and 11% of undergraduate students enrolled at the University of Waterloo were international students, representing a broad range of cultural and educational backgrounds. This cultural diversity has tremendous pedagogical potential, but it also poses challenges to our ever growing emphasis on classroom participation. As we begin a new academic year with thousands of new students it is important to remind ourselves of these challenges and work to overcome them.

Students’ actions in the classroom may be based on different cultural understandings of what constitutes appropriate student and instructor behaviour. When a student is quiet during a discussion, for example, they are not necessarily unprepared or bored; they may simply be behaving according to their own culture’s standards of classroom etiquette.

Most North American (N.A) students have had experience with class discussions in high school. Thus, they are at least familiar with the discussion conventions (e.g., small group work, expectations for preparation and participation) that they will encounter in the university classroom. Here in N.A, discussion classes, labs, and projects are valued as important parts of the learning process along with lectures instructor (e.g., Brookfield, 1999).

However, in many cultures, lectures are the sole mode of instruction. Thus, some international students may not see the benefit of discussions or group work, believing that they cannot learn anything substantive from their peers. Additionally, the students may not have learned the skills necessary for participating in group-work or discussions, and may only feel comfortable participating when they can answer questions the instructor has posed. The challenge here is that instructors may assume that these students are not interested or have not done the assigned reading.

Another challenge is that the unwritten rules for discussion may be different. For example, in one culture, it might be acceptable to interrupt or talk more loudly to gain control during a discussion; in another, it may be considered polite to allow short silence; in another, students might expect to be called upon before offering their opinion. Consequently, international students may find the N.A conventions of discussion frustrating and may be viewed as too shy or rude.

Perhaps instructors simply need to be more aware of cultural differences and sympathetic to the challenges that students face in adjusting to them. However, this does not require them to lower their standards or apply a different set of performance criteria for international students. Consider the following simple pedagogical practices:

Make expectations explicit– Explain why you think discussions are valuable, how they will be evaluated, and ground-rules.

Model the kinds of work you want your students to do– For example, have students observe two faculty members engage in an animated debate.
Represent the material you are teaching in multiple ways.
Give students ample opportunities to practice applying the knowledge and skills you want them to acquire – For example, ask students to discuss a design, case study, or experiment in small groups (without being assigned a grade).
Provide varied opportunities interaction– For example, encourage students to email you with ideas and questions. Also, monitor student groups to correct misconceptions and encourage everyone to be involved.

While this may post may seem very “common sense” I believe it is important to constantly remind ourselves of the cultural diversity within our university and to help make the transition into our classrooms smooth by using these simple tips.

‘Gimmicks’ in the Classroom – Maxwell Hartt

Everyone has sat through boring lectures or classes. Whether it was during grade school, high school, undergrad or beyond, we have all been in one of these head-nodding situations. In fact, many of us have probably experienced far too many of these at all the levels of our education. Do ‘serious’, ‘intellectual’ lectures need to be inherently boring? Or is there room for creativity? Absurdity? Or a little pizzazz?

I believe that most students and teachers can all recognize the value in an exciting, memorable lecture. And hopefully, we have all experienced some of these at one time or another. So let me take the question one step further, is it right for students to feel that they should be entertained? Considering the high cost of post-secondary education, is it fair for students to expect a show along with academic rigor? At what point do classroom creative approaches become nothing more than antics? And is there room in respectable, effective teaching for such gimmicks?

To be perfectly honest, there is no definitive answer to these questions. As with many aspects of teaching, different people believe in different approaches. For the most ‘traditional’ educators, there is absolutely no room for such shenanigans. School and universities exist for the exchange of knowledge, not for entertainment. Games, costumes, videos and the like are merely distractions that take away from serious academic work. Adults should not need anything more than the quest for knowledge as motivation. Catering to child-like methods of engagement and learning are ultimately holding back the students from educational maturation.

On the other hand, why not embrace exciting, creative teaching and lecturing methods? Excitement and surprise can be extremely effected ways to engage students and build student participation. If the content can be delivered in an unexpected, upbeat or emotional way that will engage students and create a positive, electric learning atmosphere, then shouldn’t this approach be taken whenever possible? The students are paying to learn and if this best peaks their interest, why not embrace it?

University teaching has seen a shift towards participatory and creative teaching styles. Much research has been done to document the positive outcomes of such approaches. That isn’t to say there is no longer a place for traditional lecturing. Above all, the method must suit the material, the environment, the lecturer and the students. However, in general, it can be said that integrating creative approaches into lectures is a fantastic way to engage students as long as all aspects remain relevant to the lecture content.

This brings me to my last question, are gimmicks (something done to make lecture more exciting or captivating but does not necessarily emphasize course content or learning objectives) of use in the classroom as a teaching method? Some argue that these distractions take away from the material and are often, unfortunately, the memorable part of the lecture while the real content goes forgotten. Alternatively, excitement and classroom gimmicks can help energize the classroom and raise both participation and attendance.

I, personally, feel that when appropriate classroom gimmicks can be useful. However, it is imperative that the lecturer be aware of its role and does not accidentally overshadow the course material. Also, whenever possible all aspect of creating memorable lectures should stay relevant to the lecture content. Use the creative approaches to excite and drive home the learning objectives.

That being said, if attendance is low, lectures delivered dressed as a clown to a full room will be more effective then those dressed professionally to an empty one.

How Co-op Changed My Perspective on Teaching – Haley Roberts

Since high school, teachers have warned me about university. They would tell me that when I get to university, no one will come to class with copies of the lecture notes for me, and they will just talk at me for an hour. Coming out of my first year of university, I would have to agree. They may not have stood at the front of the room just talking for an hour, but they made up for it in other ways. For the majority of my first eight months in university, I found myself sitting in a math class writing down numbers and symbols as quickly as I could until my hand hurt.Some professors stood with their back to the class and wrote the entire time, and some brought overhead slides jam-packed with writing. I found myself more focused on writing down what was on the board and the solution to that really hard assignment question than listening to what the professors were saying while they wrote. Eventually, I came to accept that I would spend the next four years perfecting my note taking skills rather than my math.

What I didn’t expect was what I would come to learn about teaching in my co-op work term. I have had the wonderful opportunity to spend four months with the Centre for Teaching Excellence (CTE). Being with this department, I have not only learned things about the working life, but about university teaching. Each and every person at CTE has a passion for teaching and learning and they help faculty at the University of Waterloo explore alternatives to talking at their students for 50 minutes. I quickly learned that teaching is not standing in front of people, memorizing some facts and regurgitating them back. Teaching is helping people understand the who’s, the what’s, the why’s and the how’s. Teaching is definitely not one dimensional and it can happen in thousands of forms. From flipped classrooms and experiential learning to creating memorable lectures and classroom delivery skills, CTE is providing graduate students, faculty, and staff with workshops to help improve their teaching and their students’ learning.

After four months of watching in awe at how classes can be, I find myself wondering how I can avoid being talked at during the next term. Don’t get me wrong though, I did learn a lot of math, and not every class can be changed for the better, but every once in a while, it would be nice to try something new.

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.

D.I.Y. Exam Questions as a Tool for Deep Learning

I couldn’t think of anything other than the OND conference presentations for my blog posting today. It was extremely hard for me to choose which presentation to talk about, but because of my Engineering background I decided to talk about an Engineering presentation that captured my attention.
The presentation was by Andrea Prier, Bill Owen, David Wang, Paula Smith, and Mary Robinson. The presenters focused on a process that they used in their courses (three first year courses and one graduate course) to encourage their students to think more deeply about the material they are learning.
They started their process by demonstrating to the students how their level of learning influences their motivation to learn the material, their retention of the information, and ultimately, their mastery of the course material. They designed a set of assignments in which the students were asked to create their own DIY test questions. This allowed the students find a deeper level of understanding of the content.
The DIY assignments were composed of the following steps:

Identify 5 different concepts from one of your courses.
Choose an example problem from each of the different areas.
Manipulate your problems so that you are solving for a different variable.
Solve your problems.
Trade with a peer and critique / solve the peers problems.
Create 20 questions for a ‘practice final’.
Submit the problems for review by course instructors.
Write your DIY practice final; Mark your own work!
Write your Final Exam; it May include specific questions you created.

By the end of the term, the instructors found that the students were more comfortable working with the course concepts, more engaged with the course material and created some interesting questions. Furthermore, the students’ comments indicated that the majority enjoyed the ability to create these questions; however, the instructors needed to edit some of the created questions.
The most valuable outcomes from the presenters’ perspective were increased success rate of the students and the increase in student motivation to work with the course material. They felt that, since the students valued what they were doing and believed in their ability to do well in the course.
Finally, I would like to thank the presenters for a very useful presentation and would advise myself and other instructors of experimenting with this process.