Centre for Teaching Excellence Blog – Page 39

Opening Classrooms Across Disciplines – Trevor Holmes

One of my favourite jobs as a teaching developer is to visit other people’s classrooms. I get to learn new things while providing a helpful service (observation and report for feedback to individual instructors). There’s another benefit that accrues too, though. I get to bring ideas from a panoply of disciplinary approaches back to my own classroom, reinvigorating my own teaching and ratcheting up my students’ learning.

CC Licensed image "We're Open" sign by dlofink — Open Sign

Rarely is this more apparent than during our Open Classroom series. Open Classroom is Waterloo’s unique way of celebrating our Distinguished Teaching Award winners by asking them to do some work! Each term, if possible, we ask the DTA winner to open his or her doors to other professors, new or more seasoned, it doesn’t matter. The attendees (a few to half a dozen, depending on the room capacity) sit in on the live classroom as observers, and then have an opportunity to ask questions for an hour after the class. This gives a chance not only for the visitors to experience what it’s like to be a learner in the Award-winner’s class, but for the professor to explain his or her thinking behind instructional approaches taken that day.

What is really important here is that one need not be from the professor’s home discipline to benefit from this observation and discussion. I have certainly learned some things from Waterloo professors I’ve observed, and while some of it has gone way over my head, the techniques themselves have found their way directly or indirectly into my own cultural studies lectures (even math and physics approaches!). I would heartily encourage attendance at this term’s Open Classroom (Ted McGee’s English course, the Rebel) and future Open Classrooms, regardless of your own discipline. You will find some relevance in watching and asking about a different approach, I am sure.

______________________________________

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.

It’s all about balance – Jennifer Doyle

Lately I’ve been thinking about balance. This isn’t unusual. I often think about balance. I think about balance in relationships, studies, teaching, and environment. I think about it in relation to art, to musical composition, to food (both aesthetically and nutritionally). I would say I consider balance on a regular basis.

As the attentive reader has no doubt noticed, I’ve been thinking, I often think, I think about, and I consider. I have yet to use a word denoting the kind of action required to achieve a state of being in balance and for good reason – balance is something I strive for in theory. In practice it is less clear what I accomplish.

I’m writing about this because I suspect I’m not alone. I have a plethora of versions of myself that come into play depending on the crowd, activities I love to participate in when I give myself time, research I’m excited about, places I want to go, people I want to see and care I want to give. I’m engaged in using the word “busy” as a catch-all for everything I negate under the pretences of other things being more important. Ultimately what I’m saying is that every time I eschew balance other things are more important than well-being (for self, family, friends, co-workers, planet, etc). Something to ponder for a moment…

Now, that that is confessed, I’d like to move on, in fact, I’d like to act on this commitment to balance. Bear with me on this brief tangent (I love tangents). I was listening to a CBC interview the other day. Those who know me know that I’m a devoted listener to CBC radio 1. Its a rare day that I miss Q, or Matt Galloway’s morning show, and it would be unusual to go through the week without catching Quirks and Quarks, Spark, In the Age of Persuasion, Ed Lawrence’s Gardening show, Conrad Edgebeck’s wine advice and The House. I can say with certainty that the CBC offers me great opportunities to learn about new and interesting things. Now, the idea I’m interested in discussing here was about actions, ideas and emotions (tangent closed).

While listening to the CBC I heard an interview about how our emotions follow our actions. I’ve been working under an ill-conceived concept for a long time. I thought that when I felt a certain way then I could accomplish particular tasks. Little did I know that in fact, my emotions follow my actions. This may sound simple enough, but dear readers, believe me when I say, I sighed a deep sigh of relief and joy. I felt in that moment the answer to a nagging question that has been a perennial problem for me. How do I begin to get ahead on things, so I can stop feeling so behind and start living a balanced, present-tense existence (or something proximate)? Well, I can attest to one thing: I have been getting up in the morning, imagining the things I want to accomplish in a day and the spaces I’d like to eke out for whatever I want to put in. I have been feeling better. I have been catching up, finding a little free time and I can see some semblance of balance on the horizon.

On this beautiful fall morning, I’d like to say: Thank you CBC for giving me this free education. I am painting again, I’m researching better, I’ve got better ideas, my work is still dominating my life but I’m striking something towards balance. To balance…

______________________________________

Ideas on a napkin – Veronica Brown

I teach a course on teamwork. It’s an elective in the WatPD program, which is a suite of courses completed by UW’s undergraduate co-op students. When I tell people I teach a course on teamwork, their reaction usually involves something cringe-like followed by a story about a horrid group work experience they had when they were in school. To say people loathe group work might be an understatement. We usually commiserate briefly on the experience and then I start telling them a bit more about my course. Unlike other courses, which include group or team work as part of their assessment, my entire course is about teamwork, with the focus on teamwork in the workplace.

Students in the course develop their knowledge and skills related to teamwork in three ways: completing independent assignments related to the course content; participating in a team task; and reflecting on their own experiences with teamwork during their work terms, the course, and at school. I should mention, too, that this is an online course and so they must work as a virtual team to complete the task.

Something, however, has been nagging me about my course. Don’t get me wrong, I’m happy with the course and the opportunities it gives students to study teamwork and develop the relevant knowledge and skills. But I wonder if the course goes deep enough. My course focuses on what is needed for team success, such as building on individuals’ strengths, team processes, collaboration, etc. The course, currently, focuses on knowledge and skills. The missing piece is valuing teamwork. Does the course effectively convey the true value of working in a team? Will they recognize the subtleties surrounding personalities and politics that will impact team success just as much as lack of resources or time pressures? Will they understand that just as each individual brings their own strengths to the team, they might also bring their own agenda? How will they lead a team when given the chance? Will they be motivated to work collaboratively the next time the opportunity presents itself or will they, like others before them, cringe at the thought of teamwork?

So I sat down at lunch recently with a friend of mine who works in the private sector and asked him why, in his experience, teams failed. He had a long list, many of which focused on the people on the team, their personalities, leadership, differences in vision, politics, etc. He also spoke about challenges between teams, where one team will develop a new process without even realising how it will infringe on the processes of others. It’s not just the communication within the team, but among teams, that can be problematic.

Eventually, our conversation returned to my course and what might be missing. We talked about adding a simulation where teams would be formed and each student would be given a role to play, such as the leader, the loafer, the team player, etc. Each team would be given a scenario (we talked about using UW clubs as a potential option). Then, we talked about how to throw them a curve ball part way through the process, such as suddenly slashing their budget, having a team member simply disappear, having a couple of them try to take over control of the team, etc. I actually love the idea but, realistically, I’m unsure this would fly in the mediated environment of an online course. I’m also unsure I’m ready to throw that curve ball.

For now, our conversation, recorded on the napkins shown in the above photo, has given me direction for change in my course. Teamwork is not just about knowledge and skills. For success, there must be an underlying trust, among team members, between the team and the workplace that surrounds it, and, most importantly, that teamwork really can lead to success. It has led me in many directions – problem-based learning, experiential learning, exploring the affective domain. I have enjoyed this journey, motivation to dig deeper into these areas. Now, it is time to put this theory into practice. As I move forward with this change, my next step is to figure out how to take all this theory and make it useful and practical as a teacher. I’ll let you know how it turns out.

______________________________________

Biopunk – Michael Pyne

I like biology. I like it a lot. So when people ask me what field I am in, I usually respond by stating, “Biology!” But what does this tell them? Is this response too vague? Of course it is! And these days it is as ambiguous as ever before. What I have done is merely scratched the surface. An analogy would be showing someone a globe when they ask for directions to your house. The point is this: biology is expanding at an unprecedented rate and is blurring the lines that used to separate distinct fields. This has led to the birth and development of numerous diverse fields still in their infancy, including biotechnology and genetic engineering, biomaterials, bioinformatics, genomics and proteomics (and other omics), systems biology, synthetic biology, metabolic engineering and so on. It seems that nowadays anyone can bring a novel field into being simply by tacking the bio prefix onto any preexisting field. We’ve yet to hear about biovisual and bioperforming arts, biophilosophy (perhaps bioethics?), bioreligion (perhaps evolution?) or biolanguages but I suspect they are not far away. This bio trend likely has origins in the marriage of biology with both chemistry and physics, which occurred sometime in the 19th century. As a result, many of us are quite familiar with the disciplines of biochemistry and biophysics. Biotechnology (and genetic engineering), on the other hand, has thus far become known, at least to the general public, as a sinister sci-fi field (“Franken”-field) that should probably be left untapped until we can better understand the consequences of tinkering with nature.

To me, biology has always been lagging behind chemistry and physics. We have a very good understanding of atoms, molecules and forces, yet we have only begun to decipher the layers of complexity that make up even the simplest single-celled living organism, let alone the human brain and cancer, for example. Even viruses, essentially genetic material wrapped in protein (they’re not even living!), are able to outcompete our lackluster attempts at prevention, vaccination and treatment (think of the common cold, HIV, HPV, hepatitis, SARS, Ebola, avian flu and H1N1). The emerging line of thinking seems to be that, as humans we simply are not capable of fully understanding the intricacies and complexities that make up a living organism. We do not possess the brain power to compute or design the workings of a living organism. Enter the computer and Digital Age.

With the advent of petrochemistry and the global chemical industry, the 20th century is largely regarded as the Chemical Century. Now in the 2000s, however, it is time for chemistry to pass on the reigns, albeit extremely gradually, to biology. We are currently at the dawn of a worldwide biorevolution, one well-documented in the unsettlingly-titled 2011 book “Biopunk: DIY Scientists Hack the Software of Life.” The book’s author, Marcus Wohlsen, equates the current desire and need for open sourcing of biological information to the open source software revolution of the 1970s. Wohlsen envisages a world in the near future where eager DIY bionerds have access to all the necessary equipment, know-how and genetic information (i.e. DNA and gene sequences) to perform exciting genetic engineering experiments in the comfort of their own garages. In essence, biotech and genetic engineering experiments will no longer be performed solely in well-funded academic institutions and multibillion dollar biotech companies. Just as companies such as Apple, RIM, Google and Facebook emerged from basements, dorm rooms and coffee shops in the 70s, 80s and 90s, Wohlsen believes many of the future groundbreaking biological discoveries will grow out of kitchens, garages and abandoned buildings turned DIY laboratories.

Although I may have lost track, my rambling does have implications to teaching biology and all of its distinct fields, subfields and yet-to-be fields. Although biology is evolving at an unprecedented rate and is amalgamating with numerous other areas of science and engineering, it is almost impossible for our curricula to keep pace. With my undergraduate training in Biochemistry and Biotechnology only three years behind me, I feel that my research field is demanding I know more about coding, mathematics and bioinformatics than my undergraduate degree allowed. Since we now have a better understanding of metabolic reactions and fundamental cellular processes, biology is on the move toward life on a larger scale – I mentioned the rise of systems biology, the interdisciplinary study of complex biological interactions and their implications in biological systems, earlier in this post. However, many university biology programs are lacking sufficient training in omics, bioinformatics and synthetic and systems biology – the very fields that are most likely to define and shape the 21st century. But with the pace at which modern biology is changing, can we really blame our curricula for being a few steps behind? Perhaps a wake-up call will be in store in the coming years when undergraduates begin showing up for class with their own personal genomes, all 3.4 billion nucleotide “letters” that make up a person’s unique 25,000-30,000 genes, arranged nicely on an App on their iPhone. Or perhaps it is already happening around the world with a small army of resourceful Biopunks preaching their DIY gospel and putting on demonstrations by isolating the genomic DNA from strawberries using nothing more than water, rubbing alcohol, table salt, shampoo and a coffee filter – all items readily available in any common household. All I can say is that it’s a great time to be a biology student!

______________________________________

Inspiring Innovation

Innovation is all around us at Waterloo. The Waterloo Institute for Social Innovation and Resilience (WISIR) is poised to take a leadership role in generating new inter-disciplinary knowledge about social innovations and the social innovation process in Canada. The new Masters of Digital Experience Innovation (MDEI) will be offered this fall on our new Stratford Campus, and students who are part of VeloCity are living in an atmosphere that helps them develop their own innovative entrepreneurial projects and nurtures their creativity. I was thinking about this recently after reading an article in my new favourite web publication by Fast Company, which focuses on innovation in technology, ethonomics (ethical economics), leadership and design. The article “You Can’t Innovate If You Ignore Your Real Problems” , made me think about how to foster innovation in our own work at the CTE (not that we have problems!) and how we all need to examine our attitudes, culture and processes if we want to be truly innovative. These can be hard things to change in any organization large or small.

Tomes have been written on the theory of creating conditions that help foster innovation and creativity in different fields. My own brother is an academic in the field of public science and technology policy at SFU and thinks deeply about how public sector policies can allow for innovation in various environments. Innovation is a “large tent”, he says, and we all want to gather under it. How can we create the conditions that will allow us to be more innovative in our teaching and in our support of teaching? What can we learn from the public and private business sector about this? Here are a few ideas that are prevalent in design, science and technology industries which should be applicable to fostering innovation in teaching and learning.

All members of an organization or teaching team should be able to contribute their innovative ideas irrespective of their role, and should be encouraged to spend time thinking about how to be more innovative. We need to set aside “thinking time”, book it into our schedules and then plan to share our ideas. How these ideas are shared can have an impact on what comes forward – using technology properly can enable everyone in an organization or team to have their voice heard, or putting people in a room to just talk about new ideas and nothing else can energize a group. Once the ideas are out there some should be implemented, even if they may not all be successful. Taking risks is a necessary part of trying something new, so we have to be open to failure and run with ideas and plans that may be less than perfect. Not every new idea will be successful, (which makes me wonder about the balance of “excellence” and “innovation “and how we can maintain both comfortably). Innovation doesn’t always pay off in the short term; for businesses making money can’t be the focus initially, although it may pay off eventually. For those in the teaching and learning fields something innovative may not be welcomed by our students initially but may be beneficial to their learning in the long run.

Also of importance, being innovative keeps us engaged and excited about our jobs – although with the fall term only a few weeks away, the anticipation and possibilities of a new academic year are in the air and it’s not hard to feel excited about that.

The following websites helped me bring these ideas together:

http://gigaom.com/2008/04/17/pixars-brad-bird-on-fostering-innovation/

http://www.inc.com/guides/2010/04/fostering-innovation-in-companies.html

http://americanlibrariesmagazine.org/columns/practice/nurturing-innovation

_____________________________________

Shaping society by teaching

Last week I attended the American Association of Physics Teachers (AAPT) summer meeting in Omaha, Nebraska. It was several days full of educational research, best practices and new ideas for teaching physics – which I could go on and on about (but don’t worry – I won’t). I do want to share something that stuck with me from one of the plenary talks. Edward Prather, who teaches very large (1500+ students) interactive astronomy classes, was talking about how he can affect students’ lives through his astronomy course.

At the beginning of his talk he asked the audience how satisfied we are with society. The choices (which we responded to with flash cards) were:

A. completely happy

B. fairly satisfied, but some things could be better

C. very unhappy – things need to change

D. suicide watch

Star-Forming Region LH 95 in the Large Magellanic Cloud
Source: Hubblesite.org

I imagine you can guess how the audience responded – I don’t think there was a single A in the room. He reminded us that as educators, we have the opportunity to profoundly effect the lives of our students. Edward is in the lucky position to teach Astronomy, a topic that almost everyone is interested in (as a result, he gets over 1000 students in one course!) There is something about seeing pictures of the universe that really make you examine the life you lead. But regardless of the field you teach in – you have the ability to shape the lives of hundreds of students each year! Teaching them to think for themselves, examine the facts, and push boundaries will results in well-rounded, intelligent citizens – the kind of people we want running our cities, financial institutions, hospitals and raising the next generation.

I can’t do his inspiring talk justice, but I left feeling empowered and it reminded me of why I wanted to teach in the first place. And I hope this post prompts you to think about what, beyond the curriculum, you are teaching your students.

______________________________________

Individual Differences that Affect Learning – Svitlana Taraban-Gordon

Recently, I opened a box containing some of my academic possessions which, years ago, were deemed worthy of being transported across the Atlantic from my native Ukraine. Among them were two artefacts from my secondary studies captured on the photo – high school diploma with honours and ‘silver medal’ that accompanied it. In Ukraine, the medal, like the one on this photo, is given to top students in each graduating class, and reads, “In recognition of high academic achievements, community work and excellent classroom behaviour.”

To me, these artefacts from my academic history are reminders of the years of hard work, self-discipline and work ethic that I developed and nurtured at a young age. At the same time, they remind me of many difficult and frustrating learning moments when, despite effort, hard work and motivation, I struggled to understand basic math concepts and was able to achieve only average performance in math and science.

To explain this learning conundrum, I concluded early on that motivation and effort can take you far as a learner but they are not the only determinants of learning success. Other factors had to account for my differential performance in social sciences and math classes. I reasoned that I was not able to get straight A’s because I was simply not good in math. It never came as naturally to me as humanities and social sciences. Abilities and aptitude had to be the reason for twice the time I needed to spend on my math homework (with parental help to boot) only to achieve average marks.

During my graduate studies, I came across an exciting line of research in educational psychology that looks at individual cognitive and personality differences among learners and might help us explain differential success among learners in our classrooms. This research showed me that motivation, abilities and intelligence are not the only determinants of learning outcomes. A number of other individual variables shape what and how well students will learn. These include:

prior knowledge and experience which refer to the quality and accuracy of relevant prior knowledge;
learning strategies and tactics which refer to cognitive and metacognitive strategies used by learners;
learning or cognitive styles which refer to preferred ways for processing information and approaching a learning task;
learners’ conceptions of learning and themselves as learners;
personality (self-esteem, risk-taking, resilience, sensitivity to rejection, tolerance to ambiguity, anxiety, etc.).

In each learning situation, these characteristics of learners interact in complex ways which are not fully understood by researchers. However, I found that being aware of these individual differences – along with cultural, generational and demographic characteristics – helped me be more attentive to diversity among learners and differences in their academic performance. I am encouraged by the central message of this research – most of these characteristics are states not traits and as instructors, we have the ability to influence learning attitudes, conceptions and behaviours of our students and help them become more effective learners.

______________________________________