Undergraduate Time Use Trends

Source: University of California Undergraduate Experience Survey, Spring 2008 results, N = 63,600. Available at: http://cshe.berkeley.edu/publications/publications.php?s=1

(Reminder: This series of articles about learning outcomes began in the August 2008 issue of the newsletter. Archives of our newsletters are at http://www.cte.tcu.edu/Koehler_Center_Newsletter_Archive.htm.)

Connecting Your Course Outcomes to Departmental and Higher Outcomes

When thinking about the student learning outcomes you have for your course, there’s obviously a reason to consider how at least some of them fit within the larger curricular picture.  Here at TCU, best practice concerning Core outcomes is that such outcomes appear in the course syllabus for Core-designated classes.  This makes explicit the connection between your class-level outcome and an outcome at a level higher than your class; indeed, the connection can get no stronger because that Core outcome is exactly the same as one of your course outcomes.

However, even non-Core outcomes usually have a connection to levels above the individual class level of instruction.  This is as it should be: You don’t want to be providing instruction in a vacuum – what you are teaching should be connected either to the body of knowledge in the discipline, or if the class is not in the student’s major, it should still connect to TCU’s institutional outcomes.

But is there another reason this connection needs to be present?

It must be present as part of the feedback loop which allows the department, the Core, the college, or the university to make adjustments if it discovers via assessment at the above-your-course level that students do not possess the knowledge, skills, and/or values published as what TCU students will possess at that point (e.g., upon completion of your course students will possess prerequisites for a course following yours or that upon graduation students will possess stated graduation outcomes).

In other words, your contribution to the student’s body of knowledge, skills, and/or values advances that student toward preparation for success beyond her TCU career after your class and quite possibly for success after graduation from TCU.  For that reason, you should be able to identify the class activities that contribute to the bigger picture of student success as demonstrated at levels above your class and to which your class is connected.

Here’s an example:

Suppose TCU assesses its graduates’ competencies in Core areas and discovers that many grads are unable to demonstrate satisfactory proficiency in a particular Core area, say Writing Emphasis.  (This is only an example!  WEM instructors do a great job!)  If TCU were to find this to be the case, what would the next step be?

Certainly a logical step would be to look at what’s occurring presently in the places where that outcome proficiency is supposed to be developed.  So TCU would look at WEM classes to try to diagnose and adjust in order to rectify the situation.

What would be found?  If you had clearly identified which of your assignments map to the WEM outcome(s) in your course (click here to see the article about “mapping up”), then you would know which assignments to scrutinize, re-check the rubrics’ appropriateness for those assignments, and examine the student artifacts produced in those assignments to compare to the demonstrated quality of TCU grads’ writing.

But if you had not done this, had not built rubrics to assess whether students were achieving at the level necessary for that point in their TCU careers, then TCU would be much more behind the eight-ball in its identify-diagnose-adjust process to try to correct the problem.

On the other hand, if you had done this, then what would most likely occur is that you could demonstrate that the problems are not with what you are doing in your course because the rubrics-assessment process in your class would be producing demonstrably effective student artifacts.  The evidence would be the artifacts themselves and the rubrics you use to assess that student work.  In that case, as long as the link between your course outcome and the higher-level outcome is appropriate (meaning, if an examination of the situation doesn’t reveal that your course should not be a place where the competency is developed in the first place), then TCU would know the problem lies in other areas.

Research on Pedagogy: How Can It Benefit Me?

University of Ontario Assistant Professor of History Dr. Graham Broad describes in “The Things I Did Badly: Looking Back on My First Five Years of Teaching” (citation below) as number one on a list of five items, “Not taking advantage of research on pedagogy” (p. 4).  His point is that it took him a while to realize that people have done research on college teaching and that such research, and the resulting findings, might include recommended strategies that could be useful to improve his own teaching.

His discussion on this point in the article, though, goes beyond just the recognition that such information exists.  He describes the approach he has taken to avail himself of pockets of this information because he quickly discovered that the amount of material, the research base, the potential for overwhelm given so much work in the area (not unlike most any discipline), all meant that he needed to find a way to keep abreast of what had the best chance to be helpful for him.

It was a surprise to Dr. Broad that there is such a wide range and considerable number of sources for quality information about teaching well in college:

. . . I was trained to maintain the highest evidentiary standards in my scholarship, to situate my research in a body of existing literature, and to scrutinize every claim I made for any possible error. And yet, when it came to teaching, I went entirely on instinct, teaching the way I was taught, assuming that was good enough. It wasn’t. Nearly a year passed before it occurred to me that there might be scholars in the field of pedagogy, too, and that maybe they’d written useful material about how to teach! Was I in for a surprise. (p. 4)

After surveying the landscape of pedagogy research and information written specifically to help university faculty become better teachers, Dr. Broad decided to subscribe to two journals specific to teaching in his field.  Here is a link to the place on the Koehler Center web site where we have assembled a few listings of journals about the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (cursor over “SoTL”)  Some of the listings include discipline-specific journals.

The sciences, for instance, have a long history in higher education of peer-reviewed research and publication about teaching improvement.  For example, The Journal of Engineering Education’s January 2010 issue is the first in Volume 99. (If you’re wondering, the 2007 Impact Factor rating for this journal was 3.000.)

Other disciplines have their own education journals, and there is a category about college teaching unto itself.  A few titles in that grouping are College Teaching, Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, Active Learning in Higher Education, Innovative Higher Education, International Journal on Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, and the Journal of General Education among a large number of other peer-reviewed journals.

The second strategy Dr. Broad employs is to occasionally read books written about teaching.  Such books of interest for college teachers in any discipline might be What the Best College Teachers Do by Ken Bain, The Courage to Teach by Parker Palmer, Classroom Assessment Techniques: A Handbook for College Teachers by Angelo and Cross, or Thinking About Teaching and Learning: Developing Habits of Learning with First Year College and University Students by Robert Leamnson.(All these titles are available in the Koehler Center Library.)  There is an opportunity in book-length discourse to develop ideas about instructional strategy and philosophy not possible in journal articles, so adding books as a resource is a good idea.

Dr. Broad mentions that another of his strategies was to investigate workshop opportunities that were also venues for receiving information informed by the research literature on pedagogy.  Whether at conferences or at one’s own university, there are multiple opportunities to access such information,and Dr. Broad found this source to be helpful, too.

For the record, the other items on his informative list are chastising the whole class, being defensive about student complaints, answering student e-mails at all hours, and egotism.

Learning in College: The Risk-to-Reward Ratio

As a professor of reading at Ferris State University for over 30 years, Terry Doyle’s recently published book, Helping Students Learn in a Learner-Centered Environment: A Guide to Facilitating Learning in Higher Education (2008; citation below) was clearly written to provide practical information to inform college teaching practice.  While its content and his recommendations are grounded in research findings, as evidenced by the extensive list of reference citations, the book is not meant to be theoretical; it is meant as a source of practical information for what you can do as a college professor to more effectively facilitate student learning.

One of the topics Doyle discusses may be of particular interest to TCU faculty given recent TCU student corroboration for his explanation about a specific challenge in teaching college students.

The second chapter discusses a topic that often vexes college faculty: student participation in class discussions.  How many of us have opened up the floor for what we hope will be an enthusiastic exchange of ideas only to be met with silence from students?  Doyle comes at this from the perspective of how he’s realized that the advice he dispensed in the past was not the best way to handle the situation if one wants students to take control of their own learning.

When he was asked to consult with the Honors Program at Ferris State about a problem reported by multiple Honors professors – lack of student participation in class discussion – his recommendation was to tie discussion to a class participation grade so students would be motivated to engage.  The recommendation was based on his understanding then of the perceived risk on students’ parts to engage in any activity which might let your peers or – worse – your teacher discover that you aren’t really as smart as your Honors Program status should indicate.  Were an honors student to make a self-perceived, peer-perceived, or teacher-perceived statement during a class discussion that wasn’t prescient or informed or insightful or just plain brilliant, the student would risk being tagged a sham and not really as bright as an honors student should be.

In other words, the risk-to-reward ratio was unacceptable.  Doyle had learned of this student perception and thought that tying a grade to class discussion would tilt the ratio toward risking the potential exposure as a “sham” because the reward – the grade – was deemed a necessity.

He has since changed his mind about what the best approach is, but more about that below.  However, is there anything to this risk-vs-reward stuff in the minds of TCU college students?  Yes, as two recent student interactions indicate.

In talking candidly with students in three different TCU classes about why reading textbook material before the class was not prioritized (at least among a sizable segment of the student population), there was wide agreement that if the reading was not tied to a grade, there really wasn’t a reason to bother with doing it.  This would seem to corroborate Doyle’s suggestion about somehow making class discussion part of students’ grades.

And what about risking “looking stupid” in class?  Is that really something students worry about?  One only need view the TCU student’s comments about this in a case story tutorial (URL and instructions on how to navigate directly to the student’s comments appear below) to realize how very big a concern this can be for some students.  (And the TCU student in the video clip was a junior at the time.)

So Doyle’s advice from several years in the past seemed to him to be on the mark for helping Honors professors get their students to engage in class discussion: It would move them beyond the risk-to-reward tipping point, and it would motivate them because a grade was involved.

After coming around to the idea of learning-centered education, however, Doyle now advises something quite different:

[Faculty] should establish a rationale for the use of discussion in college learning.  This would include explaining why class participation is a vital element of students’ learning, that discussions unlock the intellectual diversity of each member of the class and allow all members to learn from one another’s ideas.  The faculty should also present research findings demonstrating that discussion easily surpasses lecture as a deep learning process (Terenzini, Cabrera, Colbeck, Parent, & Bjorklund, 2001) and leads to the examination of diverse viewpoints, helps with the discovery of new ways to solve problems, trains us to speak clearly and concisely, and teaches us how to listen to others and give meaningful feedback.  In addition, the faculty should explain to the students that, because most professionals spend their workdays discussing issues with clients, patients, customers, colleagues, and bosses, speaking and listening are among the most important skills they need to develop; if they cannot speak and listen effectively, their careers can be negatively affected. . . . The lesson I learned from the honors students is that students need good reasons to take learning risks. (pp. 24-25)

For TCU students, it seems, the “good reasons to take learning risks” statement looks to be on the mark.  Doyle’s point is that making the reasons connect to self-control of learning (I’m in control of developing my ability to succeed in the post-college world) instead of external control (by the teacher, who will give me a grade) is preferable.

Doyle, T. (2008). Helping students learn in a learner-centered environment: A guide to facilitating learning in higher education. Sterling, VA: Stylus. (Available in the Koehler Center Library.)

SUMMER 2010 Pearson LearningStudio SHELL REQUESTS NOW OPEN

All summer shell requests received by April 26, 2010 will be guaranteed ready by the first day of classes for Summer 2010. Summer shells requested after April 26, 2010 cannot be guaranteed to be ready by the first day of summer classes.

Pearson LearningStudio New Course Shell Request: http://www.elearning.tcu.edu/courseshells/newshell.asp

Pearson LearningStudio Copy Course Shell Request: http://www.elearning.tcu.edu/courseshells/copyshell.asp

Dropbox help

Having a problem retrieving files from your computer?  Sometimes the path to your file can pose complications to performing tasks within the online classroom.  Filename length, special characters and the stored file location are elements which can result in errors, particularly when uploading to the Dropbox or to a Threaded Discussion.  You can often remedy the problem by truncating the filename while eliminating special characters, and by saving the file to your computer’s desktop.

Using Teams

Teams can be a powerful learning tool, but they need to be facilitated correctly. If teams don’t function well, they can be a source of frustration and anxiety for students and instructors. Below are a few suggestions:

1. Create small teams — assign a small number of students (four or five) to a team to help ensure cohesiveness and the ability to communicate readily. One option is to assign teams based on the mix of student abilities and/or interests.
2. Facilitate a team atmosphere — often there is a lack of informal interaction online, so you’ll want to create opportunities for students to get to know each other—perhaps with an ice-breaker activity. Ideally, students will have some knowledge of each other due to participation in an “introductions” discussion site during the first week of the course.
3. Provide sufficient time — realize that it will take longer for the team to develop cohesion and reach the point of critical thinking due to the asynchronous format, build in extra time accordingly for your online team assignment or project.
4. Provide detailed, extensive instructions — give your students explicit guidelines and specific objectives for their assignment so the level of confusion is minimized. You might also want to provide specific team roles descriptions, depending on the level of your student’s experience.
5. Set short-term deadlines — break a large assignment into many small deadlines (milestones) to allow yourself the ability to check on team progress and keep teams on track. It’s a good idea to require team members to place outlines and drafts in Doc Sharing where you and other team members can review the material.
6. Remind students of available tools — when the teams are created the team designation automatically flows to the Email, Doc Sharing and Chat communication tools. It’s a good idea to set up a Team Project discussion page where teams can organize and continue to carry on a dialog. Allow students to choose the tools that work best for their needs and styles.

NExT Visual Editor Tip

Students and faculty often prepare threaded discussion responses in Microsoft Word before copying the information into a threaded discussion response in their course.  In many cases, extra html may appear when items are directly copied from Microsoft Word and pasted into the Pearson LearningStudio visual editor.  This extra html can make a thread response unreadable or cause other problems with visual editor functionality.