For the past 15 years, I’ve worked as a psychologist in the Education department at the College of Staten Island (CSI), CUNY. I’ve had very few opportunities to talk about teaching with faculty outside of my discipline. This grant was particularly appealing because it offered me the opportunity to have deep conversations about teaching with CUNY faculty who represented a variety of disciplines and who worked throughout various CUNY campuses. In our monthly workshop/presentation sessions, we discussed many of the teaching and learning challenges that we face, and learned about different strategies we use to help students remain attentive and on-task, master material, develop necessary skills, produce exemplary work, and become motivated learners. In my collaboration with Nelson Nunez-Rodriguez, a professor in the Natural Sciences department at Hostos Community College, we focused on strategies to shift the balance of power between instructor and student, fostering more effective communication, collaboration and ultimately better learning. In my research course for the fall, I’m continuing to experiment with the kinds of strategies that blur boundaries between instructor and student. This work gets organically disseminated to all CSI education faculty involved in teaching in our education research seminars due to the structure of the course: There are currently 8-10 sections of multi-disciplinary research seminars offered each semester in the education program, with a total of approximately 150 -170 students enrolled. Faculty members who teach research meet monthly. The focus of several faculty meetings during fall 2009 and spring 2010 was on developing strategies to improve learning and motivation in our research classes. Our work has just begun. We will continue this discussion for the 2010-2011 academic year; we will try new strategies, perform inter-class visitations, and dedicate one of our department “brown-bag” discussions to improving student learning through instructional practice. Student projects from the education research seminar get disseminated college-wide in a culminating conference, where all students who have taken the research seminar participate in round-table and/or paper presentations of their work.

In working with my colleagues on this Teaching & Learning grant, I’ve realized the importance of context. Each context is different: The topics, the students, the instructor, the time of year, etc., – everything changes. There is no one method that works for each student each time in the same way. Therefore, an instructor needs a large repertoire of strategies to enhance instruction and support learning for individual student and for a class of students. But, research has repeatedly shown that teachers (including higher education faculty) typically teach the way they’ve been taught. We need courage and we need time to practice some of the methods that we hear about from our colleagues. This seminar has given me the initiative to try out some out some of the ideas and methods described by my colleagues. For my Fall 2010 “dread” educational research course, I will enlist students in designing the midterm exam (a strategy described by Nelson in his presentation). I will help them prepare for oral presentation of their work (a course requirement), by using a communication rubric presented at one of our monthly meetings by Dara Byrne, a faculty member at of John Jay college, CUNY. My hope is that this dialogue about best practices to improve learning can continue.

Future Focus: My intent in participating in this seminar was to find ways to promote student engagement and learning in “dread courses” that college students typically enter afraid, uninspired, or prepared to be unsuccessful. I’ve been interesting in investigating the role of emotions in learning, an area that has not been a major focus of educational policy or school practice. I had originally planned to look at the role of humor in promoting engagement and learning, but my work with Nelson lead me to focus instead on the role of power, described above. I’d like to devote 2010-2011 to a look at humor, and how it can be used in the classroom to motivate learners. Can humor be used in the classroom to foster a climate of respect and openness? Can humor be used to heighten student arousal, capture attention and thereby facilitate learning?

My participation in the SOTL seminar series was beneficial  me and had an impact that extended to the larger academic community. Discussions arising from the presentations made me realize  that the challenges to teaching and learning are common across the disciplines and also across the colleges.  I became aware of Nelson Nunez-Martinez’s work on empowering students and invited him to share his work with STEM faculty members at BMCC. He gave a faculty development seminar at BMCC on the topic in Spring 10 and faculty who attended the seminar indicated that the seminar was beneficial to them.   Many indicated that they plan to use some of the strategies shared. In addition, Nelson Nunez-Martinez invited me to Hostos Community College to present a faculty development seminar on SOTL in Fall 09. The seminar was well attended and generated much interest. What I have learned from seminar  series will influence re-design of my study.  From Ken Estey, I learned that misconceptions can be also be uncovered  by place-based learning. From Joe Bisz,  Maria Jersky and Leigh Jones, I learned of the  potential of using games and mulitimedia tools to uncover and rectify misconceptions. In addition, Tim McCormack and Dara Bryde provided me with new insights into designing appropriate assessments for my study.

Understanding reaction mechanisms is an underlying theme of undergraduate chemistry and it is an area in which students have great difficulties (Friesen 2008; Mullins 2008). An aspect that has not been previously investigated is the incomplete knowledge/misconceptions students have that hinder their understanding of reaction mechanisms. I am currently undertaking such a study. The study is designed  to:  (1) Identify the common misconceptions/incomplete knowledge that students have that prevent them from a complete understanding of writing reaction mechanisms (2) Identify the basis for such misconceptions/ incomplete knowledge and,  (3) Compare the effectiveness of writing and responses to specific questions in uncovering misconceptions/incomplete knowledge. Among other things, students are asked to identify specific difficulties they have in writing reaction mechanisms and to describe in detail why they feel that the specific topic is difficult.  This is an adaptation of a reflective practice used successfully  used by Salavatori in a composition course (Salavatori 2000).  It is envisaged that such writing assignments will not only identify students’ misconceptions, but will provide deeper insights about   students thinking about specific concepts. In response to the findings from students’ writings and answers to specific assigned questions, follow-up  writing assignments are developed and used to rectify students’ misconceptions/incomplete knowledge. It is anticipated that such reflective practices will develop the metacognitive skills of students. The study has been done (so far)  with a section each of Organic Chemistry I and Organic Chemistry II and will continue with other sections in the new academic year. Preliminary results are positive.  It is envisaged that a manuscript describing this study will be written and submitted to the Journal of Chemical Education.

References

Friesen, J. B. 2008. Saying What You Mean: Teaching Mechanisms in Organic Chemistry. Journal of  Chemical Education  85: 1515-1518.

Mullins, J. 2008.  Six Pillars of Organic Chemistry.  Journal of Chemical Education   85:  83-87.

Salvatori, M. R. 2000.  Difficulty: The Great Educational Divide. In Opening Lines; Approaches to the Scholarship of teaching and Learning., The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, ed. P. Hutchins, 81-93. Menlo Park: Carnegie Publications

The Seminar on Teaching and Learning has had a few direct influences on my scholarship, teaching, and administration this semester. Most directly, I have learned enough about self-efficacy research from my presentation partner, Maria Jerskey, to design a self-efficacy assessment tool that I can use in my study of student-generated podcasting in the advanced writing classes I teach. Since beginning the seminar, I have had an article on this subject accepted by the peer-reviewed journal Composition Studies.  I also directed a graduate student’s thesis focused on self-assessment, and was able to pass along what I learned from Maria this semester to my graduate student. This student has since successfully completed her thesis and is considering publishing the results of her research.

In my administrative work assisting the director of the freshman composition course at Hunter college, I plan to share with course instructors what I have learned about place-based and games-based learning. These two pedagogical strategies support our ongoing discussions on integrating New York City history, culture, and geography into the freshman composition classes, and our goal of helping instructors integrate technology into their courses in ways that support their pedagogy. I will, of course, experiment with these teaching strategies in my own courses over the next several semesters as I reflect upon and integrate what I’ve learned.

I think the topic of PowerPoint in presentations came up at our last meeting (and Michael mentioned Tufte’s critique of Powerpoint). I’m posting this link to an amusing article in today’s Times about the military’s (over)use of PowerPoint. I wonder what Corey thinks, in the context of his research on the Army…
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/27/world/27powerpoint.html

–Leigh

Here is the other reading for April 13.  Note that it is fewer pages then listed in the original post by Dara.

Assessment for Learning

TEACHING AND LEARNING SEMINAR

April 13, 2010 

Assessment of Oral and Written Communication

Assignments for seminar

1.  Assigned reading:

Dunbar, N.E., Brooks, C.F., & Kubica-Miller. T. (2006). Oral communication skills in higher education: Using a performance-based evaluation rubric to assess communication skills. Innovative Higher Education, 31(2), pp. 115-128.

Black, Paul, Harrison, Christine, Lee, Clare et al.  Assessment for Learning:  Putting It Into Practice.  (Open University Press:  New York, 2006).  pp 1-2; 30-57; 81-96.

2.  Come prepared to give a 2-3 minute presentation on how you assign, facilitate and assess speaking in your classrooms.  See Teaching and Learning Activity 1 assignment below.

3.  Bring a two-page piece of writing that presents your theory and practice about how you assign, facilitate and assess writing in your classroom. See Teaching and Learning Activity 2 assignment below.

4.  Bring an assignment that you are about to give or have given to your students that involves speaking or/and writing.

Teaching and Learning Seminar Assignments

Activity 1:  Oral Presentation

How do you assign, facilitate and assess oral communication skills in your classroom?

 The Purpose:

This assignment will give you the opportunity to present a 2-3 minute informative speech. Your speech should explain, describe, clarify, report or educate your audience about how you assign, facilitate and assess oral communication skills in your classroom. (If you do not evaluate oral communication in your course, please feel free to prepare a speech that addresses why you feel this is unnecessary in your course). Your overall goal is to enlarge your audience’s knowledge and understanding of your approach to evaluating oral communication skills as they apply to your discipline (or what you hope to accomplish in terms of student learning).

Speech Format:

Each SoTL participant is expected to speak for 2-3 minutes on April 13^th. Developing a detailed or keyword outline is essential.  Please aim to deliver this extemporaneously.

The following steps are necessary in preparing for the informative speech:

• Develop the focus of the topic
• Develop a plan or strategy – (consider your teaching philosophy, the literature in your discipline or the goals of your course)
• Develop an informative speech outline – introduction with attention getter, body (expand main thesis points), and conclusion
• Rehearse your presentation to ensure it falls within the time frame

Evaluation:

Your speech should have a beginning, middle and an end.  The speech should be delivered extemporaneously from your outline. Your grade will be affected by a lack of preparation or excessive reading. It is important that you attempt to talk to us.  An unprepared 3 minutes is a long time. The speech must fall within the stated time limit as you will be penalized for speaking under 2 minutes or over 3 minutes 30 seconds.

Activity 2:  Writing Assignment   

How do you assign, facilitate and assess writing in your classroom?

1)     In clear, declarative statements describe the theory behind how you use writing in your courses. (Note:  If you do not use any writing in your courses, please theorize on why writing is not necessary in your course.)

2)     Describe a particular writing assignment that you think worked especially well or one that flopped.  Give the course and context for the assignment and tell us what you wanted the students to learn from the written assignment.  Please also describe how you evaluated the students’ work. (Note:  If you do not use any writing assignments in your courses, please invent an assignment that you could use.)

3)     Narrate what you think went well or wrong with the assignment.  Provide specific details of how the assignment played out in the course.  (Note:  If you invented an assignment in the step above, do a hypothetical narration on what you think the problems will be in carrying out the assignment.)

BRING TWO COPIES OF THIS PIECE OF WRITING.

In this assignment you will be evaluated on the clarity of your theory, the thoroughness of your description and the depth of your analysis.

Your audience for this assignment is your fellow seminar members.  The assignment should be as long as you think necessary

Hello all,

Apologies for the delayed posting of my readings.

For the March 9 seminar meeting, I would like to ask you to read Jeff Maehre’s “What It Means to Ban Wikipedia.” My topic for the seminar is information literacy and the internet because in my own classroom I struggle with how to teach students to be critical consumers of information they find online.

I would like to ask you to think about the following questions:

• What does it mean for a student to be information literate in your discipline, or in your class?
  The Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) has published guidelines on information literacy in general discipline areas
  Science and Engineering/Technology
  Anthropology and Sociology
  Literatures in English
  Political Science
• What guidelines do you give students for conducting library and internet research?
• Is information literacy taught in your class? If so, how?
• What’s your Wikipedia policy?

Look forward to talking with y’all,

Erin

Hi Everyone,

We’re posting a few readings for our next seminar on March 9.  The primary reading is “Barbarians at the Gate: Professors from Outside the English Department Reflect on Teaching First-Year Writing.” Please pay particular attention to the introduction by Paul Hanstedt. As you’re reading, think about your answers to the following questions:

• Does Roanoke College’s program seem replicable at a CUNY campus?
• If you teach outside an English Department, how would you respond to a call to teach first-year writing?
• If you teach in an English Department, how do you feel about people outside the department teaching first-year writing courses?

The following are secondary articles that will give you some background information about some of the issues we’ll be touching on in our discussion:

Here’s a link to a New York Times article, “Making College ‘Relevant’” that was written late last year. It discusses a trend among some colleges to eliminate departments (like Classics and Philosophy) because students don’t see these majors as leading to viable jobs. This passage from page two of the article summarizes its point:

“We believe that we do our best for students when we give them tools to be analytical, to be able to gather information and to determine the validity of that information themselves, particularly in this world where people don’t filter for you anymore,’ Dr. Coleman says. “We want to teach them how to make an argument, how to defend an argument, to make a choice.” These are the skills that liberal arts colleges in particular have prided themselves on teaching. But these colleges also say they have the hardest time explaining the link between what they teach and the kind of job and salary a student can expect on the other end.

Amy and I will be asking how we can make the goals of college writing relevant to students, or whether that’s even the kind of question we should be asking as we design first-year writing courses.

We’re also posting Patricia Bizzell’s “Composition Studies Saves the World!”, which is Bizzell’s response to Stanley Fish’s Save the World on Your Time. Fish’s argument in his book is similar to one he makes in the articles we read for our first seminar. Bizzell responds to Fish’s insistence that the college classroom should be free of politics (or the political opinions of the professor) by arguing:

In other words, for Fish, the professor is a brain in a jar.

This is not true to my own experience of the classroom. I believe that when my students encounter me as a writing teacher, they encounter all of me, my entire personality, informed by all my religious, political, moral, and social commitments. I firmly endorse that aspect of the objection of impossibility with which Fish himself agrees, namely that “purity” is impossible and I cannot divest myself of all these commitments when I enter the classroom. I also agree that I can and should behave “properly,” as he says, and not trumpet my convictions or blatantly reward those students who can convince me that they agree with me. But I believe that I can and do make my commitments known without becoming that exaggerated figure of fun, a character out of Dickens or Swift, who is the straw man Fish invokes in advocating the compartmentalization of one’s commitments.

Fish believes the first-year writing classroom should focus on grammar and that politics should be left out of it. Bizzell questions whether that’s even possible, especially if we are to successfully teach rhetoric. In our discussion next week, we don’t want to return to the question of whether the first-year writing classroom should focus on grammar (and Bizzell doesn’t argue for excluding it entirely), but we do want to discuss what you think should happen in the first-year writing classroom.

Finally, as background information, we thought you’d find the Council of Writing Program Administrator’s Outcomes Statement for First-Year Composition helpful.  It’s a short document that’s easy to skim.

Thanks for reading along! See you on March 9.

Karen and Amy

p.s. There will be three people presenting for our next meeting. Erin will be posting a few of her own readings soon.

Gee talks about the principles of video games, but I believe these principles can be applied to non-digital games (and game-like teaching exercises) as well.

Gee’s Good Video Games and Good Learning

https://ustl.commons.gc.cuny.edu/files/2009/12/Good_Learning.pdf

Prensky, who was the keynote speaker at the last CUNY General Education conference, argues that our students’ physical MINDS and LEARNING PATTERNS have changed, and we educators need to get with the program.

Prensky’s Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants, part 1

https://ustl.commons.gc.cuny.edu/files/2009/12/Prensky-Digital-Natives-Digital-Immigrants-Part1.pdf

Prensky’s Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants, part 2

https://ustl.commons.gc.cuny.edu/files/2009/12/Prensky-Digital-Natives-Digital-Immigrants-Part2.pdf

“So the suggestion I leave you with is not “use games in school”–though that’s a good idea–but: How can we make learning… more game-like in the sense of using the… learning principles young people see in good games every day…?” (James Gee)

–Joe Bisz and Roz Myers