Category Archives: Pedagogy

2013 GSI Symposium Breakout Session 4: Student Engagement in Curriculum Development

Posted on by
Reply

A Report from the Trenches

We’re continuing with our reports from the JHU Gateway Sciences Initiative (GSI) 2nd Annual Symposium on Excellence in Teaching and Learning in the Sciences.  Next up is “Student Engagement in Curriculum Development: School of Medicine Medical Education Concentration” presented by Sarah Clever, MD, Assistant Professor of Medicine and Assistant Dean for Student Affairs, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine and her students Mark Fisher JHSoM ’14, Sara Fuhrhop, JHSoM ’14, Nikhil Jiwrajka, JHSoM ’15, and Eric Sankey, JHSoM ’15.

Please note that links to examples and explanations in the text below were added by CER staff and were not included in the breakout session presentation.

Dr. Clever identified physicians as having distinct roles as teachers as they interact with their peers, trainees, and patients. As well, graduates from the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine (JHSoM) often pursue careers in academic medicine. Specific training in medical education significantly enhances physicians’ skills as educators.

Based on an online needs assessment survey she conducted of 306 JHSoM students in June 2011 (86 responded), Dr. Clever felt that there was substantial student interest in the implementation of a medical education track including didactic teaching in medical education, hands-on curriculum design with a faculty mentor and evaluation of that curriculum, as well as presentation at a national meeting and or scholarly publication.

Nationally, clinician-educator tracks for residents and faculty are growing in popularity, but Student-as-Teacher programs for medical students are less common. The schools that have such programs include the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey (Distinction in Medical Education), University of Rochester (Medical Education Pathway), University of Chicago (Medical Education Track), University of Texas at San Antonio (MD with Distinction in Medical Education Program), and Stanford (Foundation in Medical Education). These institutions provided inspiration in developing the JHSoM program, and the discussions with medical students from these institutions about the strengths and weaknesses of their programs were particularly helpful.

The JHSoM Medical Education Concentration (MEC) started with a pilot in the fall of 2011 (for JHSoM Class of 2014 students) and opened formally for application to JHSoM class of 2015 students in May (at JHU, student self- select into this option). There are 20 participants in the first year. The Medical Education Concentration students apply in the 2nd half of the first year.  The second year is spent in a fall seminar series and on developing a curriculum module.  This is done individually in conjunction with a faculty member. Year three, they implement and obtain feedback. In year four the module is implemented a second time.  By the end of the program, students will create an original teaching module in the clinical or preclinical curriculum; collaborate with a faculty mentor using evidence-supported curriculum development methods; and implement and evaluate their module and teaching performance. The overarching goal of the JHSoM program is to teach students critical curriculum design and teaching skills.

The fall seminar series is taught by JHU faculty and includes topics such as: adult learning theory, conducting a needs assessment, writing quality goals and objectives, choosing educational methods, technology in education, constructing an effective PowerPoint presentation, small group facilitation, eliciting, giving, and receiving feedback, and learner and curriculum evaluation methods.

Some of the pilot cohort teaching modules were:

  • Conducting a follow up visit with chronic disease patients in the Longitudinal Clerkship
  • Conducting a well-child visit with pediatric patients in the Longitudinal Clerkship
  • Developing oral presentation skills in the Longitudinal Clerkship
  • Incorporating inter-professional education modules into the Pediatrics Clerkship
  • Surgical skills education for first year medical students.

Refinements to the Medical Education Concentration in the second year have included some changes to the seminar series, integration with other SoM education initiatives, and improving MEC infrastructure (i.e., Blackboard components used for the MEC).

In the future, Dr. Clever hopes to develop a system to track students’ project progress, create a handbook for MEC leadership, work on pre-assessment for prospective participants, and to collaborate with similar programs at other institutions.

Dr. Clever’s presentation ended with these questions for discussion among the breakout session participants:

  1. How can student involvement in curriculum development benefit the Gateway Sciences?
  2. What are the implications of undergraduate student involvement in teaching and/or curriculum development for courses that are already well established?
  3. How can we better involve students in the learning process?

The discussion centered on transferring this experience to the Gateway Sciences Initiative.  Although participants did not feel that freshman and sophomore students would be able to effectively have a role in curriculum design, peer-teaching or developing focused instructional modules could help an upperclassman to gain a greater understanding of a concept or to understand its application to higher level courses.

The consensus was that these SoM medical education concentration students could be role models for pre-med students.  They also could provide insight to faculty teaching undergraduates about the skills needed in medical school (at least the JHU model).  Everyone agreed this was a session that showed how cross- University collaboration could benefit all involved.

For more on the development and implementation of the MEC program see Dr. Sarah Clever’s presentation for the Johns Hopkins Medicine Institute for Excellence in Education Grand Rounds, March 14, 2012: Learners to Educators: Development  and Implementation of a Medical Education Curriculum [JHED ID required].

Many thanks to Melissa West for providing The Innovative Instructor with the notes she took during this session.

Macie Hall, Senior Instructional Designer
Center for Educational Resources

Image Source: Dr. Sarah Clever

 

2013 GSI Symposium Breakout Session 1: Practical Tips for Active Learning

Posted on by
Reply

A Report from the Trenches

The next several posts will be in the form of reports from the JHU Gateway Sciences Initiative (GSI) 2nd Annual Symposium on Excellence in Teaching and Learning in the Sciences. The symposium featured five breakout sessions and many of us attending wished we could clone ourselves and attend more than one, as the topics were so interesting. So to those who couldn’t bilocate, and to those who couldn’t attend the symposium, these posts are for you.

First up is “Moving from Lecture-based Teaching to Active Learning Instructional Approaches: Some Practical Tips” facilitated by Robin Wright, PhD, Associate Dean and Professor of Biology, University of Minnesota.

Robin Wright practiced what she preaches in this breakout session, quickly moving the participants into an active learning activity.

Engaging in active learning discussion.To begin she told faculty to “…start where you are, you don’t need to start over. Start with your current lecture notes and identify the key learning outcomes. What can you do instead of telling your students?” (Remember that the one who does the work does the learning. When you tell your students, you are doing the work.)

She asked participants to think about their favorite lecture, or their worst one. She then discussed the principle of backward design – an instructor looks at what s/he wants students to know and/or be able to do at the end of the course.  Dr. Wright noted that the advantage of backward design is by starting with defining the desired end result, instructors can create appropriate assessments and activities. As well, students can be told what they can expect to learn. Setting clear expectations helps students achieve the goals set for them.

She then asked everyone to define a learning outcome and design an assessment to determine how well students reached the outcome, directing three questions to the participants:

  1. What do you want students to know or be able to do [think in terms of the lecture you’ve selected – what do you want the students to learn from that lecture]?
  2. How will you assess their learning?
  3. What activities will you plan to help them reach your specific goals?

Dr. Wright walked the participants through an example from her own class, defined the outcome, described activities that moved students from a lower level  to a higher level (Bloom’s Taxonomy) with activities, and described how assessed.

Then the participants were set to work on writing one higher level learning outcome and an appropriate assessment and discussing these with the people sitting near them. Everyone appeared to be very enthusiastic about this exercise. In sharing after the small group exchanges we heard the following comments:

It was difficult for many to get started.
It was a powerful tool for determining what the class should focus on.
Participants refined their learning outcomes and assessments in discussion with others.

Dr. Wright then talked about the “tools in her toolkit” that she uses as activities and gave examples of some of these:

  1. Figures from the textbook projected and used as a basis for questions for small group discussion.
  2. Trick questions (questions which may seem to have an obvious answer, but the “obvious answer” is not the correct one).
  3. Videos used to challenge thinking and promote discussion, often used as a way to introduce broad subjects (e.g., evolution) to her classes.
  4. Case studies used to get students to think critically and to begin to learn on their own, outside of the classroom.

She introduced each “tool” with a specific example, and had participants briefly discuss possible answers to questions she would ask her students. Again, the participants gained an understanding of how to incorporate active learning into the classroom through an active learning process.

View the video of Robin Wright’s 2013 GSI Symposium keynote address “Teach What Really Matters; Use What Really Works.” 

Macie Hall, Senior Instructional Designer
Center for Educational Resources

Image Source: Microsoft clip art

Select Web Resources on Active Learning Strategies in the Sciences

Posted on by
Reply

Students in classroomSTEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics) education is very much on the radar screen here at Johns Hopkins. Last year our Provost launched the Gateway Sciences Initiative (GSI) as a “…multi-dimensional program to improve and enrich learning of gateway sciences at Johns Hopkins University for undergraduate and graduate students.” Active learning strategies have been a big part of the ensuing conversation. Following are some web resources that will be useful for faculty interested in finding out more about how to incorporate active learning activities into their teaching.

Team-Based Learning Collaborative
http://www.teambasedlearning.org

The Team-Based Learning Collaborative (TBLC) is a consortium of university educators dedicated to supporting faculty from a variety of disciplines who wish to implement team-based learning. The website has specific guidelines, how-to videos, and step by step instructions created by faculty for faculty.

Yale Center for Scientific Teaching
http://www.yale.edu/cst/

The goal of the Center for Scientific Teaching is to enhance undergraduate biology education by training a new generation of “scientific teachers,” namely faculty and instructors who bring the rigor and spirit of science research to teaching. The website has instructional modules developed by faculty who teach undergraduate and graduate science courses and a bi bibliography.

MIT Technology Enhanced Active Learning (TEAL)
 http://web.mit.edu/edtech/casestudies/teal.html

TEAL is an initiative to transform university education from a string of passive lectures in introductory courses into an intense, active, personalized and highly collaborative adventure. The central concepts are flexible modes of learning that better stimulate discovery and improve understanding of conceptual material. The website provides an overview to the activities and spaces in use at MIT and is useful as a model for active learning initiatives.

Stanford Center for Innovations in Learning
http://wallenberg.stanford.edu/

Wallenberg Hall is Stanford University’s center for research in classroom teaching and learning. This site provides a model for active learning with descriptions of the facility, case studies of how the rooms are used, and case studies and interviews with faculty talking about their classroom experiences. Of particular interest are the papers, presentations, and information about on-going research in teaching and learning found here: http://wallenberg.stanford.edu/teaching/findings.html

NC State University Student-Centered Active Learning Environment for Undergraduate Programs (SCALE-UP)
http://www.ncsu.edu/PER/scaleup.html

The primary goal of the Student-Centered Active Learning Environment for Undergraduate Programs (SCALE-UP) Project is to establish highly collaborative, hands-on, computer-rich, interactive learning environments for large-enrollment courses. The website showcases the SCALE-UP spaces at North Carolina State University and other institutions that have adopted SCALE-UP.  Also available through the website: links to physics learning activities, research in physics education, software products to enrich visualization in physics classes, assessment resources, and student learning toolkits.

Minnesota – Active Learning Classrooms
http://www1.umn.edu/ohr/teachlearn/alc/index.html

The University of Minnesota has invested in a new Active Learning Classrooms building and has developed these web resource pages to outline the considerations and challenges in adopting active learning methods, and to provide faculty with specific strategies and activities to promote successful active learning course design.

University of Washington Physics Education Group
Tutorials in Introductory Physics
http://www.phys.washington.edu/groups/peg/curric.html

Two major curriculum developments are the subject of publications by the Physics Education Group at UW.  Physics by Inquiry is a set of lab-based modules designed for K-12 teachers and for college students whose science background is weak. Tutorials in Introductory Physics is intended for use by small groups of students working collaboratively as a supplementary curriculum to aid in the development and application of key concepts in calculus or algebra-based physics.

Carl Wieman Science Education Initiative at the University of British Columbia (CWSEI)
http://www.cwsei.ubc.ca/index.html

The goal of the CWSEI is to achieve highly effective, evidence-based science education for all post-secondary students by applying the latest advances in pedagogical and organizational excellence. This website has a number of useful resources applicable for STEM teaching. Of particular interest are:

Clicker Resources, which include an instructor’s guide: http://www.cwsei.ubc.ca/resources/clickers.htm and videos that show the benefits of, and offer practical tips on, using clickers in the classroom: http://www.cwsei.ubc.ca/resources/SEI_video.html

Educause 
http://www.educause.edu/EDUCAUSE+Review/EDUCAUSEReviewMagazineVolume40/LearningSpaceDesigninAction/157996

EDUCAUSE Review Magazine, Volume 40, Number 4, July/August 2005 has several articles on learning space design theories, principles, and practices, including details on active learning initiatives and activity-based science courses at MIT, NC State University, University of Washington, and Dickinson College, among others.

Association of American Universities (AAU) Undergraduate STEM Education Initiative
http://www.aau.edu/policy/article.aspx?id=12588

The Association of American Universities (AAU) announced on September 14, 2011, that it would undertake a five-year initiative to improve the quality of undergraduate teaching and learning in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields at its member institutions. The goals of the initiative are to help institutions assess the quality of STEM teaching on their campuses, share best practices, and create incentives for their departments and faculty members to adopt the most effective teaching methods in their classes.

Macie Hall, Senior Instructional Designer
Center for Educational Resources

Image source: Microsoft Clip Art