Tag Archives: Michael Falk

Lunch and Learn: Active Learning Techniques

Posted on by
Reply

On Tuesday, March 12th, the Center for Teaching Excellence and Innovation (CTEI) hosted a Lunch and Learn on Active Learning Techniques: Advice and Guidance from Experienced Faculty. Faculty panelists included Nate Brown, Senior Lecturer, University Writing Program (KSAS); Robert Leheny, Professor and Department Chair, Department of Physics and Astronomy (KSAS); and Michael Falk, Vice Dean of Undergraduate Education and Professor, Department of Materials Science and Engineering (WSE). Caroline Egan, Teaching Academy Program  Manager, moderated the discussion.

Caroline began the session by asking panelists how they got started with active learning and what they would recommend to those who were thinking about implementing it.

Nate Brown described how he heavily relied on his lecture notes to deliver content to students when he first started teaching. As he’s gained more experience, he’s moved away from using lecture notes and actively involves students in their learning.  Brown structures his classes now in such a way that the students drive the conversation and solve problems collectively, leading to greater retention of information and increased engagement. He makes a point of having students think about “why they are doing what they are doing.”

Robert Leheny recalled how the Provost’s Gateway Sciences Initiative from several years ago provided funding to support the redesign of gateway science courses, such as the Introduction to Physics course, which he teaches. The goal of the Gateway Sciences Initiative was to evolve the pedagogy in large introductory science courses to produce better student outcomes.

The Intro to Physics redesign, which was modeled after similar large lecture style courses at NC State and MIT, moved away from a traditional lecture style to a much more interactive experience. Students are divided into groups and sit at round tables instead of in rows, and they solve problem sets together during class rather than at home. This in-class work is partly enabled by a flipped classroom approach which enables students to review the content before coming to class. Leheny said the department now offers two versions of Introduction to Physics that students can select from: an active learning style and a more traditional auditorium/lecture style.

Michael Falk first started implementing  active learning by using  clickers in a 200-student Introduction to Computer Programming course at the University of Michigan several years ago. Since he’s been at Hopkins, his classes have been smaller, allowing him to approach active learning in different ways. Falk gave an example of how he flipped an upper-level materials science course (which is now also part of the Gateway Computing program) so that students work in an online textbook outside of class and do more collaborative work during class. Another example is a First-Year Seminar class taught by Falk, Turing’s Shadow: Uncovering What’s Hidden in STEM. This discussion-based course covers a range of topics, some of which are sensitive, and students are often afraid to speak up. To address this, Falk created a series of discussion cards to help ease students’ discomfort. The cards provide discussion prompts for students, such as “Clarification: Ask for further explanation about something,” and they also inject some fun elements into the conversation by asking respondents to present their response “in the form of a song,” or “while walking around the room very quickly,” for example. It turns the exercise into a game and helps students to feel more comfortable participating in class.

Caroline continued by asking the panelists what their definition of active learning is and to provide a counter-example of it, which would bring its definition into better relief.

NB:   I think it involves giving students a stake in what we’re doing. For example, helping to define the parameters of a paper we’re going to write. I see the professorial role as one of support, like “air traffic control.” With active learning, students are involved in the creation of their own learning.

RL: The primary component of active learning in physics is peer instruction. Students need to be able to solve problems. We don’t use class time to introduce students to concepts, but instead give students an opportunity to practice solving problems where there are resources to help facilitate these skills. For example, students are divided into groups of three and explain to each other how they would go about solving a problem. The act of explaining the problem to someone else helps to solidify their own understanding. A counter example would be the old way of the instructor speaking from the blackboard, talking uninterrupted for most of the class period.

MF: Active learning is learning by doing. Students are engaging with content in a supportive environment. We are teaching a different group of students at Hopkins now – there are many more first- generation, limited-income, and/or underrepresented students with very different backgrounds. We need to think proactively about leveling the playing field for students. This is evident in the data around class outcomes: classes taught using active learning techniques have lower levels of students failing or dropping out. This is even more true for students in underrepresented groups.

RL: We also see this in Intro to Physics. We have the two versions of the course: one in the auditorium (which may have some active learning elements in it), and one designed specifically as an active learning course. The homework and exams are the same in both courses. The outcomes show that failing grades are much less likely to occur in the active learning course.

MF: I used to think my job as an instructor was to deliver content and material. Now, with active learning, I think my job is to deliver an experience.

Caroline continued by asking panelists for a simple active learning technique that instructors can implement right away.

NB: This may sound crazy – it comes from a writer colleague of mine. I was having students read out loud in class and noticed they were struggling: they didn’t feel comfortable, they were shy, or were experiencing language barriers, etc. I then asked them all to read in chorus (at the same time). No one understood what they were hearing, but it shocked them into it being ok to share. It really helped them get over their nerves.

RL: Think-Pair-Share. This technique works very well in a large lecture environment. We give students a multiple choice question and have everyone vote on the answer. Next, they have to find someone who voted differently and try to convince them to change their answer. We then ask students to vote again. The results are that there are usually more correct answers the second time. You do need good questions for this to be effective.

MF: An idea for STEM classes, figure out a way to shorten your lecture and hand out the problem set at the end of class. Allow students to work on them with each other. Ask students to write down the steps on how they would solve the problem, but not actually solve it. Allow time for a report out at the end. This gives them a chance to support each other while organizing information.

CE: A complimentary Humanities example: In my first-year writing class, I hand out labeled strips of paper to students with our class readings on them and ask them to organize the strips in a way that would help the students use the readings in their papers. Also, I give students writing prompts, break them into groups, and ask them to find out where they would find the answers to the prompts. This helps to get them in the right mindset of locating good sources.

Two other examples of active learning were mentioned by faculty guests. One instructor explained how she has students use Legos to construct the analysis of an argument. They connect more and more Legos to build supportive elements of their argument and take away those that they disagree with. Another instructor mentioned that she has students act out responses in class.

The session continued with questions from the audience for the panelists:

Q: In reference to Think-Pair-Share, have you observed any competitiveness among students or reluctance to participate in these activities?
MF: We tell students it has nothing to do with their grade.
RL: We do the same. We also tell them there is no curve and it is possible for everyone to get an A, which reduces overall competitiveness.
NB: One of the great things about this exercise, where students are engaging with each other, is that they get to hear from peers that are from all over the world. We turn it into a social space where they can feel comfortable sharing.

Q: (From a librarian) I recently had about 30 minutes to work with students in a research class. I received feedback from a student that I didn’t do enough active learning in the class, despite doing a brainstorming exercise with them. What do you do when you need more active learning in such a short amount of time?
RL: Explain to students why you structured the class like you did. It will help if you get their buy-in. Maybe the answer is to announce at the beginning that what you’re doing is in fact active leaning.
MF: Students like playing – it makes for a positive learning experience. Perhaps turn part of it into a game/play. And then explain what and why you’re doing it this way.

Q: Are there any active learning experiences to share when you’re guest lecturing? Do you use the same or different strategies?
MF: It needs to be a different strategy. As a guest, you don’t have the advantage of repetition or control of the environment. Explain to students what you’re doing and do the best you can with the constraints that you’re under.
CE: Be very intentional about your choices. At the end, ask them one thing they will remember from the class. This is a good recall exercise.
NB: As a guest speaker, you already are a bit novel since your presence is different than their regular day. Maybe use a novel activity that they will remember.

Q: Could you each share how you put groups together intentionally instead of having students self-form?
RL: Students are put into groups of three. Groups are engineered this way – we switch a few times during the semester. The students don’t know it, but we add them to groups according to their performance on the midterm. In each group, there is one person that scored at the top, one from the middle, and one from a low level. The top level person gets more practice articulating ideas. The lower level person gets the benefit of working with someone who has command of the material. We also group according to gender: we avoid placing two men and one woman in a group to avoid women being excluded. There is research that supports this.
NB: We also do a lot of group work. Halfway through the semester, I ask students to work with someone they haven’t worked with before. I also ask them to sit next to someone different. It results in a richer peer review experience.
MF: I have students do a self-assessment at the very beginning of the course and use the results of the assessment to group students.

For more information about the active learning topics discussed at the event, please see this  Active Learning For Distribution folder of materials developed by Caroline Egan.

Amy Brusini, Senior Instructional Designer
Center for Teaching Excellence and Innovation 

Image source: Lunch and Learn logo, Unsplash, Pixabay

Lunch and Learn: Evaluating Teaching Effectiveness

Posted on by
2

This post summarizes recent Lunch and Learn discussions among Homewood faculty about methods for evaluating teaching effectiveness. This discussion supported the work of the Provost’s ad hoc Committee on Teaching Evaluations. Provost Kumar established this committee in response to the Second Commission on Undergraduate Education report, which included a recommendation to establish a new system for the assessment of teaching and student mentoring by faculty.  This was the first of multiple conversations the committee will hold with faculty, graduate students, and undergraduates.

Fifty faculty joined one of two discussions (February 16th and 22nd) moderated by Vice Deans of Undergraduate Education, Michael Falk and Erin Rowe, along with Mike Reese of the Center for Teaching Excellence and Innovation (CTEI).

The Vice Deans reviewed principles and objectives drafted by the committee to collect faculty feedback and suggestions for improvement. Attendees then discussed methods of improving how we evaluate teaching based on these principles and objectives that go beyond the current system of teaching evaluations.  The following summarizes some of the attendees’ comments.

  • Teaching Evaluations serve multiple purposes: students use them to choose courses, faculty use them to improve their teaching, Homewood Academic Council uses them in promotion and tenure decisions, and schools use them for program assessment and accreditation. One mechanism – course evaluations (or student evaluations of teaching) – should not serve all these purposes.
  • Using multiple methods of evaluating teaching (peer evaluation, review of course materials, etc.) and not just traditional course evaluations, will minimize student bias against underrepresented minorities.
  • An attendee shared that when she worked at a more teaching-focused college, it included a committee of peer evaluators – faculty trained to provide feedback. The instructor would meet with the peer evaluator before class to discuss lesson plans and then debrief after the observation. Junior faculty were reviewed more frequently than senior faculty. They tried to find a peer match based on discipline. This review was used as a formative assessment and also summative assessment when someone came up for promotion.
  • Another professor shared that at West Point, instructors attended formal training on how to teach. Senior faculty came in three times during the semester to observe new instructors in class with a defined rubric that was shared beforehand. As for course evaluations, only the instructor saw them; the department chair did not. Student comments did not play any role in promotion.
  • With more faculty recording their classes, peer evaluators could review those recordings and provide feedback on those videos. This is apparently done at the Harvard Business School.
  • Someone raised the question, what is considered “quality teaching?” and suggested there must be some standard.  We need to consider how much we weight the entertainment value of sitting in class or comfort level of students as opposed to being inspired to pursue a career or digging in deeper [learning more about topic].  Who decides that focus for course evals and how to do it? Another person asked the individual who raised the question for his thoughts on this question. He responded, “In engineering, every class must have an objective and we need to demonstrate we are collecting data to show we are meeting it. Another is to have an expert – maybe in sociology or psychology – to write a question that measures if the class in interesting or stimulating to be in.”
  • One instructor raised the question of who are the experts to conduct evaluations. Attendees mentioned instructional design staff at the Center for Teaching Excellence and Innovation, but also felt that discipline-based education experts were needed. Teaching faculty familiar with discipline-specific teaching strategies (e.g., math, engineering, humanities seminars) should also be considered.
  • For evaluation of teaching effectiveness, the most important thing is measuring what the students have learned and, ideally, retained over long periods. We need concept inventories and tests of student knowledge beyond the end of a class, possibly in future semesters.  Peer evaluations could be part of the process of helping instructors improve, but they don’t really measure learning.
  • An instructor shared, “At my previous institution, we assessed teachers through narratives describing changes they made [in their course] based on new studies that have been published in their areas, in addition to participation in teaching workshops/conferences, and adoption of new practices. I would also suggest we evaluate teaching rigor in some of the same ways we evaluate scientific rigor. Look at whether faculty make their resources open and accessible, use OER, etc.”
  • One professor suggested faculty share with students the purpose of course evaluations and how they will be used. It may discourage complaining. “I tell them I read their comments and my boss reads them. I’ve seen biased comments decline since I shared that with students.”
  • Another instructor said the dean’s offices could provide a script for instructors to read about how course evaluations are used and the importance of students civilly communicating feedback.
  • Course evaluations should be filtered for racist and misogynistic comments so faculty are not subject to them.
  • Course evaluations could include a checklist of comments so student feedback is more specific. Students would select the statements that are relevant to their instructor in addition to entering open comments.
  • It would make the surveys longer, but someone suggested every comment students make should be required to include at least one specific example as evidence.
  • One instructor asked, “How do we tease apart teaching effectiveness so they focus on learning and not grading?”
  • Is it possible to ask students to reflect on gateway or core classes sometime in the future to identify how the course provided foundational skills for future courses or co-curricular activities (e.g., internships)? Someone added, “This week I had a senior tell me, ‘I didn’t realize that those concepts really would come up over and over in my other classes, but they did!’” Another attendee shared, “They also report back 3+ years after graduating to say that they use something they learned in class that during the time they thought would be useless.”
  • Perhaps it would also be helpful to leverage our alumni network as one way to capture the enduring effects of learning from various classes.
  • Another instructor mentioned that it can also help to ask students for feedback during the semester so you can adjust instructional methods.
  • Whatever system is developed should not place undue administrative burden on faculty who are already taking on more administrative burdens.
  • An instructor remarked that once a change is implemented, faculty will need training on the new system of evaluation. It will also help encourage professors to be open to this process. Support for instructors assessing the results of evaluations will be critical.

One faculty member shared two books to inform the committee’s future work:

If you have questions or comments about the teaching evaluation process, feel free to email Mike Reese.

Mike Reese, Associate Dean and Director, CTEI
Mike Reese is Associate Dean of University Libraries and Director of the Center for Teaching Excellence and Innovation. He has a PhD from the Department of Sociology at Johns Hopkins University.

Image Source: Lunch and Learn Logo, Unsplash