Transcript In Search of a New Formula: Why Instructor Expertise plus

Conference on Higher Education Pedagogy
February 6, 2014
Ginni Fair, Associate Professor, Eastern Kentucky University
Jason Fair, Science Teacher, Farristown Middle school
Questions to Consider:

 1. What are the components of classroom practice that
impact student learning?
 2. React to the following: As early as 1995, Barr and Tagg indicated a
need for a paradigm shift:
A paradigm shift is taking hold in American higher education. In its
briefest form, the paradigm that has governed our colleges is this: A
college is an institution that exists to provide instruction. Subtly but
profoundly we are shifting to a new paradigm: A college is an
institution that exists to produce learning. This shift changes
everything. It is both needed and wanted. (p. 13, as quoted by Fear
et al., 2003, p. 152).
 3. What is the difference in a student-centered vs.
teacher-centered classroom?
Alignment

 Relationship between outcomes, assessment, and
instruction:
Student Learning Outcomes: What must students know
and be able to do as a result of the course? Are they
measurable and attainable within the time frame of the
course?
Assessment: Does the assessment measure (in content) what you intend to
measure? Does it measure (in weight) what you intend to measure? Are all
SLOs measured within your assessment(s)? What kind of feedback is given?
Instruction: What kinds of instructional techniques (e.g. discussion,
research/lab, field experiences, lecture, etc.) are incorporated? Do they
allow for students’ cognitive engagement? Do they allow students to
engage in behaviors/knowledge/skills that you want them to develop?
Example from K-12
Students who demonstrate understanding can:

Develop and use a model to describe the function of a cell as a whole and ways
parts of cells contribute to the function. [Clarification Statement: Emphasis is on
the cell functioning as a whole system and the primary role of identified parts of
the cell, specifically the nucleus, chloroplasts, mitochondria, cell membrane, and
MS-LS1-2.
cell wall.] [Assessment Boundary: Assessment of organelle structure/function
relationships is limited to the cell wall and cell membrane. Assessment of the function of the
other organelles is limited to their relationship to the whole cell. Assessment does not
include the biochemical function of cells or cell parts.]
Use argument supported by evidence for how the body is a system of interacting
subsystems composed of groups of cells. [Clarification Statement: Emphasis is
on the conceptual understanding that cells form tissues and tissues form organs
specialized for particular body functions. Examples could include the interaction
MS-LS1-3.
of subsystems within a system and the normal functioning of those systems.]
[Assessment Boundary: Assessment does not include the mechanism of one body system
independent of others. Assessment is limited to the circulatory, excretory, digestive,
respiratory, muscular, and nervous systems.]
Take a look at a syllabus:

Student Learning Outcomes:
Assessment Practices
* Implement and analyze a variety of tools for assessment for learning (formative) and
assessment of learning (summative). (CCR.R.4, R.6, R.7, R.10, W.2, W.6, W.9)
* Demonstrate effective writing instructional practices (including ethical response to student
writing) related to varied text types and purposes (e.g., argumentative, informational, and
narrative), production and distribution of writing, and research to build and present
knowledge. (CCR.W.10)
 Formative: Learning Log Reflections/Activities
 Summative: Unit Plan
Lesson Planning and Design
* Analyze and apply the processes for lesson planning and instructional design. (CCR.R.5,
R.7, R.10, W.2, W.6, W.9)
* Utilize a variety of technology and media in the development of lesson plans and
instructional materials related to the teaching of language arts. (CCR.R.7, W.6)
* Implement techniques for differentiating instruction that address student needs, interests,
and learning styles, as well as academic, linguistic, and cultural diversity, through the
selection of materials, lesson plans, grouping styles (heterogeneous and homogenous), and
instructional approaches. (CCR.R.4, R.7, W.6, W.10)
 Formative: Unit Plan
 Summative: Lesson Plan/Text Talk/Unit Plan
Syllabus SLOs, cont.

Literacy Materials and Resources
* Demonstrate effective instructional communication skills and a broad knowledge of
classical and contemporary fiction, poetry, drama, and non-fiction appropriate for middle
school students. (CCR.R.1, R.2, .R.3, R.6, R.7, W.2, W.6, W.9, W.10)
* Utilize narrative and expository text to help middle school students understand and
appreciate the development of linguistic systems and life styles of various cultures and
societies. (CCR.R.2, R.7, R.10, W.2)
 Formative: Learning Log/Reading Reflections
 Summative: Book Share
Scholarship
* Students will be able to demonstrate the writing process and to produce effective
documents appropriate to the course level. (CCR.R.1, R.7, CCR.W.1, W.4, W.5, W.6, W.7,
W.8, W.10)
* Students will be able to recognize effective writing strategies. (CCR.R.4, CCR.W.1, W.4,
W.5, W.6, W.7, W.8, W.10)
* Students will be able to use critical thinking to expand, express, explore, and evaluate
course content through written communication. (CCR.R.1, R.4, R.6, R.8, R.9, W.6, W.7, W.10)
 Formative: Reader Profile – Writing Process
 Summative: Reader Profile – Writing Product
Assessment

 Alignment with learning outcomes
 Formative and Summative assessment
 Quality of criteria (Success criteria)
 Using rubrics, scoring guides, etc.
 Using models
 Using comparison analyses (student-driven!)
 Feedback
 Is more powerful when it’s descriptive
 Is more powerful when uses language of success
criteria
 Can use self and peer assessments
Critical Thinking

Various types of critical thinking:
 Higher Levels of Thinking (apply, analyze, synthesize,
critique, create)
 Thinking about your thinking (is it logical, is it free of
bias, etc.?)
 Metacognition (understanding how you learn/think)
 Strategic thinking (I know I think this way, so I will
use certain strategies to help me learn this material)
Classroom Scenarios

 Dr. Miller is well known in his field as a geographer. His
knowledge within his discipline is vast, and he has a wealth of
personal experiences to share with his students. He does this
via lecture/sharing of pictures within his classroom. He gives
four tests to his students, each of which increases in weight
over the course of the semester (1st test, 15%; 2nd test, 20%; 3rd
test, 30%; final, 35%). This, he believes, allows his students to
master the content and structure of the exams incrementally.
His class average is usually around a B-/C+. Neither his
lectures nor his tests have been altered in several years, and his
test questions reflect questions from assigned readings and
from his lectures. Without reviewing his SLOs or assessment
questions, what questions/comments might you make about
his teaching vs. learning centered paradigm?
Classroom Scenario

 Dr. Felicity teaches philosophy. She uses several texts as
assigned reading and structures her class completely
around discussion. She assigns a text, asks students
questions in class, and, as a test, she has students reflect
on what they have learned and/or now believe, based
upon each of the class discussions. Throughout the
course, she gives three open-ended essays and assigns
grades to students based upon the evidence that they use
to support their ideas. Her class average is around a C-,
and she is unsure what she is doing wrong. Without
reviewing her SLOs and assessment questions, what
might you infer about her teacher vs. learner centered
classroom?
Classroom Scenario

 Dr. James teaches chemistry. Before the course begins, he reviews his
SLOs to ensure that they are current. Then he looks at the assessments
he has planned for the course. He reviews them carefully, ensuring that
every SLO is reflected within his assessments. Once his assessments are
updated, he reviews his course schedule, determining how much time
he needs to dedicate to each concept/SLO. He plans instructional
activities, including lecture, lab, demonstration, inquiry projects, etc.,
that help students think like scientists and that force them to reflect on
data. When his students collectively miss questions/information on an
assessment, he can determine what CONCEPT they misunderstood and
address that (as well as thinking habits that will help them learn the
material) as he proceeds with his instruction. His students collectively
make around a B/B- average, but he believes that they leave his
classroom with a better understanding of scientific processes and what
it means to gather and evaluate data. Without reviewing his SLOs and
assessment questions, what might you infer about this teacher vs.
learner centered classroom?
Where are you?

Learner
Paradigm
Ensures that
outcomes,
assessment, and
instruction are
aligned
Teacher
Paradigm
Alignment
Assumes that
experience,
knowledge,
and
professional
“I-just-know”
feeling is
enough to
structure the
class
Where are you?

Learner
Paradigm
Ensures that
assessment
measures SLOs,
provides clear
criteria and
feedback to
students
Teacher
Paradigm
Assessment
Gives general
grades, utilizes
one form of
assessment,
focuses on
discreet
knowledge as
opposed to
thinking
processes
Where are you?

Learner
Paradigm
Allows students to
demonstrate deep
thinking, though
interactive
instruction. Requires
students to think
about WHY and
HOW they think, not
just WHAT they
think.
Teacher
Paradigm
Critical Thinking
Does most of the
thinking for the
students by telling
them what they
need to know or by
using such openended questions that
students don’t learn
to support or
evaluate their own
thinking as well as
others’.
To sum it all up…

Youtube video
References
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Inside the black box: Raising standards through
classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(2), 139-148.
Conrad, C.F., Johnson, J., & Gupta, D.M. (2007). Teaching-for-learning (TFL): A
model for faculty to advance student learning. Innovative Higher
Education, 32, 153-165.
Elder, L. & Paul, R. (2013). Critical thinking: Intellectual standards essential to
reasoning well within every domain of thought. Journal of Developmental
Education, 36(3), 34-35.
Fear, F.A., Doberneck, D.M., Robinson, C.F., Fear, K.L., Barr, R.B., VanDen Berg,
H., Smith, J., & Petrulis, R. (2003). Meaning making and “The Learning
Paradigm”: A
provocative idea in practice. Innovative Higher
Education, 27(3), 151-168.
Fletcher, R.B., Meyer, L.H., Anderson, H., Johnston, P., & Rees, M. (2012). Faculty
and students’ conceptions of assessment in higher education. Higher
Education, 64, 119-133. DOI 10.1007/s10734-011-9484-1
Flores, K.L., Matkin, G.S., Burbach, M.E., Quinn, C.E., & Harding, H. (2012).
Deficient critical thinking skills among college graduates: Implications
for leadership. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 44(2), 212- 230. doi:
10.1111/j.1469-5812.2010.00672.x

References, cont.

Frick, T.W., Chadha, R., Watson, C., & Zlatkovska, E. (2010). Improving course
evaluations to improve instruction and complex learning in higher
education. Educational Technology Research & Development, 58, 115-136.
DOI 10.1007/s11423-009-9131-z
Harvey, M., & Baumann, C. (2012). Using student reflections to explore
curriculum alignment. Asian Social Science, 8(14), 9-18.
McDowell, L. Wakelin, D., Montgomery, C. & King, S. (2011). Does assessment for
learning make a difference? The development of a questionnaire to
explore the student response. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education,
36(7), 749-765.
Mulnix, J.W. (2012). Thinking critically about critical thinking. Educational
Philosophy and Theory, 44(5), 464-479. doi: 10.1111/j.14695812.2010.00673.x
Roach, A.T., Niebling, B.C., & Kurz, A. (2008). Evaluating the alignment among
curriculum, instruction, and assessments: Implications and applications
for research and practice. Psychology in the Schools, 45(2), 158-176.
Paul, R,. & Elder, L. (2006). Critical thinking: The nature of critical and creative
thought. Journal of Developmental Education, 30(2), 34-35.