by Debie Lohe, Director, CTTL

Here in the Reinert Center, we talk a lot about teaching that transforms – that is, teaching that changes people, altering fundamentally the way learners understand themselves and others, the way they engage in and contribute to their larger world.

But transformation is a tall order (especially for those of you moving swiftly through an accelerated summer session, hoping for just a smattering of content “mastery” between now and ten minutes from now!).  The word transformation can sometimes feel like an empty signifier, like one of those clichés people trot out to make the work they do seem larger and more significant than it really is.  Clichés aside, though, we really are committed to teaching that transforms, teaching that changes both the learner and the teacher.  But it isn’t always clear how to get there.  How does one move from aspiring to transformation to achieving it?

For some emerging answers, you might have a look at George M. Slavich and Philip G. Zimbardo’s review article, “Transformational Teaching: Theoretical Underpinnings, Basic Principles, and Core Methods,” if you have any of that elusive “down time” this summer.

Published in Educational Psychology Review, Slavin and Zimbardo’s article considers the relationship between several teaching methodologies used by numerous faculty across the country – specifically, interactive and collaborative learning strategies – and “transformational teaching,” which they define as “the expressed or unexpressed goal to increase students’ mastery of key course concepts while transforming their learning-related attitudes, values, beliefs, and skills” (original emphasis).  Firmly committed to Rosebrough and Leverett’s view that “education should be more about inspiration than information,” Slavich and Zimbardo bring together theory and practice in this article, reviewing various strategies and theories in an effort to help faculty identify what the core methods of “transformational teaching” are.

They begin with a review of what they call “contemporary approaches to classroom learning and instruction” in higher education.  While some of these concepts have been around for a while – active learning, student-centered teaching methods, collaborative, experiential, and problem-based learning – they haven’t always been studied alongside one another, with their similarities and differences in full view.  In bringing them together, Slavich and Zimbardo link the theories that drive these approaches with the concept of transformational teaching.  Though the article is a bit long, the authors provide a succinct overview of the key theories that drive transformational teaching—social cognitive theory, transformative learning theory, intentional change theory, and theories of transformational leadership.  As they make clear, a transformational teacher is one who not only achieves transformation in her students, but who also models a willingness to be transformed by learning herself.

After summarizing these guiding theories, Slavich and Zimbardo explore, in a bit more detail, what they call the six core methods of transformational teaching:

1. Establishing a shared vision for a course.
2. Providing modeling and mastery experiences.
3. Intellectually challenging and encouraging students.
4. Personalizing attention and feedback.
5. Creating experiential lessons.
6. Promoting preflection and reflection.

If you’re someone who tends to chuck out your inspirational teaching moves right around mid-term, when all of the not-yet-covered informational content is bearing down on you, you might enjoy Slavich and Zimbardo’s primer.  I bet you’ll be reminded of some things you already do to move students toward transformation, and you may even be inspired to try a few others.

Of course, if you do read the article, and want to talk about ways to make these methods meaningful for your own teaching context, you can always come see us in the Center.  We’re here all summer!

By Michaella Thornton, Assistant Director for Instructional Design

For four years I have taught blended, accelerated, and linked first-year composition courses at another learning institution.  Despite having several years experience teaching face-to-face college-level writing and online educational technology courses before teaching a blended course, I had to teach myself a lot about the educational nuances and practicalities of blended, or hybrid, pedagogy.

While I immersed myself in the learning theory of connectivism (Siemens, 2005), determined how to best facilitate online writing conferences (Hewett, 2010), and navigated the most effective ways to design an integrated writing class that wouldn’t encumber students with lots of unintuitive technology or unnecessary online interactions, I wished then for a more comprehensive yet succinct overview of some of the most effective blended course design practices, especially for those new to teaching a blended course.

A year ago in June 2012, Dr. Patricia McGee and Abby Reis, both of The University of Texas at San Antonio, published their qualitative meta-analysis of 67 public narratives on the “best” or most “effective” practices in blended learning in the Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks. This summer as I read McGee and Reis’ meta-analysis of existing literature (see below for some of the recommended resources they discuss), oh, how I wished this journal article had been available when I first began teaching blended courses in early 2009.

McGee and Reis’ qualitative research, which focuses on exploring the collective wisdom of teaching blended courses via publically available online resources and the “pedagogical patterns” common in instructional design theory and strategies, underscored the importance of re-designing one’s blended course and not just trying to Frankenstein or simply add-on to an existing face-to-face course with a narrated PowerPoint here or a wiki there (p. 10).  The “course-and-a-half phenomenon” McGee and Reis discuss reflects what many teachers often do, myself included, when first teaching a blended course with little to no instructional design support or adequate time to develop a blended course (p. 11). (Please note: All SLU faculty and graduate students, however, are welcome to have an instructional design consultation with members of the CTTL.  Just drop me a line at mthornt7@slu.edu to schedule a time to talk.)

McGee and Reis note several key patterns and discoveries in their research:

• While the terms “blended” and “hybrid” are often bandied about as synonymous, the authors point out the limitations of the latter descriptor by pointing out “hybrid suggests that one mode is unused while the other is used” (p. 8).  Blended is the preferred term by the authors largely because a blended course is designed to be “seamlessly operational where the transition between classroom meeting and online component is minimal” (p. 8).
• The authors also tackle the “seat time” conundrum that is often omnipresent when first creating online or blended programs, especially for those programs intent on meeting accreditation standards.  The distribution of time between face-to-face or online modalities was often not explicitly broken down in the sources the authors surveyed; however, even when looking at ratios of between “30 to 79% in either online or face-to-face” interactions, the authors find many of the ratios too limiting, especially when “focusing only on the context and environment in which learning occurs rather than course roles, pedagogy, and functions of meetings that, for us, are what makes the blended course unique” (p. 9).
• A key tenet of many guides to designing effective blended courses is that these courses often shift “from a teacher-directed to a learner-centered paradigm” (p. 11).
• How long does it take to design an effective blended course?  McGee and Reis found that the oft-cited “time to redesign courses is reported to require three to six months in advance of implementation” (2012, p. 11).  An important logistical consideration for faculty members interested in redesigning a course in a blended format.
• Two notable factors related to increasing student engagement in blended courses include “varied interactivity and prompt feedback” (p. 13).  These factors, of course, are also essential to face-to-face or wholly online classes.
• Not surprisingly, “blended courses provide a fertile environment for metacognition as students are involved in learning within and outside of the classroom” (p. 13).  The authors point out that many online discussions, due to the medium and the wait time afforded to all students participating in asynchronous conversations, often elicit a more “discursive” and democratic discussion and prompt higher-order level of thinking for students beyond “completion-based” or clarification conversations often found in face-to-face classes.
• A finding from the study I double-underlined and plan on posting prominently on my desk and referring to often: “Using technology for technology’s sake is distracting and does not motivate the learner.  Student motivation decreases when technology is at odds or superfluous to instructional outcomes” (p. 15).
• While there are so many gems in McGee and Reis’ research, one that I think bears repeating focuses on how we frame the blended courses we teach to students: “[I]t would seem that setting expectations is of the utmost importance so that learners understand how the course works, and whether or not they are equipped to be successful” (p. 16).  This is a truism for any course one may teach, but especially so when talking with students who are taking a blended course for the first time.

All in all, this article serves as an informative yet targeted synthesis about what has been written publically in higher education about how to best design blended courses.  The authors also highlight where additional research on creating effective blended courses could be done (and how such research might be initiated and vetted).  Also interesting to note, the authors point out that actual examples of blended courses are often hard to come by – at least in the public literature they reviewed (perhaps due to the shrouded or proprietary nature of many Learning Management Systems).  Recommendations for how more of us can capture and share examples of blended courses are also included in the authors’ concluding remarks.

For what this journal article covers about designing effective blended courses in 22 short pages (not to mention the instructive course-alignment table provided in The Design Process section), I highly recommend reading, and then re-reading, McGee and Reis’ findings.  Their meta-analysis is well-organized, helpful, and straight-forward – a must-read for anyone interested in designing a blended course for the fall or spring semester.

A few helpful online resources mentioned in McGee and Reis’ (2012) study:

• The Blended Toolkit: http://blended.online.ucf.edu
• Pennsylvania State University: http://weblearning.psu.edu/blended-learning-initiative
• University of Central Florida: http://online.ucf.edu
• Simmons University: http://at.simmons.edu/blendedlearning/learnhow/simmons_case_studies.php
• EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative: http://www.educause.edu/library/blended-learning
• Sloan-C: http://sloanconsortium.org/blended

References

Hewett, B. (2010). The online writing conference: A guide for teachers and tutors. Portsmouth: Boynton/Cook Publishers, Inc.

McGee, P., & Reis, A. (2012). Blended course design: A synthesis of best practices. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 16(4), 7-22. Retrieved from http://sloanconsortium.org/jaln/v16n4/blended-course-design-synthesis-best-practices

Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. International Journal of Instructional Technology & Distance Learning, 2(1). Retrieved from http://www.itdl.org/journal/jan_05/article01.htm

by Chris Grabau, Instructional Designer

One of the frequent conversations that occur when talking with faculty about the Learning Studio is the relationship between classroom space and technology.  While cameras, video walls, projectors, and other educational technology can be successfully utilized to help provide new approaches for teaching and learning, another component to teaching with technology is the understanding of how physical space supports and enhances the learning experience.

Whether the classroom space be a large lecture hall or an open-collaborative learning environment , the physical learning space must be suitable to support both the practice needs of technology (ample electricity, decent lighting, comfortable seating, etc) but the needs of student and faculty users must also be considered.  As a result, the form and function of classroom design becomes an important consideration when looking at instructional design.

Although the topic of classroom and learning space design has been the subject of educational research for nearly a 100 years (Whitehouse, 2009),  in recent years, a multi-disciplined approach incorporating architecture, interior design, educational psychology with learning space design is starting to emerge.

An example of this multi-disciplined focus on learning spaces can be found in the book, The Third Teacher, 79 Ways You Can Use Design to Transform Teaching & Learning (O’Donnell, et.al, 2010).  Created by an international team of architects, designers, and educators, the book strives to offer 79 practice design ideas to transform teaching and learning.

The title of the book is based on a perspective of Italian psychologist Loris Malaguzzi’s work in the schools of Reggio Emilia following WWII. Malaguzzi asserted that students encounter three teachers: (1) the adult instructor(s), (2) their peers, and (3) the school environment itself  (Strong-Wilson, T., & Ellis, J., 2007)

Created through a collaborative project between the architectural firm OWP/P Architects, the German company VS Furniture, and Bruce Mau Design, the book utilizes design thinking found in architecture, interior design, and learning space design to create environments that facilitate 21st century learning.  More than just a prescriptive set of room layouts or profiles on modern furniture, the book combines theories on learning, wellness, design thinking, and creativity into a set group of principles that are clearly explained and complimentary for all disciplines and grade levels.

With a visually compelling layout that is easy to browse, the book is divided into eight sections to relating to learning space design.  Each section is supplemented notable educational theorists like Howard Gardner, Sir Ken Robinson, and David Orr to offer multiple perspectives on using design to help transform teaching and learning.

While the book complements many of the social constructivist theories of John Dewey, Lev Vygotsky and Jerome Bruner, and Albert Bandura it should be viewed as a primer rather that a definitive text.  The book is useful as a quick resource on the emerging area of learning space design for the 21st century.

Although there are several other books that take a constructivist view towards education, technology and learning space design, but The Third Teacher is a nice contemporary primer.  For more information, visit Dr. Flannery Burke’s excellent post titled, Environment As The Third Teacher as well as the following resources:

References:

Oblinger, D. (2006). Space as a change agent. In D.Oblinger (Ed.), Learning spaces (pp. 1.1–1.4). Washington, DC: EDUCAUSE.

O’Donnell Wicklund Pigozzi and Peterson, Architects Inc., VS Furniture., & Bruce Mau Design. (2010). The third teacher: 79 ways you can use design to transform teaching & learning. New York: Abrams.

Strong-Wilson, T., & Ellis, J. (2007). Children and Place: Reggio Emilia’s Environment As Third Teacher. Theory Into Practice, 46(1), 40-47. doi:10.1207/s15430421tip4601_6

Whitehouse, D. (2009). Designing learning spaces that work: a case for the importance of history.History of Education Review, 38 (2), pp.94-108.

–

Additional Resources

Barrett, P., Zhang, Y., Moffat, J. and Kobbacy, K. (2013). A holistic, multi-level analysis identifying the impact of classroom design on pupils’ learning. Building and Environment, 59 pp.678-689.

Educause.edu (2013). Pedagogy and Space: Empirical Research on New Learning Environments (EDUCAUSE Quarterly) | EDUCAUSE.edu. [online] Retrieved from: http://www.educause.edu/ero/article/pedagogy-and-space-empirical-research-new-learning-environments [Accessed: 3 Jun 2013].

Thomas, D., & Brown, J. S. (2011). A new culture of learning: Cultivating the imagination for a world of constant change. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform; 1 edition.

Photo credit: The photograph of the CTTL Learning Studio [at the top of the blog post] is courtesy of Herman Miller, Inc.

by Katie Beres, Instructional Liaison, CTTL

Dr. Patti Clayton facilitated a workshop for the SLU community on May 7 on the topic of critical reflection. As a follow up to her workshop this article provides a summary of various metacognitive activities (including Clayton’s DEAL model) to support student learning.

What are metacognitive activities?

Metacognitive activities engage students to reflect on their thought processes: their learning, understanding, etc. The extent of the activity may range from a prompts framing the introduction and conclusion of a lecture or a stand-alone assessment activity.

Students who are more aware of how they engage with their learning experience are more committed to learning and can identify patterns in their behavior that either help or hinder their learning process. The ability to articulate their learning strategies, in turn, helps to refine and improve their behaviors to become more effective. Teaching metacognition is also an opportunity to explicitly discuss the philosophy behind decision-making in your discipline. Examples of types of metacognitive activities, models, and corresponding tools to facilitate them include:

For further reading (and listening):

• Ash, S. L. & Clayton, P. H. (2009). Generating, Deepening, and Documenting Learning: The Power of Critical Reflection in Applied Learning. Journal of Applied Learning in Higher Education, 1(1), 25-48.
• Jaschik, S. (2011, Jan 31). Colleges Try to Use Metacognition to Improve Student Learning. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2011/01/31/colleges_try_to_use_metacognition_to_improve_student_learning
• Lovett, M. (2008). Teaching metacognition [Presentation recording]. Retrieved from ELI Annual Meeting 2008 Resources  http://www.educause.edu/eli/events/eli-annual-meeting/2008/teaching-metacognition
• The role of metacognition in teaching geoscience (n.d.) http://serc.carleton.edu/NAGTWorkshops/metacognition/index.html
• Weimer, M. (2012, Nov 19). Deep learning vs. surface learning: Getting students to understand the difference. Faculty Focus. [Web log]. Retrieved from http://www.facultyfocus.com/articles/teaching-professor-blog/deep-learning-vs-surface-learning-getting-students-to-understand-the-difference/

by Jerod Quinn, Instructional Designer, CTTL

I warned my students this past semester that there would be a certain level of ambiguity inherent in my “introduction to technology” class. I was not going to walk them through using every application we discuss, but I would instead expect them to “figure it out” on their own. I promised them it would be frustrating at times, but learning is frustrating at times. As it turns out, I too had to eat my own words.

I am a techie by nature, so a course designed to introduce students to gadgets and apps and to prompt their understanding about how those apps can be useful, especially for future educators, is right up my alley. As I began choosing which apps we would wrestle with, I decided early on that I wanted my students to be familiar with blogs and understand how to navigate the backend of a content management system. I wanted them reading and commenting on each other’s work, but I also wanted them writing and publishing their own work. With that in mind, I decided to use a public WordPress blog; www.edi399.com.

While the focus of this post will be about the experience of using a public WordPress blog in my class, I think the topic warrants a quick explanation of why I was using a blog in the first place. A blog can incorporate two of Chickering and Gamson’s “Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education” fairly naturally: good practice encourages student faculty contact, and good practice encourages cooperation among students. In keeping with the traditions of a Jesuit university, I also wanted to incorporate a space for the students to reflect on their experiences in the class. Reflection is a very important part of Ignatian Pedagogy and is connected to the Jesuit commitment to the transformational power of education.

“But why WordPress? There’s a perfectly fine blogging tool in Blackboard or Campus Pack!” That’s true. Going with WordPress means more hassle on my part administering an additional website and more hassle for my students in having to access another online tool. But it also means they get experience using a real-world tool that their future employers or graduate schools may be using to manage their professional websites. When their future bosses ask them in an interview, “Do you have any experience navigating a content management system?” I wanted them to be able to give an enthusiastic, “Yes!” I have also gathered anecdotal evidence from other faculty that when students know their writing will be seen by their peers and possibly by future employers, they tend to put a little more effort into it.

Along the way, I encountered expected and unexpected challenges. Of all the things I have learned with this project, here are a few lessons that stand out in my mind.

• Having a self-hosted blog means you are now an instructor and a website administrator. You manage student login info, create how-to-use-this-blog videos, deal with comment spam, and troubleshoot technical issues with students.
• Students will always forget their login name or password, no matter how many times they have previously posted to the blog.
• Blog comments give you another space where you can push the critical thinking of students and challenge their assumptions.
• You need to be clear when assignments are to be turned in as blog posts. And even then, you will get a few emailed to you instead.
• While I required students to comment on each other’s work, I wonder if it would have occurred more naturally if they were writing to the blog more frequently?
• Depending on the questions you ask, you can get a picture of the student’s process of thinking as they wrestle with course material.
• Even though your host company’s servers have never gone down a single time in the five years you have had service with them, they will go down on the exact day and hour your biggest writing assignment of the semester is due, which of course, is submitted as a blog post. True story.
• The more you have students using the blog the better and more useful the blog gets. Commit to it being a major part of your class or don’t use a public blog.
• You spend the semester scaffolding their learning. You cover material and assign projects that build to a cumulative final project that is designed to be an evaluation asking if they have reached the course goals. They complete the project, then reflect on some questions about the project on the blog. You grade the project and then read the student reflections about the final project. As you read the reflections you realize, they get it. Your students understand the things you knew you needed them to understand when you began this course sixteen weeks ago. The blog gives you a place to celebrate that victory.

There’s always a risk when you try something new. There will be unforeseen problems like continual password resets and horribly timed server crashes. But risk is what makes teaching and learning exciting, and it makes payoffs all the more sweet. Trying something new will be frustrating at times, but learning is frustrating at times. With that in mind, I would absolutely use a public blog again for my class. The only thing I know I would do differently is to have it more incorporated into the class. I would want them to write and reflect more, even if that means resetting passwords every week.

Food for thought for those interested in blogging in the classroom:

• Framework for Success in Postsecondary Writing
• Using Blogs in a College Classroom: What’s Authenticity Got to Do with It?

by Debra Rudder Lohe

For the last several weeks, I’ve felt – and many SLU faculty have affirmed this sense – that the end of the semester was both speeding at me like a locomotive and slowing like an unwinding watch.  Some days, it was hard to believe May was actually here; others, it seemed the semester would never end.  And yet, here we are: last days of class and final exams and graduation ceremonies are upon us.  It’s been a long and productive year.  I don’t know about you, but I am ready for a somewhat slower pace.

Whether you’re about to depart St. Louis for the summer or gearing up for summer session courses, I hope you’ll find a spot of quiet this summer, a space and an occasion for renewal.

The verb renew has many layers and meanings, as the OED suggests.  While we most commonly think of renewal as “making something new” or “taking on fresh life,” it also can mean “to restore to the same condition as when new, young, or fresh,” and “to reawaken, to revive.”

As you reflect on your teaching from this year – what your students have said in evaluations, what they’ve shown in their classroom contributions – I hope you’ll remember a bit of what it was like to be a “new, young, fresh” teacher.  None of us wants to stumble as much as we did in those early days of teaching, but we do want to reconnect to the energy we felt then, when all things were possible.

At our spring Certificate Ceremony last week, Dr. Paul Lynch reminded us that, even when we are exhausted and frustrated by the semester that is, there is always next semester, when we’ll be fresh, get it all right, inspire our students to greatness.  For those of us who teach as a labor of love, as a calling, it is essential that we take time out between semesters to search for a little renewal, to rekindle and reawaken our early passion for teaching.

As you close out the 2012-2013 academic year, we wish you renewal, and maybe even a little rest.  If you find yourself in need of new insights or perspectives on your teaching, stop by and see us.  We’re here all summer – and all united in a single location now, in Pius Library, 2^nd floor – and we’d love to help you reignite your passion for teaching.  And keep an eye on this blog: we’ll be posting short reviews and summaries of research on the art and science of learning throughout the summer.

PS: for those in need of a more concrete jolt, there’s still time to apply for one of our Try It! Summer Mini-Grants.

The Reinert Center for Transformative Teaching and Learning honored 29 Certificate in University Teaching Skills recipients at our Spring Ceremony on Friday, May 3, 2013.  After warm welcomes from Dr. Debie Lohe, Director of the CTTL, keynote speaker, Dr. Paul Lynch, professor in the Department of English, imparted words of wisdom on teaching and learning to the recipients, friends, and family in attendance.

During Lynch’s address, he reflected on the idea of teaching being an art, but an art of a very particular kind.  Taking Fr. Gregory Boyle, S.J. of Homeboy Industries as an example, Lynch asked those in attendance to reflect on the habits that distance us from our students, and to find practices to narrow that gap in meaningful ways, considering the “no matter whatness” of transformative teaching.

As Lohe reminded the attendees at the ceremony, the requirements for the Certificate in University Teaching Skills help participants to make deliberate and intentional choices about teaching, much like the ideas shared by Lynch.  Friday’s ceremony acknowledged the time and commitment these participants gave to earning one of the Certificates. We also celebrated the dedication shown by those faculty who served as teaching mentors.

For more information about our certificates visit our website.

by Michaella Thornton, Assistant Director for Instructional Design

It is an inspiring and instructive privilege to be able to peek inside others’ classrooms to experience how others teach, hear how and why teachers make the choices they do for students, learning goals and objectives, and respective disciplines, and to consider how such possibilities may be transformed by those who teach elsewhere and/or do research on the scholarship of teaching and learning.

On Friday, April 19th past and current Innovative Teaching Fellows shared their perspectives about teaching in the Learning Studio, a state-of-the-art teaching space designed by a team of Saint Louis University faculty and students as part of the Herman Miller Learning Spaces Research Program.  Almost 40 full-time SLU faculty and administrators attended this at-capacity event.

Presenting CTTL Innovative Teaching Fellows included:

• Jenny Agnew, Ph.D., School for Professional Studies (Fall 2012), who discussed how her “ENGL 150:  The Process of Composition” students used theme-based writing projects via a public WordPress blog to explore the collaborative and on-going nature of writing, food, and culture, in addition to sharing how flexible classroom design may enhance the teaching of composition, especially in hosting teacher-student conferences, brainstorming sessions, and peer review.
• Beccy Aldrich, Ph.D., Department of Occupational Sciences and Occupational Therapy (Spring 2013), who shared how her “OCS 372: Occupations in Diverse Contexts” class uses immersive, collaborative learning technologies such as Fuze Meeting to connect with the Karolinska Institutet, a premier medical university located in Stockholm, Sweden, to foster a more globalized and diverse student perspective about occupational therapy.
• Paul Lynch, Ph.D., Department of English (Spring 2013), who shared how his graduate-level “ENGL 501: Teaching Writing” class uses a course blog and Google Docs to empower first-year composition instructors to co-construct assignments, the course syllabus, and model effective writing feedback for first-year composition students.
• Nathaniel Rivers, Ph.D., Department of English (Fall 2012), gave the audience a first-hand look at what he and his students have learned through the course, “ENGL 401: New Media Science Writing,” by sharing a snippet from his forthcoming jointly-created webtext, “Articulation.”  To see and/or hear a  different Vimeo video that sets the tone for the course Dr. Rivers held in the Learning Studio last fall, please click here.
• Thomas Stewart, J.D., School of Law (Fall 2012), who discussed how his first-year Evidence students used Google Docs and team-based and case-based learning to identify, apply, and contextualize the Federal Rules of Evidence (and the Missouri counterparts) to prepare students to practice law as professional attorneys.

We are so grateful to the Symposium panelists, who make this annual event possible by generously sharing their teaching and learning reflections with the larger Saint Louis University community.  [update on Tuesday, May 15th]: For those in the SLU community who were unable to attend the Symposium and would like to view a password-protected video, please email me at mthornt7[at]slu[dot]edu and I will enroll you in the CTTL Events course via Blackboard Learn.

Special thanks is also due to Flannery Burke, Ph.D., Department of History (Spring 2012), who prepared and introduced the Symposium panelists and deftly facilitated the Q&A session that immediately followed the panelists’ presentations.

We especially look forward to continuing the reflective conversation next April (2014) when we host our 3rd Annual Learning Studio Symposium.  Since the Innovative Teaching Fellowship program began in Fall 2011, the faculty who teach in the Learning Studio have much to share with the broader community about what teaching practices and educational technologies resonate with them, transfer to classrooms outside of the Learning Studio, the role of instructional design, and how providing space, time, and support to be in a new or refreshed mindset can make all the difference in reinvigorating or creating innovative learning environments for 21st Century students.

by Michaella Thornton, Assistant Director for Instructional Design

Late April to mid-May is often a frenetic time of year for faculty, students, and staff (admittedly, my mind often wanders to a beach much like the one pictured here in Venice Beach).  The semester is winding down, culminating projects are well underway, and time is fleeting and in short supply.  Yet before the barrage of grading final projects and papers begins or graduation commences, I’d like to take a moment to share two important events happening at Saint Louis University that may affect those of you teaching this summer and beyond.

Saturday, May 18, 2013: SLU Global, which will be officially known as Blackboard Learn on May 18th, the Learning Management System (LMS) used by many faculty members and graduate teaching assistants and supported by SLU ITS, will be upgraded from Service Pack 7 to Blackboard Learn 9.1 Service Pack 11.  This upgrade was announced by ITS on March 6 via Newslink and live webinar “tours” of the Blackboard upgrade are available this week and next, also announced via Newslink on April 19^th.  To register for these “tours,” click here.

To get a sense of the upcoming changes, Kim Scharringhausen, Instructional Liaison, also recommends viewing the following videos so those teaching at SLU may see what’s in store with the enhanced design and improved functionality and accessibility of Service Pack 11:

• The New 2012-2013 Theme
• Global Navigation and My Blackboard

So, what does the Blackboard upgrade mean for you, the faculty member or graduate instructor?

• Blackboard Learn will not be available for most of the day on May 18^th and after May 18th Blackboard Learn may look and/or function differently to SLU users, depending on users’ familiarity, comfort, and prior review or experience with the new look and feel of the updated LMS.
• This also means that anyone teaching during or immediately after this Blackboard upgrade may want to take extra time planning and preparing for online or face-to-face courses that use Blackboard, in addition to reviewing syllabi and course schedules to ensure major assignments or online collaboration and discussions are not due on May 18^th.
• Notifying students about the Blackboard upgrade and how it may affect their ability to complete coursework on Saturday, May 18^th is also a smart plan of action.  Plan Bs (and Cs and Ds) are often a professor’s best friend, especially when learning technologies are being upgraded.

Monday, July 29 – Friday, August 2, 2013: The next session of the CTTL’s Online Teaching & Learning Institute, or OTLI, has been designed to fit into full-time faculty members’ schedules for one week this summer.  OTLI will take place from 9 AM to 4 PM the week of July 29.  Seating is limited to 12 full-time SLU faculty members. Priority seating is given to those who have not already gone through the Institute, are planning to teach an online or blended course in the near future, and for full-time professors who hail from a variety of departments, schools, and programs at Saint Louis University so as to foster an interdisciplinary cohort interested in exploring effective practices and pedagogy for teaching online.

OTLI includes daily meetings and facilitated conversations about online teaching and learning, collaborative and independent work time, individualized instructional-design consultations, and much more.  To register for this summer’s OTLI, please click here.

Best of luck as your semester wraps up!  We hope you’ll consider the forthcoming update to Blackboard Learn as you plan for summer and fall classes and think about registering for the CTTL’s next Online Teaching & Learning Institute.

Deepening Student Learning: A Workshop on Critical Reflection

Tuesday, May 7, 8:30 am 12:00 pm

College Church Ballroom

In this interactive workshop, Dr. Patti Clayton will share a research-grounded model for critical reflection and engage participants in a hands-on workshop to enhance understanding of the features of critical reflection. Participants will leave with practical strategies for deepening students’ critical reflection, both in and out of class.For more information, and to register, please click here.

Continental breakfast will be served. Registration & breakfast begin at 8 a.m.

Patti H. Clayton, Ph.D. is an Independent Consultant and Practitioner-Scholar (PHC Ventures). She currently serves as a Senior Scholar with the Center for Service and Learning at Indiana University – Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI), a Visiting Fellow with the New England Resource Center for Higher Education (NERCHE), and a Visiting Scholar at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro. She is co-developer of the DEAL Model, a research-grounded critical reflection and assessment model, and she has designed faculty development and curriculum development processes related to community-campus engagement, among other things. She has consulted with over 100 colleges and universities in the US, Canada, and Ireland.