by Michaella Thornton, Assistant Director for Instructional Design

Encouraging students to actively engage in (and complete) a course’s readings can sometimes feel like a Sisyphean task, especially if class discussions are dependent on students’ comprehension and ability to analyze, critique, and synthesize the readings throughout the semester. So, how do we, as teachers and instructional designers, “encourage students to read carefully, interact with the readings, articulate their ideas, and make meaningful contributions to class discussions” (Connor-Greene, 2005, p. 173)?

Dr. Patricia A. Connor-Greene, professor emerita at Clemson University and editor of Teaching and Learning Creatively: Inspirations and Reflections (2006), offers a teaching strategy for helping students move from passive consumers of course readings to active discussion participants and co-constructors of knowledge through her “Question, Quotation, and Talking Points” (QQTP) framework for daily in-class response papers (or to adapt this strategy for online learners, using weekly response journals or blog entries connected to the readings).

In this short Faculty Forum article for the Teaching of Psychology — “Fostering Meaningful Classroom Discussions: Student-Generated Questions, Quotations, and Talking Points” — Connor-Greene asks students to go through the following process to participate fully with class readings and the ensuing discussions:

1. QUESTION: Before the full class or small-group discussions in class, have students “create questions that have ‘one foot in the reading’ but cannot be answered simply with facts from the reading assignment”
2. QUOTATION: “Identify quotations [students] find provocative” or particularly noteworthy
3. TALKING POINTS: Students write down their key take-aways to distill what their opinions are before class discussion.

To prompt students to share their thoughts during class discussion, Connor-Greene asks for two volunteers at the beginning of class to put their QQTP questions on the board (alternately, she suggests that 2-3 online students post their questions to a discussion board in a similar fashion as the face-to-face version). She keeps track of who she calls on so there is an “equitable rotation among students” and that students actively monitor air time so no one posts a second question until all students have posted one. She also asks students to work in small groups to select a question, quotation, or talking point that is especially salient.

To create an efficiency process for this assessment technique, Connor-Greene stresses that every student prepares QQTPs before the next class session and she randomly collects QQTPs from select students each class period.  She provides written feedback on a third of a 30-person class each time, with students maintaining a portfolio of all QQTPs that is ultimately reviewed and graded at the end of the semester.  The QQTP portfolio is worth 25 percent of students’ final grade.

QQTPs are evaluated on a 3-point scale:

• 3 = Outstanding: A thoughtful question that invites analysis, synthesis, or evaluation, or makes connections between previous readings and discussions
• 2 = Good: Goes beyond the reading but prompts little discussion.
• 1 = Poor: Confusing question or one that can be answered simply from the facts in the article (e.g., lower levels of Bloom’s taxonomy, such as identify, list, define)

So, how effective is the QQTP process in helping students become closer readers and more active discussion leaders and participants? Connor-Greene surveyed two of her undergraduate courses at Clemson and had students anonymously report the value of the QQTP process in understanding and processing course readings and preparing for class discussion on a 5-point scale (1 – not at all helpful to 5 – very much helpful).  Per the small survey study, Connor-Greene’s students reported that “questions and talking points received higher ratings than did quotations in enhancing both understanding and preparation for class” (2005, p. 174).  This finding made eminent sense to the professor-researcher as creating questions and talking points are more cognitively challenging than simply selecting a provocative quotation. Overall, students responded favorably to all three steps of the QQTP process.

The QQTP process really highlights a relatively straightforward approach for almost any discipline that has important course readings that need to be scaffolded into the reading, writing, and discussion process for college students. QQTP is a teaching strategy that many before Connor-Greene have found useful in engaging students in critical thinking: Voltaire, Claude Levis Strauss, and many others have underscored that it’s not the answers we come to in learning, but rather the importance of the questions we create.

References

Connor-Greene, P.A. (2005). Fostering meaningful classroom discussion: Student-generated questions, quotations, and talking points. Teaching of Psychology, (32)3. 173-175

Blog photo attribution to Flickr user, slightly everything, who took the photo of “beautiful books.” Some rights reserved.

Submitted to the Teaching Issues Writing Consortium
by Julie Frese, Ph.D., University of the Rockies
Julie.Frese@faculty.rockies.edu
http://rockies.edu

According to Dempsey & Sales (1993), the motivational approach to feedback is based on the belief that “…letting people know how well they are performing a task acts as an incentive for greater effort in the future” (p. 4). Creemers (1996) cited the use of feedback and corrective instruction as one of the instructor behaviors that contribute to better student outcomes.

Learners tend to fall on a goal continuum that ranges from ego-involved (performance orientation) to task-involved (learning orientation). If they are ego-involved, they have strong incentives to demonstrate and display their abilities. If learners are task-involved, they possess strong incentives to learn, gain skills, and improve mastery. If a learner receives no cues or feedback to select or favor one goal orientation over another, they act according to their predispositions (Dempsey & Sales, 1993; Hattie and Timperley, 2007).

Typically, instructor feedback has been viewed as a useful technique to assist learners. For example, learner thought patterns and/or actions can be redirected and areas of strength or weakness can be communicated. According to Hoska (1993), it is possible to provide feedback to learners that can influence their goal orientations and maximize their incentive to perform. Approaches that have been successful include: modifying the learner’s view of intelligence, altering the goal structure of the learning task, and controlling the delivery of learning rewards. Hoska (1993) also believes feedback should help learners understand that abilities are skills that can be developed through practice, effort is key to increasing one’s skills, and mistakes are not failures; rather they are part of the skill-development process.

In order to provide effective feedback, the facilitator needs to reflect upon his/her approach to the teaching-learning process. For example, does the instructor view learning from a constructivist perspective or approach it in a more traditionalist fashion? If constructivist teaching practices are used, the emphasis is on helping learners internalize and reshape, or transform new information. This transformation occurs through the creation of new understandings (Jackson, 1986; Gardner, 1991). New cognitive structures can emerge from these understandings. In contrast, the traditional approach has been deemed to be more of a process where the learning process involves repeating or miming new material or information (Jackson, 1986). These two different approaches to learning will determine the instructional strategies used by the instructor, and in turn will impact the level of learner motivation. Feedback can also be organized around different types of interaction: learner-to-learner, learner-to-instructor, learner-to-content, and learner-to-interface (Hillman, Willis, & Gunawardena, 1994).

White and Weight (2000) discuss the issue of the online student who needs extra motivation, and propose various strategies that the instructor/facilitator can use to provide this motivation. These range from sending a direct note to the student to asking all students to relate their learning to their current work experience. The authors also stress the importance of the sensitive nature of these actions. In addition, they believe “Feedback that is timely is far more motivational and beneficial to performance improvement than delayed feedback. Thus, online feedback is best when it is prompt” (p. 63).

Formative feedback potentially “modifies a student’s thinking or behavior for the purpose of learning, and summative feedback assesses how well a student accomplishes a task or achieves a result for the purpose of grading” (White & Weight, 2000, p. 168). Since formative feedback influences thought and behavior, it is more motivational. During this process students are asked to continue doing what they have been doing, ask questions, participate, stay on topic, and/or modify their thinking or approach (when and if necessary). White & Weight (2000) also stress that feedback should be multidimensional, non-evaluative, supportive, student controlled, consistent, constructive, objective, timely, and specific. They cite some of the best practices used by online instructors for providing constructive formative and summative feedback:

• Focus on specific behavior rather than on the online student
• Take the needs of the online student into account
• Direct feedback toward behavior the online student can change
• Help online students to “own” the feedback
• Give timely online feedback
• Check online feedback for clarity
• Consider online feedback as part of an ongoing relationship (White & Weight, 2000, p. 173-4).

As we strive to provide constructive and substantive formative and summative feedback, it is essential to understand its impact on learner motivation. This knowledge will allow us to utilize more effective instructional practices and provide more meaningful learning experiences, while also improving our course design.

References

Creemers, B. (1996). The school effectiveness knowledge base. In D. Reynolds (Ed). Making good schools. London: Routledge.

Dempsey, J.V. & Sales, G.C. (1993). Interactive instruction and feedback. Englewood Cliff, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

Gardner, H. (1991). The unschooled mind: How children think and how schools should teach. New York: Basic Books.

Hattie, J. & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research. 77(1). 81-112. London: Sage Publications. doi: 10.3102/003465430298487

Hillman, D. C. A., Willis, D .J.  & C.N. Gunawardena (1994). Learner-Interface Interaction in Distance Education: An Extension of Contemporary Models and Strategies for Practitioners. The American Journal of Distance Education. 8(2), 30-42.

Hoska, D.M. (1993). Motivating learners through CBI feedback: Developing a positive learner perspective. In Dempsey, J.V. & Sales, G.C. (Eds.), Interactive instruction and feedback (pp. 105-132). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

Jackson, P.W. (1986). The practice of teaching. New York: Teachers College Press.

Sales, G.C. & Johnston, M.D. (1988). Graphic fidelity, gender, and performance in computer-based simulations. (Research Bulletin #1, Improving the Use of Technology in Schools: What We Are Learning). Minneapolis, MN: MECC/UM Center for the Study of Educational Technology.

White, K. W. & Weight, B. H. (2000). The online teaching guide: A handbook of attitudes, strategies and techniques for the virtual classroom. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

by Sandy Gambill, Instructional Designer, CTTL

It’s high summer and I’m thinking about the course I’ll be teaching this fall. Maybe it’s just the time of the year where my own attention wanders, but I’m spending more time than usual thinking about student motivation. What is the secret to getting students engaged with the course material so that they are as excited as I am?

Researchers on learning theory have a lot to say about student motivation. How Learning Works: 7 Research-Based Principles for Smart Teaching devotes an entire chapter to the factors that motivate students to learn.

Some of the strategies that motivate students to learn identified by HLW echo what you probably hear from your own students: connect the material to the their interests, provide authentic real-world tasks, and demonstrate a relevance to students’ future professional lives. After all, as much as we wish we had unlimited time to spend pursing knowledge just for the sheer pleasure of learning something new, we know our students don’t usually have that kind of time as undergrads.

Another category of strategies deal with helping students stay motivated by making sure the course is well organized so everyone knows what the expectations are.  Making sure objectives, assessment methods and instructional strategies are in alignment so students know exactly what’s expected of them. Pegging your course so that it is challenging enough but your expectations of what students can do at a particular level is realistic. Perhaps the most interesting strategy is “providing early success opportunities” which the authors suggest is especially important in “high risk or gateway” courses that students stress about. The idea is that by providing less challenging assignments that students are likely to succeed at early on in the semester, you will motivate students by building their confidence before they encounter more difficult work.

If you are teaching online or flipped courses, you may need to build in some additional structure to encourage student motivation.  We’ll address that in a post later this month.

What techniques work to motivate your students? We’d love to see your comments below.

How Learning Works: 7 Research-Based Principles for Smart Teaching. Susan A. Ambrose, Michael W. Bridges, Michele DiPietro, Marsha C. Lovett, Marie K. Norman, and Richard E. Mayer

The Reinert Center for Transformative Teaching and Learning enthusiastically announces the three Graduate Assistants on our staff for the 2013-2014 academic year.   Graduate Assistants in the Center assist in the administration of the Certificate in University Teaching Skills (CUTS) program, conduct research on teaching and learning topics, consult with graduate students about teaching, and assist Center staff with the implementation and assessment of programs.

Each of our GAs this year is hard-working and committed to the mission of the center, and each brings her and his own teaching experiences and pedagogical knowledge.

Returning for a second year as a GA in the Center, Erin Solomon is currently finishing a Ph.D. in Experimental Psychology, with a concentration in Social Psychology. Erin has taught several courses in the Psychology Department including General Psychology and Foundations of Research Methods and Statistics. She has also taught Psychology courses online for the School for Professional Studies.

Joining us for his first year, Jacob Van Sickle is a Ph.D. Candidate in Historical Theology in the Department of Theological Studies, focusing on early Greek and Byzantine Christianity.  His passion for religious education at all levels will be fostered as he develops his pedagogical knowledge through his experiences in the Reinert Center.

Also a new Graduate Assistant to the Reinert Center, Elisabeth Hedrick-Moser will complete a doctorate degree in English, with a concentration in Transatlantic Modernism and Trauma Theory. She has taught several courses in the English Department, from Advanced Strategies in Rhetoric and Research to Women in Literature.  She also earned a graduate minor in Women’s and Gender Studies and has taught Introduction to Women’s and Gender Studies at the Frost campus as well as Feminism in Action at the Madrid campus.

We look forward to the contributions that Erin, Jacob, and Elisabeth bring to all those the Reinert Center serves this year.

by Michaella Thornton, Assistant Director for Instructional Design

Penn State University’s “Faculty Self-Assessment: Preparing for Online Teaching” and “Web Learning @ Penn State”

developed by the Faculty Engagement subcommittee of Penn State’s Online Coordinating Council

Links: https://weblearning.psu.edu/FacultySelfAssessment/ AND http://weblearning.psu.edu/resources

The summertime is a great time to reflect on the course design process, especially if you are preparing to teach an online or blended course.  If you are at that particular point in your teaching, I highly recommend taking Penn State University’s “Faculty Self-Assessment: Preparing for Online Teaching” and checking out the resources for “Web Learning @ Penn State,”; while this page contains some resources only for PSU faculty, the  page also contains open links to an e-learning glossary and several journal and research articles centered on online teaching and learning.

The quick “Preparing for Online Teaching” self-assessment takes no more than 5 minutes and asks respondents to assess themselves on the following four categories: organization and time management; communicating online; teaching and online experience; and technical skills. After you’re done taking the self-assessment, you receive an emailed report with detailed, evidence-based, and confidential feedback on areas of strength and development that you may want to consider before teaching online.

Quest Garden

Link: http://questgarden.com/

This link came to us from a faculty member who designed a first-time WebQuest this summer.  If you’re interested in creating an inquiry-based online lesson, Quest Garden gives you a free 30-day trial subscription to experiment with the pedagogical format and technical set-up of a WebQuest and is of note because you can also embed other media, such as images, video, and Google Docs, into the process.

Iowa State University’s “A Model of Learning Objectives”

Link: http://www.celt.iastate.edu/teaching/RevisedBlooms1.html

Instructional Designer, Sandy Gambill previewed a super helpful learning objectives builder in The Notebook in October 2012 [Radio James Objective Builder was gone for a brief blip -- hosted no more by James Basore, of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, but then re-hosted by Arizona State University (ASU) Online in January].  Iowa State’s interactive model, created by Rex Heer of Iowa State’s Center for Excellence in Learning & Teaching, is a great follow-up to the Radio James Objective Builder resource highlighted earlier.  What makes this interactive model appealing is that it helps folks see how learning objectives may be crafted to meet the needs of the cognitive process and knowledge dimensions.

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?