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.

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!

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

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 Sandy Gambill, CTTL Instructional Designer

Vine
Link: http://vine.co/

If you have an iPhone or iPad, you must download an video app called Vine, but be warned, it’s addictive. Vine, which was recently purchased by Twitter, lets you record and share 6-second video clips. You can pause in recording simply by touching your screen. What can you say in 6 seconds? More than you would expect. Vine Peek is a direct feed of Vine videos from around the world. Some are ridiculous, some are profane, some are profound. They all illustrate a shared human experience.

Changing Course: Ten Years of Tracking Online Education in the United States
Link: http://sloanconsortium.org/publications/survey/changing_course_2012

This year marks the 10^th anniversary of the annual survey on online learning conducted by the Sloan Consortium.  Why should you care? 32% of undergrads now take at least one online course.

The Journal of Interactive Technology and Pedagogy
Link: http://jitp.commons.gc.cuny.edu/

Although they’ve only published two issues so far, this beautiful online journal has an all-star editorial advisory board and is well worth keeping an eye on.

Originally, appearing as A Guide for Beginning Teachers of Psychology (Korn and Sikorski, 2010), the addition of Stephen in 2012 and a comprehensive revision have made the work more broadly applicable across all areas of teaching, including the humanities, arts, sciences, and professions.

As you enter this new semester, we hope you’ll have a look at A Guide for Beginning Teachers.  There is much there to stimulate your reflection on the past semester and to prompt future action in the semester to come.  Remind yourself of how it felt to be a new teacher – nervous, excited, energized – with all sorts of new pedagogical possibilities in front of you!

The e-book appears on the CTTL website.  You can access it by clicking on the following link: tinyurl.com/jhkteach.

Image courtesy of Amazon.com

by Sandy Gambill, Instructional Designer

Ken Bain, the author of the award-winning book, What the Best College Teachers Do is back with the newly released, What the Best College Students Do.

Published in 2004, What The Best College Teachers Do is the product of a 15-year study of 100 teachers in a variety of settings. It has been highly influential in forming the practice of many professors and teaching centers, including the Reinert Center here at SLU.

In writing What the Best College Students Do, Bain distilled forty years of research on what makes a good student, and interviewed thirty-five people he identified as “highly successful and creative people, good problem solvers and compassionate individuals” about their experiences as students and learners.

While some of Bain’s findings are not surprising (i.e., follow your passion), by linking findings from the research to the experiences of the people interviewed, Bain has constructed a fairly practical guide that goes beyond a typical celebrity success story.

The Reinert CTTL would be happy to organize a discussion group if you’re interested in the book. Email us at cttl@slu.edu

Suggested Links: http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674066649