In Search of a New Formula: Why Instructor Expertise plus Engaging Instruction does NOT Always Equal Student Learning

Conference on Higher Education PedagogyFebruary 6, 2014

Ginni Fair, Associate Professor, Eastern Kentucky UniversityJason Fair, Science Teacher, Farristown Middle school

1. What are the components of classroom

practice that impact student learning? 2. React to the following: As early as 1995, Barr and

Tagg indicated a need for a paradigm shift: A paradigm shift is taking hold in American higher education. In its briefest form, the paradigm that has governed our colleges is this: A college is an institution that exists to provide instruction. Subtly but profoundly we are shifting to a new paradigm: A college is an institution that exists to produce learning. This shift changes everything. It is both needed and wanted. (p. 13, as quoted by Fear et al., 2003, p. 152).

 3. What is the difference in a student-centered vs. teacher-centered classroom?

Questions to Consider:

Relationship between outcomes, assessment,

and instruction:

Alignment

Student Learning Outcomes: What must students know and be able to do as a result of the course? Are they measurable and attainable within the time frame of the course?

Assessment: Does the assessment measure (in content) what you intend to measure? Does it measure (in weight) what you intend to measure? Are all SLOs measured within your assessment(s)? What kind of feedback is given?

Instruction: What kinds of instructional techniques (e.g. discussion, research/lab, field experiences, lecture, etc.) are incorporated? Do they allow for students’ cognitive engagement? Do they allow students to engage in behaviors/knowledge/skills that you want them to develop?

MS-LS1-2.

Develop and use a model to describe the function of a cell as a whole and ways parts of cells contribute to the function. [Clarification Statement: Emphasis is on the cell functioning as a whole system and the primary role of identified parts of the cell, specifically the nucleus, chloroplasts, mitochondria, cell membrane, and cell wall.] [Assessment Boundary: Assessment of organelle structure/function relationships is limited to the cell wall and cell membrane. Assessment of the function of the other organelles is limited to their relationship to the whole cell. Assessment does not include the biochemical function of cells or cell parts.]

MS-LS1-3.

Use argument supported by evidence for how the body is a system of interacting subsystems composed of groups of cells. [Clarification Statement: Emphasis is on the conceptual understanding that cells form tissues and tissues form organs specialized for particular body functions. Examples could include the interaction of subsystems within a system and the normal functioning of those systems.] [Assessment Boundary: Assessment does not include the mechanism of one body system independent of others. Assessment is limited to the circulatory, excretory, digestive, respiratory, muscular, and nervous systems.]

Example from K-12Students who demonstrate understanding can:

Take a look at a syllabus:

Student Learning Outcomes:Assessment Practices* Implement and analyze a variety of tools for assessment for learning (formative) and assessment of learning (summative). (CCR.R.4, R.6, R.7, R.10, W.2, W.6, W.9)* Demonstrate effective writing instructional practices (including ethical response to student writing) related to varied text types and purposes (e.g., argumentative, informational, and narrative), production and distribution of writing, and research to build and present knowledge. (CCR.W.10)

Formative: Learning Log Reflections/Activities Summative: Unit Plan

  Lesson Planning and Design* Analyze and apply the processes for lesson planning and instructional design. (CCR.R.5, R.7, R.10, W.2, W.6, W.9)* Utilize a variety of technology and media in the development of lesson plans and instructional materials related to the teaching of language arts. (CCR.R.7, W.6)* Implement techniques for differentiating instruction that address student needs, interests, and learning styles, as well as academic, linguistic, and cultural diversity, through the selection of materials, lesson plans, grouping styles (heterogeneous and homogenous), and instructional approaches. (CCR.R.4, R.7, W.6, W.10)

Formative: Unit Plan Summative: Lesson Plan/Text Talk/Unit Plan

Literacy Materials and Resources* Demonstrate effective instructional communication skills and a broad knowledge of classical and contemporary fiction, poetry, drama, and non-fiction appropriate for middle school students. (CCR.R.1, R.2, .R.3, R.6, R.7, W.2, W.6, W.9, W.10)* Utilize narrative and expository text to help middle school students understand and appreciate the development of linguistic systems and life styles of various cultures and societies. (CCR.R.2, R.7, R.10, W.2) 

Formative: Learning Log/Reading Reflections Summative: Book Share

Scholarship* Students will be able to demonstrate the writing process and to produce effective documents appropriate to the course level. (CCR.R.1, R.7, CCR.W.1, W.4, W.5, W.6, W.7, W.8, W.10)* Students will be able to recognize effective writing strategies. (CCR.R.4, CCR.W.1, W.4, W.5, W.6, W.7, W.8, W.10)* Students will be able to use critical thinking to expand, express, explore, and evaluate course content through written communication. (CCR.R.1, R.4, R.6, R.8, R.9, W.6, W.7, W.10)

Formative: Reader Profile – Writing Process Summative: Reader Profile – Writing Product

Syllabus SLOs, cont.

Alignment with learning outcomes Formative and Summative assessment Quality of criteria (Success criteria)

Using rubrics, scoring guides, etc. Using models Using comparison analyses (student-driven!)

Feedback Is more powerful when it’s descriptive Is more powerful when uses language of success

criteria Can use self and peer assessments

Assessment

Various types of critical thinking:

Higher Levels of Thinking (apply, analyze, synthesize, critique, create)

Thinking about your thinking (is it logical, is it free of bias, etc.?)

Metacognition (understanding how you learn/think)

Strategic thinking (I know I think this way, so I will use certain strategies to help me learn this material)

Critical Thinking

Dr. Miller is well known in his field as a geographer. His

knowledge within his discipline is vast, and he has a wealth of personal experiences to share with his students. He does this via lecture/sharing of pictures within his classroom. He gives four tests to his students, each of which increases in weight over the course of the semester (1st test, 15%; 2nd test, 20%; 3rd test, 30%; final, 35%). This, he believes, allows his students to master the content and structure of the exams incrementally. His class average is usually around a B-/C+. Neither his lectures nor his tests have been altered in several years, and his test questions reflect questions from assigned readings and from his lectures. Without reviewing his SLOs or assessment questions, what questions/comments might you make about his teaching vs. learning centered paradigm?

Classroom Scenarios

Dr. Felicity teaches philosophy. She uses several texts as

assigned reading and structures her class completely around discussion. She assigns a text, asks students questions in class, and, as a test, she has students reflect on what they have learned and/or now believe, based upon each of the class discussions. Throughout the course, she gives three open-ended essays and assigns grades to students based upon the evidence that they use to support their ideas. Her class average is around a C-, and she is unsure what she is doing wrong. Without reviewing her SLOs and assessment questions, what might you infer about her teacher vs. learner centered classroom?

Classroom Scenario

Dr. James teaches chemistry. Before the course begins, he reviews his

SLOs to ensure that they are current. Then he looks at the assessments he has planned for the course. He reviews them carefully, ensuring that every SLO is reflected within his assessments. Once his assessments are updated, he reviews his course schedule, determining how much time he needs to dedicate to each concept/SLO. He plans instructional activities, including lecture, lab, demonstration, inquiry projects, etc., that help students think like scientists and that force them to reflect on data. When his students collectively miss questions/information on an assessment, he can determine what CONCEPT they misunderstood and address that (as well as thinking habits that will help them learn the material) as he proceeds with his instruction. His students collectively make around a B/B- average, but he believes that they leave his classroom with a better understanding of scientific processes and what it means to gather and evaluate data. Without reviewing his SLOs and assessment questions, what might you infer about this teacher vs. learner centered classroom?

Classroom Scenario

Learner Paradig

m

Teacher Paradig

m

Where are you?

AlignmentEnsures that outcomes,

assessment, and

instruction are aligned

Assumes that

experience, knowledge,

and professional

“I-just-know”

feeling is enough to structure the class

Learner Paradig

m

Teacher Paradig

m

Where are you?

Assessment

Ensures that assessment measures

SLOs, provides clear

criteria and feedback to

students

Gives general grades,

utilizes one form of

assessment, focuses on

discreet knowledge as

opposed to thinking

processes

Learner Paradig

m

Teacher Paradig

m

Where are you?

Critical Thinking

Allows students to demonstrate deep thinking, though

interactive instruction.

Requires students to think about WHY and HOW

they think, not just WHAT they think.

Does most of the thinking for the

students by telling them what

they need to know or by using such open-ended

questions that students don’t

learn to support or evaluate their own thinking as well as others’.

Youtube video

To sum it all up…

Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Inside the black box: Raising standards through

classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(2), 139-148.Conrad, C.F., Johnson, J., & Gupta, D.M. (2007). Teaching-for-learning (TFL): A model for faculty to advance student learning. Innovative Higher

Education, 32, 153-165.Elder, L. & Paul, R. (2013). Critical thinking: Intellectual standards essential to

reasoning well within every domain of thought. Journal of Developmental

Education, 36(3), 34-35.Fear, F.A., Doberneck, D.M., Robinson, C.F., Fear, K.L., Barr, R.B., VanDen Berg,

H., Smith, J., & Petrulis, R. (2003). Meaning making and “The Learning

Paradigm”: A provocative idea in practice. Innovative Higher Education, 27(3), 151-168.

Fletcher, R.B., Meyer, L.H., Anderson, H., Johnston, P., & Rees, M. (2012). Faculty

and students’ conceptions of assessment in higher education. Higher

Education, 64, 119-133. DOI 10.1007/s10734-011-9484-1Flores, K.L., Matkin, G.S., Burbach, M.E., Quinn, C.E., & Harding, H. (2012).

Deficient critical thinking skills among college graduates: Implications

for leadership. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 44(2), 212- 230. doi:

10.1111/j.1469-5812.2010.00672.x

References

Frick, T.W., Chadha, R., Watson, C., & Zlatkovska, E. (2010). Improving course

evaluations to improve instruction and complex learning in higher education. Educational Technology Research & Development, 58, 115-136. DOI 10.1007/s11423-009-9131-z

Harvey, M., & Baumann, C. (2012). Using student reflections to explore curriculum alignment. Asian Social Science, 8(14), 9-18.

McDowell, L. Wakelin, D., Montgomery, C. & King, S. (2011). Does assessment for learning make a difference? The development of a questionnaire to explore the student response. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 36(7), 749-765.

Mulnix, J.W. (2012). Thinking critically about critical thinking. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 44(5), 464-479. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-5812.2010.00673.x

Roach, A.T., Niebling, B.C., & Kurz, A. (2008). Evaluating the alignment among curriculum, instruction, and assessments: Implications and applications for research and practice. Psychology in the Schools, 45(2), 158-176.

Paul, R,. & Elder, L. (2006). Critical thinking: The nature of critical and creative thought. Journal of Developmental Education, 30(2), 34-35.

References, cont.