May 5, 2006 Pacific Northwest Higher Education

Teaching & Learning Conference 1

Building a Disciplinary Commons using Course Portfolios

Josh TenenbergJanet Ash, Donald Chinn, Ravi Gandham, Michael Gelotte, Richard Hoagland, Laurie Murphy, Brad Richards, John Staneff, Phyllis Topham, Jeffrey Weiss

2

Teaching as a private activity

Privatized teaching spaces

“Aside from his syllabi and fading memories, he had no real record of what happened in those award winning courses”

Institutional isolation (or worse)

3

Outline

Deprivatizing Teaching: the Disciplinary Commons

What did we do? What is a Course Portfolio? How much does this cost? What might you learn? Why do this in a single discipline? Why do you want to do this with others? Do try this at home! Where is the Scholarship?

4

Deprivatizing Teaching

Faculty meet on common ground, using scholarly practices to investigate teaching and learning in their own classrooms. The practices and artifacts produced become “common property”, available for use and adaptation by others.

5

What did we do?

11 Computer Science (CS) teachers meeting face-to-face, monthly for ½ day throughout the academic year

Crossing borders: CS faculty from different institutions engaged in common practices and common goals

Talking about teaching: as scholars and practitioners

Parallel construction and mutual critique of Course Portfolios

http://depts.washington.edu/comgrnd/

6

The Disciplinary Commons:A face-to-face Yackpack

7

What is a Course Portfolio?

An organized collection of ideas and principles that guide the design and implementation of a particular course.

Focuses on the course. It is NOT a student portfolio. It is NOT a teaching portfolio, although

it can be part of one.

8

What is in a Course Portfolio?

One or more of the following: Course description: content, structure How the course fits in the curriculum Course learning objectives Teaching methods Teaching philosophy How learning is assessed

What you include depends on why you are creating a course portfolio

9

How much does this cost?

128 Hours per person (average), as we did it Doing it as a group increased the cost due to meetings

and travel time You can do this by yourself in about 80 hours direct

time Benefit of group interaction far outweighs “extra” cost It’s probably your time, so the institutional cost is

minimal (unless ….) Benefit to your other courses is immeasurably

valuable!

Individual Portfolio Time Requirement

Drive time formeetings 20 hrs

Reading / Research 37 hrs

Vancouver trip 5 hrs

Meetings of the commons 31 hrs

Peer Observation 3 hrs

Writingdrafts/revisions 32 hrs

10

What might you learn?

There is “commonality” of teaching contexts and practices – We are all in the same boat!

Benefit from articulating and sharing your teaching practices – Now you know why you do things the way you do them!

Realize that some of your practices do not directly relate to course objectives – A reality check!

Find new ways to enhance the your course’s effectiveness from peer insights – A sense of self-accountability and accomplishment!

11

chemistry

philosophy

literature

geography

psychology

artbiology

Why do this in a single discipline?

12

CS

CS

CS

CS

CS

CS

softwaredesign

Java

controlstructure

C++

dataabstractionCommon

Language

1. Able to make assumptions about understanding

2. More emphasis on rational for teaching choices

3. More thoughtful peer observations

Why do this in a single discipline?

13

CS

CS

CS

CS

CS

CS

traditionalstudents

non-traditionalstudents

running startstudents

transferstudents

institutionaland individual

differences

semester quarter

teachingload

budgetary constraints

Why do this in a single discipline?

14

Course Portfolio

CS-210Bellevue

Community College

Fundamentals ofComputer Science I

Why do this in a single discipline?

Course Portfolio

CSCI144Evergreen

Community College

Java I

Course Portfolio

CS – 142South Puget Sound Community College

Object-Oriented Prog I

Course Portfolio

CSCI161bUniversity of Puget Sound

Introduction to Computer Science

The power of the portfolio approach is multiplied when there are several examples available for a single disciplinary aspect.

Course Portfolio

CS100

Introduction to Computer Science

Course Portfolio

CIS 121Pierce College

Introduction to Computer Information Systems

Course Portfolio

CSCE144Pacific Lutheran University

Introduction to Computer Science

Course Portfolio

TCSS 390UW-Tacma

Undergraduate Seminar in CSS

Course Portfolio

CIS 201cPierce College

Intro to Java

Course Portfolio

CS-210Bellevue

Community College

Fundamentals ofComputer Science I

Course Portfolio

Compu 142 Shoreline

Community College

Intro. to Computer Programming

with Java

15

Why you might want to make a Course Portfolio

For “permission” to take the time

to reflect on what you are doing

To focus on the Big Picture The curriculum/program The course The teaching

and focus on an element Testing, lectures, homework …

16

Why you might want to make a Course Portfolio – 2

For “permission” to research

From others On your teaching

To Document

To Share

17

Why you might not want to do this alone

Begin with the end in mind - sharing A common framework elicits discipline Encouragement and camaraderie in the

face of a rather large amount of work Building a community of resources And besides, it couldn’t possibly be as

much fun

18

Activities Goals Scholarship ResourcesCommit

ment

Individual Write Portfolio

• Self Improvement

• Increased Learning

• Clear Goals• Reflective

Critique20 hours Low

Small Group in Institution

Add:• Meeting• Peer Obs.• Peer

Critique• Readings

Add:• Create SoTL

Culture in academic unit

Add:• Adequate

Prep• Effective

Presentation

Add:• 20 hours (meeting,

peer stuff) + • 20 hours (reading)• 10 hours (add’l on

portfolio) +• Organizer time

Medium

Disciplinary Commons

across Institutions

Add:• Extend

timeframe to academic year

Add:• Share

knowledge & practices across inst’s

• create or add to existing portfolio repository

Add:• Appropriate

Methods• Significant

Results

Add:• 20 hours (travel)• 10 hours (prep)• 10 hours (peer

stuff)• 10 hours (add’l on

portfolio)• Incentives

High

19

Characteristics of Scholarship

Clear Goals Adequate Preparation Appropriate Methods Significant Results Effective Presentation Reflective Critique

Scholarship Assessed: Evaluation of the Professoriate, Charles Glassick, Mary Huber, and Gene Maeroff, Jossey Bass Publishers, San Francisco, 1997

20

Acknowledgements

Sally Fincher has been a collaborator throughout this project. She runs a Commons in the UK.

Funding has been provided by the Washington State Board of Community and Technical Colleges, the University of Washington Tacoma’s Institute of Technology, and the UWT Founder’s Endowment.

Julie Jacob of the SBCTC and Orlando Baiocchi and Larry Crum from UWT have been especially supportive.

21

Participants and Affiliations

Josh Tenenberg University of Washington Tacoma

Janet Ash Green River Community College Donald Chinn University of Washington Tacoma Ravi Gandham Bellevue Community College Michael Gelotte Bellevue Community College Richard Hoagland South Puget Sound Community

College Laurie Murphy Pacific Lutheran University Brad Richards University of Puget Sound John Staneff Pierce College Fort Steilacoom Phyllis Topham Shoreline Community College Jeffrey Weiss Pierce College Puyallup

22

Panel Q/A