Engaging Faculty and Students in Talking about Teaching and Learning(Informed by Assessment Data) :Engaging Faculty and Students in Talking about Teaching and Learning(Informed by Assessment Data) Karl A. Smith Engineering Education – Purdue University Civil Engineering - University of Minnesota ksmith@umn.edu http://www.ce.umn.edu/~smith Virginia Tech CEUT Teaching Enhancement Workshop November 2006


Assessment Data :2 Assessment Data Knowledge Probe Classroom Assessment (minute paper) Mid-Term Review Student Management Team SGID & Peer Review


Knowledge Probe :3 Knowledge Probe Example from MOT 8221 What would you like to know about the students in your courses?


Slide 4:4


Slide 5:5 MOT 8221 – Spring 2005


Slide 6:6 MOT 8221 – Spring 2005


Slide 7:7 MOT 8221 – Spring 2006 – 32/32


Slide 8:8 MOT 8221 – Spring 2006 – 32/32


Knowledge Probe :9 Knowledge Probe What would you like to know about the students in your courses?


Assessment Data :10 Assessment Data Knowledge Probe Classroom Assessment (minute paper) Mid-Term Review Student Management Team Peer Review


Minute Paper :11 Minute Paper What was the most useful or meaningful thing you learned during this session? What question(s) remain uppermost in your mind as we end this session? What was the “muddiest” point in this session? Give an example or application Explain in your own words . . . Angelo, T.A. & Cross, K.P. 1993. Classroom assessment techniques: A handbook for college teachers. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.


Slide 12:12 Session Summary (Minute Paper) Reflect on the session: 1. Most interesting, valuable, useful thing you learned. 2. Question/Topic/Issue you would like to have addressed. 3. Comments, suggestions, etc Pace: Too slow 1 . . . . 5 Too fast Relevance: Little 1 . . . 5 Lots Format: Ugh 1 . . . 5 Ah


Slide 13:13 Q4 – Pace: Too slow 1 . . . . 5 Too fast Q5 – Relevance: Little 1 . . . 5 Lots Q6 – Format: Ugh 1 . . . 5 Ah MOT 8221 - Spring 2005 - Session 1


Slide 14:14 Q4 – Pace: Too slow 1 . . . . 5 Too fast Q5 – Relevance: Little 1 . . . 5 Lots Q6 – Format: Ugh 1 . . . 5 Ah MOT 8221 – Spring 2006 – Session 1


Session 1 Comments :15 Session 1 Comments Most interesting – loved the group work – great for building teamwork [mentioned by many] That we will discuss knowledge management Constructive controversy [mentioned by many] Importance of recognizing time constraints when planning project Conflict management – how to deal with non-compliant team members Reminded about universal importance of project management and value of constructive conflict Break out with people other than my group was excellent, fun to work with other MOT classmates [many mentioned] “Common Goal” requirement Project management stories from others Not addressed/ Questions – How to use constructive controversy in our own organization; How to handle difficult team member How to manage debate (pitfall/tactics) when it goes sour Non-optimal project strategies – practical Need a little more on deliverables for the course Difference between knowledge management and project management Leadership aspects of management More group activities Getting past team members/barriers to project moving on Other comments – ran out of time, could use less material in 1st class to give more time at end I like this style very much [Many mentioned this]; engaging, instructive, fun Please keep this up Spend less time going over syllabus Handouts could have been 2-up


Slide 16:16 Q4 – Pace: Too slow 1 . . . . 5 Too fast Q5 – Relevance: Little 1 . . . 5 Lots Q6 – Format: Ugh 1 . . . 5 Ah Mn/DOT Essential Skills for Project Managers May 2, 2005


Slide 17:17 Q4 – Pace: Too slow 1 . . . . 5 Too fast Q5 – Relevance: Little 1 . . . 5 Lots Q6 – Format: Ugh 1 . . . 5 Ah USU – August 24, 2006 – Session 1 (am)


Slide 18:18 Q4 – Pace: Too slow 1 . . . . 5 Too fast Q5 – Relevance: Little 1 . . . 5 Lots Q6 – Format: Ugh 1 . . . 5 Ah CDTL – IBM Systems Engineers – September 21, 2006 – Session 1 (am)


Assessment Data :19 Assessment Data Knowledge Probe Classroom Assessment (minute paper) Mid-Term Review Student Management Team Peer Review


Slide 20:20 http://eval.umn.edu Mid-Term Review


Slide 21:21 MOT 8221 Mid-Semester Review


Assessment Data :22 Assessment Data Knowledge Probe Classroom Assessment (minute paper) Mid-Term Review Student Management Team Peer Review


Slide 23:23 Student Management Team A student management team will be used in this course to operationalize Total Quality Management principles. The attributes of student management teams are described below, and the operation of the team is based on shared responsibility:   Students, in conjunction with their instructor, are responsible for the success of any course. As student managers, your special responsibility is to monitor this course through your own experience, to receive comments from other students, to work as a team with your instructor on a regular basis, and to make recommendations to the instructor about how this course can be improved. (Nuhfer, 1990-1995).


Attributes of Student Management Teams :24 Attributes of Student Management Teams 3 - 4 students plus teaching team. Students have a managerial role and assume responsibility for the success of the class. Students meet weekly; professor attends every other week. Meetings generally last about one hour. Meet away from classroom and professor's office. Maintain log or journal of suggestions, actions and progress. May focus on the professor or on the content. Utilize group dynamics approach of TQM.


Slide 25:Chapter 8: Student Management Teams: The Heretic’s Path to Teaching Success by Edward B. Nuhfer Wm. Campbell & Karl Smith. New Paradigms for College Teaching. Interaction Books, 1997.


Students as Co-Designers :26 Students as Co-Designers Graduate TAs participating as members of the teaching team Undergraduate TAs (near peers) as members of the teaching team


Approaches to Cooperative Learning in CE 4101W & 4102W :Maximum Effectiveness in Large Classroom Environments Smith & Kampf 9/29/2004 Approaches to Cooperative Learning in CE 4101W & 4102W Informal – Book Ends Formal Task Groups – projects in class and outside Cooperative Base Groups (Cohort Groups) Student Management Team


Active Learning: Cooperation in the College Classroom :Maximum Effectiveness in Large Classroom Environments Smith & Kampf 9/29/2004 Active Learning: Cooperation in the College Classroom Informal Cooperative Learning Groups Formal Cooperative Learning Groups Cooperative Base Groups


Slide 29:Maximum Effectiveness in Large Classroom Environments Smith & Kampf 9/29/2004 Book Ends on a Class Session


Slide 30:Cooperative Learning Task Groups Perkins, David. 2003. King Arthur's Round Table: How collaborative conversations create smart organizations. NY: Wiley.


WebCT Peer Review & Feedback :Maximum Effectiveness in Large Classroom Environments Smith & Kampf 9/29/2004 WebCT Peer Review & Feedback Students work in Base Groups WebCT provides private message areas for each group Opportunity to use the Model-Practice Feedback Loop Feedback to whole group rather than individuals More information More models and feedback to help students


WebCT Discussion Area :Maximum Effectiveness in Large Classroom Environments Smith & Kampf 9/29/2004 WebCT Discussion Area


Feedback Posting Sample :Maximum Effectiveness in Large Classroom Environments Smith & Kampf 9/29/2004 Feedback Posting Sample


Detailed Feedback to the Group :Maximum Effectiveness in Large Classroom Environments Smith & Kampf 9/29/2004 Detailed Feedback to the Group


Model-Practice-Feedback Loop :Maximum Effectiveness in Large Classroom Environments Smith & Kampf 9/29/2004 Model-Practice-Feedback Loop Cooper and Robinson [18] surveyed the literature in higher education and found that “...the model-practice-feedback loop is among the most powerful instructional strategies available to teachers at all levels.” teacher modeling student practice with multiple opportunities descriptive feedback on the quality of their performance


Successes & Challenges :Maximum Effectiveness in Large Classroom Environments Smith & Kampf 9/29/2004 Successes & Challenges Incorporating formal cooperative groups with the peer review process offered the students: access to more examples of writing access to comments on both their own papers and those of their group members Students need more explicit connections between the writing for class and the writing they will be doing in the workplace. Summer 2004 we incorporated an interview assignment to help students make this connection


Assessment Data :37 Assessment Data Knowledge Probe Classroom Assessment (minute paper) Mid-Term Review Student Management Team SGID & Peer Review


Slide 38:38


Slide 39:39


Slide 40:40 The biggest and most long-lasting reforms of undergraduate education will come when individual faculty or small groups of instructors adopt the view of themselves as reformers within their immediate sphere of influence, the classes they teach every day. K. Patricia Cross


Slide 41:41 It could well be that faculty members of the twenty-first century college or university will find it necessary to set aside their roles as teachers and instead become designers of learning experiences, processes, and environments. James Duderstadt, 1999