Conference on Higher Education Pedagogy February 6, 2014

1. In Search of a New Formula: Why Instructor Expertise plus Engaging Instruction does NOT Always Equal Student Learning Conference on Higher Education Pedagogy February 6, 2014 Ginni Fair, Associate Professor, Eastern Kentucky University Jason Fair, Science Teacher, Farristown Middle school

2. Questions to Consider: • 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?

3. Alignment • Relationship between outcomes, assessment, and instruction:

4. Example from K-12 Students who demonstrate understanding can:

5. 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

6. Syllabus SLOs, cont. 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

7. Assessment • 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

8. Critical Thinking 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)

9. Classroom Scenarios • 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?

10. Classroom Scenario • 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?

11. 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?

12. Where are you? Ensures that outcomes, assessment, and instruction are aligned Assumes that experience, knowledge, and professional “I-just-know” feeling is enough to structure the class Alignment

13. Where are you? 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 Assessment

14. Where are you? 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’. Critical Thinking

15. To sum it all up… • Youtube video

16. References 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/s10734-011-9484-1 Flores, 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

17. References, cont. 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.