EFFECTIVE TEACHING

1. EFFECTIVE TEACHING DJ Belarbi Professor of Civil Engineering Larry Gragg Distinguished Teaching Professor of History James Drallmeier Professor of Mechanical Engineering and Member of UMR Committee on Effective Teaching

2. What Teaching Should Be • Professors should have: • Formal Teacher Training with Student Teaching and Peer Review. • Understanding of Student Learning Styles. • Practical Experience. • Research Experience. • Time and Resources to Develop Innovative Teaching Methods. • Ability to Use Technology in the Classroom. • Encouragement to do a Good Job!

3. BARRIERS TO GOOD TEACHING-GENERAL • Lack of formal teacher training. • Lack of understanding of student learning styles/modes. • Lack of peer review. • Overemphasis on research for promotion. • No time to teach well. • No reward for good teaching. • “Buy out” encouraged. • Teaching is often “punishment” for lack of research.

4. TEACHER TRAINING • K-12 • Teachers learn education theory (pedagogy), but do not necessarily have strong backgrounds in subject matter • College • Experts in subject matter, but no formal teacher training. • New faculty often put in the classroom with no supervision/training. • Only evaluation is student rating.

5. Human see, Human do. -Planet of the Apes

6. HOW WE TEACH • Professors tend to teach as they were taught. • Those who can learn under that teaching style excel. • Those that excel become professors. • We think we teach to the average, but do we????????

7. Do well in college Go to Graduate School Do Research Good Grades Graduate Get Job Because of Research Teach Students Associate Professor Assistant Professor Professor Do Even More Research Do More Research

8. 8% 8% 43% 41% Faculty Kolb Learning Styles Inventory Student Learning Styles

9. WHAT I LEARNED • Students and professors tend to have different learning styles. • Supported by research of Felder (NCSU) • Professors prefer the abstract. • Over half the students prefer the concrete. • I THOUGHT STUDENTS LIKE “PLUG AND CHUG” BECAUSE THEY WERE LAZY OR STUPID. IT TURNS OUT THAT’S HOW MANY LEARN!

10. SPECIFIC BARRIERS TO TEACHING ENGINEERING • Not suited to indirect teaching. • Indirect teaching – teaching through question and answer/small group discussion. • Indirect teaching is best for concepts IF students have the background. • Students are active. • Direct Teaching – lecture type presentation. • Direct Teaching is best for “How to” or unfamiliar material. • Students are passive.

11. The age old debate: Teach a little but teach it well OR Cover a given amount of subject matter even if coverage is less than optimum. Often, we are forced to the latter.

12. The Problem • Professors are interested in learning for the sake of knowledge. • Interested in theory. • Interested in “useless” things • Colleges still teach Latin! • Students see knowledge as a means to an end. • Tend to see college as “job training”.

13. WAYS TO BE MORE EFFECTIVE • Give a Damn • Know Your Audience • Demonstrate Your Passion for the Subject

14. Some Suggestions • Start with something they know. • Give them a connection. • Numbers first – theory next. • In touch with student learning style. • Shows application. • Practical knowledge! • Why they need it. • Show off your research! • Show where theory and practice touch. • Teach it, assign it, test it. • Emphasize the important concepts.

15. Analogy: When teaching children soccer, we don’t make them learn every rule of the game before they play a game (imagine explaining the offside rule to a 6 year old). Children start with simplified rules and work up to the more complex rules over time. When confronted with unfamiliar material, we all all go back to a childlike learning state.

16. Using “Real” Examples • Helps connect material. • Shows application of theory • Tells them “why” • Students remember better if they know why.

17. Be Consistent! • Teach, assign and test similar material. • Identify important concepts. • Lectures, HW and Tests should be of similar material. • Worst way to teach: • Lecture on one set of topics • Give HW which has nothing to do with lectures. • Give tests which have nothing to do with HW and Lectures.

18. Committee For Effective Teaching (CET) http://web.umr.edu/~cet/index.htm Role of the Committee · In April of 1995 the Academic Council approved the following charge for the CET: The Committee on Effective Teaching and Faculty Awards is authorized and established by the Chancellor. It has responsibility for developing methods for the student evaluation of teaching, assuring the integrity of the evaluations, recommending methods for improving teaching, nominating faculty members for special teaching awards established at the University of Missouri-Rolla.

19. What has been UMR's practice with regards to student evaluation of teaching? Toward the end of the fall and winter semesters, the Provost's office assembles then distributes evaluation materials to departmental offices across campus. If the department had indicated an instructor is to be evaluated, the evaluation material will include a packet of scan sheets and a packet of comment sheets for that instructor. After the students have completed the sheets, the packets are returned to the Provost's office. The written comment sheets are forwarded to the mail center for return to the instructor after the completion of the semester. The scan sheets are forwarded for processing. Once tabulated, the results are given in a confidential form to the CET at the beginning of the fall to determine Outstanding teaching Award recipients. This is a blind selection process. The CET committee members do not see the name of instructors.

20. What is the purpose of the student evaluation? The primary purpose of the evaluation process is to nominate faculty for the Outstanding Teacher Award according to student opinion. The secondary purpose of the evaluations is improving teaching. The written comment sheets are not used in the nomination process. They are collected for the sole purpose of helping an instructor identify ways in which a course can be improved.

21. Can these evaluations be used to determine my raises/tenure/promotion? On December 8, 1988 the Academic Council approved Attachment III.A.1 called Policy for Evaluation of Faculty Instruction. This policy states: The results of these evaluations will provide a portion of the information used by the administration in personnel decisions, including promotion and tenure, salaries, and awards. Hence the Academic Council has approved that these evaluation numbers can be a portion of the decision making process. The policy later elaborates that when used for personnel decision: These evaluations must be broad-based, including input from student evaluations, peer evaluations, and self evaluations, with all tenure track faculty participating in the evaluations on a periodic basis. The CET abides by the policy proposed by the Academic Council and believe that student evaluation results should provide a portion of the information used in making personnel decisions, including promotion and tenure. However, the CET also believes that the student evaluation SHOULD NOT be the sole factor in evaluation of teaching performance for personnel decisions.

22. CET Selection Criteria for Outstanding Teaching Awards Minimum of 10 students enrolled per semester Minimum of 8 student responses per semester Minimum of 3 courses per year with at least 2 preparations per year, OR 4 courses per year if same preparation Lecture classes only* Instructors with prime teaching/faculty appointments only Distinguished Teaching Professors not eligible Non-academic (e.g., ROTC, orientation, help) courses not to apply The number of awardees selected will be approximately equal to the 10% of those evaluated. *The Committee will review the records of those responsible for recitation sections and labs and recognize an instructor (or two) in each of those categories if the ratings warrant such selection