Reading Roundtable 5B Meeting of April 24, 2008

Chapter 9: Making Learner-Centered Teaching Work

Attending: Bill Yang, , Discussion leader
Barbara Nixon, Recorder
Margery (Marney) Collins
Abby Brooks-Fitzgerald
Virginia DeRoma [Happy Birthday!!]
Stacy Kluge
Melissa Weddell

 

Bill provided the group with a brief outline of the chapter.

Principles of successful instruction improvement

• Techniques vs. approach

Techniques: piece by piece, “trick” in detail

Approach: a system or a set of principles, plans

• Approach change systematically (not like Pin the Tail on the Donkey)
• Approach change incrementally
• Plan to tinker
• Set realistic expectations for success

Taking a Learner-Centered Approach

• Study the new approach
• Develop deeper and more accurate self-knowledge
• Alter attitude toward assessment

Sophisticated learners want specific, focused feedback

Self-regulating learners make data-based assessment an ongoing activity

Experienced learners ask the right questions

Sohisticated learners make selective choice about peer involvement

 Below are some additional comments made by members of our group:

Offering choices to students/learners creates angst.

Students feel uncomfortable making choices. Many seem to want us to tell them what to do.

It’s okay to do a few little things regarding learner-centered instruction; no need to try everything in one semester.

We should provide guidelines to our students for what we’re looking for in class discussions.

A goal for student discussion could be to have them move from simply stating personal opinions to sharing their informed opinions. (Virginia recommends McKeachie’s Teaching Tips.)

TA –> ATA: An old way of doing a class lecture was discussing Theory first, then Application. A newer, perhaps better way, is ATA. Share an application, discuss theory, then discuss more applications.

We could consider treating our classrooms like restaurants. Allow students to choose from a menu of options (assignments, exams, etc.) to create a healty diet (reach instructional goals of the class).

How important is attendance anyway? (Big discussion about this, with no real consensus.)

Faculty members need to walk the talk when it comes to classroom/conference decorum. Discussion about presenting at a conference to peers & how challenging it was.

Finally, I’d like to ask all members of our Reading Roundtable to share two or three things they’ve done or plan to do as a result of learning more about Learner-Centered Teaching. Please post your ideas as a Comment to this blog posting.

Reading Roundtable 5B Meeting of April 10, 2008

Chapter 7: Responding to resistance
Chapter 8: Developmental Approach

Attending: Margery (Marney) Collins, Discussion leader
Bill Yang, Recorder
Abby Brooks-Fitzgerald
Stacy Kluge
Barbara Nixon
Melissa Weddell

Absent: Virginia DeRoma

Margery started with why there is resistance, and it triggered lots of discussions from all group members. Then, Margery suggested to introduce change bit by bit. Abby told her own experience in this regard, Melissa shared her story about asking graduate students to present their work, and Barbara also mentioned her classes on the issue. Discussions followed.

Margery then listed a few resistance examples from the book as well as her own experience. Some good points from the book were noted and agreed upon by the group.

Margery continued to discuss the independent studies (p.153). Melissa talked about her feeling about questions by students.

Margery also talked about faculty resistance issue from the book as well as some of her experience.

The overall reader response of the group to Chapter 7 is that it is a good reminder and advice.

On chapter 8, Margery noted that “theory does not have to be right to be useful” and Barbara agreed.

Melissa told the group about her favorite cases from the book and Barbara gave her own story on the same topic.

Respectfully submitted,
Bill Yang
Associate Professor of Economics

Reading Roundtable 5B Meeting of March 28, 2008, Chapter 6

Reading Roundtable 5B Meeting of March 28, 2008, Chapter 6

Attending: Abby Brooks-Fitzgerald, Discussion leader
Margery (Marney) Collins, Recorder
Virginia DeRoma
Stacy Kluge
Barbara Nixon
Bill Yang

Absent: Melissa Weddell

The discussion of methods of evaluation was far-ranging, including both faculty assessment of student work and student evaluations of their own and each others’ work. Copies of peer review questions for student group work on drafts of essays, distributed by M. Collins, were examined. Significant attention focused on the extent to which the necessity to assess enhances or detracts from student learning. Points covered included the following:

• Peer editing and the value of revising papers
• Grading of papers, revisions, exams
• Methods of grading, e.g., averaging, dropping, offering extra-credit options
• Effects on learning of the importance of assessment
• Effects of not focusing on assessment
• The prevalence of plagiarism and other forms of cheating
• Procedure of reviewing correct answers on tests-does it result in learning or evoke emotional       response?
• Encouragement of love of learning and treatment of motivated learners
• Role played by number and scheduling of core courses
• Possibility of student participation in constructing tests and other assessment vehicles

The overall reader response to Chapter 6 is that it provides thorough analysis and raises all the important questions about the issue of assessing student work and its effects on the assessors and the assessed.

Respectfully submitted,
Marney Collins

Notes from Chapters 4 and 5 Meeting

Attendants: Melissa Weddell (discussion leader), Abby Brooks (note taker), Marney Collins, Virginia DeRoma, Stacy Kluge, Barbara Nixon

Overall the time spent during the roundtable discussion today was largely spent sharing concerns and qualms about students and student behaviors. The readings, and perhaps the time of the semester, seemed to bring forth some rather passionate thoughts that were echoed throughout the room. The minimal notes related to chapter discussion follow.

• The group discussed that Chapter 4, although seemed repetitive of other chapters, was decidedly more positive than Chapter 5. The “negativity” of Chapter 5 offered a lot of information that does and does not work.
• Within the group, benefits and downfalls of online quizzes were evaluated. There was no real conclusion but several ideas were shared.
• The discussants talked about rewarding students without punishing others.
• The question: how do we create enforcement if not based on attendance, quizzes, etc? Entitlement and other ideas were discussed.
• No real answers to this one either but the group chewed on: are we putting too many rules into the “messy” learning environment.
• Grade ideas, such as giving fewer items during the semester and how to disclose- verbal, MP3 file, comments on paper and number/letter grade somewhere else such as WebCT.
• The group also talked about options of paper grading and advantages of utilizing drafts. Suggestions included: assign more ungraded, or practice, assignments and/or have peers evaluate for content and clarity, not for grades.