Second Meeting - The Seven Principles of Good Practice

Our second reading was “Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education”, by Arthur Chickering and Zelda Gamson. It can be found at http://honolulu.hawaii.edu/intranet/committees/FacDevCom/guidebk/teachtip/7princip.htm

We decided that the principles make inherent sense, but what was important was to discover and discuss the practical applications of each of them.

Principle 1: Establish Good Contact between Faculty and Students
We agreed that this makes sense, and the idea behind the Rutgers Freshman seminar was a way in which to encourage faculty to reach out to students. We also mentioned how the Writing Department provides very nice opportunities for students, since the classes are smaller and more intimate than many of the large lectures that the students may take. We did think, though, of trying to see this from the students’ point of view, and one participant said when she was an undergraduate, how faculty members seemed old and distant. It was suggested that e-mail is a good tool by which to encourage communication between students and faculty, especially since this is a medium that students use a lot and like.

Principle 2: Develop Reciprocity and Cooperation among Students
Under this section, the “think-pair-share” model was discussed, in which, when asking a question to the class, students are given time to think about it, pair up with another student, and share ideas between themselves and ultimately the whole class. Also, one member present said that she asks students in Peer Review to ask other students about what they did to make their papers successful. Another member said she asks students in 201 classes what they learned in 101 about successful essay writing.

Principle 3: Encourage Active Learning:
One member present talked about how she reduces herself in the sense that if there is a question that no one can answer, she tells the students to research it. Although the following statement was not actually brought up in discussion, I think it is fair to say that the philosophy of the Writing Program is for students to actively explore ideas and analyse issues, rather than merely regurgitate back what the readings say.

Principle 4: Gives Prompt Feedback
Again, this is part of the Writing Program philosophy

Principle 5: Emphasises Time on Task:
We started this topic by talking about the concept of “Just-in-Time” teaching, meaning bringing something fresh and spontaneous from the online discussion to the campus class. We talked quite a bit about what this would mean in the online section of a hybrid class, and said how, even though time is asynchronous in the online environment, that it is important that students move forward in their learning activities at the same approximate time, so that they can truly work collaboratively. We discussed, too, how there is a time lag in the asynchronous online environment, but maybe this can be advantageous, as perhaps students can respond to each other (as in Principle 2).

Principle 6: Communicates High Expectations:
We mentioned how it is important to create the right balance in expectations between challenge and comfort. The Writing Program already has a clear set of policies and grading criteria, and we still need to think through the appropriate expectations for the online environment, in terms of lateness, absences, and the frequency by which both the teacher and students should be participating online.

Principle 7: Respects Diverse Talents and Styles of Learning:
It is precisely because of the diversity of learning styles that we think that the hybrid class might provide some good opportunities for participation, giving, as it does, two different learning environments. Also, in the campus class, we talked about the merits of varying the class activities to suit different types of learners, and also to provide an element of surprise and overall variation.

First Meeting: Rapport

Our first reading was "Establishing Rapport: Personal Interaction and Learning", by Neil Fleming. It can be found online at:
http://www.idea.ksu.edu/papers/Idea_Paper_39.pdf

What follows is a brief review of our discussion. The Almanack does not contain information on the practical details of teaching, and in graduate school, there is seldom discussion about effective teaching practices, so this series of meetings would like to fill in with some discussion on pedagogy.

Today’s discussion was about “rapport”, which means “establishing connection”, so it’s all about student interactions and dialogue. It is thought that the potential for that dialogue is helped when the teacher uses inclusive language, such as saying “we” or “us”, rather than “you”. The article had a good suggestion in recommending that students call on other students. We also thought that in group work, such as we do in our classes, students answer their own questions, and that is good for them, as it encourages students to take responsibility, rather than always looking to the teacher for answers and being too reliant.

How do we create rapport? We thought it’s good to try to establish rapport from the first day of class, especially in terms of learning names and majors. One participant even said that on the third or fourth class, it’s “Candy Day”, and if he doesn’t know the name, correct pronunciation of that name, or major of a student by then, that student gets candy! Another idea for creating rapport is, as the teacher, to make oneself available and accessible outside of class, as in responding to e-mails or talking after class. Getting to know students very well, and personalizing their educational experience as much as possible is beneficial.

How important is humour in the classroom? We decided that group laughter is good, as it creates community, but of course it needs to be handled sensitively. One participant mentioned how last semester she had two classes, and they were so different from each other. One laughed at everything she said, and the other did not. So she made a paper ball and tossed it over her shoulder, and whoever caught it had to speak. Then the students started to throw the ball around between themselves, and so called on each other. It was agreed that it can be nice for a teacher to stand back sometimes, and let students interact and exchange ideas.

What should we do if there is silence and no one wants to respond? If a teacher asks a question and no one answers, it is often uncomfortable for the teacher to be met with this silence, so the teacher provides the answer. But it is better if the teacher rephrases the question or waits a little longer, as maybe students just need some more time to find the answer.

What are some class activities which might generate enthusiastic response? One participant said her class was discussing Krakauer, so she set up a competition as to whether or not Candless was a fool. When students decide this for themselves, they get more out of the reading, than the teacher telling them. Another participant said she sometimes organizes discussion as if they are producing a TV show. Today, for example, the students were looking at two authors in the Environmental research course, so she split the class into each of the authors, and gave them some time to work in their pairs formulating ideas. Then they had to come up, one pair at a time, and be “on TV” answering questions as to the state of the environment. It was an “interactive TV program” as the audience could ask questions, as did the teacher, as the moderator of the show. We agreed that role playing is good, as the students are not themselves, but can take another point of view. They get to try on different ideas that they might not have agreed with before. Variations on this would include playing Devil’s Advocate, or holding mock trials about controversial issues that are being read. In fact, we think, all these things – role playing, debates, games – create the stage for exchange, and therefore rapport.

One participant wondered whether full participation might be unrealistic. Even though we, as teachers, would like all our students to be engaged, he asked whether enforced inclusion is right. Some students might be uncomfortable. Another responded that she starts her class with a “brain teaser”, such as “Define Happiness” and ask them all what they think as that loosens them up. Generally speaking, though, that’s where personalizing education is so important. We get to know the individual personalities of the students, and try to engage them on their own terms. That’s also where Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences is so true, since there are many different learning types, and also a wide variety of experiences that students bring into their learning.

What should we do about the student who monopolises discussion? One participant said one male student was always interrupting a female student when she spoke. She had to cut him off and tell him to let her finish. In general, with the students who talk a lot, she tells them that they are saying good things, so she is pointing this out in positive terms, but that they should let others have a chance to speak. Another idea is to take the dominant student aside and talk to him or her privately.

We realized that the reason some of us were talking about problem students is that they are the monkey wrench in establishing rapport. We wondered how to what extent the perceived rapport that the students experience affects teaching evaluations. There is no question on the evaluation sheet about rapport, but there is one on teaching effectiveness. A discussion ensued as to what teaching effectiveness means, and it was suggested that teaching effectiveness can be seen if we put on the syllabus what the goals of the course are, and then each student can see to what extent he or she has accomplished these goals. That would say something about the effectiveness of the teacher.

Welcome!

Hello! This will be a blog in which we will post the main highlights from our fortnightly pedagogical discussions. We look forward to your attendance in the meetings and online participation.