Online Education?

Last week in GRAD602 we talked about online education.  Going into our discussion, I had a lot of reservations about online education.  I guess I still view it as a course or degree where everything is online.  After our discussion, I am still worried about online education.  Maybe because what Laura said is correct in that we haven't figured it out and are on the verge of a paradigm shift for online education.  And, that worries me.  Worries me for all the stuff we discussed in class.  But most of all, I am worried about how I as a future educator could teach an online class effectively, especially being in the sciences.  There is some things you need hands-on experiences in order to grasp concepts.  Hopefully, since we are on the cusp of change, I will figure it out as I go along.  But, making me aware that there is this huge change coming rather than me keeping my head in the sand is the first part to getting me thinking about how I could teach online and be effective.  Thanks GRAD602!

Photo Credit

How Do You Get An Old Dog To Learn New Tricks?

This past week it was all about the different forms of assessment in GRAD602.  Due to No Child Left Behind, many students entering college only think in terms of...

Photo Credit 

As we discussed in class, there are many college courses which assess students by other means than filling in circles on exams.  Lately, I have been sitting in on undergraduate biology classes at various universities surrounding Richmond.  What I have found from shadowing and speaking with the instructors are that students hate thinking outside the box.  Even true/false scares them away.  Which doesn't make sense to me at all.  You have a 50/50 shot of getting a true/false correct...which is better odds than a typical multiple choice question.  They have been conditioned to think in terms of multiple choice and nothing else.  When sitting in on these classes I share the frustration of this teacher...

    

Photo Credit

But how do we, as future higher ed faculty, undo 8 or so years of conditioning kids to think only in terms of 4 choices and become a more "outside the box" thinker?  I am not sure that I have the best answer for this question right now.  However, I do firmly believe that the classroom atmosphere often gets people excited to think outside the box.  Therefore, increasing student engagement, active learning practices, hands-on experiences, relevance, and exuding passion for the subject can hopefully get students to thinking outside of the multiple choice circles and lead to...

  





Involvement and Engagement Facilitates Active Learning and Knowledge

Photo Credit

At the start of our class discussion on active learning, I kind of took the approach of several in the class that many of the active learning exercises were gimmicks.  I took this approach for several reasons:

1) Students who are seeking higher education should be self-disciplined enough to listen to a lecture, study for the test, and retain and build on their knowledge.

2) It takes away from valuable class time and might hinder the ability to cover more information.

3) As a scientist, my take on classes was coming from a different angle.  To me, the class is where we obtain the basic information/concepts and the lab was the active learning, hands-on portion which reinforced the class and help build higher-level thinking.  They compliment each other and one cannot happen without the other.

Thanks to Laura and the handout she gave several of us on specific techniques for active learning and their outcomes, I realized that:

1) Active learning is not a gimmick.

2) The way science is taught in higher education doesn't help faciliate learning and greater level of thinking.

So about point 1, I think Laura's handout identifies some amazing techniques for facilitating active learning in the classroom.  These include: 

Face-to-face discussions

Symposiums

Panels

Debates

Case studies

Games

Videos

Simulations

When reading the article, to my surprise, I had participiated in classes which used several of these techniques.  When I reflect back on those classes today, I can still remember the subject that was taught and the take-home point from the lecture.  Clearly, those active learning techniques helped me remember a subject matter that I do not reflect on constantly.  About point 2, recently, I have sat in on several upper level science classes at a couple of universities within the Richmond area.  The lectures resemble the picture above.  The professor at the front of the class...speaking (i.e.raining) out information to students.  However, from speaking with the students, they are not absorbing or learning it.  Yes, the lab is meant to reinforce the class via active, hands-on learning.  However, the lab and the class seem disjointed to students; therefore, they do not identify how it reinforces the class lecture.  Maybe it is because they didn't absorb the class lecture due to their low involvement and engagement in the class.  Shouldn't we as future educators try to make science come alive in the classroom rather than just in the lab?  Maybe this will facilitate retention of the information, building on the knowledge, and facilitate a higher level of thinking.  As I am preparing for my teaching internship next spring, I am going to make it my goal to bring active learning to the classroom as well as the lab!         

A Hunger For Pedagogy!

First off, I would like to start out by saying thank you to the instructors of GRAD602 for doing a mid-semester assessment of the class.  I think it is very informative on both sides!

I think Helen hit the nail on the head last week when she said that there was a hunger for pedagogy in GRAD602.  In fact, I am one who thrists for more pedagogy.  However, I completely understand how Jeff mentioned there isn't alot of time built into the schedule for an in-depth coverage of pedagogy.  Something he proposed last week really resonated with me and will fulfill my hunger and quench my thirst for pedagogy.  If an outsider came to me asking for a list of scientific papers, research labs, scientists, and pivotal stories that unveil the last 20+ years in viral immunology research (my expertise from my Ph.D. work)...I would be able to hand them a detailed list with references.  It would help paint a picture of the prevailing theories in immunology.  This list by no means encompasses every aspect of viral immunology.  It would just give the individual a starting off point and would help facilitate further more in-depth research.  Therefore, that is what I would like in GRAD602.  A potential list of papers, books, and authors that will identify prevailing theories in pedagogy.  Because it is out of my expertise, I am often overwhelmed when I start to delve into the research.  As I am sure someone in education would be overwhelmed had they tried to figure out viral immunology research without some help.  So, Jeff mentioning a potential reference list for pedagogy would be a great supplement to the class.  Because it is just that-a supplement, it will not take up valuable time and it will hopefully fulfill the hunger for those searching for more pedagogy in this GRAD602 class! 

Are Educators Ignoring Student's Learning Styles?

Last week in GRAD602, we continued our discussion on how people learn.  We identified 3 prevailing models about how people learn: Bloom's Taxonomy, SOLO Taxonomy, and Shulman Table of Learning.  What got me thinking is something that Jeff said in class...he brought up the rhetorical question about whether research on teaching should inform practice.  Furthermore, he mentioned that the discipline often governs which taxonomy is used in teaching.  I started thinking about this and it brought me to a pretty bold conclusion: I feel that most educators teach the way that they learn rather than how their students learn.  Therefore, the students are suffering in that they do not gain the simple information and knowledge in the class and this subsequently prevents their higher-order of thinking.  Here's how I came to this conclusion...

Early last week, I and a few other fellows in my program went to an undergraduate institution in the surrounding Richmond area to observe the teachers and students in science classes and labs.  The SOLO Taxonomy appeals to my style of learning.

 http://www.johnbiggs.com.au/academic/solo-taxonomy/

It describes verbatim the process I went through to obtain my Ph.D. in Microbiology and Immunology.  Although this is a huge assumption, I suppose most people who love science and pursue a doctorate in the sciences learn in a similar manner to SOLO.  However, sitting in on these classes last week was an eye-opening experience.  These classes were required for students who were majoring either in nursing or biology.  I felt as if the teachers were conducting their class in a similar manner to the SOLO taxonomy.  For example, the instructors expected students to take their unconnected information (prestructural level) and to hypothesize and theorize about various phenomena (extended abstract).  However, when speaking with individual students, they had no idea how to do such a thing.  They couldn't connect the dots from small picture to big picture.  After studying the various learning styles, this suggested to me that they were not true SOLO learners and that their teachers were structuring their classes in a SOLO fashion which naturally appeals to us scientists.  To help them get from point A to B in an effort to connect the dots for them, I put a larger perspective/understanding on the assignment at hand.  Once they thought about the larger picture, they made the connections with some guided help.  This suggests that the students I spoke with identified with Shulman's Table of Learning.

http://rhetor.blogs.com/learning/2008/01/shulmans-tabl-1.html

They needed the understanding of the big picture first in order to make smaller connections and ultimately lead them to think about higher order hypotheses and theorizing about various phenomena.  What was incredibly eye-opening for me was that each student was capable of making the higher level connections.  However, the manner in which the information was presented was confusing for them and preventing their higher level of thinking.  Now, I am not saying this is how all educators are, but I feel more often than not they teach the way they learn vs. how the student learns. Therefore, as educators we cannot assume that everyone learns the exact same way we do even when talking about specific disciplines.  The goal is to get students to think on a higher level.  Maybe the only way to achieve that goal is to tailor lectures or classes to how individual students learn.  For example, start with the understanding first to help the Shulman learning style students while telling those SOLO learners to "zone out" from the discussion for a second.  Then when the details are presented both the SOLO and Shulman learners can actively engage in the lecture together again.  Additionally, an instructor could flip the class.  I would say it is hard to develop a lecture to appeal to all types of learners, but knowing that there are many types of learning styles in one classroom full of students is a start...  

Pigeon-hole, Combination, or None?

http://serc.carleton.edu/NAGTWorkshops/earlycareer/teaching/learningstyles.html

Last week in GRAD602, we discussed how different people learn and how that may influence our teaching beliefs and practices.  It seemed that there was an overwhelming consensus that there were various learning styles.  And as a class, we focused on two distinct learning styles, in particular:  the auditory learners vs. the visual learners.  However, upon further research, it appears that we only scratched the surface when discussing the various learning styles...

Howard Gardner doesn't even use the coined phrase "learning styles."  Instead he addresses that intelligence comes in various flavors and uses the "multiple intelligences" phraseology.  Based on his theory, there are 9 different types of intelligences including:

Linguistic

Logical/Mathematical

Bodily

Musical

Spatial

Naturalist

Intrapersonal

Interpersonal

Existential

On the other hand, Anthony Gregorc believes that how a person learns is based on their type or "style" of mind.  The theory he puts forth suggests that there are 4 different types of mind styles:

Concrete Sequential

Abstract Sequential

Abstract Random

Concrete Random

Then, there is this 4MAT grouping of learning styles.  This system and terminology is based on multiple studies and theories and categorizes people into 4 types based on whether they want to know how, why, what, or what if.

And, I am just scratching the surface here...there are multiple models.

On the contrary, Daniel Willingham believes that the theories of different learning styles is a myth. 

So, here's my thought...

The picture above represents 1 student and brings up a valid point.  Should teachers teach a certain way based on how the students learn?  But, in a class of 20-100+ students, how is that possible?  My mind becomes overwhelmed thinking about how many learning styles might be in a class...so much so that some factorial equation comes to mind when I think about how many different learning styles could be in a class of 20.  I envision this...45645123564+ combinations of learning styles.  With multiple learning styles and intelligences, how can our teaching practices engage all students?  Are there some students that don't fit into the mold and would prove Daniel Willingham correct?  Or can students be a combination such as a type 1, concrete sequential learner with musical intelligence?  Or are students solely one learning style (i.e. type 2 and nothing else)?  Therefore, with all these possibilities it is hard to cater to every student's preference of learning.  Maybe the best idea is to change teaching practices frequently in order to engage more students.  This fits in with what Daniel Willingham recently said in the NPR article (link above)...

Mixing things up is something we know is scientifically supported as something that boosts attention   



Furthermore, the article goes on to state that engaging and maintaing a student's attention will help them learn better.  So in the end, regardless of whether you buy into the different types of learning styles or not...maybe change and mixing it up is truly the best way to teach.

               

What the Craft?

Prior to break, we started discussing the case of Professor Craft.  Even in our individual group discussion prior to the classroom discussion, we started veering off to left field with some of the comments and questions that were brought to the forefront.  Therefore, I am not surprised in the direction the classroom discussion went.

However, I think Teacher Learner brought up an excellent point in his blog post.  He mentions that these philosophies should be mentioned earlier in the course. As a bench research scientist, I often feel like I am ill-equipped to take part in these discussions.  Mainly from the stance that I do not know all of these different philosophies of learning and teaching.  Now put me in a debate on B cells, redox biology, and models for infective endocarditis and I will speak up!  But, these types of discussions are hard for a scientist to engage in especially when context and background information are lacking.  These discussions got me thinking about my future students.  Oftentimes, first-year faculty are forced to teach general biology courses to non-majors.  Therefore, the students often lack context and background information.  It is my responsibility as the course instructor to try to engage all students.  Maybe that takes an overhaul in the way in which the course is designed and taught, much like Craft felt like he had to do for the classes he taught.  It seems that if I can engage more students it is well worth the extra work and effort.