One of the most frequent questions faculty ask about the flipped classroom model is: “How do you encourage students to actually do the pre-class work and come to class prepared?”
This is not really a new question for educators. We’ve always assigned some type of homework, and there have always been students who do not come to class ready to learn. However, the flipped classroom conversation has launched this question straight to the top of the list of challenges faculty face when implementing this model in their classrooms. By design, the flipped model places more emphasis on the importance of homework or pre-class work to ensure that in-person class time is effective, allowing the instructor and the students to explore higher levels of application and analysis together. If students are unprepared, it leads to frustration, stress, and anxiety for everyone.
Every higher education institution today faces the complex challenges of serving increased enrollment levels within tight budgets. Adding to the complexity are new student expectations for the when, where and how of learning — where passive listening and doing classwork in isolation are no longer acceptable.
These challenges are prompting many colleges and universities to explore new approaches, especially blended learning, for delivering courses. Blended learning delivers higher levels of learning interactivity and collaboration and
— more importantly for student and institutional success
— higher levels of student engagement.
Engagement in a continuous, systematic, and well-documented student learning assessment process has been gaining importance throughout higher education. Indeed, implementation of such a process is typically a requirement for obtaining and maintaining accreditation. Because faculty need to embrace learning assessment in order for it to be successful, any misconceptions about the nature of assessment need to be dispelled. One way to accomplish that is to “rebrand” (i.e., change perceptions) the entire process.
Lori Ernsperger's Recognize, Respond, Report: Preventing and Addressing Bullying of Students with Special relevant. The book addresses research-based strategies for combating bullying as it applies to students with N deiesdasb iilsi ttiiems ewlyh oa nadre roaftthene ro dviesrtliollos ktehde ianv tahilea bwlied elirt erreasteuarrec hin oton ab uclolyhiensgi vaen dst rparteevgeyn tsihoanp.e Tdh bey a huethr oorw dno eexs pneorti epnucrep oarntd t oe xipnterrotdisuec aes n ae w30 s-tyreaatre gvieetse rbaunt of public schools and academia.
Lori Ernsperger's Recognize, Respond, Report: Preventing and Addressing Bullying of Students with Special relevant. The book addresses research-based strategies for combating bullying as it applies to students with N deiesdasb iilsi ttiiems ewlyh oa nadre roaftthene ro dviesrtliollos ktehde ianv tahilea bwlied elirt erreasteuarrec hin oton ab uclolyhiensgi vaen dst rparteevgeyn tsihoanp.e Tdh bey a huethr oorw dno eexs pneorti epnucrep oarntd t oe xipnterrotdisuec aes n ae w30 s-tyreaatre gvieetse rbaunt of public schools and academia.
Workshops on how to encourage class participation are a staple of teaching and learning centres across the
country. However, little of that advice is geared to the needs on an oft-neglected subset of introverted university
students: the ones who aren’t shy.
Even though Susan Cain’s book, Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Can’t Stop Talking, was a
bestseller, and her TED Talk has been viewed more than 10 million times, I’m not sure that our postsecondary
teaching and learning community has fully appreciated its implications.
If we want to encourage all of our students to participate in class, we have to accept that shy students are not
necessarily introverted. And introverts are not necessarily shy.
Every morning, before the coffee kicks in, I unload the dishwasher. This is more or less mindless work, but there often comes a moment when I'm forced to pause. I take out the silverware basket, put it on the counter, and look at the disorganized jumble: forks and spoons and knives sticking out every which way. For a split second, I am overwhelmed with a kind of paralysis — I don’t know where to begin. Of course, I soon snap out of it and start putting everything away.
That strikes me as similar to what instructors — particularly novice ones — face at the beginning of the fall semester.
It can be overwhelming to think of all of the objectives you have for your students. In my own writing courses, I want my students to learn how to construct an argument and how to write good sentences. I want them to understand the place of research, and how to integrate outside sources into their writing. Of course to become good writers, they need to be good readers, understanding how other writers create. And what about learning how to draft and revise? Trying to balance that glut of important skills, my head can become very muddled, very quickly.
Last semester I reinvented English composition as a community-service learning course. My students did the usual work of any composition course — developing basic writing skills, crafting narrative essays and arguments, conducting research — but it was in the service of creating print and web content for a local homeless shelter.
In their end-of-semester evaluations, students praised the experiment, and I will probably repeat it. But I don’t want to make too much of that particular reinvention, because I have reinvented first-year composition at least a half-dozen times in my 20 years of teaching it, and will no doubt do so again. The same goes for most people I know who teach composition.
The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between each of the five personality factors in the Big Five Inventory (BFI) and online faculty student evaluations. Faculty members from the School of Criminal Justice (CJ) and the School of Information Technology (IT) from an online university were asked to complete the BFI (44 item personality inventory). There were 179 valid BFI surveys returned with matched student evaluation data. There were small correlations between some of the five factors and student evaluations for all subjects. However, when separated by school, there were no statistically significant correlations for faculty inIT but there were significant correlations with moderate effect sizes for faculty in CJ.Keywords: Big Five Inventory, Student Evaluations, Online Instructors Relationship Between Personality Characteristics of Online Instructors and Student Evaluations
When students are unable to comply with some aspect of an academic task (e.g. due date, assignment length, quality of work), there is potential for them to communicate reasons as to why they were unable to complete the task to their instructor. At this point the students have a choice, in which case they can either provide legitimate reasons for not being able to complete or to submit their coursework, or they can communicate something which is a deliberate attempt to deceive the instructor. A student may communicate information designed to deceive or construct a fraudulent claim to an instructor in order to avoid the undesirable consequences (e.g. a bad grade that may hurt the student’s overall standing in a class) of not complying with the academic task.
Roig and Caso (2005) found that the frequency of which providing fraudulent claims occurs in an academic environment is approximately equal to, if not greater than, more commonly identified forms of academic dishonesty such as cheating and plagiarism.
Ferrari et al. (1998) indicated that fraudulent claim making was utilized by as many as 70% of American college students. However, this phenomenon has received limited empirical attention in recent time in comparison to other forms of academically
dishonest behavior.
Over the past decade there has been an upsurge of interest in the quality of postsecondary education, with a particular focus on learning, engagement, and other student outcomes. Instructors, administrators, and other staff across the postsecondary sector have been investigating innovative approaches and services, while many institutions, faculties, departments, and professional associations have established teaching and learning centres or offices to help enhance student success. Governments and governmental organizations have provided support for new approaches and for research projects evaluating them.
This guide, co-sponsored by the McMaster Centre for Leadership in Learning (CLL) and the Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario (HEQCO), and endorsed by the Society for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education (STLHE) and the Canadian Association of College and University Student Services (CACUSS), is intended to assist researchers and evaluators of postsecondary educational outcomes. The intended audiences for this document include, but are by no means restricted to, the following:
• faculty members and educational developers investigating innovative approaches or technologies designed to enhance learning in postsecondary contexts;
• faculty members and administrators leading initiatives for students enrolled in programs or courses that are considered particularly challenging;
• anyone involved in professional development initiatives for faculty, graduate students, and others intended to enhance teaching and learning effectiveness;
• student service providers at postsecondary institutions; and
• students and student associations focusing on effective teaching, learning and student success.
Given the ongoing alarm regarding uncontrollable costs of higher education, it would be reasonable to expect not only concern about the impact of MOOCs on educational outcomes, but also systematic efforts to document the resources expended on their development and delivery. However, there is little publicly available information on MOOC costs that is based on rigorous analysis. In this article, we first address what institutional resources are required for the development and delivery of MOOCs, based on interviews conducted with 83 administrators, faculty members, researchers, and other actors in the MOOC space. Subsequently, we use the ingredients method to present cost analyses of MOOC production and delivery at four institutions. We find costs ranging from $38,980 to $325,330 per MOOC, and costs per completer of $74-$272, substantially lower than costs per completer of regular online courses, by merit of scalability. Based on this metric, MOOCs appear more cost-effective than online courses, but we recommend judging MOOCs by impact on learning and caution that they may only be cost-effective for the most self-motivated learners. By demonstrating the methods of cost analysis as applied to MOOCs, we hope that future assessments of the value of MOOCs will combine both cost information and effectiveness data to yield cost-effectiveness ratios that can be compared with the cost-effectiveness of alternative modes of education delivery. Such information will help decision-makers in higher education make rational decisions regarding the most productive use of limited educational resources, to the benefit of both learners and taxpayers.
The term “microaggression” was coined in 1970 to name relatively slight, subtle, and often unintentional offenses that cause harm (Pierce, 1970). Since then, a substantial body of research on microaggressions has demonstrated their prevalence and harmful effects (Boysen, 2012; Solorzan, et. al., 2010; Suárez-Orozco, et. al., 2015; Sue, 2010).
Personal learning environments (PLEs) hold the potential to address the needs of formal and informal learners for multi-sourced content and easily customisable learning environments. This chapter presents an overview of the European project ROLE (Responsive Open Learning Environments), which specialises in the development and evaluation of learning environments that can be personalised by individual learners according to their particular needs, thus enabling them to become self-regulated learners.
Failure in one way or another, is likely unavoidable. The experience can take on different meanings for each of us, but the feat behind is something we all share, Moments of failure are typically viewed as poor performances. A teacher attaches a grad to an assignment or test, and the course often continues, in spite of the fact that a number of students have not mastered a significant portion of the material.
There’s plenty of good research on study strategies that promote learning. It’s also well-documented that students don’t always use them. As most of us are well aware, procrastination gets in the way of learning. Cramming ends up being mostly a shovelling
exercise—digging up details and dropping them into short term-memory. But there’s also evidence that students don’t know that some strategies do more for learning than others. And guess what? Neither do some faculty.
Extrinsic incentives and constraints, such as the promise of a reward or the expectation of an evaluation, have long been used by educators to motivate students. Previous research has consistently found that expected reward consistently undermines intrinsic task motivation and creativity of products and performance in students of all ages. For a majority of learners, the promise of a reward made contingent on engagement in an open-ended task frequently serves to undermine intrinsic task motivation and qualitative aspects of performance, including creativity.
The implications of these experimental findings for education in the U.S. and around the world are immense. Teachers contemplating the use of reward incentives must avoid them in situations where creativity is at stake. This article explores whether the motivational and performance processes triggered by the promise of a reward are a universal phenomenon or whether they are, at least in part, culturally dependent.
As a teacher, every now and then we come across a class with an abundance of energy. Sometimes so much energy that teaching
seems like an impossible mission. Students fidget with their hands, feet, dance in their stools and engage in constant side
conversations with their classmates.
Any time is a good time to tell a secret or share an interesting dinosaur fact. (Don't we all love learning about dinosaurs?) Last
year, I inherited a first grade class that fit the description above. They were curious, they were bright, but it was clear from day one that they needed help to channel their excess energy. I didn’t want or expect them to sit statue-still; much to the contrary. I always encourage active learning, collaboration, and ongoing participation in the classroom.
I'll be the first to admit that I haven't been teaching at my best this semester. Oh, there have been some good classes. And I think I'm finally getting a handle on the one group of students who don't want to speak up in class. But in general it feels like I'm going through the motions a little bit, not fully reaching as many students as I have in the past, talking too much from the front of the room. I have a theory as to why this is happening.
This is my fourth semester at the University of Iowa teaching rhetoric to mostly first-year students. After years of adjuncting, it's great to be able to teach the same course again and again. I'm able to learn from my mistakes and improve semester to semester. Even better, prepping for class takes less and less time each semester. I keep an archive of class activities from previous semesters in Scrivener, and I can quickly arrange a few of them to make up a whole class period. It's great.