307 Pages
Downloading requires you to have access to the YouScribe library
Learn all about the services we offer


Downloading requires you to have access to the YouScribe library
Learn all about the services we offer
307 Pages


from the W. M. Keck Foundation, Virginia Union University redesigned its English major, psychology major ...... science course engaging graduate/postdoctoral teacher-scholars. Journal of ...... Rozaitis, B. ...... ...



Published by
Reads 34
Language English
Document size 1 MB


The Thirty-Sixth Annual Conference of the International Society for Exploring Teaching and Learning (ISETL)
October 19-21, 2006
Palm Springs, CA
ISETL is dedicated to the study of instruction and principles of learning in order to implement practical, effective methods of teaching and learning; promote the application, development and evaluation of such methods; and foster the scholarship of teaching and learning among practicing post-secondary educators.
Edited by Susan Copeland Henry Clayton State University
Copyright 2006 by the International Society for Exploring Teaching & Learning
International Society for Exploring Teaching and Learning
Susan Copeland Henry, President Alexander Crispo, Past President Lynne Anderson, Society Board Member James Armstrong, Society Board Member Angela Humphrey Brown, Society Board Member Mary Mattson, Society Board Member Ted McNeilsmith, Society Board Member Don Raux, Society Board Member Susan Sanner, Society Board Member Jerry Samples, Society Board Member Emily Sweitzer, Society Board Member
Bruce Saulnier, Treasurer Emily Sweitzer, Secretary Peter Doolittle, Webmaster/Journal Editor Rodney Vandeveer, Historian Sandy Week, Publicity Susan Sanner, Nominating Committee Chair
Samuel Postlethwait, Professor Emeritus, Purdue University Joseph E. J. Habowsky, University of Windsor Charles Wales, West Virginian University Kenneth Klopfenstein, Colorado State University Jean E. Wold, California State University Donald Borchardt, Rutgers University Robert A. Stager, University of Windsor A. Jeanne Miller, University of Central Florida Eunice L. Krinsky, California State University Anne H. Nardi, West Virginia University Bruce Saulnier, Quinnipiac University Jerry W. Samples, University of Pittsburgh – Johnstown
Sheila Wood, Registrar Angela Humphrey Brown, Proposal Review Chair Susan Copeland Henry, Proceedings Editor Gail Rice and Lynne Anderson, Conference Site Coordinators Tammy V. Wiley, Pro-Cam Conference Planner and Liaison
ISETL thanks Loma Linda and National Universities, as well as the Hyatt Regency Suites, Palm Springs, CA, for their support.
1970-71 1971-72 1972-73 1973-74 1974-75 1975-76 1976-77 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-84 1984-85 1985-86 1986-87 1987-88 1988-90 1990-93 1993-95 1995-97 1997-99 1999-2001 2001-03 2003-05 2005-07
Samuel Postlethwait Dave Husband Ben Meleca Robert Hurst John Hinton Sally Short Stan Nelson John Zimmerman Mary Lynch George D. Brown Warren D. Dolphin Joseph E. J. Habowsky Charles E. Wales Blaine Carpenter Donald E. Borchardt Jean E. Wold James Marlin Kenneth Klopfenstein William J. Mullin Bonnie Johnson Kenneth Brown Shirley Rickert George Watson Bruce Saulnier Alexander Crispo Susan Copeland Henry
The Utilization of Cross Culture Assignments as a Result of Global Teaching Experiences
Craig Abrahamson James Madison University Department of Psychology, MSC 7401 James Madison University Harrisonburg, Virginia 22807
Objectives: 1. To discuss the aspects of international observations of diversity that have been found useful in various teaching environments. 2. To illustrate specific techniques in creating assignments, both written and oral presentations, that were utilized while teaching in different countries. 3. To examine different assignments at my “home university” in the U.S. that were found to be useful and derived from “international observations of diversity” methods. 4. To discuss ways to incorporate examples of diversity into learning spectrums that relate to course content that exists in our own campuses and communities. 5. Present assessment models for effectiveness in relationship to course content and classroom climate. 6. To facilitate discussion among attendees.
Intended Audience: Faculty and administrators involved in the area of social sciences.
Activities: Discussion and demonstration of examples of how “observations of diversity” can be incorporated in enhancing classroom climate and understanding of course content through written and oral presentations.
Abstract: This presentation will examine the development of written assignments and oral presentations that were created during Fall Semester 2005 and Spring Semester 2006. I taught 3 psychology courses while participating in the Semester at Sea program through the Institute for Shipboard Education, Fall Semester 2005. During our global voyage, we visited 9 different countries, and the written assignments that were developed required students to observe interactions in specific cultures/countries and included variations of the following requirements: 1) description of the cultural context; 2) description of the observation(s), including immediate environment(s), individuals, and their explicit interaction(s); 3) identification of specific topics related to course content and discussion of relationship to behavior(s) observed; and 4) discussion of similarities/differences compared to one’s culture of origin (Abrahamson & Kimsey, 2002). I found this global teaching environment (both in and out of the classroom) to have an enormous affect on students’ appreciation of diversity from a cross-cultural and international perspective. I believe that a definite factor in this change of appreciation was due to the learning environment. Through the assessment process these assignments were shown to be an effective component in
the process of students learning course content, and applying it to dimensions outside of their normal life experiences. This learning process also affected the classroom climate. Once this content is explained and discussed among participants, we will look at how this model was modified the following semester when I was back at my “home institution.”
The classroom climate is extremely different in the traditional classroom, compared to the nature of the atmosphere while we were traveling via ship around the world. Previous research suggests that the nature of the classroom climate plays a critical role in influencing the type of achievement goals that students pursue in completing assignments (Ames, 1992). Achievement goal orientation reflects a student’s behavioral approach towards learning in the classroom and in accomplishing written and oral assignments outside of the classroom (Ames, 1990 & Brophy, 2004). One of my primary goals when I returned for Spring Semester was to attempt to duplicate student curiosity and learning that I observed among my students who were directly exposed to course content by making observations in diversified cultural settings.
We will examine the different models for assignments that I created for 4 different courses during Spring Semester 2006 at my “home university” utilizing some of the aspects of the “international observations of diversity” that were incorporated into course content and assignments in the courses that I taught at Semester at Sea. Discussion will follow that will include ways of changing classroom climate that is based on incorporating both written assignments and oral presentations to the degree that students support one another, and learning of course content is enhanced (Moos, 1974). Methods that were used to assess this impact will be explored.
Abrahamson, C.E., Kimsey, W.D. (2002). General education, interdisciplinary pedagogy and the process of content of content transformation. Education, 122, 587-594.
Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 261-271.
Ames, C. (1990, April). Achievement goals and classroom structure: Developing a learning orientation. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston.
Brophy, J. (2004). Motivating Students to Learn. (2 ed.) Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Moos, R.H. (1974). The Social climate scales: An overview. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Performance-Based Learning: The Results of the Keck Project
James Armstrong Virginia Union University 1500 North Lombardy Street Richmond, Virginia 23220
Jeffrey Clark Virginia Union University 1500 North Lombardy Street Richmond, Virginia 23220
Linda McDonald Virginia Union University 1500 North Lombardy Street Richmond, Virginia 23220
Objectives: Describe the Instructional Systems Design process. Compare the results of this project to traditional methods of designing curricula.
Intended Audience: Faculty and administrators
Activities: In small groups, participants will compare this method to traditional forms of college teaching.
Abstract: The Instructional Systems Design (ISD) process consists of five phases: analysis, design, development, implementation, and evaluation. Over the last four years through a $500,000 grant from the W. M. Keck Foundation, Virginia Union University redesigned its English major, psychology major, and the acting component of the drama major using the ISD model.
As a result, each of the majors now has a detailed objectives and curriculum hierarchy, evaluation instruments tied directly to objectives, and teaching strategies to teach each objective. In the last year of the project, we piloted several courses under the newly designed curricula. Students in the pilot courses were given a pre-test at the beginning of the course based on key objectives, and a post-test at the end. In addition, some of the pilot courses were compared to courses taught under the old curricula. At the time of writing this proposal, the results are still being reviewed. In fact, the post-tests for the second semester will not be administered until the first week of May. But preliminary results from the first semester indicate a higher increase in student performance in the pilot courses when compared to the traditional courses.
With the current emphasis on accountability of both students and teachers, ISD offers an integrated way of connecting objectives to content to evaluation instruments so that students are responsible for what is taught. Since ISD is a performance-based approach, students are evaluated for their skills. While the ISD process is used in creating the curriculum, the instructional designers are also using some active learning methods and techniques to deliver the instruction to students. Active learning emphasizes hands-on, interactive approaches to classroom instruction.
The ISD model is a thoroughly researched approach to designing and implementing instruction. Used first in the military to design instruction to train individuals with a wide variety of backgrounds and skills, ISD is now a standard model in a number of industries to design instruction for training employees to perform at highly competent levels over the long term. Gagne, Merrill, Dick and Clark, and a host of other researchers have written extensively on the ISD process and how best to use it to maximize instructional effectiveness.
Works Cited
Dick, W., & Carey, L. The systematic design of instruction. (4th ed.). Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman/Little Brown Higher Education, 1996.
Gagné, Robert Mills, Leslie J. Briggs, and Walter W. Wager. Principles of Instructional Design. 4th ed. Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers, 1992.
Gagné, R. The conditions of learning (4th edition). New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1985.
Merrill, M. David, and David G. Twitchell, editors. Instructional Design Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications, 1994.
Seels, Barbara, and Zita Glasgow. Exercises in Instructional Design. Columbus, OH: Merrill Publishing Company, 1990.
Why Don’t We Understand? Why Teachers Don’t Get It When Our Students Don’t Get It
Corinne Auman Presbyterian College 503 South Broad Street Clinton, SC 29325
Stephen Braye Elon University 2850 Campus Box Elon, NC 27244
Objectives: 1. Participants should leave with various models for categorizing and interpreting student responses to our teaching. 2. Participants will recognize that all student verbal, written, and non-verbal responses to our teaching should be part of the feedback loop that helps us reflect upon and learn about our teaching and ourselves. 3. Participants will interpret student responses, exploring with their peers what these responses offer us as teachers and why. 4. Participants will recognize that student responses reflect their orientation to learning and thinking, and provide clear clues as to how to help them learn.
Intended Audience: This session would be best suited to faculty of all ranks, and faculty and administrators who are responsible for teaching/learning centers, faculty development programs, and first year faculty orientation programs.
Activities: We will begin by sharing stories we think all faculty have experienced, as a way of helping them to see how student responses tell us more about student learning than we might realize. Next, we will share some student responses, showing how they can be used to understand student orientation to knowledge, using William Perry’s scale as our critical thinking model. Finally, we will ask them, in groups, to examine sample student responses, using Perry’s scale to classify them, and developing a matrix of their own that might help faculty in their teaching
Abstract: It was a typical student/faculty situation, sitting casually outside faculty offices talking about classes, when a female student voiced a complaint we have all heard at one point in time, nearly always about someone other than ourselves: “We are all getting C’s in his class. Why doesn’t he realize that we don’t understand?”
Teachers striving to develop learning centered classes work to collect student feedback that can help them shape their teaching. In a perfect world, we would ask students to tell us what is going
on, and they would reply directly and clearly. But how do students tell us that they don’t understand? And how do we read these symbols in order to understand how to respond to student needs?
As Richard Light points out, when students make comments like the one above, they are not just complaining, the common faculty diagnosis. They are telling us their orientation to knowledge, offering us insight that we can use to inspire deeper learning. If we take the time to listen to these comments, and have the tools to understand what they tell us about student thinking, we can respond in ways that will change student orientation to knowledge, helping them to become the complex thinkers and learners we want them be.
Using William Perry’s scheme for intellectual development, as a starting point, we can categorize student responses so that we can better understand how our students are engaging knowledge in a systematic manner, and use these responses to change the ways they see the world. Ultimately, we will argue that most student complaints are not course or discipline specific. They reflect the student’s overall orientation to learning and thinking, and that we can affect this orientation through positive responses designed not to “change their grade” as much as change the ways they think and learn.
Works Cited
Light, Richard. Making the Most of College: Students Speak Their Minds. Harvard U. P., 2004.
Palmer, Parker. The Courage to Teach: Exploring the Inner Landscape of a Teacher’s Life. Jossey-Bass, 1997.
Perry, William. Forms of Ethical and Intellectual Development in the College Years: A Scheme. Jossey-Bass, 1998.
Shulman, Lee S. Making Differences: A Table of Learning. Address, American Association of Higher Education, National Conference, 2002.
Structured Feedback as Part of Teaching and Learning
Robert Avina Loma Linda University Department of Family Medicine 25455 Barton Rd, #209B Loma LInda, CA 92373
Objectives: Provide the content and demonstrate the process of Giving Structured Feedback using the 5 Microskills Technique. Identify and utilize the specific feedback skills within a supportive, non-judgemental, and professional environment.
Intended Audience: Instructors, Administrators, Adult-Learners
Activities: Brief (15 minute) PowerPoint presentation to identify the principle of Giving Structured Feedback. This will be followed by utilizing volunteers from the audience for role-playing in five vignettes. Following the role playing will be a 5 minute PowerPoint Summary of the principles of Giving Structured Feedback then questions and discussion from the audience.
Abstract: Giving Structured Feedback based upon the 5 Microskills Technique for the purpose of correcting, reinforcing, supporting, and modifying the Practice/Teaching/Learning environment is both achievable and desirable. The adult learner obtains real-time feedback about what they have done for the specific purpose of doing it better next time. Information obtained from the adult learner that is combined with the instructor helps to close this gap between what is and what could have been results
PEP2 Workbook-Module 6 by Ende
Paulman, Paul M. Office-based Teacher
Theall, Michael Effective Practices for Improving Teaching
Wienholtz, Ph.D. Teaching During Attedning Rounds