Teaching and Learning Online series - Part 6

by Dr. Vanae E. Morris

As I have been writing this series about teaching and learning online, I have constantly reviewed and reflected upon my own experiences as both a student and an instructor in various online teaching and learning environments at different institutions.  I started with Outlook Express newsgroups, then into a web-based online learning system, then Blackboard, moved to WebCT, Angel, e-learning by Pearson, and finally Canvas by Instructure.  In each of these online learning environments, I created materials that students could interact with, provided ways for me to interact with the students (f2f or online), and finally ways that students could interact with each other. 

Most of that interaction was asynchronous with few (actually quite minimal) synchronous activities included in the process. Working within Canvas for the past few months, I have discovered many more opportunities for interactions that could occur synchronously; however, what I have also discovered is the limitations of students (and myself) to meet all together at a specific time and place. After all, isn’t the flexibility of the asynchronous classroom one of the reasons we teach and learn online?   

So, what exactly does the online teaching and learning environment look like that promotes active learning and critical thinking?  Can this be done? My response is, yes and no! The reason that I respond with both a positive and negative is because the outcome depends on both the instructor and each individual student in the course. Is the instructor an active, but not intrusive, participant in the course? Are the students engaged with all three aspects of the course (content, instructor, and learning community)? According to Tan, Wang, and Xiao (2010), the instructor should:

a) encourage contact between students and instructor (e.g. encouraging students to use the online communication tools within the course, soliciting input from all students through specific questions, and asking for feedback on interaction-related course conduct), b) develop reciprocity and cooperation among students (e.g. group projects, group discussions, establishing learning communities,  peer reviews), and finally c) use active learning techniques (e.g. reflective and open-ended tasks to encourage application of theory to practice and apply what they have learned, and locating and sharing relevant online resources), (pp. 122-125).

As part of the ongoing mission of the Center for Teaching & Learning Excellence (CTLE) and the Technology Assisted Curriculum Center (TACC) at the University of Utah, a course has been developed to assist instructors with quality course design that encourages instructors to use six elements of excellent course design:

1.     Course and lesson outcomes in the form of measurable objective statements

2.     A course organization and structure that facilitates student learning

3.     Teaching and learning activities that engage students in the process of learning

4.     A Variety of course content, media, and materials in appropriate web formats

5.     A sense of learning community, communication, and student support

6.     Assessment, feedback, and evaluation strategies that measure student learning outcomes as well as overall course quality

In order to promote active learning and critical thinking in an online teaching and learning environment, an instructor should examine these six elements and design a course, which has  assignments that require students to substantiate their ideas, invite responses, ask questions, and discuss and reflect upon the content.  Will this encourage the adult learner’s approach to learning and provide opportunities for self-direction?  Yes! By designing a course that encourages the three types of interaction (content, instructor, learning community), and assignments that require students to participate and substantiate their learning, will encourage and promote active learning and critical thinking in the online learning environment! 

References

Boettcher, J.V. & Conrad, R. (2010). The online teaching survival guide: Simple and practical pedagogical tips. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Knowles, M. S., Holton, E. F., & Swanson, R. A. (2011). The adult learner: The definitive classic in adult education and human resource development (7^th ed.). New York: Elsevier.

Ko, S. (2005). Student-centered online teaching: Best practices. Retrieved from http://www.powershow.com

Moore, M.G. (1989). Editorial: Three Types of Interaction. The American Journal of Distance Education (3)2.

Tan, L., Wang, M., & Xiao, J. (2010). Best Practices in Teaching Online or Hybrid Courses: A Synthesis of Principles.  Hybrid Learning, Lecture Notes in Computer Science (6248)2010, pp. 117-126. 

SMALL GROUPS, LARGE CLASS SERIES (PART V)

Since I last updated this series (see Part IV), a lot has happened. The teams have completed and presented their posters, they have given one another feedback, and grading has been completed for another year. So how did things turn out?

In general, the posters were pretty good, and students seemed to be fair in both the peer reviews of fellow group members, as well as in their assessments of the posters created by other groups. Students for the most part provided both positive and critical feedback (thanks, in part, to the prompts on peer evaluation rubrics asking them to do so). There were some students who didn't pull their weight, and the scores and comments they received reflected this. 

So what were the surprises? The two highest scoring posters (based both on my grading and the reviews from their peers) were from the two groups I had been most worried about. The first was the group who were placed together because none of them had submitted their topic preferences (see Part I in the series). I had been concerned that this was a red flag indicating that these may be students who were less committed to the class, and unlikely to show up or contribute. This turned out to be true for some members of this group, but the others pulled together and were determined to create a high quality project, despite their other group members (or the fact that I had, from their perspective, doomed them to failure). Several of these students demonstrated strong leadership skills, and their poster turned out wonderfully.

The other group that surprised me was a group that had been placed together based on a common interest in moral development, broadly speaking. Their first task was to decide what in particular they would focus on. I have to say I was quite shocked when they told me that they had chosen to investigate the development of serial killers. I had my doubts (as did another group member, who I allowed to switch groups), but ultimately decided to allow them to pursue this topic. And I am so glad that I did! Their poster was thoughtfully researched, had more connections to course material than some on topics I had actually taught and tested on, and was very professional. It just goes to show what can happen when you allow students to pursue their own interest, no matter how odd they may seem to be on the surface!

One other issue I encountered that I hadn't expected, and wasn't sure what to do with, was that one of the posters contained sections that were clearly plagiarized. It seemed obvious to me that this was a group who had worked individually and then slapped it all together, rather than truly collaborating. So this was likely the handiwork of only one student. Yet, this was a group project, and thus in some senses this was the responsibility of the team as a whole. Ultimately, rather than asking the team to identify the student who had contributed the plagiarized sections, I chose to severely dock the team (but chose not to fail them) and explain to them my reasoning. None of them has yet responded, so although they may not be happy with my decision, they don't seem to feel that it is one that deserves to be challenged.

In all, this was a great semester, and having the poster session on the last day of class allowed all of the students to show off their hard work and learn from the projects presented by their classmates. Certainly I would do some things differently next time around, but I can assure you that this will not be the last time I incorporate group work into my large classes.

Ah, the end of another semester. No more classrooms, no more books! (At least until next week!)

SMALL GROUPS, LARGE CLASS SERIES (PART IV)

In this series so far, I have been discussing the group work taking place in my large introductory Human Development class. Since I last posted an entry, students have provided one another with peer feedback, and their project grades up to this point have been weighted based on that feedback. So now it's really hitting home with students that their attendance and participation in group work is going to impact their final grades in the course. 

Although I learned a great deal from the peer feedback process (such as how many different ways what I thought was a simple feedback form could be interpreted and completed), one thing that became very clear was the unique situation in which I have placed my student athletes.

The University of Utah has joined the PAC 12. Even someone like me who knows next to nothing about sports can recognize that this is a big deal. Indeed, the U of U's MUSE project recently held a conference where students, faculty, and administration all spoke about how joining the PAC 12 brings attention not only to our Athletics programs, but also to the University as a whole. This means that our academic standards and performance are now being compared to the likes of UCLA and Stanford. No pressure!

Although some may think that student athletes are only interested in their sports, and not committed to their studies, this is a stereotype that has repeatedly not held up as concerns the student athletes in my classes. Moreover, many of these athletes are on scholarships which require them to maintain a certain GPA, not to mention that they are often the focus of media attention both on and off the field. If anything, many athletes feel more pressure to do well in their classes than the average student. 

The group work in my class has put the student athletes in a difficult situation. I chose Fridays as the day for group meetings, as I had hoped that this schedule would help to minimize how many students chose to take an unofficial long weekend (especially as the weather starts to get warmer). To some extent this has worked, but unfortunately, many of the athletes in class are missing Fridays because their sports schedules require them to travel on Friday to reach their next out-of-town event (which are often scheduled on weekends to avoid conflicts with classes). Although I am bound by policy and my own ethics to allow student athletes to make up work they have missed because of their sport, it is difficult for them to make up missed group meetings.

This is not for lack of trying! Several of the student athletes in my class have discussed with me their attempts to keep in touch with their group members through email or the course website, or talk to them during regular class sessions. Unfortunately, although their peers acknowledge that theses students are called away for legitimate reasons, it seems as though they do not truly appreciate the attempts that the athletes are making. Instead, many of the athletes were rated low in terms of being good team players - ah, the irony. 

In the future, I plan to restructure my schedule so that student athletes won't miss the majority of the in-class group meetings. In terms of this semester, I am considering switching up the schedule based on the remaining travel dates of the athletes in my class.This Friday I am also going to be visiting groups with athlete members to discuss the legitimacy of their absences, my role in scheduling group sessions, and what has and can be done to make sure that the student athletes have opportunities to contribute to their groups' work in meaningful ways, and to ensure that the other group members are also "playing fair", and holding up their end by responding to the emails and messages from their team members. 

Small Groups, Large Class Series (Part II)

Wow! How time flies!

That's what I thought to myself at the end of class today, after our "team meetings" session for this week. I had been moving through the classroom, talking to groups of students and answering questions, when I turned to see that half the class had slipped out. My first reaction was "Oh no! They're not using their in-class group time effectively - have I made a huge mistake?" Then I looked at the clock and realized that indeed, class was over for the day. I guess time really does fly when you're having fun!

At some point I want to talk a little bit about the mechanics of how I'm managing the group work - both what goes into prep as well as what I do during class time - as there are certainly some practical considerations to take into account when attempting team projects in a large class. But today I am thinking about to particular issues that have come up over the past few weeks during team meetings.

The first came up a few weeks ago, and I wasn't actually made aware of it until after class had ended for the day, so I didn't see or hear firsthand what had happened. A student dropped by my office hours later in the day to let me know that there had been a conflict in her group. It seems as though there were several things going on, including different perspectives as to what topic the group should focus on, differences in opinion in how the group should work together, as well as some clashes between strong personalities. Upon reflection, I don't think I handled this situation as well as I could have. 

• What I did: I listened to the student's side of the story, and asked her permission to speak to the other student involved. I then spoke to him and heard his side. The next time the teams met in class, I made sure to visit their group and made some suggestions about different directions they could take in their project, but I did not mention the previous conflict in the team setting, and no one brought it up.

• What I think I could have done differently: As one of my objectives for the team projects is to provide students with opportunities to develop and practice skills required for successful collaboration, I suspect that in addition to working with the team on their content, I should also have drawn attention to the conflict, and used it as a teaching moment. I think perhaps I am guilty here of not just trying to avoid conflict rather than learn from it, but also of placing too much emphasis on the product of the team work at the expense of the process of working as a team. Moving forward, I'll be watching this group closely (I checked in with them again today) and taking my cues from the students as to whether or not we need to revisit this issue.

Another issue that arose in class today I think I handled more successfully. As I mentioned in my previous post,  I had created student teams based on the interests students had submitted early in the semester. Perhaps not surprisingly in a class of over 100, some students didn't submit their interests. Perhaps without intending to, these students were communicating to me that they fell into one or several of the following categories: they were not particularly invested in the course, they were not attending class, they were not reading instructions, they were likely to continue to miss deadlines, and ultimately, they may not be particularly reliable team members. So what to do with these students? 

I had a few options. One was to randomly assign these folks to other groups, spreading them out throughout the class. However, I felt that this would be enabling in a way, allowing them to continue to do less than the barre minimum, and furthermore, I felt it could possibly disadvantage the groups they were placed in (as they seemed to be at high risk to become "social loafers"). So what I chose to do was place all of these students in a group together, with a "note to self" that I would need to keep a close eye on them.

For the most part, this has worked out as I expected. Several of the students placed in this rag-tag bunch are no longer enrolled in the course (as they had not paid their tuition by the due date), and at least one has yet to attend class. There is a core group of students who are reliably in class, and they have worked together to choose a topic and get organized. They, understandably, are raising concerns about the others who are inconsistent in their attendance. They want to know if the students who are not contributing will receive the same grade as the rest of the group, and conversely, will they be docked for not having the contributions of the missing students?

Assigning grades on group projects is something I had prepared for well in advance (and had already explained to students, but keep in mind, these are the students who weren't completely on board at the beginning of the semester). There are several methods of doing this, but based on past experience, I prefer Fink's method, which basically involves having students consider a set of criteria and then distribute 100 points among their fellow team members, and leave feedback explaining their evaluation. I then use these peer evaluations and my assessment of the group project to calculate each individual student's grade. This method, and others like it (see also Michaelsen's method, in the same volume), allows students the flexibility to differentiate between team members who contributed and those who did not, and ensures that peer evaluations impact student's individual grades such that they are more likely to take both their contributions to the group, as well as the peer evaluation process, seriously. I typically ask students to complete peer evaluations both at midterm and at the end of the semester, so that students who are viewed by their group as not pulling their weight have time to consider this feedback and improve their performance.

By the next time you hear from me, I will have reviewed the midterm round of peer evaluations, and provided teams with feedback on a substantial part of their projects. I'm sure I'll have plenty more to rant and rave about! 

Michaelsen, L. K., Knight, A. B., & Fink, L. D. (2004). Team-based learning: A transformative use of small groups in college teaching. Sterling, VA: Stylus.

Small Groups, Large Class Series (Part I)

by Beverly Brehl

"It's just not practical to do active learning in large classes "

Something we often hear from instructors who take our courses or attend our workshops is that active learning sounds great, but it just can't be done in my class. One of the reasons that often comes up for why active learning "just won't work" is because the class is so large. It would be great if I could get the students more engaged and do more than the traditional lecture, but it's just not practical in a large class - there would be too much grading, the room is set up all wrong, I can't manage that many students working in groups...it would be utter chaos.

Well, I accept your challenge!

This semester, I am teaching an introductory level Human Development class with 140+ students (which by most standards, I think, counts as a large class). Don't get me wrong - there are days when I lecture. I do try to break up lecture with video clips, questions, think-pair-share activities, etc., but Mondays and Wednesdays are still basically "lecture" days. Fridays, however, are a different story.

Friday is "team meeting" day. At the beginning of the semester, I had students submit topic ideas that they would be interested in pursuing for their term project. Then, I matched people based on the ideas they had submitted. There are 17 groups, with approximately 8 people per group. On Fridays, they meet in class to work on their term projects, which ultimately will be posters on their chosen topic, including relevant research and theory, real-life examples, and a "call to action" where teams provide their advice as to how a particular audience (e.g., parents, teachers, policy makers) should approach the issue at hand. On the last day of class, we'll have a poster session in class, and students will get to review the posters created by the other teams.

Throughout the semester, I will share the ups and downs of incorporating group work into my large class. What have I learned so far? Well, for one, students (even "Millennials") weren't particularly excited about doing group work. On the first day of class, the vast majority of students in my class raised their hands when I asked "Who hates group work?". We then discussed why group work is important (e.g., it's a form of active learning which helps them get engaged with the material, they get a chance to learn from one another, it's a marketable skill that employers in today's job market are looking for). I'll ask them again at the end of the semester, and hopefully I will have convinced a few people that it's a worthwhile activity.

Something else I've learned when doing group work previously (albeit in far smaller classes) is that students are too busy to get together outside of class to meet with their groups. So when creating the course schedule, I made sure to set aside most Fridays for team meetings. This means I can't "cover" as much content in class, and that's something that's true of incorporating any type of active learning into your teaching - you have to use class time to do it, class time that you would have used otherwise to cover additional content. However, if you pay attention to the research on active learning, you'll discover that students learn more and retain that information longer when they're actively engaged than they do in a traditional lecture-style class. So the question is - do you want to "cover" content, or do you want your students to learn?

For other examples of how to incorporate active learning into your large class, we'll be conducting a workshop on February 10, 2012 entitled "Alternatives to Lecturing in Large Classes". You can register for the workshop now, or if you can't attend, watch for the video and materials to be posted on our website.