One of the major things I have learned is that I should be more willing to actually apply my research and the theories I use as supports for my research in my classroom. For some reason I have always seen them as unconnected to the classroom. However, the classroom is itself an organization, and theories that apply to an organization apply just as well to the classroom as to a commercial enterprise.
I have also been underestimating the value of my personal experience in the classroom. The fact that I have seen changes and worked with the devices that we describe in class creates a link to the real importance of the topics to the students. Since they see themselves as part of "Conway's class", the fact that the leader of the class (thus, in some ways, the stereotype of the group member) is so engaged in the topic helps them to feel that way as well. My own enthusiasm is not just socially contagious, but helps underpin the students' own feelings of identity.
I did experiment with having the classes set some of the class norms last semester. I do not think that that experiment was very successful. Many of the norms the students came up with concerned course content more than in-class behavior. To the extent that they did address in-class behavior, only about half the time was it very relevant, and frequently went opposite actual desirable behaviors (e.g., one class felt that allowing use of any device, including phones, should be allowed during class sessions. I allowed this, and they spent all term texting rather than paying attention. :-). I will go back to the older approach I have on this, giving them rules; however, I will be working on a way to ground this in social identity, so that they will have an intrinsic motivation to follow the rules rather than extrinsic.
I feel that moving to a more formative problem based approach in my classes has definitely had fruit. The more I was able to apply these techniques, the more I feel my classes improved. The improvement was limited in the intro to IS classes, since my ability to control how the class works is limited by the fact that there are other professors, a course coordinator who is not me, and so on. In the courses I had more control over, I think that there was definitely considerable improvement.
I spent less time telling (explaining to students why I was an expert, explaining concepts) and more time showing (telling students about specific experiences I had that were germane to the topic, demonstrating how to use tools, and helping the students to use them in class).
As to how to improve in the future, I think much of my focus will be on finding ways to create something closer to the Aalborg approach in my courses. The full approach is of course not possible, because it would require institutional change. However, I can find ways of creating more realistic problems for the class to solve at the beginning of a semester, which will require learning the things that the class is supposed to provide. Much of this will come through development of simulations that I can run in class, which will additionally give me more opportunity to provide formative feedback on their performance.
In all, I have found the last year to be extremely valuable for my teaching ability. One of the major things I will be doing to continue this is to continue attending pedagogical sessions when appropriate, keeping an eye on the pedagogical cafe for useful topics, and start trying to keep up on the research in the field myself, rather than relying on someone to provide it for me. :-)
Thank you for the opportunity to learn that this year has brought me. :-)
05 January 2019
Assessing Education
The main idea from this session was to separate the ideas of summative and formative assessment. Summative assessment is the providing of feedback on how good a particular instance of performance is; for example, a grade on a test. Formative assessment is the provision of feedback on how the instance could have been improved.
We also covered taxonomies of assessment. The focus was Bloom's taxonomy, in which skills range from simple (recall) to complex (create). Ideally, assessments should cover the appropriate levels of the taxonomy based upon the goals of the course.
Analyzing tests I have used for the business analysis course, I noticed that the assessments were largely about recall and understanding. While those are not inappropriate, as I am teaching them some new techniques and ideas, the ability to apply and evaluate based upon those techniques is more important. Because of this, I decided to change my approach to the teaching.
In the past, I have spent a significant amount of in-class time showing an application of the technique, and then suggesting that the try them on their own time. This semester, I instead went through a rapid explanation of the technique, leaving a small example available for reference. Then, I put the students into groups, and had them make drawings themselves. The bulk of the classes were spent in these group sessions. As the students worked, I circulated among them, making suggestions on how to improve their diagrams, and answering questions about appropriate use of certain types of concepts.
I was concerned that I would spend most of my time on basic syntax. However, I was delighted to find that in fact most of my feedback was on the conceptual level, helping them with application and evaluation of their drawings. At the end of a session, I would then display each group's results to the whole class, and provided suggestions for how they could be improved.
I also modified the exams, so that recall was covered as an implicit part of discussion questions that required more active analysis and evaluation by the students.
The final results were extremely good. I was quite pleased, overall, with the quality of the students' work, and think they did a better job in the end than previous classes have done.
We also covered taxonomies of assessment. The focus was Bloom's taxonomy, in which skills range from simple (recall) to complex (create). Ideally, assessments should cover the appropriate levels of the taxonomy based upon the goals of the course.
Analyzing tests I have used for the business analysis course, I noticed that the assessments were largely about recall and understanding. While those are not inappropriate, as I am teaching them some new techniques and ideas, the ability to apply and evaluate based upon those techniques is more important. Because of this, I decided to change my approach to the teaching.
In the past, I have spent a significant amount of in-class time showing an application of the technique, and then suggesting that the try them on their own time. This semester, I instead went through a rapid explanation of the technique, leaving a small example available for reference. Then, I put the students into groups, and had them make drawings themselves. The bulk of the classes were spent in these group sessions. As the students worked, I circulated among them, making suggestions on how to improve their diagrams, and answering questions about appropriate use of certain types of concepts.
I was concerned that I would spend most of my time on basic syntax. However, I was delighted to find that in fact most of my feedback was on the conceptual level, helping them with application and evaluation of their drawings. At the end of a session, I would then display each group's results to the whole class, and provided suggestions for how they could be improved.
I also modified the exams, so that recall was covered as an implicit part of discussion questions that required more active analysis and evaluation by the students.
The final results were extremely good. I was quite pleased, overall, with the quality of the students' work, and think they did a better job in the end than previous classes have done.
Student Engagement
I was really quite surprised at the approach for this session. The use of social identity theory was something I had never considered as applicable to pedagogy. I have used this theory in my own research, so was already familiar with it.
The application is the use of particularly the techniques of anchoring and self-identification. These are methods that members of groups use to strengthen their feeling of being a member of a particular group. In our case, we want them to be a member of the "students engaged in learning a subject" group, and there are ways we can promote that. I am afraid I cannot remember the details now, though I could certainly construct some methods from my own knowledge of the theory. Specifically, anchoring is the attribution of a group characteristic to one's self, since as a group member means I should have the same characteristics as the group. Attribution is the opposite-- if I have a particular characteristic, then other members of the group should have the same characteristic.
At its root, the goal is to create intrinsic rather than extrinsic motivation. Intrinsic motivation (motivation that comes from our own desires) is much stronger than extrinsic (motivation that comes from external rewards and / or punishments). Thus, we should pursue strategies that help create intrinsic motivation, rather than trying to rely on carrots and sticks.
I will have to ask Ann-Sophie for a copy of her slides, though, to review this. I do remember seeing some techniques that I could very definitely use in the classroom.
In the context of my courses, the student motivation has been highest in the specialized courses I have taught on business analysis in the MBAC program. Social identity theory makes it clear why this is the case-- that course is patently highly germane to the goals of the students (it is part of the name of the program!), and therefore they have a great desire to be a member of the "someone who does business analysis well" group. (I.e., a business consultant.)
On the other hand, the motivation of students in my introduction to information systems classes is quite low. Again, this is easily explained by social identity theory. Most of the students are not interested in information systems, and are planning on specializing in another field. They take this course because they are required to. However, they consider themselves to NOT be members of the group of people who are IS specialists. This will lead to not only a lack of positive motivation, but in fact some negative motivation to do poorly in the class-- to prove that they are not "nerds". Dispelling this will require some serious thought. One thing that I did do this year to try to help with that was to counter it with a different type of intrinsic motivation in one session-- "fun". We did an in-class simulation of a cyber attack. For this particular session, the students were much more engaged. The strategy seems to have worked.
Based on this, I am starting to work on a simulation for the entire course. I'll do it one piece at a time, so it probably won't cover the whole course for a while, but I can at least get some of it going fairly quickly. Using the problem-based learning approach will be a natural fit for a simulation-- the simulation will present them with a problem, provide the needed resources for solving the problem, and allow the students to see more personally the value of the topics.
The application is the use of particularly the techniques of anchoring and self-identification. These are methods that members of groups use to strengthen their feeling of being a member of a particular group. In our case, we want them to be a member of the "students engaged in learning a subject" group, and there are ways we can promote that. I am afraid I cannot remember the details now, though I could certainly construct some methods from my own knowledge of the theory. Specifically, anchoring is the attribution of a group characteristic to one's self, since as a group member means I should have the same characteristics as the group. Attribution is the opposite-- if I have a particular characteristic, then other members of the group should have the same characteristic.
At its root, the goal is to create intrinsic rather than extrinsic motivation. Intrinsic motivation (motivation that comes from our own desires) is much stronger than extrinsic (motivation that comes from external rewards and / or punishments). Thus, we should pursue strategies that help create intrinsic motivation, rather than trying to rely on carrots and sticks.
I will have to ask Ann-Sophie for a copy of her slides, though, to review this. I do remember seeing some techniques that I could very definitely use in the classroom.
In the context of my courses, the student motivation has been highest in the specialized courses I have taught on business analysis in the MBAC program. Social identity theory makes it clear why this is the case-- that course is patently highly germane to the goals of the students (it is part of the name of the program!), and therefore they have a great desire to be a member of the "someone who does business analysis well" group. (I.e., a business consultant.)
On the other hand, the motivation of students in my introduction to information systems classes is quite low. Again, this is easily explained by social identity theory. Most of the students are not interested in information systems, and are planning on specializing in another field. They take this course because they are required to. However, they consider themselves to NOT be members of the group of people who are IS specialists. This will lead to not only a lack of positive motivation, but in fact some negative motivation to do poorly in the class-- to prove that they are not "nerds". Dispelling this will require some serious thought. One thing that I did do this year to try to help with that was to counter it with a different type of intrinsic motivation in one session-- "fun". We did an in-class simulation of a cyber attack. For this particular session, the students were much more engaged. The strategy seems to have worked.
Based on this, I am starting to work on a simulation for the entire course. I'll do it one piece at a time, so it probably won't cover the whole course for a while, but I can at least get some of it going fairly quickly. Using the problem-based learning approach will be a natural fit for a simulation-- the simulation will present them with a problem, provide the needed resources for solving the problem, and allow the students to see more personally the value of the topics.
Problem-Based Learning
We had a very interesting trip to Aalborg and Aarhus universities. The focus of each was very different, but not unrelated.
At Aalborg, we learned about their problem-based learning approach. The entire university uses this approach; it is not an ad hoc tool. During a given semester, half of the students' work is on a real project, which they work on in small teams. These projects come from industry or government, and ask the students to deal with a real problem that the sponsoring organization needs to be addressed. The project groups get a faculty mentor, who meets with the team usually once a week during the project. The other half of the students' work is in the form of traditional classroom instruction, but in the form of short courses (typically 1 or 2 ECTS) which focus on tools that the students need in order to tackle their project.
I love this approach... it would tend to create a lot of motivation in the students for learning, because it is so clearly real. The only real issue I see is from the standpoint of someone at other universities wanting to implement something like this. It would not be possible for me, for instance, to do this with my classes; it has to be done on an institution-wide basis. That said, I really wish we could...
At Aarhus, there were several different things we observed, mostly involved at the institutional / administrative level about teaching support. However, we did have a session with an extremely interesting professor, who described using Christopher Alexander's ideas of design patterns as an approach to her course design. She effectively co-creates classes with the students using design patterns for organizing the final course structure. This implicitly involves the student in their own learning, without turning it into a free-for-all because of the use of patterns. A very interesting approach, that I would like to explore myself. I will have to re-read Alexander to see how I could apply it to course design (I have previously used his ideas in forming ideas for software design, something that is common in the object-oriented field of software development).
In all, some great food for thought, though I am not sure how much will be directly applicable.
At Aalborg, we learned about their problem-based learning approach. The entire university uses this approach; it is not an ad hoc tool. During a given semester, half of the students' work is on a real project, which they work on in small teams. These projects come from industry or government, and ask the students to deal with a real problem that the sponsoring organization needs to be addressed. The project groups get a faculty mentor, who meets with the team usually once a week during the project. The other half of the students' work is in the form of traditional classroom instruction, but in the form of short courses (typically 1 or 2 ECTS) which focus on tools that the students need in order to tackle their project.
I love this approach... it would tend to create a lot of motivation in the students for learning, because it is so clearly real. The only real issue I see is from the standpoint of someone at other universities wanting to implement something like this. It would not be possible for me, for instance, to do this with my classes; it has to be done on an institution-wide basis. That said, I really wish we could...
At Aarhus, there were several different things we observed, mostly involved at the institutional / administrative level about teaching support. However, we did have a session with an extremely interesting professor, who described using Christopher Alexander's ideas of design patterns as an approach to her course design. She effectively co-creates classes with the students using design patterns for organizing the final course structure. This implicitly involves the student in their own learning, without turning it into a free-for-all because of the use of patterns. A very interesting approach, that I would like to explore myself. I will have to re-read Alexander to see how I could apply it to course design (I have previously used his ideas in forming ideas for software design, something that is common in the object-oriented field of software development).
In all, some great food for thought, though I am not sure how much will be directly applicable.
05 April 2018
Pedagogical Café-- Games in the Classroom
I attended the pedagogical café on the subject of game-based learning. This is something I have had some experience with in the past. I have been somewhat peripherally involved with the SAP simulation games that HEC Montréal has produced, and have used some simulations in my courses, most specifically the "beer game" supply chain simulator. I have also done versions of the consulting game, and Starpower in other classes.
I am a firm believer in game-based learning, and actually come by it from long, long ago. My father used Starpower and Simsoc in his sociology classes when I was a child, and I participated in them-- and learned a great deal more than I realized at the time. I really wish I could justify making my IS classes play Starpower; perhaps it would be sufficient to introduce it to someone teaching an OB or CSR class...
My main issue is that very few are geared specifically for information systems... The person who presented at the café did note that while CESIM did not currently have an IS themed simulation, they were planning on having one. I wait with bated breath for it to become available... :-)
I am a firm believer in game-based learning, and actually come by it from long, long ago. My father used Starpower and Simsoc in his sociology classes when I was a child, and I participated in them-- and learned a great deal more than I realized at the time. I really wish I could justify making my IS classes play Starpower; perhaps it would be sufficient to introduce it to someone teaching an OB or CSR class...
My main issue is that very few are geared specifically for information systems... The person who presented at the café did note that while CESIM did not currently have an IS themed simulation, they were planning on having one. I wait with bated breath for it to become available... :-)
Additional Pedagogy
To supplement the official curriculum, I will be participating in a learning experience from 16-18 April. We will be visiting Aarhus and (hopefully) Aalborg universities in Denmark, to get a better understanding of how they use problem-based learning. I will post here about my experiences with that when they are complete.
Communicating Effectively
Generally, I think my ability to communicate is fairly good. Much of this is simply the benefit of being somewhat older, and of truly being an expert in the practice area in which I teach.
That said, I do have challenges, just as everyone does.
The first challenge I have is that I can spend too much time giving the students information from my career. In small doses, this is valuable, and that is the case in most classes. However, the first class of the semester has stretched longer and longer as I gave more detail on my background. As a result of the pedagogical session, I realized that I was really giving far too much detail. I was quite pleased to be able to give a greatly stripped down version for feedback at the communication session, and think I was able to hit a nice balance between giving some weight to my expertise, while not overwhelming with detail. I hope to be corrected if my perception of that is incorrect. :-)
My second challenge is classroom behavior. I tend to have an American sense for what is appropriate in the classroom, and for what responsibility the student has to create that environment. Specifically, the level of chatter that goes on in class would be completely unacceptable in the US, and that level would be enforced by the other students when chatter got to be too loud. I am still struggling with this, but I think I will do a combination of two things next semester to try to address this.
First, I will take some time during the first class session to have the class themselves come up with in-class behavior rules and consequences for failing to follow the rules. This has been recommended by many pedagogical experts. Many with whom I have talked comment that the consequences suggested by the students are usually more severe than those that the professor would have suggested. Also, since the students themselves choose these rules, they own them much better. And, finally, the professors find that the rules that the students settle on usually reflect those that the professor themselves would have chosen. :-) I will modify this *slightly* by myself suggesting three norms as dictated by either the school (1 and 2), or by my culture (3) that should be included: no use of cell phones, no use of computers, no conversations in class except *with* the class.
My final challenge is with student engagement and preparation. But that will come in the pedagogical session next week.
I have not found a TED talk, etc. for this; however, I did include information I have gotten from previous pedagogical experts about classroom norm setting. And I did find the idea that the students generally are more severe than the professor rather surprising. Nonetheless, I will find some further information to extend this, and reflect on it in my next entry.
That said, I do have challenges, just as everyone does.
The first challenge I have is that I can spend too much time giving the students information from my career. In small doses, this is valuable, and that is the case in most classes. However, the first class of the semester has stretched longer and longer as I gave more detail on my background. As a result of the pedagogical session, I realized that I was really giving far too much detail. I was quite pleased to be able to give a greatly stripped down version for feedback at the communication session, and think I was able to hit a nice balance between giving some weight to my expertise, while not overwhelming with detail. I hope to be corrected if my perception of that is incorrect. :-)
My second challenge is classroom behavior. I tend to have an American sense for what is appropriate in the classroom, and for what responsibility the student has to create that environment. Specifically, the level of chatter that goes on in class would be completely unacceptable in the US, and that level would be enforced by the other students when chatter got to be too loud. I am still struggling with this, but I think I will do a combination of two things next semester to try to address this.
First, I will take some time during the first class session to have the class themselves come up with in-class behavior rules and consequences for failing to follow the rules. This has been recommended by many pedagogical experts. Many with whom I have talked comment that the consequences suggested by the students are usually more severe than those that the professor would have suggested. Also, since the students themselves choose these rules, they own them much better. And, finally, the professors find that the rules that the students settle on usually reflect those that the professor themselves would have chosen. :-) I will modify this *slightly* by myself suggesting three norms as dictated by either the school (1 and 2), or by my culture (3) that should be included: no use of cell phones, no use of computers, no conversations in class except *with* the class.
My final challenge is with student engagement and preparation. But that will come in the pedagogical session next week.
I have not found a TED talk, etc. for this; however, I did include information I have gotten from previous pedagogical experts about classroom norm setting. And I did find the idea that the students generally are more severe than the professor rather surprising. Nonetheless, I will find some further information to extend this, and reflect on it in my next entry.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)