Is that all there is to it? Steven Reiss doesn’t think so, and he has done lots of research that supports his view. But first he goes after the intrinsic-extrinsic dualism, which he says fails on three counts: construct validity, measurement reliability, and experimental control. Starting with construct validity, Reiss writes, “The distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation is invalid … because motives cannot be divided into just two categories. … Human motives are too diverse to fall into just two categories.” (p. 152) He then explains the measurement problems and experimental control issues. The research that demonstrates an undermining effect (that extrinsic motivation diminishes intrinsic motivation) is almost entirely based on single-trial studies conducted in lab settings. “Consequently, this literature says little about real-world, long-term rewards such as grades and pay.” (p. 154) If the empirical arguments are of interest, they are more fully explained in the article.

Reiss proposes a multifaceted theory of motivation. In his research he identified 16 distinct universal reinforcements that he developed into an assessment tool called the Reiss Motivation Profile. “Everybody is motivated by the 16 universal reinforcements, but not in the same way. Individuals show reliable individual differences in how they prioritize these 16 reinforcements.” (pp. 154-155) These 16 reinforcements are listed in the article and they include the following motivations (among others): eating, the desire for food; curiosity, the desire for understanding; independence, the desire for self-reliance; social contact, the desire for peer companionship; and vengeance, the desire to confront those who offend.

To show the inadequacy of the intrinsic-extrinsic dualism, Reiss suggests giving students a list of motives like those on the profile and then asking students to rank their importance. “Doing this tends to show the extraordinary individuality of how people prioritize motives.” (p. 155) Some students rank money and status very high; others list the desire for social justice as much more motivating than money. Reiss asks whether “the information contained [on the various student lists] could possibly be captured by dualism, which only has two categories or kinds of motives. Dualism does not state what moves us; it does not show how we differ as individuals.” (p. 155)

Reiss says that researchers have moved beyond the dualistic study of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. They see motivation as multifaceted, and he challenges teachers to move forward in their thinking as well. Students in our classrooms do and don’t do things in response to a variety of motives. It’s more complicated than we tend to think, but this new understanding of motivation better explains how it works and can be harnessed in the interest of learning.

Reference: Reiss, S. (2012). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Teaching of Psychology, 39 (2), 152-156.

Reprinted from Motivation: Intrinsic, Extrinsic, or MoreThe Teaching Professor, 26.5 (2012): 3-4.

What are some strategies for developing the right balance between being friendly with students while still being their professor? They start with building respectful relationships. How the instructor asks and answers questions adds to the development of friendly yet respectful relationships. In her book Teaching Your First College Class, Carolyn Lieberg (2008) writes, “All of us feel cared about when people look at us when we speak and truly listen to our ideas or questions. Students also feel cared about if you show that you are accessible to them outside of class. … The basic message is that students want to be treated with respect.” (p. 11) Inside or outside of the classroom, our interpersonal communication should be built on respectful exchanges.

Sometimes actions that seem unimportant help to establish these respectful relationships. Professional attire is a good example. Even though professors don’t teach in academic regalia anymore, it is still appropriate to dress more like a professional and less like a student. Faculty who look like students can expect students to respond to them as if they are students. Professional language is also a must. It is another way that professors differentiate themselves from students, and in most professional contexts four-letter words are not appropriate.

When we leave the classroom, the norms change in small but significant ways. It is important to keep the right professional distance, whether meeting with students in your office or having them to your home. The age-old advice of keeping your office door open at all times when you are meeting with students is as relevant today as it always has been. If students are joining you in your home for a study session or end-of-semester gathering, make sure that you have another “adult” in the home (your spouse, a trusted friend, or another professor). It is not a good idea to have a student arrive early to help organize the event or to have one stay late to help clean up. The question of whether or not to serve alcohol depends on several factors, including the campus culture and the legal drinking age of the students. It is never a good idea to serve alcohol to undergraduates, even if they are of age, if they must drive home.

What about the distance between you and students electronically, whether it’s email or social media? Should the professor “friend” his or her students as a means of communication? Are Facebook and LinkedIn viable ways to reach students and further help them learn? How informal should emails and Twitter messages be? Rather than answer these questions, we pose them for your discussion. Creating a social media site specifically for class interaction is quite different from “friending” your students on a personal site. It is good to always remember that all electronic communications can go public at any time. Nothing is confidential.

How friendly should a professor be? Consider a parallel to the old Golden Rule. When interacting with students, ask yourself, “As a student, how would I feel if my professor made this request of me or responded to my question this way?” Those of us with children can ask the question another way: “How would I feel if my son or daughter’s college instructor did this?” The question can be asked more bluntly: “Could this interaction be defended before parents and administration?” And perhaps the toughest version of all: “If this interaction were quoted on the front page of the local paper, how would it appear?” With those questions guiding your decision making, and some old-fashioned common sense, you can have productive, engaging, and friendly relationships with your students.

Reprinted from Friendly but Not Their Friend The Teaching Professor, 26.5 (2012): 4-5.

Be fully engaged and present
How often do we look up during office hours to see a troubled-looking student standing at the door? He needs help, but we are working against the clock to prepare the next lecture or reviewing materials to be discussed in an upcoming committee meeting. As I write, I’m seeing numerous student faces—some looking hurt, others angry, some seeming as though they just might implode. Our students experience strong emotions. These faces remind me that at times I have been abrupt, and at other times, I have been inviting.

Being fully engaged and present suggests that I stop what I am doing and give students my full attention. Glancing up from the computer while I continue to type or looking at the clock does not suggest that I am present. Being fully present means just that. For the next five or 30 minutes, I have nothing more pressing than the time I give to my student. Certainly, I may state that I have 10 minutes before my next appointment, but for those 10 minutes, my student’s voice is the only one sending messages to my brain. I sit with him, and I keep my thoughts on what he is saying. We may schedule another time for a deeper discussion, but the time I spend with him belongs to him alone.

Use silence to clear space
Let’s face it, we are teachers, and we like to talk. That’s how we make our living. We walk into our classes and begin class by opening our mouths. Our students benefit greatly from the knowledge we impart; it helps prepare them for their careers. However, important as our wisdom is, when students come to us with their misunderstandings, problems with assignment deadlines, or difficulties balancing family, work, and school, what they need from us, in addition to our presence, is our silence. I am not referring to the crossed-arms, closed-body postures that convey contempt and disdain. This silence is a quiet indicating that as teacher or advisor, I want to understand and will listen without interruption or assumption. I want my student to be heard without my butting in. The gift of silence is offered, and an invitation is given for the student’s voice to enter into the space created. By being quiet, I also become a thinking partner with my student as she begins to communicate her pressing concerns.

Refrain from giving advice
Being fully present and using silence to create space are both challenging; however, perhaps the most difficult behavior for teachers is allowing students to construct and choose their own solutions. We admonish our students to study, to read, to prepare, to work hard, to think critically, to be creative, and more. We are, after all, recognized experts. We know what it takes to learn and to succeed in life. As difficult as it may seem, we must let go of this proclivity to tell our students what they need to do. Most of the time, they probably know what they should do, but they need to be heard, not to hear us. When we engage with our presence and our silence, we can ask questions that invite students to think about the choices they make and the attention they pay to competing demands. By refraining from giving advice, we are suggesting that our students are fully capable of reaching conclusions that will lead them to their desired outcomes. And we know the advice they give themselves is probably more persuasive than the advice we offer.

Final thoughts
When we make ourselves fully present and attentive, use silence to create space, and encourage students to construct their own solutions, we are giving a gift that costs nothing but has great value. It is the gift that lets students know how much we care.

Dr. Patricia Kohler-Evans is an associate professor at University of Central Arkansas. Dr. Candice Dowd Barnes is an assistant professor at the University of Central Arkansas.

Reprinted from The Teaching Professor, 26.4 (2012): 5.

They are critical of much of the evidence being used to support both positive and negative characteristics associated with Millennial learners. “Over the last decade, as the literature on the Millennial student has proliferated, it has proven that opinions beget opinions. A scrutiny of the references of a majority of publications and presentations indicates that the ideas being espoused are fundamentally opinions based on observation and perception as well as on student personal satisfaction and preference surveys rather than on evidence-based research methodologies.” (pp. 215-216) They point out that many of the surveys documenting a set of Millennial student characteristics have been done at one or two institutions with populations not always representative of the larger student population. The Millennial cohort includes students from various races, religions, ethnicities, and socioeconomic backgrounds.

Among the Millennial student characteristics challenged by these authors is their need for the digital delivery of content. The authors cite multiple studies documenting “that a spectrum for both the desire and ability to use digital learning tools exists.” (p. 216) Based on their review of this literature, they conclude, “More careful evaluation of the purpose of technology in learning with regard to actual student needs, desires, and professional applications should be undertaken before additional time, money and resources are invested in more extensive technologies.” (p. 216)

Millennial students are thought to be multitaskers. They may be, but only a small percentage perform multiple tasks with no loss in efficiency. One study cited identifies a population of “supertaskers” who were able to multitask, but they were only a bit more than 2 percent of the population studied. The other 97 percent were less efficient at one or both of the tasks they attempted to perform simultaneously.

Some characteristics associated with Millennial learners are verified by empirical research. Critical thinking skills are a good example. “Millennials have grown up with astonishing exposure to unvetted Internet resources exemplified by Wikipedia and YouTube. The predilection for Millennial students is to make big gains quickly and with minimal effort, which has conditioned them to select the first or most easily available information source.” (p. 218) That has eroded their critical thinking skills. More worrisome is the fact that students don’t appear to be developing high levels of thinking skills in college. These authors reference a 2006 survey of 400 employers nationwide. Only 24 percent of that group felt that college students had “excellent” preparation for the workplace. Sixty-five percent said their preparation was adequate. Specifically on critical thinking and problem-solving skills, only 28 percent of the employers felt students had “excellent” preparation, and 63 percent said preparation on those skills was “adequate.”

The admonition to respond thoughtfully and critically to sweeping generalizations made about any generational cohort of students is appropriate. Generalizations about Millennial students can become stereotypes that reinforce erroneous assumptions about individuals and groups of them in courses. As these authors note, “Educators should encourage curricular change that will positively impact the learning process in a way that will be meaningful not just for a single generation but will have fundamental application for a broad spectrum of learners.” (p. 223)

Reference: DiLullo, C., McGee, P., and Kriebel, R. M. (2011). Demystifying the millennial student: A reassessment in measures of character and engagement in professional education. Anatomical Sciences Education, (July/August), 214-226.

Reprinted from Millennial Students: They Aren’t All the Same, The Teaching Professor, 26.3(2012): 8.

Interested in a better alternative, I initiated “the final hour,” an open office hour for any student interested in conversing about his/her graded portfolio. The procedure is straightforward. As with my previous practice, students have until Monday noon during final examination week to submit their portfolios. I’ve seen the original and revised pieces in the portfolios throughout the semester and during a “trial run” conference where I give them a ballpark grade of where the portfolio is presently situated. This enables me to read the final product quickly, usually finishing by Tuesday evening, after which I send out an e-mail with a grade report. In the e-mail header, I announce first: “Questions? Discussion? Complaints? FINAL OPEN OFFICE HOURS, Wednesday 10-12.” The e-mail note contains all the details and the final grade, although I typically don’t submit final grades to the registrar until after that conference time; I’m open to students’ input.

Final conference attendance varies, and so do the reasons why students decide to drop by. Some want to chat, just like they do with me before class starts. Some others want to see what I liked, delighted that their final grade is higher than they expected. Still others solicit empathy; I listen to them reason through their disappointment, which helps me to understand the decisions they made—or did not make—in revision. They tell me this time is comforting to them too. One student just wanted to tell me “how hard it was to even earn a D.” I find there are learning opportunities during this last conference as students and I make our way through their portfolios and I share my reactions to them.

The final conference also helps me. It makes me a more careful final grader because, whether a student attends the final office hour or not, I may have to face him or her and defend my decision. That influence is not debilitating; rather, it is mightily persuasive in keeping me centered on making my evaluation “honest.” As Peter Elbow notes in his book Everyone Can Write (p. 357), the high-stakes response is a “critical” one that “is more likely to misfire or do harm because of how it is received—even if it is sound…” The final office hour gives me an opportunity to listen and to see how that graded message is received—a rare opportunity to hear a student’s side after the final portfolio is graded. The student controls the final hour with questions and complaints, all of which I respond to. I discover, however, that I do far more listening than talking.

The final hour also provides a space for quick resolution. Without it, grade debate can linger on. One semester I had a student and his father debating whether to appeal the final portfolio grade, which for the student meant the final course grade; the e-mail discussions went back and forth between the freshman dean and the student’s parent, with me as the bystander, supplying information and commentary along the way only to the dean. It was a bizarre way to look at my own grading, defending it in the role of a third party. Since implementing the final hour, I’ve avoided such scenarios.

Although I’m responsible for the academic integrity of the course, I also understand that I need to keep communication open, even after students have finished the course. Therefore, I’m not averse to changing a grade as a result of the final conference. Yet, I never have and no student has asked me to do so. Instead, that final hour provides something different: an exchange and a shared understanding that can come only after a final piece of work is discussed. The worst that has ever come out of the final hour is to have students agree to disagree, parting without acrimony. The stack of unclaimed portfolios outside my office is significantly smaller now. That reason alone justifies the final hour opportunity.

Dr. Gary R. Hafer is an associate professor of English at Lycoming College.

Reprinted from The Teaching Professor, 26.3(2012): 1,3.

There isn’t much empirical evidence—that’s what a group of researchers discovered in their review of the literature. They decided to undertake an analysis of introductory biology courses to see whether or not evidence supportive of the criticism existed. Here are the three research questions they aimed to answer: 1) “What is the mean cognitive level faculty routinely target in introductory undergraduate biology, as evidenced on course syllabi and assessments?” 2) “Did faculty align their course goals and assessments to determine the degree to which students achieved the stated goals?” and 3) “What factors—class size, institution type, or articulating objectives on the course syllabus—predict the cognitive level of assessment items used on exams?” (p. 436)

They collected sample syllabi from 50 faculty who taught 77 different introductory biology courses, about half of which were general biology courses. They taught at a wide range of different public and private institutions. The teaching experience of the faculty cohort ranged from three to 36 years, and the size of the classes they taught ranged from 14 students to almost 500 students, with a mean class size of 192.

They looked at goals stated on the syllabi and categorized them using the Bloom taxonomy. They also analyzed what they called “high-stakes course assessments,” meaning quizzes and exams that accounted for 60–80 percent of the course grade. “These data provide evidence of what faculty consider important in the course. Goals stated in syllabi reflect faculty priorities about what they expect students to know and be able to do; assessments reflect how faculty evaluate students’ achievement of those learning goals.” (p. 436)

The findings are breathtaking—at least they took away this editor’s breath. “Of the 9,713 assessment items submitted to this study by 50 faculty teaching introductory biology, 93% were rated Bloom’s level 1 or 2—knowledge and comprehension. Of the remaining items, 6.7% rated level 3 with less than 1% rated level 4 or above.” (p. 437) And the news about course goals wasn’t much better. Of the 250 that were pulled from course syllabi, 69 percent were at levels 1 and 2 on the Bloom taxonomy. The level of assessments was not affected by class size or by institutional type. Students’ knowledge and understanding of facts were what was being assessed in virtually all these courses.

Some may be tempted to argue that students must begin to understand a discipline by acquiring these basic facts—that it is knowledge of these facts that enables students to do higher-level thinking tasks. “Evidence to supports such claims … is lacking.” (p. 439) These researchers argue that high-level thinking skills must be developed right along with a knowledge base, and they contend that those kinds of thinking skills only develop when there is opportunity to practice them.

“We do not have a prescription for the ‘right’ cognitive level of goals and assessments in an introductory course.” (p. 439) However, their findings would certainly indicate that in terms of fostering higher-order thinking skills, the current balance is not “right.” “We believe that students should begin practicing the skills of connecting, transferring, and modeling scientific concepts at the start, not the end, of their degree programs.”

This analysis focused on introductory biology courses. Every discipline offers introductory course work, and the norm is to packed those courses with content. Does that content focus too much on the factual details? That’s a question every discipline ought to be exploring, and this study provides a great model of how that analysis can be undertaken.

Reference: Momsen, J. L., Long, T. L., Wyse, S. A., and Ebert-May, D. (2010). Just the facts? Introductory undergraduate biology course focus on low-level cognitive skills. Cell Biology Education—Life Sciences Education, 9 (Winter), 435-440.

Reprinted from Too Much Focus on Facts? The Teaching Professor, 26.3(2012): 6.

I ran into just such an article recently. It’s old, published in 1986, but it was the first article I remember reading where the content of the discipline (in this case sociology) was used to explain certain instructional dynamics. Actually, there’s a whole genre of pedagogical scholarship that does this, not just in sociology but also in many disciplines.

In this article, Billson compares the classroom to a small group. She applies the principles of small group dynamics as they are studied and understood in sociology to what happens in the classroom. And she does so for this reason: “Deeper awareness of small group processes can enhance the teaching effectiveness of college faculty through improving their ability to raise student participation levels, increase individual and group motivation, stimulate enthusiasm, and facilitate communication in the classroom.” (p. 143) I’d say those outcomes are still of interest to most of us.

So what principles of small group dynamics might help us better understand what’s happening in our classrooms? Billson identifies and discusses 15—four are highlighted here.

Principle 1: Every participant in a group is responsible for the outcome of the group interaction. Billson acknowledges that the major responsibility does belong to the professor, but she maintains that students share a “significant responsibility” as well. (p. 144) She recommends discussing that responsibility with students and explores the possibility of letting students plan certain segments of the course or maybe offer input as to the weight of the course’s various assignments.

Principle 4: When people feel psychologically safe in a group, their participation levels will increase. This isn’t a particularly new or novel idea, but it’s something professors often take for granted. Most of us do feel safe in the classroom. We’ve been going to college classes for years. For students, classrooms don’t feel as comfortable. They can be made to feel safer when students are known by names, when their first attempts to contribute garner positive feedback, and when the professor avoids sarcasm and ridicule.

Principle 8: The leader of any group serves as a model for that group. “The way in which professors play their role, including how they present expectations of students, carry out responsibilities, and handle privileges implicit in the professorial role, has a profound effect on how students enact their role.” (p. 147)

Principle 13: A group will set its own norms of behavior and will expect conformity to them. These norms may extend to the professor. The same policies and procedures can be used and yet classes respond to them differently. In some classes, students argue at length about exam answers. In other classes, they want assignment deadlines extended. In many classes, a designated few become the only students who participate. Professors need to be aware of these norms and if they work against course goals, they should be discussed openly with students.

Although “small group” isn’t a label that feels like it fits classes with more than 100 students, even large classes exhibit many features typical of groups. Applying these principles can result in classroom climates where learning is a more likely outcome. I’d say Billson was way ahead of her time in identifying what helps to make classrooms learner-centered.

Reference: Billson, J. (1986). The college classroom as a small group: Some implications for teaching and learning. Teaching Sociology, 14 (July), 143-151.

Reprinted from What Classes and Small Groups Have in Common The Teaching Professor, 26.3(2012): 6.

Sadler, author of the article referenced below and an expert on how assessment can be used to improve learning, contends that “regardless of levels of motivation to learn, students cannot convert feedback statements into actions for improvement without sufficient working knowledge of some fundamental concepts.” (p. 537) Because they evaluate student work so regularly, teachers bring to the task a working knowledge of these concepts. Unfortunately, they provide feedback assuming students have the same knowledge, which Sadler contends they do not.

Before describing the necessary conceptual knowledge, Sadler spends time exploring the components of teacher feedback. Their feedback begins when teachers specify the nature of the task students are to complete—this “feedforward” includes descriptions of the assignment and the criteria that will be used to assess it. The criteria may be detailed, as they frequently are when rubrics are used.

The feedback on completed work contains the teacher’s overall assessment of the work. Usually this includes the grade and the rationale for the grade. Most teachers also provide advice as to how the work could be improved.

Whether it’s giving students instructions on how to complete an assignment or feedback on how well they completed it, Sadler says this feedback before and after the fact shares an important characteristic. “As one-way messages from the teacher to the student, they are essentially about telling, or disclosure. Yet despite the teachers’ best efforts to make the disclosure full, objective and precise, many students do not understand it appropriately because … they are not equipped to decode the statements properly.” (p. 539) Most teachers understand that how they deliver the feedback is very important, and so they spend time thinking about the best way to phrase the messages. Sadler counters, “Complementary attention should be directed to what students make of the feedback, rather than just its composition.” (p. 539)

In order for students to be able to act on feedback provided by the teacher, Sadler contends that they must develop appraisal expertise and that relies on knowledge of concepts in three areas: task compliance, quality, and criteria. Task compliance refers to whether the student does what the assignment requests. Haven’t we all read student answers, sometimes even good ones, that don’t address the question? It doesn’t make sense that a student would go to the effort to construct an answer that purposefully doesn’t answer the question. When confronted, students are often surprised and don’t seem to understand what the problem is. That means they did not understand the question or the task they have been asked to complete.

Quality refers to the ability to make holistic judgments that differentiate excellent work from work that is not. Sadler points out that quality is often difficult to define in the abstract but easy to see in examples. Teachers grade so much student work, the quality judgments are made easily. But when a student compares his answer with that of a fellow student who received more points, the student frequently objects that his answer is just as good. He made the same points but didn’t get as much credit. The issues here involve quality and the student’s inability to see what distinguished the colleague’s answer from his own.

Some criteria teachers use in assessing student work are simple and straightforward. Either the spelling is correct or it is not. But most criteria are considerably more abstract, according to Sadler. He uses “coherence” as an example. “How well do students understand this concept? Can they recognize low and high levels of it in particular works? Do they effectively recognize this property but use different terminology for it (such as ‘linked together’)? Can they sense and work towards building coherence into their own productions while construction is under way?” (p. 545)

Reference: Sadler, D. R. (2010). Beyond feedback: Developing student capability in complex appraisal. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35 (5), 535-550.

Excerpted from The Teaching Professor, 26.2(2012): 4.

At the heart of the matter lies technology. My pre-1980 birth date means I do not share my students’ lifelong history with digital technology. Neuroscientists tell us that this history has shaped the cognitive functioning of the millennial generation, strengthening certain neural pathways through repeated use and weakening others through infrequent use. Student comments such as “I don’t like reading” or “I can text and listen to you at the same time” suggest that these strengthened and weakened pathways are the polar opposite of those that exist in my own brain. I am, therefore, despite more than 20 years of postsecondary teaching, sometimes completely confounded by the way my students think— and not always certain that the fault for this confusion is theirs.

To help overcome these differences, I’ve enthusiastically embraced teaching practices that accommodate some of the more highly publicized traits of the millennials. For example, my classes typically revolve around 10- to 15-minute “chunks” of fast-paced activity designed to address students with short attention spans who are easily bored. My extended availability via electronic media into the evenings and weekends targets the preference for constant (but not face-to-face) connectivity. And detailed grading rubrics for every assignment provide a highly structured route to an A paper—a path and outcome that particularly resonate with many of my students. I’ve adopted these practices in the name of fashioning a learner-centered environment.

But recently I’ve begun asking myself a disconcerting question: what if these practices don’t match my course’s learning goals?

For example, I teach writing, a process-oriented subject where progress moves slowly. The essence of good writing is strong thinking skills: the ability to generate a coherent, logical flow of information or ideas, integrating material that, at first glance, resists integration. This takes time. It requires venturing down blind alleys in pursuit of an idea, backtracking when that idea turns out to be weak, and tolerating frustration when another refuses to immediately take its place. It requires faith that blind alleys, backtracking, and frustration can lead to insights. The journey, in other words, is the thing.

“The journey,” however, no longer figures prominently in my classroom.

Gone are the days of reflecting on an assigned reading for an entire class period—or even expecting that the entire class has done the assigned reading. Examining its structure, debating its logic, and savoring its rhetoric would take up time, require sustained focus, and might not necessarily lead to the “right answer”—impediments to busy, parallel-processing students who are anxious to get it right once and for all. These impediments have been replaced with the quicker, more streamlined approach of fast-paced classes, instructor availability “on demand,” and detailed instructions.

But are these efforts shortchanging my students by reinforcing who they are right now — admittedly, as portrayed by media-hyped generalizations—at the expense of who they might become if guided beyond their current comfortable boundaries?

I don’t have a clear answer to that question. I only know that in asking it, I feel less like the teacher and more like the learner — searching for the right path, not always certain of the direction, and sometimes anxious about the outcome. I feel, in other words, just as my young students must often feel.

Perhaps the gap between our ages doesn’t have to distance us after all. In fact, perhaps it can be a catalyst to keep us both learning. The students’ digitally enhanced perspectives have certainly made me venture into new territory, trying to harness—and emulate—their quick thinking, parallel-processing energy. But similarly, my predigital perspective can also open up new territory for them, showing them the surprising amount of ground they can cover by moving slowly and reflecting deeply.

Perhaps figuring out how to honor the two perspectives in the classroom can offer us the best of both worlds: a learner-centered classroom for both teacher and student.

Joan Flaherty is an assistant professor at the University of Guelph.

Reprinted from The Teaching Professor, 26.2(2012): 1, 3.

Even though faculty might not want to increase the number of grade conversations they have with students, there is an interesting question here. Why didn’t more students come to talk about the grade they didn’t think they deserved? Maybe they really didn’t have a problem with the grade but only wished they had done better. That might be true for some students, but this study tested (and verified) two theoretical frameworks that identify some of what makes these conversations difficult for students. They need to persuade the teacher, who has complete control over the grade, to change his or her mind. The grade decision has already been made, and most teachers feel some pressure to defend their decisions. Teachers also know how badly students want good grades whether they deserve them or not.

According to the theories that this research attempted to test, students must also behave in a socially appropriate way or they risk jeopardizing their overall relationship with the teacher, which may influence the grades they receive on subsequent assignments. One would hope that experience and maturity would enable teachers to maintain their objectivity, but students are often personally vested in their grades and are not always sophisticated communicators. They may be defensive and angry and unfairly accuse the teacher. Most of us have had a few conversations like this, which is why most of us would rather not discuss contested grades with students.

But these exchanges can be moments of learning for students and teachers, and they need to be thought of in that way. Teachers need to begin by listening to student objections and concerns about the grade. If it’s a case of “you don’t understand how hard I worked on this paper,” it’s an opportunity to discuss how difficult it is for teachers to assess effort and how grades are more about performance than effort. It’s also an opportunity to ascertain whether the student understands the feedback that has been provided. Can he or she read the teacher’s comments? Does the student understand how and why the partial credit is awarded? If a problem is persistent through the performance, can the student identify unmarked examples of it?

It’s possible the grade should be changed. Teachers need to have these conversations recognizing that grading (especially lots of it) is not an infallible process. It is probably best to let the student make the case for the change, ascertain whether the feedback provided is correctly understood, but defer the decision to change or not change the grade until the work can be reviewed without the student sitting across the desk.

The learning potential of these conversations is a function of how forward-looking they are. “So, what have you learned from this experience that will help you with the next assignment?” “What are you going to work on?” Here, depending on the student, it might be wise for the teacher to provide some guidance. “Let me identify three things to work on. All three would significantly improve the quality of your work, and if there is improvement in these areas, that will definitely be reflected in your grade.”

If the student has conducted himself or herself appropriately in the conversation, that deserves a comment. “I appreciate the maturity you’ve demonstrated in this conversation, and although I’m sure you’re disappointed that I haven’t changed my mind about your grade on this paper, I do think these conversations are very important.” And they are important. Teachers need to know when a student thinks a grade is unfair. They need to review their decisions, and they need to try to help the student understand why the grade stands.

How do teachers make it more likely that students will discuss concerns about grades and discuss them constructively? Teachers talk more about the importance of these conversations. They invite students to come to the office to talk about grades the students don’t think they deserve. They explain why these conversations are challenging for students and teachers, and they give students good advice about what to say and not say about the grade they want changed.

Whether you’re the teacher or the student, these aren’t easy conversations. It’s not in either party’s interest to back down. But that need to defend a position should not become an obstacle that compromises what both parties can learn from these conversations.

Reference: Henningsen, M. L. M., Valde, K. S., Russell, G. A., and Russell, G. R. (2011). Student-faculty interactions about disappointing grades: Application of the Goals-Plans-Actions Model and the Theory of Planned Behavior. Communication Education, 60 (2), 174-190.

Reprinted from The ‘I Deserve a Better Grade on This’ Conversation. The Teaching Professor, 26.2(2012): 3.

Why let students work on exams collaboratively? There are a number of reasons, most of which have been explored empirically. When students discuss questions and possible answers, they intensely engage with the content, which increases the learning potential of an exam experience. The activity develops cooperation and communication skills. But the reason most often given is that working with other students decreases exam anxiety, particularly for those students whose levels of anxiety compromise their ability to perform on exams.

When asked why they don’t use collaborative testing, most faculty report being afraid that students who have not prepared for the exam may inappropriately benefit from the knowledge of students who have studied. Grades should be measures of individual learning.

Based on a review of the literature on collaborative tests, these authors decided to explore four questions in their study: 1) How does collaborative testing affect test scores? 2) Is anxiety related to the effectiveness of collaborative testing? 3) Which students benefit from collaborative testing? and 4) How does the quality of interaction within the groups affect test performance? (p. 165)

The study included some unique design features. To deal with the potential problem of students coming to the exam unprepared and thinking the group would pull them through, students were told to prepare for the exam as if they were taking it individually. Those who would be taking the exam collaboratively would be randomly selected at the beginning of the period. On test days, those selected to take the exam collaboratively were moved to another room. Their group interactions were observed by a proctor who evaluated the quantity of interaction, the level of enthusiasm, and the degree of give-and-take displayed by the participants. (p. 166) The groups did not have to agree on answers, although they could change their answers based on discussions that occurred within the group. Tests were still submitted and graded individually.

As for how the collaboration affected test scores, the results were positive. “Collaborative testing was more successful for a significant majority of students than was traditional, individual testing, although the advantage (3.83%) was smaller than found in some previous studies.” (p. 172) Based on standardized measures of test anxiety, “students with higher initial test anxiety scores were most likely to benefit from the collaborative testing procedure and to show a decrease in test anxiety when taking tests collaboratively.” (p. 172) And finally, “high interaction scores, both proctor and student-rated, were related to better performance under the collaborative condition.” (p. 172)

Consistent in the research on collaborative testing mechanisms is the favorable response they generate from students. Students regularly report enjoying the experience and indicate they would choose it in the future, if given the opportunity. In this study, students said the testing mechanism was beneficial because it helped them develop good working relationships with classmates and helped them remember material they had forgotten. There were students in this study who did perform better on the tests they took individually, and a third of those students thought they did better on the individual exams because they found the discussions with other students confusing.

The researchers conclude that collaborative testing is a “worthwhile technique.” “For, even if overall test performance is not greatly improved by collaborative testing, the positive experiences of increased camaraderie and anxiety reduction it engenders could constitute substantial long-term benefits in the form of increased confidence, motivation, and willingness to continue one’s education.” (p. 173)

Reference: Pandey, C., and Kapitanoff, S. (2011). The influence of anxiety and quality of interaction on collaborative text performance. Active Learning in Higher Education, 12 (3), 163-174.

Reprinted from The Effects of Collaborative Testing, The Teaching Professor, 26.1 (2012): 3, 4.

Peer evaluations are one way to get students listening and learning from the presentations of others, as the authors of the article referenced below have documented. Students attend more carefully to what their classmates are saying when the evaluations they are doing “count.” In this article, which describes the use of peer evaluations in ten 300-level political science courses, students evaluated every presentation and those evaluations constituted between 3 and 5 percent of their course grade—an amount the authors describe as “just enough to make the students take this assignment seriously.” (p. 806) The quality of the feedback students provide is improved when they use criteria (in this case the same one the teachers used) to assess the presentations. Without much experience critiquing presentations and with no specific guidelines, they are likely to offer feedback that is generic and not particularly helpful, such as “Good presentation.”

These authors had students in each of the 10 classes evaluate the peer evaluation assignment, and that feedback indicates the merit of having students do the evaluations. Seventy-three percent of the students agreed or strongly agreed that completing the evaluations made them pay more attention to the presentations. Almost 60 percent said doing the evaluations gave them a different perspective. “Students indicated they gained a different insight into the process, rather than just sitting through presentations without having any objective or direction as an audience member.” (p. 806) Another sizable majority, almost 74 percent, agreed or strongly agreed that completing the evaluations clarified expectations for the presentation assignment.

Students were equally clear that they did not want the evaluations of their peers to have any role in determining their grade for the presentation. This response is interesting in light of the fact that an analysis of a subset of the data revealed a high correlation between instructor and student grades (r = .740). Instructor grades were slightly higher than student-assigned grades. Even though small, this difference was statistically significant. And even though students didn’t want the assessment of their peers to count, over 80 percent agreed or strongly agreed that the feedback of peers would be helpful in improving subsequent presentations.

It is appropriate for teachers to consider the learning potential of presentations, not just for the presenter, but for the audience. Peer evaluations can be used to increase the level of attention paid to those presentations and the learning that might result from listening. They can also develop critiquing skills. Rather than incorporating peer critiques into the grade of the presenter, maybe part or all of the critique grade could be determined by the presenter, who rates the quality of the feedback provided. As these authors note, sometimes the logistics of peer evaluations discourage faculty from using them—multiple evaluations to collect, record, sort, and return. What about an online system of peer reviews? Or assign a certain number of peer reviewers to each presentation. That ensures that at least a portion of the audience are attending, and with fewer evaluations to prepare, students could be expected to provide more detailed feedback. Or how about some bonus points to the students whose presentations are rated highest by their colleagues? The details associated with using peer evaluations can be handled in a variety of interesting and useful ways.

Reference: Baranowski, M., and Weir, K. (2011). Peer evaluation in the political science classroom. PS, Political Science and Politics, 44 (4), 805-811.

Reprinted from The Teaching Professor, 26.1 (2012): 5.

Peer-led reading group sessions address these issues by formalizing students’ reading time out-of-class and improving analysis of core materials. The bonds built in these groups add to the student’s sense of belonging to the class and the institution, increasing the likelihood of student retention. In short, peer learning benefits faculty, student mentors, and class participants and should be encouraged as a new model for undergraduate learning in the classroom and throughout the campus community.

Just what is peer learning? Peer learning approaches vary greatly, yet perhaps the most interesting of these is the interteaching model (Boyce & Hineline 2002). The interteaching model takes a behaviorist, procedural approach and is highly collaborative, drawing upon faculty facilitation and student insight to enhance understanding and analysis of class material. The model augments the lecture experience, resting on the presumption that passive “reception learning” during lecture should be supplemented with operational application in discussion with peers and faculty. This is achieved through social interaction and the articulation of complex ideas in the language and idioms students are most comfortable using. Interteaching transfers classroom power to the student learner, allowing students to express their opinions, engendering responsible group dynamics, and creating a sense of the independence, autonomy and self-possession of learning.

Last year I incorporated the peer learning model into my course, “Western Legal Tradition,” which presents a dauntingly broad range of materials from writers as diverse as Plato, Thomas Aquinas, and Karl Marx. Students are typically mixed in terms of college experience, prior subject knowledge, and analytical and work planning skills, therefore ensuring that all students achieve the proposed learning outcomes is quite challenging. Prior course evaluations frequently revealed students had difficulties distilling relevant points from the reading, as well as felt intimidated during in-class discussion.

I came to realize that one of the best and most capable resources available to professors are the students themselves. Clearly, the students consistently providing the best insights into the readings had developed a methodology for understanding and analyzing difficult classroom texts. If this methodology could be shared through a peer-learning environment, the learning experience could be enhanced for everyone. To that end, I incorporated weekly 30-minute “reading groups” into the course. Attendance and participation were compulsory and graded. Student mentors, selected from among the best students from the previous semester, led the reading groups and were charged with ensuring discipline, answering basic questions, and calling to my attention any questions or concerns from the group.

Overall, my experience using the reading group model has been overwhelmingly positive. Reading groups provided many benefits to the mentors, students, and myself, including more vibrant classroom discussions, improved class preparation and organization on my part, and empowered students. Furthermore, students performed better in these iterations of the course than in prior courses and most students viewed the reading groups as beneficial, noting that group work helped them “feel more prepared and confident for class.”

This peer-learning model holds much potential for application across the university. I imagine a campus quad in spring or university library on a dark winter night littered with small circles of students, sitting and discussing their assigned readings before running off to another group meeting. Mentors from one group may become participants in the next. Across campus students are more engaged, with greater expertise of their readings and more willingness and confidence to participate in class. As Nelson argues, structured collaborative learning like this will “increase the number of students with whom we will be effective,” (Nelson, 1994, pg 57).

Greater awareness of learning styles and teaching methodologies through mentoring makes for much more effective students (and teachers!), in turn allowing for greatly enhanced productivity from faculty members. It’s been my experience that incorporating peer learning environments into class appears to be of great benefit to everyone involved and offers gains in yield and efficacy that should unquestionably be considered.

References
Boud, David, Cohen, Ruth & Sampson, Jane (Eds.), (2001), Peer Learning in Higher Education: Learning From and With Each Other. London: Kogan Page.

Boyce, Thomas E., & Hineline, Phillip N., (2002), Interteaching: A Strategy for Enhancing the User-Friendliness of Behavioral Arrangements in the College Classroom, The Behavior Analyst, 25, pp 215-226.

Goodlad, Sinclair & Hirst, Beverley, (1989), Peer Tutoring. A Guide to Learning by Teaching. London & New York, NY: Kogan Page & Nichols Publishing.

Nelson, Craig E., (1994), Critical Thinking and Collaborative Learning. In Bosworth, Kris & Hamilton, Sharon J., Collaborative Learning: Underlying Processes and Effective Techniques (pp. 45-57). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Slavin, Robert E. (1983), Cooperative Learning, New York, NY & London: Longman.

Dr. Bill Davies is an assistant professor in the School of Public Affairs at American University. He may be reached at davies@american.edu.. Maya P. Barak is a PhD candidate in the School of Public Affairs at American University. She may be reached at maya.p.barak@gmail.com.

This background is provided in an excellent article that examines the “type and extent of empirical research on rubrics at the post-secondary level” and seeks “to stimulate research on rubric use in post-secondary teaching.” (p. 437) A review of the literature on rubrics produced 20 articles, which are analyzed in this review.

So far, rubrics in higher education are being used almost exclusively as grading tools, even though some educators, like these authors, see them as having formative potential. When rubrics are given to students at the time an assignment is made, students can use them to better understand expectations for the assignment and then monitor and regulate their work. They also make the grading process more transparent. In fact, in one of the studies analyzed in the review, one group of students were given the rubric after their work had been graded and another group got the rubric at the time the assignment was made. Both groups wanted to use rubrics again, but the rubric was rated as useful by 88 percent of the students who got it when the assignment was made as compared with 10 percent who rated it useful when it was returned with their graded assignment.

“One striking difference between students’ and instructors’ perceptions of rubric use is related to their perceptions of the purposes of rubrics. Students frequently referred to them as serving the purposes of learning and achievement, while instructors focused almost exclusively on the role of a rubric in quickly, objectively, and accurately assigning grades.” (p. 439)

Do rubrics promote student learning?
For teachers who might be considering use of rubrics or using them as something more than a time-saving grading mechanism, the key question is whether rubrics promote learning and achievement. The authors of this review found the evidence inconclusive. One study did find that involving students in developing and using rubrics prior to submitting an assignment was associated with improved academic performance, but another study found no differences in the quality of work done by students with and without rubrics.

Also missing from the research so far are answers to questions related to validity and reliability. Do rubrics measure what they purport to measure—the validity question? “A large majority of the studies reviewed did not describe the process of development of rubrics to establish their quality.” (p. 445) A bit more work has been done on reliability and it shows that with training, separate raters consistently give similar ratings to a piece of work when using the same rubric. However, the authors note that more work on rubric validity and reliability is needed.

Are rubrics worth using?
Research answers to the question are still few and not always conclusive. Among practitioners, there is general agreement that rubrics do expedite the grading process and make it seem more objective and fair to students. Among students, there is agreement that rubrics clarify expectations and are especially useful as they prepare assignments. The researchers recommend “educating instructors on the formative use of rubrics to promote learning by sharing or co-creating them with students in order to make the goals and qualities of an assignment transparent, and to have students use rubrics to guide peer and self-assessment and subsequent revision.” (p. 444)

Reference: Reddy, Y. M., and Andrade, H. (2010). A review of rubric use in higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35 (4), 435-448.

Reprinted from Rubrics: Worth Using? The Teaching Professor, 26.1 (2012): 4.

In The Miniature Guide to Critical Thinking: Concepts and Tools, Richard Paul and Linda Elder identify eight intellectual traits as essential to the development of the human mind. These traits are set against their opposites—those traits which impair the mind, eclipsing its potential for growth and discovery: intellectual humility vs. intellectual arrogance, intellectual courage vs. intellectual cowardice, empathy vs. close-mindedness, and so forth. Those first three are matters of both the mind and the heart. All are premised by the assumption that we are not in the world solely for our own benefit.

I teach at a private Christian liberal arts university, so I enjoy a freedom to integrate my faith with my teaching, a freedom that many of my colleagues at secular institutions do not enjoy, no matter what religious faith they may practice. This freedom prompted me to address an attitude that I see as an impediment for anyone who wishes to learn, whether that person is 18 or 80: entitlement. Many of my students, though certainly not all, come into college from a life of relative comfort and prosperity. Very few of them have even witnessed, let alone experienced, the kind of demeaning, debilitating poverty that starves the life and kills the spirit of millions of people around the world.

I have come to believe that prosperity is its own kind of impairment. In an effort to address the sense of entitlement that prosperity and comfort breed, I decided to call my students into a posture of humility. Inspired by Ann Voskamp’s book, 1000 Gifts, I started a list on the first day of the semester and invited all of the students in all of my classes to contribute expressions of gratitude to this list every time we meet. I arrive early enough to open the Word file and project it on the screen in the classroom, and then I start our class sessions with this question, “For what are you grateful today?”

On some days in some of those classes, I was met with silence. These students were not muted by hostility or belligerence; they simply had nothing to say. In other classes, and on other days, I had to cut them off after five minutes of listing their thanks so we could get to the business of the day. My purpose for this habit was to call my students into a posture of humility so that they could be teachable. We cannot learn when we are crippled by arrogance.

The certainty that there is nothing for us to gain from our attention to someone else’s agenda debilitates the educational process. I think of Scott Russell Sanders’ reminder that to educate means “to lead out.” In The Force of Spirit, he identifies ten fundamental powers of story, insisting that “what stories at their best can do is lead our desires in new directions—away from greed, toward generosity, away from suspicion, toward sympathy . . . .” My purpose in putting this list of blessings in front of my students every week and inviting them to name the things for which they are grateful is to lead them away from arrogance and entitlement toward humility and gratitude. Though this posture is consistent with the tenets of my Christian faith, it is also consistent with the tenets of civil discourse and scholarly inquiry. Saying “Thank you” requires a person to acknowledge his or her indebtedness. My students may not be indebted to me, but they certainly are indebted to someone if they are sitting in a college classroom.

As students and teachers, we are part of a community that stretches far behind us and will stretch far beyond us into the future. In this context, indebtedness is a gift, not a burden.

References:
Paul, R. and Elder, L. (2010). The Miniature Guide to Critical Thinking Concepts and Tools. Dillon Beach: Foundation for Critical Thinking Press.

Sanders, S. R. (2000). The Force of Spirit. Boston: Beacon Press.

Voskamp, Ann. (2010). One Thousand Gifts. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

Deborah Miller Fox holds an MFA in Writing and teaches creative writing, composition, and literature at Anderson University, a private liberal arts university in central Indiana.

As the collaboration continued, Mary realized that she had created a unique opportunity where the entire class was helping each other learn. With more than 30 students actively collaborating on the document, she was certain that the whole class would be successful on the exam. That’s where Mary’s internal alarm went off and that’s why she came to see me.

Mary is an education major and was a student in one of my classes last year. From our work together, I know she’s going to be a great teacher one day. Mary was concerned about the collaborative study guide and wondered whether it could be misinterpreted as cheating. Education majors are held to a high ethical standard at our institution and disposition concerns can lead to someone being removed the program. If everyone got A’s on the exam, would the professor think that somehow the class had cheated? As the person who started the collaborative document, would she somehow be to “blame” for the class’s success?

I tried to calm Mary’s fears. I explained that I was proud of her since she was implementing the concepts we had discussed in our class. In our Instructional Technology class, we had talked about 21st century skills like collaboration and communication and Mary was actually applying the concepts to help her peers learn and succeed. I really didn’t believe that her actions would lead to disciplinary actions but I offered to speak to the professor to alleviate any concerns. Mary left my office relieved and encouraged.

Despite her reassured departure, Mary’s situation has been on my mind for the last few days. As educators, I believe we’re motivated to help all of our students learn. We want to provide them with the tools to help them succeed and hope that they’ll meet the high standards we set for them. As a student, Mary had created a collaborative learning environment for her peers but worried that if everyone was successful that the success could be misinterpreted or worse, devalued. In a somewhat ironic twist, success for everyone was undermining the very concept of success. It’s almost as if for success to be real, authentic or earned, there had to be some unsuccessful students as well. I know Mary didn’t really think this way but her internal alarm went off nonetheless. As educators, we need to move past the concept of education as competition. Learning shouldn’t be a race with winners and losers. Learning is about personal growth and meeting high expectations. As educators, we should be embracing student-led collaborative efforts that lead to class-wide success and looking for ways to foster it ourselves.

Here are a few ways you can help to stoke the fires of collaboration in your class:

• Make your expectations clear. You don’t need to necessarily provide a grading rubric for your assignments, but you do need to make sure students know what you expect. While students always want to know page length and formatting criteria for papers, I choose to provide leading questions to help students assess their own work and the work of their classmates. By knowing the expectations, students can better help one another work toward meeting my learning goals.
• Introduce students to Google Drive (the new home of Google Docs) or some other collaborative writing tool. With their chaotic schedules, students can’t always meet in traditional study groups like they once did. By introducing an online space that they can use, you help to endorse their collaboration.
• Avoid grading on a curve. While this may sound counter-intuitive, grading on a curve can undermine student collaboration. Students who don’t want to see a classmate “ruin the curve” won’t be motivated to collaborate with them and help them succeed.

If students work together and an entire class meets our standards, we should celebrate it. We need to promote a culture in our classrooms and on our campuses where success isn’t defined or guided by failure but attributed to success in itself. That’s a huge undertaking but I think it’s more aligned to the promise of education, especially in the 21st century.

Dr. Oliver Dreon is the director of the Center for Academic Excellence at Millersville University.

Teachers tend to focus on the instructional aspects of their role—they want their courses to have standards, to be well organized; they want their instruction to be clear and effective at stimulating student interest. Students agree that these aspects of instruction are important, but they consider the personal aspects of teaching just as important. They want teachers who welcome their questions, who acknowledge their input, and who are available—in short, teachers who establish rapport with individual students and the class as a whole. Said succinctly, caring is more important to students than it is to professors, according to a variety of research findings reviewed in this article.

But should faculty be concerned about what students consider important? Research findings say yes. One study cited reported that when instructor-student rapport increases, those increases are associated with greater student enjoyment of the class, improved attendance and attention, more study time devoted to the class, and more courses taken in that discipline. Another study documented that a professor’s positive attitude toward students accounted for 58 percent of the variability in the students’ motivation, 42 percent of the variability in course appreciation, and 60 percent of students’ attitude about the instructor. (p. 206)

Meyers addresses three faculty criticisms and cautions about caring, starting with “My students don’t appreciate how much I care.” The problem here, according to Meyers, is that faculty don’t always express their care in ways that students understand. Faculty express caring through their devotion to the instructional aspects of their role. They always come to class prepared. They devote time and energy to keeping current in their field. They spend countless hours reading and reviewing potential texts. Those commitments bespeak their care, but according to the research, those are not the behaviors students associate with caring. Research on something called “verbal immediacy” has identified a number of behaviors that do convey caring to students—things like using personal examples, asking questions and encouraging students to talk, using humor in class, addressing students by name, and many others listed on a table in the article—and Meyers recommends that faculty consider using more of these behaviors.

Some faculty are reluctant to express care for students because they don’t want to get too close to students. And Meyers agrees: “Faculty must maintain an awareness of interpersonal boundaries when creating supportive relationships with students.” (p. 207) It’s a question of finding an appropriate balance between caring for students and maintaining professional boundaries. Meyers offers this advice: “Effective, caring faculty members balance their connection with students by setting limits as needed, by enforcing classroom policies in consistent and equitable ways, and by maintaining democratic and respectful authority in the college classroom.” (p. 207)

And finally, there are faculty who believe “My job is to teach, not to care.” These faculty worry that caring compromises academic rigor and lowers standards. They think that caring means always being nice, never pushing students, and always avoiding criticism. But it’s not a case of either-or—caring or doing those things associated with the instructional role. Teachers should do both because students benefit enormously when they do. And caring benefits teachers as well. Research has documented that when faculty don’t care or fail to communicate their concern for students, students respond in kind. When students don’t care about the teacher, they are much more willing to disrupt the class and make learning more difficult for everyone.

This is a first-rate article that convincingly establishes the importance of caring in the college classroom. It ends with an interesting set of questions on the topic that would make for excellent discussion with colleagues.

Reference: Meyers, S.A. (2009). Do Your Students Care Whether You Care About Them? College Teaching, 57 (4), 205-210.

Reprinted from Caring for Students: How Important Is It? The Teaching Professor, 25.5 (2011): 5-6.

However, with the right approach, these course evaluations can be a very constructive tool. One of the keys is to solicit feedback throughout the course, rather than waiting until the end when it’s too late to make improvements that will make a difference to the current roster of students.

As both a teacher and an instructional designer for more than 25 years, I have been blessed to see things from a variety of perspectives. I have also learned some lessons the hard way! Here are 10 strategies for administering multiple informal course surveys that have proven very successful for me:

1. Ask the questions clearly. Perhaps one of the reasons student comments aren’t clear is because we’re asking somewhat ambiguous questions. Give the exercise the same time and attention you do when writing learning goals. Ask yourself, “What am I trying to assess?” Have a colleague you respect review your questions the first time out.

2. Ask the right questions. If you want to know if one of your primary learning outcomes is being/was achieved, ask. Sure it’s the student’s perspective, but it can be a valuable piece of information and you will spot a trend quickly. These questions work nicely in a Likert-scale multiple choice format. Other questions can be the same as, or similar to, the department’s formal end-of-course evaluations.

3. Ask for written comments. I have always found that written comments can be the most insightful, if interpreted fairly. As Weimer (2012) pointed out, two students can take two different meanings from the same question, so keep it simple.

Four questions I use are:

1. What is one thing you like about this course (so far)?
2. What is one thing you do not like about this course (so far)?
3. What is one thing that could be improved in this course?
4. Do you have any additional comments you would like to share?

4. Use an LMS or some other way of automating the process of administering the survey. This makes it easy for you and your students. Use the reporting and statistical analysis tools to help you interpret the results.

5. Share the results with your students. This is a critical step. Identify the items that you can deal with and follow through. Tell your students how you will address their concerns. Explain to the students the items that you cannot fix and pass these along to the appropriate departments, if necessary. I also told my students that I would publish the results, including my comments on my faculty homepage, and share them with their program coordinator and dean or academic manager, which I did. There were multiple short and long-term benefits from doing this: accountability, student buy-in, and trust from my academic managers. Risky perhaps, but well worth it in the long run.

6. Survey more than once. Perhaps one-third or halfway through the semester, and once more. Assess any progress you made from the comments on the first survey. This can even be an additional survey question. Don’t wait until the department’s formal end-of-course evaluation – by then it is too late. Your students will also appreciate your genuine interest in improving the course for them. If your course gets off track a little at the beginning, you will have ample time to get things back on track.

7. Don’t survey unless you are prepared to deal with the feedback. If you ask your students for feedback, summarize and share the results, and implement the things that are constructive, your students will feel empowered. They will take a different look at the course and become part of the growth process, your included. This was one of my course activities that my students appreciated the most.

8. Tell your students what you are looking for. Let them know it’s ok to be negative, as long as the criticism is constructive and not mean-spirited. I don’t allow them to name fellow students or other teachers, or make comments unrelated to the course.

9. If you are not inclined to use a survey/questionnaire approach, use a simpler tool. Try a “start-stop-continue” approach, a “one-minute” paper, or a simple poll. These can be done almost weekly or at the end of each module/lesson.

10. Keep your perspective (and humor) on things. Once you get the results/comments, interpret them carefully, but don’t overanalyze or internalize any criticism. Teachers whom I have assisted with this activity initially get very worried because students can be blunt. My advice? Treat the comments like judges scoring figure skaters in an international competition. Throw out the high one and the low one, and what’s left over is usually a good overall indicator. It might not be all positive feedback the first time, but as long as it is constructive, you have something to build upon.

At the start of every one of my courses, as one of the ice-breaker activities and introductions, I would ask my students to visit my faculty homepage and look at the course feedback results for previous cycles of this course. On the page they can see not only the feedback from students, but my responses to the individual comments. By doing this, I think I demonstrated that I was serious about the quality of the course and my performance. I would also point out that I expected the same level of quality insights and constructive feedback from them two or three times during the semester.

Greg Cooper, M.A. Ed. is an instructional designer with the Teaching and Learning Centre (TLC) at the University of Calgary, Alberta. He previously worked at Cambrian College for 27 years as an elearning designer and as a professor in face-to-face and online courses, and at the University of Wisconsin-Madison as a learning technology consultant.

Reference:
Weimer, Maryellen (2012, November 28). End-of-course evaluations: making sense of student comments. Faculty Focus, retrieved from http://www.facultyfocus.com/articles/teaching-professor-blog/end-of-course-evaluations-making-sense-of-student-comments/

In yesterday’s online post we counted down from number 12 to seven. Today’s post reveals the top six most popular articles of the year, starting with number six.

6. Three Steps to Better Course Evaluations
With each semester’s end comes the often-dreaded course evaluation process. But a better time to think about course evaluations is at the beginning of the semester. At that point, an instructor can be proactive in three areas that I have found lead to better course evaluations. Continue reading »

5. Should Effort Count? Students Certainly Think So
In a recent study, a group of 120 undergraduates were asked what percentage of a grade should be based on performance and what percentage on effort. The students said that 61% of the grade should be based on performance and 39% on effort. Continue Reading »

4. My Students Don’t Like Group Work
Students don’t always like working in groups. Ann Taylor, an associate professor of chemistry at Wabash College, had a class that was particularly vocal in their opposition. She asked for their top 10 reasons why students don’t want to work in groups and they offered this list. Continue Reading »

3. A Lesson in Academic Integrity as Students Feel the Injustice of Plagiarism
In an effort to make my lessons about plagiarism and the appropriate citation of sources more personal for the students in my rhetoric and research classes, I now use an assignment that forces them into the role of victim rather than thief. The results of my most recent experience with this approach were encouraging. Continue reading »

2. Does PowerPoint Help or Hinder Learning?
I’ve had some nagging concerns about PowerPoint for some time now. I should be upfront and admit to not using it; when I taught or currently in my presentations. Perhaps that clouds my objectivity. But my worries resurfaced after reading an article in Teaching Sociology. I’ll use this post to raise some questions and concerns about the role of PowerPoint both in the classroom and in student learning experiences. Continue reading »

1. Students Think They Can Multitask. Here’s Proof They Can’t.
With easy access to all sorts of technology, students multitask. So do lots of us for that matter. But students are way too convinced that multitasking is a great way to work. They think they can do two or three tasks simultaneously and not compromise the quality of what they produce. Research says that about 5% of us multitask effectively. Proof of the negative effects of multitasking in learning environments is now coming from a variety of studies. Continue reading »

Today’s post lists articles 7-12, starting with number 12.
12. Classroom Discussion: Professors Share Favorite Strategies for Engaging Students
On The Teaching Professor’s LinkedIn Group we asked members to share some of the strategies they use to engage students in discussion, manage the dominant talkers and the nontalkers, and steer a discussion that’s gone off track. Nearly three dozen faculty members shared their techniques for prompting discussion. Continue reading »

11. Using “Frameworks” to Enhance Teaching and Learning
The tool I call a “framework” is a visual structure to capture students’ thinking. It has a non-linear format and provides writing space to record what students are thinking about course content as well as how they are thinking about it. I generally assign frameworks on a weekly basis, to be completed with course reading outside of class. I collect them weekly, when assigned reading is due, which helps students stay accountable to the reading. Continue reading »

10. Mapping Success: Essential Elements of an Effective Online Learning Experience
An online course is like walking into a foreign land with an entire map laid out, but having no sense of the land’s origin or how to navigate the terrain. How the instructor formats and interacts with the class will ultimately determine the student’s travel experience. The purpose of this article is to provide an understanding of how the elements of an online course are integrated such that they form a cohesive whole that creates easy travel based upon instructor presence, appropriate feedback, and easy navigation for students. Continue reading »

9. Deep Learning vs. Surface Learning: Getting Students to Understand the Difference
Sometimes our understanding of deep learning isn’t all that deep. Typically, it’s defined by what it is not. It’s not memorizing only to forget and it’s not reciting or regurgitating what really isn’t understood and can’t be applied. The essence of deep learning is understanding—true knowing. That’s a good start but it doesn’t do much to help students see the difference between deep and surface learning or to help persuade them that one is preferable to the other. Continue reading »

8. A Syllabus Tip: Embed Big Questions
Much has been written about the course syllabus. It’s an important tool for classroom management, for setting the tone, for outlining expectations, and for meeting department and university requirements. It’s an essential document in a higher education course, but do your students read it? And if they do read it, do they see the real purpose of the course beyond the attendance policy and exam dates? Continue reading »

7. Five Characteristics of Learner-Centered Teaching
Although learner-centered teaching and efforts to involve students have a kind of bread and butter relationship, they are not the same thing. In the interest of more definitional precision, I’d like to propose five characteristics of teaching that make it learner-centered. Continue reading »

See what teaching and learning articles topped out our list here.