Catherine Rawn

Today’s Psyc 208 class was, by far, the most successful review session I’ve ever held. For the past two years I’ve tried to hold review sessions in this course. Each year, most people get up and leave. I have to admit that one way I’ve interpreted this behavioural feedback is students’ lack of willingness to participate and engage. This year, inspired by an Observer article by Gurung & Bond (2011), I decided to give the review session one more shot. And it was fantastic!

Here’s what I did differently: I forced myself to re-evaluate what I was asking the students to do, in terms of real usefulness, specificity of directions, and pacing to maintain engagement. Instead of something like “choose to make a concept map or elaborate on a learning objective” for an indeterminate amount of time, I planned a series of four specific “learning opportunities” which I timed and moved students through quickly. I made sure they were able to be completed by people who hadn’t studied yet as well as those who had, and I emailed everyone yesterday to ask them to bring their texts and notes if possible.

Now for a brief overview of the “learning opportunities.” Students  (N=105; 77 present today) are already divided into teams in this course, which at this point in the term made natural  groupings. #1 “Mapping the Territory” involved picking one broad topic/unit from a list I’d prepared and working with 2-4 others to develop a map of definitions, related concepts and studies, ways to apply the concepts, and so on. #2 “Pass your questions” invited everyone to write a question – or even just a key term – at the top of a blank page, and then pass it to the left. The next 2-3 minutes involved writing down whatever they could recall/find to address their neighbour’s question. We did this “passing” three times before returning the sheet back to its original owner. #3 “Application Challenge!” divided the teams into 2 subteams. Pick a topic/concept/theory to challenge the other subteam. Switch papers, and write a thorough scenario that accurately applies the topic/concept/theory. Then switch back and evaluate how well the other team did at generating an application. #4 “Study Plan” involved setting out the specifics of their studying between now and the test on Thursday, including what/when/where/how/with whom.

During this 80 minute period, students got about 15 minutes for each of the four learning opportunities, although the earlier ones spilled over that and the last one was reduced to about 6 minutes (which was all it really needed). I milled about, answering specific questions about the content as they arose, handing out paper, timekeeping and generally being impressed by the strong efforts my students were putting forth.

What I think worked really well about this process was that it moved everyone along, keeping the energy up. Students knew there were four learning opportunities coming, and I stated up front that they were going to be different, so if one wasn’t working for them I asked them to play along and hope the next one spoke to them. All but two people stayed the whole period (a new record!), and the vast majority of spirited conversations I overheard were spot on task.

I asked for feedback at the end. Although I haven’t formally entered it yet, I have quickly read it all. On a 1-5 scale (1 being “not useful for helping me learn” and 5 being “very useful for helping me learn”), the vast majority of responses were 4s and 5s, with only a few 3s and nothing below that. People reported enjoying the activities, feeling more motivated to study now, being able to better tell what they know and what they don’t (yay for metacognition!), and feeling like they covered a lot of ground (although not much in depth). Some spontaneously reported that they’d use some of these techniques when studying, and all activities were nominated by some students as their favourite. The one consistent recommendation for next year that came through was adding more of a warning. Some students reported wishing they’d prepared more ahead of time so they could get more out of this session.

Thanks to all my students who participated today! You have inspired me to keep on taking risks to build increasingly meaningful learning opportunities!

Term 2 is now right around the corner! If you’re interested in checking out syllabi for my sections early, by all means take a look! My Psyc 218 (Analysis of Behavioural Data) syllabus is available here, and my Psyc 208 (Special Topics: How Social Psychology Can Help You Succeed) syllabus is available here. I suspect that both of these courses will challenge learners–and me–to grow in new directions. They won’t be a walk in the park, but they can be valuable learning experiences if we all put in the thought and effort… and isn’t that what university is for?

I hope your 2011 wraps up safely and your 2012 brings you joy and adventures!

Over the weekend I gave the keynote address at this interesting, student-driven conference. It united students, faculty, and community members from all across the country to question our assumptions about education and to promote innovation. Consistent with this spirit, in my keynote I discussed my section of Psyc 208 (Psychology in your life: How social psychology can help you succeed). I have created that course with students in mind from the very start. I strive to create a course that matters, and I challenge both educators and students (yes, it’s a two-way street!) to make education matter. I also discuss how the course has changed from the first time I taught it to the second, and share how I have relied on student feedback to make important changes for the better. If you’ve taken the course before, plan to take it in January, or are interested in course (re)design more broadly, check out the video here.

Congratulations to Tyler Nelson and the entire planning team for a great conference. If you’d like to check out more about the conference, we had a twitter feed going all day long (search for #ice2011) and videos from all of the interesting speakers are available here.

Because I pour so much of my heart and soul, sweat and tears (never blood, yet anyway) into each course, I find it necessary to wait a while after a course is over to view the student evaluations of those courses. It can be very emotional to read them, full of breathtaking highs and, occasionally, devastating lows (I appreciate criticism, but not one worded disrespectfully). I have posted summary graphs of my scores and some commentary here, and will share some further reflections in this blog post. Links to all my course syllabi are available here.

The first thing I noticed was how students rated my introductory psychology course overwhelmingly positively. Those ratings are the highest I have ever received. This was absolutely thrilling! I had felt throughout the year a special rapport with this class, despite its large size (N=260). Their energy, curiosity and astute questions continually kept me on my toes, and this in turn fueled my own passion and excitement. I want to share with you a particularly thorough–and not 100% positive!–comment that might give you a feel for what to expect from me (if you’re shopping for courses):

At first, I didn’t like the way Catherine Rawn taught. She was a little too flamboyant and enthusiastic. I felt like she babied us a little. But as the year went on, I really began to appreciate it. I found that I paid attention even to the material I wasn’t particularly interested in. I appreciated her invitational office hour. I never would have gone to her were it not a “requirement,” and that was actually the point that caused me to like her better. I realized that she actually cares about her students (enough to LEARN OUR NAMES, which impressed me) and she was willing to be challenged and she was very respectful to students with opinions different than hers. I have to say that she is one of the better professors I have had in my first year of university. She was interesting, prepared, open, enthusiastic, and positive. She may have babied us a little, but only in the sense that she was so open to help. She still gave challenging and stimulating assignments. Overall, I would say, I thank her for doing a good job.

It’s an interesting comment, to me anyway, in part because it uses a term I’ve received in evaluations before: “babied.” This always intrigues me because I suspect it has something to do with people’s notions about what learning should look like in the university classroom: It should be serious! I attempt to infuse some fun in my courses (e.g., cheering!), I enjoy and find value in exploring with my students, and starting with the basics is important especially in an introductory course. My intention is never to baby, but I also want to dispel the notion that learning has to always be serious. Learning can be fun! Overall, I’m very pleased with the ratings of this course, and will not be making major changes to it next year… with one fabulous exception: the introduction of Peer Tutors! Ten fantastic “grads” of my course from last year have volunteered to help answer questions and act as role models as new students transition to my course and university more broadly. Looking forward to introducing them soon!

The second thing I noticed was that although my scores for Psyc 217 Research Methods are solidly and largely positive, I’m still having a challenge as students are perceiving my evaluations to be less fair than is average across campus (though not unfair per se; see the means on my “evaluating teaching” page, linked above). It is possible that this is simply perception given that this is a very tough course (which is true for all Psyc 217 sections), as it should be because it provides the foundation for all further study in psychology and other behavioural sciences. Yet it’s also possible that my evaluations are in fact less fair than is average across campus. In order to address this consistent rating, I am vowing to critically re-evaluate my exams and assignments this fall. One of those, the group research project, is common to all sections and has a common grading key/rubric, so there’s little to change there. My action plan for evaluating my exams and assignments is to gather all my learning objectives together from every lesson of the course, as well as the broader course objectives stated in the syllabus, and the readings for each unit. I will then consider every question on every evaluation, specifically in terms of how well it links to one or more objectives. Then I will consider whether any question isn’t measuring any objective, and toss it. Then I will consider whether any objective isn’t being addressed, and consider whether the objective should be changed/tossed or measured. After I conduct this analysis of content validity, I will use data from previous years (as I often do) to inform changes to the individual questions to improve their ability to accurately measure learning in my course. I expect my students to use my stated objectives as a road map; it’s time to re-check that they’re aligned with the way I’m evaluating that learning.

Third, I was pleased to see that my scores for Psyc 208 Section 2: How Social Psychology Can Help You Succeed (Special Topics) have improved much from the first time I offered it in 2009, as I used the feedback from 2009 as well as inspiration from a talk by Michael Wesch last summer to make substantial changes. It’s an unconventional course, with lots of teamwork and interaction. For one, I implemented the validity analysis process for exams I explained above (for Psyc 217), which resulted in much fairer exams. As for improvements based on this year’s feedback, I will shorten the midterm a little, and make some small adjustments to the grading of the team project so that individual work related to the team project is weighted more heavily relative to the team grades. Also, I’m considering making grading keys available for the team assignment to improve the clarity of what’s expected for each. Given this feedback, I’d like to share one of my favourite comments from this course, because it reflects my intention in creating this course and in how I structure each and every lesson/experience. Of course they’re not all this positive, but indulge me:

Easily the best teacher I have had at UBC. She should hold workshops for other professors! Or publish a book, or work w ith the Chapman Learning Commons to develop a free, non-credit version of the course that students can take to learn how to improve their university experience. I would recommend her course in Social Psychology and its application to academic success to any student regardless of faculty or major and consider it an invaluable tool to my success. Catherine was always helpful, expected the best of her class and demonstrated an unparalleled concern for the personal and academic development/wellbeing of her students.

And what a term it’s been! It’s certainly been busy and challenging, but I feel like I have learned a lot and I have had a ton of fun! This term I taught learners in two courses: the continuation of Intro Psyc (go section 6!) and Psyc 208 (a course I designed called How Social Psych Can Help You Succeed).

This year the students in my Intro Psych class were so wonderfully curious and engaged! I felt such great energy from them every day (some days more than others, but that’s normal!), and they truly inspired me to bring my “A game” every day (which I tried my best to do!). Here are some photos from our last day together. I had asked them to write their most important take-away message from this course. Take a look… 

Last week in Psyc 208 we held the Creative Advertisement Showcase, which was a fantastic celebration of what they had discovered throughout the term! Previously, teams of students had identified a learning challenge they face, investigated primary sources for insight into understanding and addressing the challenge, and summarized those sources in annotated bibliographies and team abstracts. The purpose of the Creative Advertisment was to get the word out to fellow students about research-based techniques and strategies for addressing the learning challenges they face. They truly were creative! Projects ranged from video and live games to posters to live skits and demonstrations to videos and pamphlets… an impressive variety! Check out some of their videos and websites (ordered by team #)…

Team 7′s Learning about Distractions:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lts-wX9L8q4

Team 9′s Learning Environments: http://psyc208.wordpress.com/

Team 12′s Sleep & Learning: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GaqQkImzagU

Team 15′s Stress Happens, Even for a Jedi: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnmYyz61Mys with website: http://ipixels.net/stress/

Team 18′s Technology Crackdown: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zBCkhIoS74  

Team 22′s Cultural Differences and Learning: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5jPW6tRA20w

And here’s a shot of Team 13′s interactive ”Choose Your Own Adventure” study strategies station in action!

Thanks to everyone for a fantastic year! Study smartly for your finals… and remember that no matter how you do on them, that’s not a reflection of your worth as a person.