Tag Archives: teaching philosophy

Revising my Teaching Philosophy

Posted on December 9, 2014 | Comments Off on Revising my Teaching Philosophy

Although I’ve polished/reconfigured my teaching philosophy a few times over the years, I’m feeling compelled to take it in a new direction. It’s not that my teaching has taken on an entirely new form… well, maybe in some ways it has. I’m feeling a greater sense of clarity these days, specifically around collaboration and community-building. Here is my latest draft of my single sentence nutshell version, followed by lengthier elaboration/musings.

The goal of my teaching practice is to help people develop ways of thinking and doing that are informed by the methods and evidence of quantitative psychology, and that will prepare them to engage in their social worlds throughout their lives.

I chose many of these words very carefully.

goal, my teaching practice: indicate my own process of ongoing development. For me, teaching is not a skill I can check off as “mastered” — which is actually one of the reasons I enjoy it so much. It’s a set of skills and attitudes I can get better at through reflective practice, but it’s never “done.” Also noteworthy at this point: although this statement is grounded in what (I think) I do, it is also somewhat aspirational and intended to help me make decisions about how to change my teaching in the future.

help, develop: In my most effective teaching moments, I am acting as a guide, not some sage trying to fill brains with what I know. I view myself in a supporting role, and that probably has something to do with the most impactful teachers in my life, who treated me as an individual person (see below) and pushed me to develop new skill sets, regardless of how scary or challenging that was (I’m thinking of you Clinton, Ross, Holmes, Biesanz, Vohs…). Because many of my core courses are foundational  (introductory psychology, research methods, statistics, teaching of psychology for graduate students), I sometimes get to see and support developmental change in my students across much of their degrees. When possible, I provide opportunities for students to practice and build on past work.

people: reminds me that my students are more than just students (just as I am more than their instructor). I put this into practice by saying this, right before every exam begins: “and remember, your value as a person has nothing to do with your performance on this or any other exam.” Year after year, students thank me for this tiny reminder that they are not the sum of their grades. Also, this word reminds me that some of my teaching activities reach beyond traditional classroom settings and involve people who aren’t necessarily “students” per se.

ways of thinking and doing: I am increasingly aware of the fact that when I use lecture, I am giving students ample opportunity to practice note-taking and listening… which are not entirely useless skills, but are maybe not the best use of our time together (see above). With each new course I develop and each course I revise, I strive further toward spending class periods giving students time to practice their thinking and doing (asking, answering, brainstorming, designing, summarizing, analyzing, performing, playing, creating). To support doing-driven assignments, I need to work on building space in my course for further skill development.

methods and evidence of quantitative psychology: By training, I am a quantitative social psychologist. I teach research methods and statistics, write a research methods textbook, and deliberately chose to use an introductory psychology textbook that emphasizes research methods and combating pseudoscience. I think the tools and content of psychology are useful for critically consuming information that is thrown at us, and for engaging productively in the world. In my classes, I create opportunities for students to apply concepts and methods (test questions, assignments).  Importantly, I use the methods and evidence of quantitative behavioural sciences to inform my teaching practice.

engage: Here’s a word that was core in my old teaching philosophy. The way I’m looking at it now is this: I structure my learning situations to require learners to participate and engage with the material and each other. I use various common techniques: vivid examples, videos, attention grabbing questions sprinkled throughout class (clickers), projects that mean something (e.g., identify a problem you’re having and find research to help), and some that are uncommon (2-stage exams). I engage students in the learning process by breaking down my 1st and 2nd year courses into four chunks (three midterms and a cumulative final) — and in my intro course I require students to begin studying at least 2 days before each midterm because a short low-stakes concept check paper is due. Another way I try to engage is by building community…

social: Now we get to the primary reason for this whole revision. Most of the changes I’ve made over the years to my courses have been to make them more social. Community-building and collaboration feature heavily in my courses, and I’m ready to commit to them as defining features of my teaching. The research literature supports this approach. “Active learning” techniques that involve some sort of peer-to-peer engagement seem to work best to help students learn. I also believe that in order to engage effectively in their personal lives and broader society, people need practice developing skills and attitudes needed to work with and learn from others. The social looks different in different courses (in part depending on class size and level), but includes two-stage/team tests, group projects, peer evaluation, reviewing peers’ written work and presentations, informal discussions prompted by clicker questions, team writing, occasional field trips, and invitational office hours. Also, the more students talk in class, the stronger sense of community they feel. Because my classes tend to be very large (88 is the smallest, excepting my grad class), and many students have traveled from around the world to be here at UBC, increasing the social in class may help struggling students feel more connected. Next year, my new course on the psychology of social media will explore the theme of technology-mediated connection and will require it!

throughout their lives: my greatest teaching efforts are lost if they do not contribute to some lasting change for some people some of the time. My hope is that some of the skills, tools, ways of thinking and doing and engaging will positively influence the people I teach. If ever-so-subtly.

 

Some other thoughts

Technology-enhanced experience. I use technological tools wherever it makes sense to facilitate my goals. Examples: clickers, Connect, self-and-peer evaluation (Connect, peerScholar), scratch cards and live test grading, turnitin, videos

Integrated Course Design model. With each new course I’m developing, I’m getting better at applying Fink’s model. Basically, strive for alignment among course goals, learning assessments, and in-class experiences.

Email, RSS Follow
Email

Comments Off on Revising my Teaching Philosophy

Posted in from professional development activities, from the classroom

Tagged ,

Student Evaluations of Teaching 2012/2013: Part 2 Research Methods

Posted on June 25, 2013 | Comments Off on Student Evaluations of Teaching 2012/2013: Part 2 Research Methods

Thank you to each of my students who took the time to complete a student evaluation of teaching this year. I value hearing from each of you, and every year your feedback helps me to become a better teacher. As I explained here, I’m writing reflections on the qualitative and quantitative feedback I received from each of my courses.

Psyc 217: Research Methods

I went into this year especially excited about research methods, as I got to use a textbook with my own name on it! Wow, what a thrill! Perhaps reflecting this extra-potent boost of enthusiasm, my quantitative results were overwhelmingly positive this year. Interestingly, I seem to have connected especially effectively with my 10am section. Ratings from my 9am section were positive too (see the mint green bars on the graph linked above)… and on par with years past. But scores from my 10am section were the highest I’ve ever received (see the light purple bars on the graph)! Because I taught the two sections pretty much the same way, I’m not sure what can account for the difference. Suffice it to say, in my mind it was an especially awesome year… and many of my students seem to have felt that way too.

When I teach research methods, it’s often at 9 and 10 in the morning, and I do my very best every day to bring the energy. For many people, this material isn’t exactly inherently exciting. As one student wrote, “Based on what I’ve heard from friends and acquaintances at UBC, research methods is one of the most disliked courses offered at the university due to its sheer boringness.” Thankfully, this student continued, “that said, this instructor did a phenomenal job of teaching the course in a way that students found the material relevant and exciting (to the extent that this material can be exciting).” Such an assessment is the most common comment coming from my student evaluations in this course: Students expect this material to be dull, but I bring it alive. That’s exactly what I strive to do every single day. I’m satisfied that my well-caffeinated efforts are effective for my students.

A few other topics were noted by small subsets of students. Two topics drew ambivalent assessments: groupwork and in-class activities. People seem to have a love-hate relationship with groupwork. First, only a handful of people mentioned it at all, leading me to suspect that mostly people feel neutrally about it (perhaps recognizing its inherent challenges and strengths). The people who noted liking the team project still found it a lot of work, but recognized the value in it. The people who didn’t seem to work as well with teammates report viewing it as a frustrating waste of time. Each year I hear this dichotomous assessment. One thing I tried out last year in response to one particularly struggling group was a mediation meeting, during which I acted as mediator. It seemed to work well to get that group through effectively to the end of the course. To broaden this service and reach the struggling groups I don’t hear about, I am creating a form-based mediation request process for this year. That may sound like a cold approach, but I’ve given it much thought. After years of imploring people to come to me face-to-face to help solve their group challenges, I note that very few groups—or individuals struggling within groups—ever come to me. By formalizing this process, I hope to remove some of the emotion around “tattling,” and treat it as just another issue that needs to be dealt with, just like a grade change request. Hopefully this new process will help reach those extra few groups who are struggling on their own so they can move forward and perform well in group tasks.

In-class activities make material memorable, illustrate difficult concepts, up the energy and attention levels, and make learning fun. Every year, dozens of students report appreciating them. However, there is a small minority of students who don’t appreciate the time spent on these active learning adventures (yes, that’s the subtitle of my blog… see where I’m headed). I’m committed to student learning, and one of the hallmarks of my teaching philosophy is to get out of the way. And data supports my commitment to using active learning techniques (Armbruster, Patel, Johnson, & Weiss, 2009; Deslauriers, Schelew, & Wieman, 2011; Hake, 1998; Prince, 2004; Ruhl, Hughes, & Schloss, 1987; Yoder & Hochevar, 2005). I encourage people who are considering taking research methods or statistics with me (or any of my courses, really), to be ready to engage actively during class. If you’re not up for having fun while learning, my section might not be for you.

The last topic I’ll touch on is the textbooks. A few students noted how much they found my textbook worthwhile (yay!), with one student going so far as to say “I loved her book she wrote, very clear, informative, concise, probably the best textbook I ever used and read due to how clear it is to understand, with all the learning objectives.” I can’t take full credit for that readability (thanks to Cozby for laying such a strong foundation in his 10 prior editions!), yet I’m glad this text is being perceived as helpful. Unfortunately, the Stanovich text once again was voted unhelpful. The messages are useful, but even I find many examples dated and the chapters too lengthy for the points they make. Two years ago I wrote learning objectives and emphasized “get in, find what you need to know, and get out approach” in an attempt to make Stanovich’s text more accessible. Since then, there have been fewer complaints about Stanovich’s text, but a small, consistent group remain. I’ve been back-and-forth on this text for quite a while now, and I’m strongly considering replacing it with a few key peer reviewed articles/commentaries. I have some deep thinking to do in the coming weeks!

Many thanks to all my Psyc 217 students in 2012/2013 students who completed this evaluation. The response rate this year was 67% across both sections, which is my highest rate ever. And thanks to everyone for a really fun year of learning about research methods!

References

Armbruster, P., Patel, M. Johnson, E., & Weiss, M. (2009). Active learning and student-centred pedagogy improve student attitudes and performance in introductory biology. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 8, 203-213.

Deslauriers, L., Schelew, E., & Wieman, C. (2011). Improved learning in a large-enrollment physics class. Science, 332, 862-864.

Hake, R. (1998). Interactive-engagement vs. traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 66, 64-74.

Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education, 93, 223-231.

Ruhl, K., Hughes, C., & Schloss, P. (1987). Using the pause procedure to enhance lecture recall. Teacher Education and Special Education, 10, 14-18.

Yoder, J. D., & Hochevar, C. M. (2005). Encouraging active learning can improve students’ performance on examinations. Teaching of Psychology, 32, 91-95.

Email, RSS Follow
Email

Comments Off on Student Evaluations of Teaching 2012/2013: Part 2 Research Methods

Posted in from the classroom

Tagged , , , , , ,

Teaching of Psych Course Planning

Posted on November 13, 2012 | 2 comments

One of my projects this month is to finalize a syllabus for Psyc 508, a graduate course on the Teaching of Psychology (ToP). I’m very excited to be teaching this course — finally! I first designed a draft syllabus in 2008 (before I was even hired), and then in 2010 I submitted the course to be approved by the university Senate (and all levels in between: the psych department, Grad studies, and Arts). My teaching practice and views on teaching and learning have developed substantially over the past four years, so I took the opportunity to reflect on what kind of course I would have wanted four years ago — and what I know now that I wish I knew. What I have been striving to create is a balance between the practical, nuts-and-bolts everyday mechanics of teaching and the bigger picture goals and process of teaching and learning. Today, that vision changed a bit.

I’m starting to realize that much of what I do as a teacher is make decisions. That’s really what it comes down to. I make decisions about what policies to set and what to do when people push at them or request exemptions, I make decisions about what to teach and how to teach it to have the greatest chance of promoting learning, I make decisions in my lesson plans and in the classroom on the spot, I make decisions about exams and assignments including how much they’re worth, what is required, how they’re graded… I could go on, but you may be getting the picture. This leads me to my latest insight about this course:

I want to empower my graduate students to effectively instill learning in others, while making thoughtful, well-informed decisions about all aspects of their teaching practice.

If I can model, scaffold, and otherwise encourage my graduate students to make well-informed decisions in the interest of student learning (including consulting the literature and thoughtful colleagues), I think my course will have succeeded. Teaching isn’t about “nuts and bolts” on the one hand and a “bigger picture process” on the other. If one has a strong, thoughtful foundation of the bigger picture why of teaching and learning, plus a well-developed toolkit, then those millions of everyday decisions will not only be easier but there will be an authenticity and consistency across them. I look forward to thinking more deeply about these issues as I further plan this course on teaching. I think I have a very meta semester ahead of me!

Email, RSS Follow
Email

2 Comments

Posted in from professional development activities, on course design

Tagged , , ,

Why bother?

Posted on October 6, 2011 | 3 comments

Almost 600 students are enrolled in my classes this semester, and an additional 250 next semester. I will not be able to learn every single student’s name, at least not very well. But I try! And I suspect by the end of the term (end of the year for Psyc 100 — which goes until April), I’ll know a decent proportion of that large number. To do this, I constantly test myself, guessing and then asking students again (and sometimes again) until names stick. After answering a student’s question after class yesterday, she turned to go and I said, “…and it’s [her correct name!], right?” She turned and said yes, but with a puzzled look on her face. She said to me something like, “there are so many students, why do you bother trying to learn our names?”

Why do I bother trying to learn names??? The question caught me off guard. Startled, I stuttered, “well, because I care. I guess that’s what it comes down to.” It may sound trite, but I do care. I wish I could personally know every one of my students. I think that would enrich our classroom experience greatly. Indeed, the more students I get to know the more fascinating life stories I hear, and the more insight I get into what it means to be a student now, today — not more than a decade ago when I started my undergrad degree. I’ve felt the change in the classroom environment that happens when students realize I know who they are and remember them and notice when they’re not there that day. It motivates me in my teaching and lesson planning when I can think of the individuals who will be there, looking to me for guidance about what and how to learn. Of course, I can’t remember everyone. But I won’t stop trying. Because I care.

Email, RSS Follow
Email

3 Comments

Posted in from the classroom

Tagged , , ,

Reflecting on Student Evals, 2010-2011

Posted on June 24, 2011 | 2 comments

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.
I have offered these (lengthy!) reflections to you as evidence that I take student evaluations very seriously, and make real changes to my courses in response to them. Teaching psychology to learners is my passion and, I believe, my calling. I am delighted that so many students report valuing the way I teach and what I contribute to their university experience.
Email, RSS Follow
Email

2 Comments

Posted in from the classroom, on course design, Uncategorized

Tagged , , , , , , ,