Blog

Thank you Jan!

Blog, miscellaneous topics Leave a comment

Below is a short speech I prepared as a public ‘thank-you’ to Janice Johnson, my long-time mentor. Jan retired from the Centre for Teaching, Learning and Technology in 2016, after a long career there.

****

test

Photo of Janice Johnson (taken by Gabriel Lascu)

Jan hired me as a graduate student assistant to work on a teaching portfolio initiative at the teaching and learning centre, then called TAG.

At that time, I had never heard of a teaching portfolio nor of a teaching and learning centre.

Does that mean Jan was a poor decision maker?

No, it means she was (and remains) an outstanding mentor.

Dear Jan,

It is my pleasure to be able to thank you publicly today.

You have shaped my professional life in significant ways and mentored me in the field of educational development for over a decade.

You introduced me to a pocket of academic culture that I was unfamiliar with as a graduate student. I only knew a culture of fierce competition and one-upmanship. At the teaching and learning centre, people shared openly, supported one another, and collaborated meaningfully. And, this is the approach you took with me and others you have hired and worked with.

Over the years, you have introduced me to a host of communities and projects…instructional skills network, bc teaching and learning folks, peer review of teaching, to name a few.  You identified opportunities I was often unaware of and gently invited me in, honouring the fact that I tend to be cautious and seek information before making decisions.

I have learned so much from our conversations and from watching you—from near and afar—“facilitate with ease”. Your skills as a facilitator are ever so masterful and have been revealed to me over time, as my awareness of facilitation has grown.

You are a generous leader, who has never, ever, EVER turned me away when I’ve knocked on your door with “do you have a few minutes?”.

Once you’re not longer at CTLT, I will walk past your door and think of you. And, as a nod to the wrap up in the peer review of teaching workshop that we co-facilitated so many times together, here is my top 10 about Jan:

  • Encouraging
  • Learner
  • Leader
  • Teacher
  • Loyal
  • Perspective-seeker
  • Community-builder
  • Music enthusiast
  • Family-oriented
  • Dog lover

Big ideas and course design

Blog, , Leave a comment

 

“A big idea must have pedagogical power: It must enable the learner to make sense of what has come before; and, most notably, be helpful in making new, unfamiliar ideas seem more familiar….a big idea is not just another fact or a vague abstraction but a conceptual tool for sharpening thinking, connecting discrepant pieces of knowledge, and equipping learners for transferable applications.”

(Wiggins & McTighe, 2005, p.70)

dandelion

Below are some notes on the concept of “Big Ideas,” as presented in Understanding by Design. This information is part of the Course Design Intensive, a 3-day workshop for university instructors seeking to design or re-design a course.

Big ideas are at the core of a subject/field. They are often abstract, non-obvious, and counterintuitive to the novice (Note 1). Big ideas are essential for making coherent connections in a field and are a conceptual anchor that makes facts more understandable and useful (p.80).

A big idea can manifest in various formats (phrase, words, question etc). In pedagogical practice, a big idea may appear as a helpful:

  • concept (e.g. adaptation, perspective)
  • theme (e.g. “coming of age”)
  • on-going debate and point of view (e.g. nature versus nurture, conservatives vs liberals)
  • paradox (e.g. freedom must have limits)
  • theory (e.g. evolution vs natural selection, social constructivism)
  • underlying assumption (e.g. markets are rational)
  • recurring question (e.g. “Can we provide it?” “Is that fair?”) 
  • understanding or principles (e.g. correlation does not ensure causality, the reader has to question the text to understand it)  (p.70)

From the above examples, we can see that big ideas are:

  • broad and abstract
  • represented by few words
  • universal in application
  • timeless (p.69)

In summary, a big idea:

  • provides a conceptual lens
  • provides breadth of meaning by connecting and organizing many facts, skills and experiences
  • points to ideas that are at the heart of expert understanding of the subject/field
  • requires “uncoverage” because its meaning or value is rarely obvious to learner
  • applies to many other inquiries and issues over time (great transfer value) (p.69)

 

 

Note 1: Wiggins & McTighe distinguish big ideas from basic ideas. The latter, they write, are “the basis for further work; for example, definitions, building-block skills, and rules of thumb.” (p.67).

Basic term Core idea
Graph “Best fit” curve of the data
Ecosystem Natural selection
Fact versus opinion Credible thesis

 

Photo credit: Stephanie Carter, “dandelion” https ://flic.kr/p/349d57

Starting a mastermind group

Blog, miscellaneous topics, , , Leave a comment

I first heard the term “Mastermind Groups” in the Coaching for Leaders podcast approximately 8 months ago. Since I am thinking about starting one, but wasn’t clear on how these differed or were the same as other support groups, I did some reading on the topic and wanted share what I have learned.

Graphic Conversation

What is a mastermind group?

A mastermind group is created when two or more people come together to work towards a purpose. Individual members set goals and seek to accomplish these. Meetings provide support in a group setting and often involve feedback, brainstorming, sharing resources and peer accountability.

How is a mastermind group different from group coaching?

Mastermind groups draw on the wisdom of the group and allow individual members to benefit from everyone’s feedback, support and advice. The facilitator, if there is one, helps with the process and conditions to support the group. In group coaching, the mentor/facilitator coaches individuals in a group setting.

Determine a focus

A mastermind group works best when there is a clear focus. Whether you are starting a group or joining one, you’ll want to think carefully about this piece as it affects the success and sustainability of the group and its membership.

Selecting members for your mastermind group

I have belonged to various ‘support groups’ (i.e., writing groups, PhD cohort, and others), and, based on that experience and according to what I have read on mastermind groups, the who matters a lot.

In a successful mastermind, members have:

Your screening process may be more formal or less so, depending on your preference. Members should be clear (to the extent that they can) on what they hope to get from/contribute to the group.

How many members should you have?

Several posts (e.g., Lifehack and ChristineKane) suggest masterminds should be composed only of a small group of 3-6 people. In my experience, a group of 6 can work when you have a set meeting day/time (i.e., every Friday at 1 pm) and group of 3 is better when people’s schedules vary and you find yourself having to alter the meeting times.

Structuring and running a mastermind group

Mastermind groups may meet weekly, every two weeks or once a month. Scheduling meetings in advance is advisable, meeting less than once a month isn’t. Your conversations can be in person, by phone, or online.

Overall, your meetings will be guided by your “unifying purpose”. In his post about mastermind groups, Michael Hyatt suggests the following structure:

  • each member shares their highs and lows from the week/month (15 minutes)
  • one member gets the “hot seat” meaning they get focussed attention and time during which they discuss a particular issue, can benefit from the group’s input, and strategize (30 minutes)
  • each member determines and shares one action to which she wants to be held accountable (15 minutes)

Others (Savara at Lifehack, Karyn Greenstreet at the Success Alliance), however, suggest that every member should be in the “hot seat” at every meeting. If you choose this option, time in the hot seat needs to be shortened to keep meetings to a reasonable time.

My next steps

As mentioned at the start of this post, I wrote this because I have an interest in starting/joining a mastermind group related either to writing or to doing educational consulting as a “side gig” (as Dr. Katie Linder calls it). The accountability aspect of masterminds appeals to me at this time and the focus on a common purpose because I think both of these matter a great deal to the success of the individual and group.

***

In writing this post, I have discovered there are many resources on the internet about starting and running a mastermind group.  Some additional resources that I have not linked to above include:

You’ve Got This Podcast by Dr. Katie Linder (Thank you Katie for inspiring this post!)

Go Beyond Simple Networking and Organize your own Mastermind Group

 

Photo credit: Marc Wathieu, Flickr, Graphic Conversation https: //flic.kr/p/5xi8KT

 

Small Group Instructional Feedback

Blog, , , Leave a comment

I conducted a small group instructional feedback (SGIF) session last week. In this post, I share on the process I used for the in-class portion.

Writing? Yeah.

SGIF is a formative, mid-course check-in process for gathering information from students on their learning experience. Like with all mid-course evaluations, the advantage is that the instructor can respond to the information gathered during the course (unlike with the end-of-course evaluations, for which the information gathered from students can only be applied to a future offering of a course). SGIF is initiated by the instructor and helps foster dialogue between the instructor and students.

If you were to search on the internet, you would find there are many ways to conduct a SGIF. Here is what I opted for once the instructor and I had met to discuss aspects of her teaching and pre-arranged a date/time for the SGIF.

1. Instructor introduces me and leaves the room (she had, the class before, told students this process would take place).

2. I thank the students and let them know a bit more about me and what this is about. Things I say include:

  • I work with faculty members across campus on enhancing teaching and learning.
  • Your instructor has requested this process, which will give her feedback on her teaching in this course.

3. I outline the overall process. Points covered include:

  • You are going to answer some questions individually, then in small groups. Within the next few days, I will share your comments with the instructor anonymously [she will not see your writing or original papers]. Your instructor will report back to you on your feedback and her reflections/decisions within the next week or so.
  • Unlike end-of-course student evaluations of teaching, this process allows the instructor to respond right away–so you (all) get to benefit directly from this.

4. I encourage students to be constructive in their feedback. I mention:

  • Inviting me to class to do this takes a lot of courage on your instructor’s part. As you’re answering these questions, please be constructive and specific. This is not an opportunity to lash out in frustration, but rather to be professional and helpful in giving feedback that will help make your experience in this course even better.

[all the above takes approximately 5 minutes]

5. Students individually respond to the following three questions, which I have copied onto a 1/2 page of paper and distributed to each student. [5 minutes]

  • In what ways has your instructor been supporting your learning in this course?Please give examples.
  • How could your instructor support your learning more effectively in this course? Please give examples.
  • Other comments you would like to make about the course and/or instructor that might strengthen your learning in this course.

6. Students get into groups of 3-5 and individually share their responses to the first question only. Then, they find at least 2 points on which they all agree (for the first question). They write these down on the group sheet. [5 minutes]

7. They repeat the above process for Question 2. [5 minutes]

8. As a whole class, each group shares out loud on one of their consensus points for Question 1.  They do the same for Question 2. [5 minutes]

9. If time allows, and in their small groups only, they find consensus points for Question 3.

10. I thank the class and gather all the papers.

I am done within 1/2 hour and the instructor returns.

The SGIF process involves several more steps, but this post looks only at the in-class portion.  If you’d like to find out more, I encourage you to visit:

 

Photo by Caleb Roenigk: https: //flic.kr/p/brNqFE

Calibrated Peer Review: An introduction

Blog, , , Leave a comment

Student

I am enthusiastically involved in a project in which I am helping instructors implement writing assignments that use student peer feedback into their courses (see note 1). I am loving this initiative and the learning; plus, it is a neat extension of the work I have been doing on peer review of teaching.

Today’s post is a brief introduction to Calibrated Peer Review (CPR), a web-based writing and peer review tool that is being used in one of the re-designed courses.

Calibrated Peer Review (CPR) automates the process of distributing writing assignments to the students and then manages a peer review process that involves four steps, in which students:

  1. Submit a writing assignment
  2. Undergo a process whereby their review skills are calibrated
  3. Review peers’ writing, and
  4. Assess their own writing assignment

The instructor need not grade the assignments and the CPR system automatically compiles grades (Likkel, 2012; Schneider, 2015).

According to the CPR website, compelling reasons to use CPR include that it:

  • Allows students to hone their writing skills
  • Helps student learn to use higher-order thinking skills (in the writing and review process)
  • Promotes students’ critical thinking abilities
  • Encourages students to gain a deeper understanding of the topic and discipline
  • Reduces time needed by instructors to grade

With the exception of the last point, research on the CPR has drawn varied conclusions about the effectiveness of CPR for the above.

Some of the questions that remain inconclusive in the literature are:

  • Do the students’ writing skills improve?
  • Does engaging in the process promote students’ conceptual understanding of X?
  • Do students feel more confident as writers?
  • Do students’ believe the CPR process helped them augment their conceptual understanding of X and/or become better writers?

I cannot yet comment on the above from personal experience because the CPR assignment I have been working on launches next week.  I can attest to the fact that, though instructor load may be lightened overall (i.e., when CPR is used in multiple assignments and/or in next iterations of the same course), the time involved in getting to know CPR and setting up the assignment has been significant.

Note 1: The project I am working on is a Teaching and Learning Enhancement Fund granted initiative. See here and search for “Bradley” (the principal investigator) for brief information about that TLEF.

References:

Likkel, L. (2012). Calibrated Peer Review™ essays increase student confidence in assessing their own writing. Journal of College Science Teaching, 41(3), 42-47.

Schneider, S. C. (2015). Work in progress: Use of Calibrated Peer Review to improve report quality in an electrical engineering laboratory.  Paper presented at the 2015 American Society for Engineering Education Zone III Conference, Springfield, MO.

Overview of Calibrated Peer Review (2016). Retrieved from http://cpr.molsci.ucla.edu/Overview.aspx

Photo by CollegeDegrees360 https: //flic.kr/p/cEJnWs, CC BY-SA 2.0