© C LAUS B RABRAND [ 1 ] DAIMI, UNIVERSITY OF AARHUS, DENMARK N OV 04, 2005 Abstract The group of students that we are teaching is increasingly diversifying

© CLAUS BRABRAND[ 1 ]

DAIMI, UNIVERSITY OF AARHUS, DENMARK NOV 04, 2005

Abstract

The group of students that we are teaching is increasingly diversifying in terms of ability, background, and, perhaps most importantly, in terms of motivation. Coping with more heterogenous groups of students, essentially boils down to coping with less “academic”, less selected, and less motivated students (some of which are not even enrolled in their faculty of choice).

A challenge presents itself; namely, in the presence of such unfavorable factors:how to maintain a high standard of teaching/learning – and what does that mean?

The good news is that, not only is this possible, it is also relatively easy. It is not a matter of acquiring new teaching techniques (i.e., not “a bag of tricks”) so much as tapping the large, research derived, knowledge base on teaching/learning that already exists. Through reflective practice, teachers can then create and continually improve learning-effective teaching environments suited to their own context.

It is about…:- being professional about teaching (just like with research);- teaching teaching (just like we teach research); and- debating teaching (just like we debate our research).

“Introduction to University Studies in Education”

© CLAUS BRABRAND DAIMI, UNIVERSITY OF AARHUS, DENMARK NOV 04, 2005

CLAUS BRABRAND

© BRICS / DAIMI 2005

Department of Computer Science

University of Aarhus, Denmark

INTRODUCTION TO UNIVERSITY DIDACTICS

”Teaching/Learning: What the students do when we teach”



Talk Structure

Introduction: Empathy Teaching/Learning “Susan and Robert” “The SOLO Taxonomy” (cognitive levels) “Alignment” Definition: Good Teaching Beyond Good Grades Bonus Material:

A bit of Assessment Theory A bit of Evaluation Theory


INTRODUCTION

Empathy Teaching/Learning



Consider the following “alphabet” (60 secs):

Exercise: Now write my office phone#: 89425771 ?

Exercise 1

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

6. 7. 8. 9. 0.



Exercise 1 (cont’d)

Suppose I now showed you…:

Exercise: Now write my office phone#: 89425771 ?

1 2 3

4 5 6

7 8 9



Exercise 1 (cont’d)

So what is the point? Random information is really hard to remember We learn (efficiently) by associating (building)

new unknown information / with (on) old know known information

1. (One of the many) roles of the teacher is to build on known* knowledge (empathy)

2. Knowledge is constructed as a result of the learner’s activity

*/ assumed prior knowledge

Constructivism = base teaching on what the learner does



Empathy

About helping/teaching others:

Basically: empathy! Know/anticipate what your students know (/don’t know)!

"At man, når det i sandhed skal lykkes en at føre et menneske hen til et bestemt sted, først og fremmest må passe på at finde ham der, hvor han er, og begynde der.

Dette er hemmeligheden i al hjælpekunst. Enhver der ikke kan det, han er selv i indbildning, når han mener at kunne hjælpe en anden.

For i sandhed at kunne hjælpe en anden, må jeg forstå mere end han - men dog vel først og fremmest forstå det, han forstår. [ empathy! ]

Når jeg ikke gør det, så hjælper min mere-forståen ham slet ikke. Vil jeg alligevel gøre min mere-forståen gældende, så er det fordi jeg er forfærdelig stolt, så jeg i grunden i stedet for at gavne ham egentlig vil beundres af ham.”

-- “Brudstykker af en ligefrem meddelelse”, Kierkegaard, 1859



Running Example (Semantics’05)

Introduction [background]: Prerequisitional Math // 1 week

Part I: From imperative/functional SOS // 3

weeks

Part II: From SOS new formalism (CCS) // 1 week

Part III: From CCS program equivalences // 1 week

Practice [link to real world]: Semantics in Practice / Industry // 1 week


IMPERSONALIZATION

A language for teaching impersonalizes teaching



A taxonomy / language for teaching impersonalizes teaching

Emotional detachment (aka. “dissociation”) The teacher is good/bad

identity: good/bad teacher The methods are good/bad

knowledge: good/bad method behavior: good/bad method

With dissociation: more capable of dealing with critique better to listen

to constructive advice (…just like with our research)

Impersonalization

identityconvictio

nsknowledgebehavior

“Neutological levels”

[model of the mind, “NLP”]

ethics

experience

reactions


“SUSAN AND ROBERT”

Good student vs. Bad student

Depth learning vs. Surface learning



Let’s look in the Auditorium

Auditorium:

“Robert”

“Susan”

When is the

break …?

This is interestin

g …!



Consider two Students

Susan: Robert:

“It’s just the way the students are; either good or bad”

Note: this labelling (conveniently) defers reponsibility: In particular, we cannot do anything about it!

Good student

Bad student

“Good student–bad student” perspective



Levels of Thinking about Teaching

Level 1: what students are “Blame-the-students” (Good vs. bad students)

Exam = “sorting good from bad students - after teaching”

Level 2: what teachers do “Blame-the-teachers” (Good vs. bad teachers)

Acquiring an armoury of teaching techiques and tricks

Level 3: what students (should) do Maximize likelihood of students using depth learning Minimize likelihood of students using surface learning

process + productperspective(teaching outcome)



“Blame-the-Students”

Unfortunately a predominant view: “Blame-the-students”:

“My students are lacking the ability to learn…!” “Why won’t they learn the interesting bits?” “So many bad students; they just don’t understand!”

Deferring responsibility: “Nothing’s wrong with my teaching; I state things clearly!” “I taught them (right); they didn’t learn!”

Now, let’s instead: Focus on learning process and product:

“what the student (should) do”…



Two Relevant Quotes

”Learning takes place through the active behavior of the student: it is what he does that he learns, not what the teacher does.”

Ralph W. Tyler (1949)

”If students are to learn desired outcomes in a reasonably effective manner, then the teacher’s fundamental task is to get students to engage in learning activities that are likely to result in their achieving those outcomes. […] It is helpful to remember that what the student does is actually more important in determining what is learned than what the teacher does”

Thomas J. Shuell (1986)

“Level 3” perspective: Focussing on what the students (should) do:



Roles (Teaching/Learning Collaboration)

During course (first 7 weeks, for Qtr-courses): Teaching/Learning collaboration:

Student = “Learner” Learning responsibility

You = “Teacher” (To the best ability) aid students in learning

After the course (the exam period): Student = “Performer”

Demonstrate what (s)he has learned

You = “Evaluator” (Neutrally) assess the students level of understanding



Returning to Susan & Robert:

“Susan” Homo Sapiens Goal: likes to get to the

bottom of things; to reach understanding (often reflects about possibilities/ implications/applications..)

Characterized by: preference for depth

learning spontaneously uses the

higher cognitive processes basically teaches herself

(we almost cannot prevent her from learning)

“Robert” Homo Sapiens Goal: just wants to pass

exams; get a degree and get a decent job (doesn’t really care about learning in itself)

Characterized by: preference for surface

learning will only apply higher

cognitive processes if he really really has to

(will cut any corner)

Now we can do something about it (= Robert’s learning)!



Let’s return to the Auditorium…

Auditorium:

“Robert”

“Susan”

Wait, isn’t this the same as … except for … ?

Wait, is that a colon or a semi-colon ?*

*/ if he asks questions at all


COGNITIVE-LEVELS

“The SOLO Taxonomy”:

- to memorize, … vs …, to theorize



“The SOLO Taxonomy”

Cognitive levels of understanding: SOLO 5 (aka. “extended abstract”):

theorize, generalize, hypothesize, …

SOLO 4 (aka. “relational”): compare, analyse, relate, apply, …

SOLO 3 (aka. “multistructural”): enumerate, describe, perform algorithms, …

SOLO 2 (aka. “unistructural”): identify, memorize, simple procedures, …

SOLO 1 (aka. “prestructural”): no understanding: misses point !

dee

pe

r u

nd

erst

and

ing

surfaceunderstanding

depthunderstanding

Often, examiners and censors distinguish “good” and “bad” student performancebased directly on this taxonomy, and often, without being consciously aware of it!

S.O.L.O. (Structure of the Observed Learning Outcome)



SOLO (Elaborated) to apply to ”distant” problems to generalize to theorize to hypothesize to reflect to apply to ”near” problems to analyze to explain to argument to relate to compare to combine to classify to describe to identify to perform algorithms (do things) to recite (remember things)

extendedabstract

relational

(uni + multi)structural

SOLO 5

SOLO 4

SOLO 2+3

R

R2

R3

R1

R

xx

Graphic Illustration Legend

immediately relevant aspects extraordinary / aspects (putting into perspective) irrellevant aspects response (feedback on assignment)x

R

R’

x R

R’’

x


COURSE OBJECTIVES

What are the students expected to learn?



Course Objectives

“What are the students supposed to learn”? State explicitly (as verbs) the skills they are to acquire

Makes it clear what they are supposed to be able to do and they are able to check themselves against it

…and at which cognitive level: to hypothesize … // SOLO 5 to apply … // SOLO 4 to compare … // SOLO 4 to explain … // SOLO 3 to describe … // SOLO 3 to recite … // SOLO 2d

eep

er

un

der

stan

din

g



Example (Semantics’05)

Course Objectives (aim & goal)



Running Example (dSem’05)

Introduction: Prerequisitional Math // 1 week

Part I [describe/explain/analyze]: Structural Operational Semantics // 3

weeks

Part II [compare/reason]: Concurrency and Communication (CCS) // 1 week

Part III [compare/prove/apply]: Equivalence: Bisimulation and Games // 1 week

Practice: Imperative Features + Sem in Practice // 1 week


ALIGNMENT ()

Course objectives = exam assessment



Alignment ()

$2000 Question: “How do we make the students learn what we want

them to”?

Answer: “Alignment”:

Exam measurement := Course objectives ! …and tell the students (!)



Alignment () Unaligned Course: Aligned Course:

Teacher’sintention

Student’sactivity

Examassessment

Teacher’sintention

Student’sactivity

Examassessment

e.g.- explain- relate- prove- apply

e.g.- memorize- describe

e.g.- memorize

Phenomenography = learner’s perspective (not teacher’s intention) defines learning

“dealing with the test” CS: “it commutes”



Example (Semantics’05)

Assessment = Objectives (i.e., Alignment):


DEFINITION: GOOD TEACHING

Maximize #students doing (cognitively) high-level learning



Definition: “Good Teaching”

“Definition”:

“Teach so that Robert behaves like Susan”

Good news: You should now know how to do this:

Explicitly defined course objectives (as verbs) Alignment!!! discourage surface-learning encourage depth-learning “Less is more”: depth rather than breadth of coverage ()

”Good teaching is getting most students to use the higher cognitive level processes that the more academic students use spontaneously”

-- “Teaching for Quality Learning at University”, John Biggs, 2003



Year 2030

Susan and Robert graduated 20 years ago (and both became teachers):

Susan has 20 years of teaching experience Reflective teacher (aka. “reflective practitioner”) i.e., reflects before, during, and after teaching courses

Robert has 1 year of teaching experience (repeated 19 times)…

Ok no need to change Bad Blame-the-students / blame-the-administration


MOTIVATION BEYOND GRADES

Explain how the knowledge may impact “daily life” (which advantages)



Motivation Beyond the Exam

Motivational problem (why bother learn it?): Tell them why it is important to learn these things…

What would they be able to do (with the investment) How could it benefit them in their work/life/…

Example (from Semantics)…



Example (Semantics’05)Program world

Model world

ConcreteAbstract

~

P

P’

M

M’

1. P ~ P’ ?2. abstract

3. M ~ M’ ?

4. relate

5. M ~ M’ !6. concretize7. P ~ P’ !

What discerns a really good programmer from one that is not so good is the capability of moving (consciously or unconsciously) between the concrete world of programs and the abstract world of semantic models (via abstraction and concretization).

Specifically, such a programmer is capable of (consciously or unconsciously): - 1) abstracting programs into models - 2) reasoning about the models - 3) concretizing the insights back into the world of programs



Example (Semantics’05) cont’d



Notes on Skill Acquisition

From the world of psychoanalysis [Maslow]: Skill acquisition progresses according to the following

cognitive steps: 1. Unconscious incompetence 2. Conscious incompetence 3. Conscious competence 4. Unconscious competence

5. Capacity for moving consciously between 3 and 4: (required by a teacher)



Should be blatantly obvious, but here goes: Correlation (general principle):

Investment ~ Benefit Example:

Studying ~ Exam result

Main Entry: os·mo·sis Pronunciation: äz-'mO-s&s, äs-Function: nounEtymology: New Latin, short for endosmosis1 : movement of a solvent through a semipermeable membrane (as of a living cell) […]2 : a process of absorption […] usually effortless often unconscious assimilation <learned a number of languages by osmosis >

Active Learning vs. Passive Learning (aka. Learning-by-Osmosis)

Active vs. Passive Learning



Learn by Osmosis

It’s Amazing…

Do Active Learning: Study = read + make exercises + reflect !

“Learn while you sleep!”

“The Semantics Pillow”

Only$19,95


ASSESSMENT THEORY

Norm-Referenced Assessment

Criterion-Referenced Assessment



Assessment (Exam)

“Norm-Referenced Assessment” Relative grading (aka. “bell-curve grading”)

Comparing students against each other

“Criterion-Referenced Assessment” Absolute grading

Relative to (objective) course objectives


EVALUATION THEORY

Parameters: evaluator, time, method, application, standard, criterium, evaluee



Evaluation Theory

1. Evaluator The students fill out

2. Time at the end of the lectures (and before the exam)

3. Method a questionnaire

4. Application so that the teacher and the administration can measure

5. Standard if satisfactorily and to which degree

6. Criterium among the students there has been:- the course overall;- the teacher (and TAs);- exercises; and- materials

7. Evaluee as a result of the teaching and the teachers(…in conjunction with understanding Semantics)

Student Satisfaction (“tilfredshedsundersøgelse”):



Evaluation Theory

1. Evaluator The students fill out

2. Time at the end of the lectures (and before the exam)


4. Application so that the teacher and the administration can measure

5. Standard if satisfactorily and to which degree

6. Criterium among the students there has been initiated:- high-level activity;- responsibility for own learning;- new knowledge and competences; and- autonomous thinking

7. Evaluee as a result of the teaching process

Cognitive-level & Academic (from Middle Georgia College):



Evaluation Theory

1. Evaluator The students and teachers fill out

2. Time around half-way into the course


4. Application so that the teacher and students can exchange experiences and opinions on

5. Standard if optimal

6. Criterium teaching has been supported

7. Evaluee by the teaching process

Teaching/Learning Cooperation (from Political Science, AU):


THANKS FOR YOUR ATTENTION!


BONUS SLIDES



Relevant Question

Extremely relevant question!

“Is this going to be on the exam?”



*Scratch*

Universities have changed:- central management, economic and political considerations- “More Roberts than Susans”

Add Teacher metaphores:- tankpasser (passive students)- gardener (passive students)- entertainer (passive, dazzled, students)- constructor/scaffolding (w/ blue-prints = plans)



The Bloom Taxonomy

An alternative cognitive-level taxonomy:

The Bloom Taxonomy: 6. Evaluation 5. Synthesis 4. Analysis 3. Application 2. Comprehension 1. Knowledge d

eep

er

un

der

stan

din

g



Learning Curves



(My Personal) Bag of Tricks

“Bag of Tricks”: Positive (and respectful) answers Reflective timeout (1-2 minutes neighbor discussion)

Questions sanctioned (“approved” as relevant by neighbor)

Better questions (they thought and talked about them)

Jokes (to ease atmosphere) Competitions (to stimulate creativity+provide incentive) Variation (to keep interest and focus) Interaction (to activate the students) Metaphores (to associate with prior known knowledge) Breaks-by-need* (*/ not your need)

However, for these kind of things:ask somebody with more teaching experience…

Mazur: peer-instruction



Book Recommendation

Book Recommendation:

“Teaching for Quality Learning at University” John Biggs, 2003



Thanks

Thanks to the teachers from “Universitetspædagogisk Netværk”:

Berit Eika Helle Bøgebjerg Jens Dørup Hanne Leth Andersen Anne Mette Mørcke Simon Olling Rebsdorf Dorte Sidelmann Poul V. Thomsen Torben K. Jensen

…for teaching me about (good) teaching. :)

Documents

© C LAUS B RABRAND [ 1 ] DAIMI, UNIVERSITY OF AARHUS, DENMARK N OV 04, 2005 Abstract The group of students that we are teaching is increasingly diversifying