Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
TLS
Prof. Cynthia Weston, Director
Jennie Ferris, Project Administrator
Adam Finkelstein, Educational Developer
Teaching and Learning Services, McGill University
University of Alberta - April 16 2010
ARCHITECTURE AS PEDAGOGY: A new access point for enhancing teaching and learning
“We have assumed… that learning takes place in buildings, but that none occurs as a result of how they are designed…. buildings have their own hidden curriculum that teaches as effectively as any course taught in them.”
Orr, D. (2004) Earth in Mind. Washington: Island Press. (p. 112)
Examine the following pictures
What messages about learning
are communicated by these classrooms?
8/1/2011 3
Overview
Three phases of teaching and learning space development
a) Refocusing classroom design
b) Low risk, incremental change
c) Informed risk, transformative change
Evaluation: Multiple levels of impact on teaching and learning
a) Institutional level
b) Faculty/department level
c) Instructors and students in the classroom
8/1/2011 6
TLS
Phase 1: 2005-2006
Re-focusing classroom design
PART 1: Three phases of teaching and learning space development
Teaching and Learning Spaces Working Group (TLSWG)
Created and championed by the Provost
Membership Co -Chairs - Director of Teaching and Learning Services &
Director of Campus Planning
Reps from all Faculties, student associations, stakeholder service units
Mandate A vision for teaching and learning space development
Standards based on sound pedagogical and technical principles.
Steward funding for classroom renovations and IT (2M)
8/1/2011 8
A pedagogical framework for classroom design
What do we know about teaching and learning?
How can this be translated into principles for classroom design?
8/1/2011 9
Teaching centered Learning centered
Content What do I want to teach? How can I cover the content?
What do the students need to learn? How can I help the students reach the learning goals?
Transfer knowledge to students
Teacher Facilitates student’s construction of knowledge
Learner Receives information Actively engaged
Strategies Based on desired learning
Emphasis on active practice, collaboration and feedback
Based on content delivery Emphasis on information transmission - lecture, demonstration.
Adapted from: Barr and Tagg, 1995; Biggs, 2003; Entwistle,2000; Kember and Kwan, ; Whetten, 2007
Teaching centered Learning centered Le
arn
ing
Ap
pro
ach
Surface Deep
Intention to reproduce content
Search for understanding
Receive information passively Interact critically with content
Biggs, 2003; Entwistle, 2000; Prosser, Trigwell and Waterhouse, 1999.
TEACHING APPROACH
Learn course content for exam
Link course content to previous experience
Short term retention Long term retention
8/1/2011 12
Principles for Teaching and Learning Space Design
• Level of Academic Challenge
• Active and collaborative learning • Student-faculty interaction
• Enriching educational experiences • Supportive campus environment Adapted from: Benchmarks of effective educational practice. National Survey of Student Engagement.
http://nsse.iub.edu/pdf/nsse_benchmarks.pdf. Retrieved Sept 10, 2008.
8/1/2011 13
1. Active and Collaborative Learning
Flexible furniture that promotes collaboration Work surfaces
– Adequate for laptops and papers
Information sharing – Collaborative areas - writable walls – Collaborative technologies - screen sharing
– Flexible computer access (laptops, desktops, internet)
8/1/2011 14
University of Guelph 8/1/2011 15
University of Chicago
Pennsylvania State University
2. Student - Faculty Interaction
Diminish barriers • Smaller podium to reduce separation and power
relationship
• Professors not anchored to ‘front’ of room
• Professor and students can move about easily
Promote communication • Screen sharing to promote shared responsibility for
learning
• Acoustics so instructor can hear all students, and students can hear all other students
8/1/2011 18
University of Melbourne 8/1/2011 19
McGill 8/1/2011 20
McGill
8/1/2011 21
McGill 8/1/2011 22
Sound board: reflects instructor’s voice to students
Two types of acoustic tiles: Prevent echo, allow students to
hear each other
McGill 8/1/2011 23
3. Supportive campus environment
Livability – Ventilation
– Temperature
– Comfortable furnishings
– Inviting and welcoming aesthetics
– Storage for coats and bags
– Natural and variable light
Sustainability and maintainability – Design for life cycle of building.
– Can be adapted to new uses at a reasonable cost.
– Re-use and recycle
– Encourage use of sustainable materials, building practices, and technologies.
– Design with operating costs in mind for service and maintenance
8/1/2011 24
TLS
Phase 2: 2006-2008
Low risk, incremental change
Starting where people are – Improve lecture theatres
– Respect traditional teaching approaches
– Maintain (where possible) seating capacity
Getting buy-in from all stakeholders – Promotion of ‘Principles’ (Committees, Facilities, Senior admin)
– Inclusive ‘Design teams’
– Controversial; push back on every room
– “Won’t fund if doesn’t respect the ‘Principles’”
Developing process and criteria for prioritizing – Faculty priorities
– Room use statistics
– Site visits
– TLSWG consensus 8/1/2011 26
Leacock 26 Before
8/1/2011 27
Leacock 26 After
New ventilation, better lighting, comfortable seating, smaller podium.
8/1/2011 28
Stewart N2/2 Larger aisles, two rows per tier,
large work surfaces, movable chairs, color, smaller podium
8/1/2011 29
SADB 112 Before
8/1/2011 30
SADB 112 After
Larger aisles, larger work surfaces, rotating chairs, power for laptops,
smaller podium, ventilation
8/1/2011 31
• NSSE scores lower than we’d like in ACL & SFI
• Renos not meeting all the ‘Principles’
• Needed more comprehensive support system for instructors to adapt their teaching approaches
• Wanted post-occupancy evaluation
8/1/2011 32
TLS
Phase 3: 2008-2010
Informed risk, transformative change
Learning from practice and research – SCALE-UP
• Student-Centered Active Learning Environment for Undergraduate Programs; 45+ across N. America
– Research (e.g., NCSU)
– compared 16,000 traditional and SCALE-UP students:1
– Problem solving, conceptual understanding increased
– Failure rates reduced; "At risk" students did better
1 NC State University (2007). “About the SCALE-UP Project”. <http://www.ncsu.edu/per/scaleup.html>
8/1/2011 34
SCALE-UP Active Learning Classroom
University of Minnesota 8/1/2011 35
Pushing the limits – Decision to redesign 3 existing classrooms as ALC
– ‘No one will want to teach in there’
– “It’s a lot of money. Better make it work”
8/1/2011 36
Lower Campus (Science bldg.)
8/1/2011 37
Upper Campus (Education bldg.)
8/1/2011 38
Implementation strategy
– Survey of what others have done to support teaching
– Select interested instructors who had potential to succeed in this environment
– Multiple disciplines
– ‘How can I teach in this room?’
– Provide range of support (pedagogical/technical)
• Group orientations, workshops
• In class student tech assistant for first 3 weeks
• Phone support rest of semester
• Ongoing individual consultations - on and off site
– Evaluate
8/1/2011 39
TLS
PART 2: Evaluation: Multiple levels of impact on teaching and learning
Institutional level – TLSWG includes all stakeholders in decision-making (40+people) – Pedagogy drives funding for renovations and technical upgrades. – Public and transparent process has reduced territoriality ( ‘site visit
effect’) – Integrated design teams (architects, services, faculties) – Greater student voice in classroom design – More comprehensive teaching support system emerging – Classrooms increasingly shared across faculties – centrally booked – More requests to teach than can be accommodated (now 7 faculties)
Faculty/departmental level – New access point for discussing teaching and learning with academic
administrators and profs we wouldn’t usually connect with – Funding criteria influencing value placed on active and collaborative
learning, sharing facilities – Greater voice on classroom design
8/1/2011 41
Instructors and students in an ALC
– Students : “The space does not make us learn better; it’s the teaching methods that really makes the difference.”
– Some preliminary data from instructors and students
8/1/2011 42
Questions Agree/
Strongly agree
1. The classroom encourages interaction between students
and instructors.
6/6
2. The classroom encourages student collaboration. 6/6
3. The classroom enhances student active engagement
with the learning materials.
5/6
3. The room facilitates student active participation and
engagement in classroom activities.
6/6
3. The room has a positive impact on student learning. 6/6
ALC Fall 2009 - 6 Instructors Scale : 1=strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree
8/1/2011 43
Questions Agree/
Strongly agree
1. The classroom encourages interaction between students
and instructors.
89%
2. The classroom encourages student collaboration. 91%
3. The classroom enhances student active engagement with
the learning materials.
87%
3. The room facilitates student active participation and
engagement in classroom activities.
88%
3. The room has a positive impact on student learning. 82%
ALC Fall 2009 - 232 students Scale : 1=strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree
8/1/2011 44
Video clips
Rough cuts just done in April
Instructors and students from multiple faculties - – Carolyn Samuel - Fundamentals of Academic Writing
– Linda Fraser - Behavior in Organizations
– Tina Piper – Common Law Property
– Students (eg Mike from Law)
8/1/2011 45
Images of Teaching and Learning in an ALC (April 2010)
8/1/2011 46
Student Reflecting on Learning in an ALC (April 2010)
8/1/2011 47
Citation list
Biggs, J. (2003). Teaching for Quality Learning at University. Buckingham: The Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press.
Dori, Y.J. and Belcher, J. (2004). How Does Technology-Enabled Active Learning Affect Undergraduate Students’ Understanding of Electromagnetism Concepts? The Journal of the Learning Sciences 14(2). Accessed 6 March 2009. p. 1 <http://web.mit.edu/edtech/casestudies/pdf/teal1.pdf>.
Entwistle, N. (2000) Promoting deep learning through teaching and assessment: conceptual frameworks and educational contexts [online]. (Paper presented at TLRP Conference, Leicester, November 2000). [Accessed 6 December 2001].
Pellathy, S. and Leibovich, A.K. (2008). Implementing proven introductory physics reforms. [draft]. Accessed 6 march 2009. p.2 <http://scaleup.ncsu.edu/groups/adopters/wiki/15c1e/attachments/ca7e3/BemaStudy.pdf>.
Trigwell, K., Prosser, M. and Waterhouse, F. (1999). Relations between teachers’ approaches to teaching and students’ approaches to learning. Higher Education, 37, 57-70.
University of Minnesota. “Active Learning Classrooms Pilot Evaluation: Fall 2007 Findings and Recommendations”. p. 2. Accessed 12 March 2009. <http://www.classroom.umn.edu/ALC_Report_Final.pdf>.
8/1/2011 48
Supplemental Slides
8/1/2011 49
Evidence of Effectiveness: SCALE-UP and Active Learning Classrooms
MIT / Israel Institute of Technology: Technology-Enabled Active Learning (TEAL)
• Media-rich learning environment in a redesigned classroom intended to “facilitate group interaction”
• Failure rate decreased from 13% in control (non-TEAL) group to <5% in experimental (TEAL) group.
• Conceptual understanding scores for students identified as high-achievers improved for TEAL Group from 60% to 83% in Fall 2001 compared with an improvement for Traditional format group from 57% to 61% in Spring 2002.
University of Pittsburgh
• Physics –Brief Electricity and Magnetism Assessment (BEMA) – multiple choice test used to evaluate students’ comprehension of broad topics within the discipline.
• “Striking gains” between pre-assessment and post-assessment on the BEMA, for SCALE-UP 65% score compared to score of 34% for a representative traditional lecture).
• Student attendance in class was notably consistent.
University of Minnesota
• Active Learning Classrooms (ALC) for electrical engineering/computer science and biological sciences
• 98% of students surveyed reported that the ALC environment was student-oriented.
• 85%+ students recommended the ALC space for their other classes.
• ALCs were “very well received by both the instructors and students” ________________________________________________________________
Dori, Y.J. and Belcher, J. (2004).
How Does Technology-Enabled Active Learning Affect Undergraduate Students’ Understanding of Electromagnetism Concepts? The Journal of the Learning Sciences 14(2). Accessed 6 March 2009. p. 1 <http://web.mit.edu/edtech/casestudies/pdf/teal1.pdf>.
Pellathy, S. and Leibovich, A.K. (2008). Implementing proven introductory physics reforms. [draft]. Accessed 6 march 2009. p.2
<http://scaleup.ncsu.edu/groups/adopters/wiki/15c1e/attachments/ca7e3/BemaStudy.pdf>.
University of Minnesota. “Active Learning Classrooms Pilot Evaluation: Fall 2007 Findings and Recommendations”. p. 2. Accessed 12 March 2009. <http://www.classroom.umn.edu/ALC_Report_Final.pdf>. 8/1/2011 50
TLS
What is the state of pedagogical and technical support for active learning classrooms at other institutions?
Survey • E-Survey June 1-8, 2009
• Survey questions (see handout)
• Distributed to: – EDUCAUSE LEARNINGSPACES
– EDUCAUSE INSTTECH
– POD
– SCALE-UP website - 51 contact individuals
• Respondents =51 with experience in ALC in higher education
8/1/2011 52
What services does your university offer to support Customized course design? (N=51)
One-to-one consultation 68.6% (35/51)
Workshops 60.8% (31/51)
On-location tech support 47.1% (24/51)
Orientation 35.3% (18/51)
Observation of others 31.4% (16/51)
None 11.8% (6/51)
Other 11.8% (6/51)
Online discussion 5.9% (3/51)
8/1/2011 53
Development of course materials (N=50)
Workshops 74.0% (37/50)
One-to-one consultation 70.0% (35/50)
On-location tech support 42.0% (21/50)
Observation of others 36.0% (18/50)
Orientation 28.0% (14/50)
Other 18.0% (9/50)
Online discussion 8.0% (4/50)
None 6.0% (3/50)
8/1/2011 54
Development of strategies encouraging student collaboration (N=51)
Workshops 66.7% (34/51)
One-to-one consultation 66.7% (34/51)
Observation of others 35.3% (18/51)
On-location tech support 35.3% (18/51)
Orientation 23.5% (12/51)
None 11.8% (6/51)
Online discussion 9.8% (5/51)
Other 9.8% (5/51)
8/1/2011 55
Assessment of student learning (N=51)
One-to-one consultation 60.8% (31/51) Workshops 56.9% (29/51) Observation of others 23.5% (12/51) On-location tech support 23.5% (12/51) None 19.6% (10/51) Orientation 15.7% (8/51) Other 11.8% (6/51) Online discussion 5.9% (3/51)
8/1/2011 56
Use of technology (N=51)
One-to-one consultation 74.5% (38/51) On-location tech support 74.5% (38/51) Workshops 72.5% (37/51) Observation of others 45.1% (23/51) Orientation 41.2% (21/51) Online discussion 19.6% (10/51) Other 13.7% (7/51) None 2.0% (1/51)
8/1/2011 57
Training provided in the use of technologies (N=50)
Provided for professors and students 60.0% (30/50)
Provided for professors only 34.0% (17/50)
Provided for neither professors nor students 4.0% (2/50)
Provided for students only 2.0% (1/50)
8/1/2011 58
University departments (or equivalents) that provide support
Teaching and Learning Service
Instructional Technology Service
Professors / peers who have taught in ALC
Other Unknown
Course design 60.4% 43.8% 50.0% 2.1% 10.4%
Course materials 52.0% 42.0% 64.0% 2.0% 2.0%
Strategies for collaboration
62.0% 36.0% 58.0% 4.0% 4.0%
Assessment 62.5% 31.3% 45.8% 12.5% 6.3%
Use of technology 42.0% 80.0% 48.0% 8.0% 0%
8/1/2011 59
Top Advice From ALC Practitioners (N=35)
Train and support faculty through faculty learning communities (6)
Experienced ALC faculty act as mentors and help plan / deliver support (6)
Establish professor buy-in; be aware of potential resistance, engage hesitant instructors (6)
Need for classroom observations (home and other universities) (5)
Explain the ALC process, value for profs, challenges (4)
8/1/2011 60
Use by multiple faculties
• Fall 2009 (9 courses ; 3 faculties)
• Winter 2010 (12 courses; 7 faculties )
8/1/2011 61
