AspectsoftheCourseMostCritical forStudentUnderstanding
During the past four years I have introduced service-learning into my psychology course as a way to help students meet goals of learning to see situations from multiple perspectives and develop strategies to confront the social implications of mental disorders. The attempt to link course goals with service experiences has had varying degrees of success. In one semester, service-learning was required, and the integration of goals was more easily accomplished since all students were able to relate similar experiences from outside of the classroom. In my community college setting, it has been more realistic to have the service component as an option. Students select either a project involving service in the community and a paper or two papers dealing with a variety of topics. A recurrent problem has been how to integrate and share the learning between students
working in the community and those completing more traditional investigations. In my project I would like to use the generative topic of resiliency as a way of linking course goals across the semester to integrate what is learned by students engaged in different forms of inquiry.
Importance
A course in psychology presents a wide range of disorders and focuses on deficits rather than strengths. It defines problems in neat categories that do not reflect the complexity of the world beyond the classroom. Experiences in the community help in providing a more realistic context, but they also often expose students to more deficiencies.
At the end of last semester, I introduced the concept of resiliency as one way to reframe ideas in a more positive way. Students engaged enthusiastically in discussions of resiliency and suggested that the topic be introduced early in the semester. Recent publications from the American Psychological Association and time-effective psychotherapy support a focus on finding strengths rather than cataloging deficiencies.
The texts in psychology do not yet reflect this trend. The American Psychological Association's guidelines for teaching psychology emphasize the importance of active learning and multicultural perspectives. The service work in the community helps students to engage in their learning and creates an opportunity to address ways in which diversity issues intersect with definitions of psychology.
Relevant Context
Each semester in my classroom there are some students who have been diagnosed with disorders, many who are struggling with difficult life situations, and many who have stereotypical views of mental illness. Students often do not have positive views of themselves as learners and enter the classroom with much ambivalence. Weaving the topic of resiliency throughout the course may provide one way for students to connect with the course content more effectively and to consider alternative coping strategies in their own lives.
Methodology
I would like to introduce new components into the course:
(1) Resiliency as an organizing topic
Students will be asked to write on the question of how to promote resiliency early in the semester. Responses from the class will be recorded and distributed to students. The same exercise will be repeated at the end of the semester. Students will be asked to reflect on the assignment and to work in small groups to design a community program that will support resiliency. Student responses to the assignment will provide one opportunity for probing levels of understanding.
(2) Common Experience
All students will visit selected community sites during a class session in the second week. Although some students will choose to work at a site and others will not, the common experience will serve as a way to connect them. Students (individually or in pairs) will capture pre-visit expectations and post-visit impressions either through written papers, drawings, collages, photo essays, or taped conversations.
(3) Student pairs or teams
Students involved in service-learning will be placed in pairs or small groups with students who are not working in the community. Students will work cooperatively on journal assignments three times during the semester.
For example, a service-learning student may explain a critical incident in the field and the partner students will try to connect course concepts to the incident.
In contrast, a student may describe a concept from the course and the servicelearning student will try to provide a concrete example from the community.
Students will use a three-part journal with the service student presenting experiences, the partner student providing connections, and both students reflecting on what they have learned.
Resources
I will continue to use my standard assignments for students who work in the community and those who do not. I need to find more appropriate material on resiliency and additional ideas for creating unifying questions for the semester. Although I have a general picture of how the topic of resiliency and the servicelearning activities fit with the goals of the course, I need to frame the relationships in more explicit ways and to develop rubrics to assess results.
Anticipated Products/ Results
I anticipate obtaining samples of student understanding related to the goals of the course. Professors who teach psychology may be interested in the findings related to using resiliency as an organizing topic for the course. Faculty engaged in service-learning may consider adapting the course model of using a generative topic with common experience and student journal pairs as a way to integrate service experiences more effectively into college textbooks.
Consulting with faculty about their teaching. This procedure is not unique, and is based on well-established techniques developed by several people. It's not the only model one could use, but it does provide a starting place for those interested in working with faculty in a structured way.
Most consultations involve an iterative process--gather information, discuss, implement change, gather information, etc. Consultations are adapted to the needs of the individual faculty member, but typically consist of the following components, roughly in the following sequence:
- Course Documents and Written Statements
- Initial Meeting
- Classroom Observation
- Second Meeting
- Follow-up Meetings
Course Documents and Written Statements
Faculty members submit several documents related to their teaching, including a copy of their syllabus, the text they use for the course, written assignments and graded papers, past course evaluations (if they are comfortable with this) and any other printed material that they think will help us to get to know what they do in their class.
In addition, we ask faculty to write a "position" statement about their teaching, including:
- Their goals for the course. We've found it useful to have them imagine running into one of their former students five years after they took this class. What would they like this student to be like because he/she took this course? This description should include:
- What the student should know
- What she should be able to do
- What attitudes she should have
- We've found this question useful for exploring broader issues as well ("What would you hope a student would be like because of attending the college"?) We recently sponsored a panel for new faculty, and had representatives from several areas of the campus reflect on what they hoped a student to be like because of their office (e.g.--"What would you hope a student would be like because of the career counseling he/she received?")
- We then ask the faculty member to reflect on a few questions about their current classroom practices:
- What are their current classroom practices?
- Why do they do what they do?
- To what extent do these practices contribute to their goals?
- The syllabus, text and other documents tell quite a bit about what the faculty member is currently doing in their course, their philosophy of teaching, and their assumptions about students. For example, Albert's syllabus was a single sheet of paper a skimpy syllabus indicates that he may be making a lot of assumptions (usually unwarranted) about his students. If assignments are simply laid out with no explanation, it implies they assume students are to do what they are told without reflecting on why they should be doing it, even if this is not the message they wish to convey.
- The course evaluations do provide some information about how their teaching has been received by students in the past, as well as specific strengths and weaknesses in their teaching.
- The written statement not only gives us some information about the faculty member, but also has the added value of getting them to think about what they are doing in their course and why. A common comment when I first meet with faculty is that they had to struggle with the statement, but they can already see things they are doing in their course that they should change before we've even talked! Of the questions we ask the faculty member to write about, I think the most important question is, "Why do you do what you do?"
Initial Meeting
We have an initial meeting during which we discuss the faculty member's syllabus, course evaluations and statement. During this conversation, we focus on their goals and why these goals are important to them, what they are doing in class and why, and what they think is happening in class and why. We also talk about how we should proceed with the consultation process. What are their goals for it? How extensive should the consultation be? We present a "cafeteria" style menu of options, and we discuss the advantages/disadvantages of each. It is important to us that the faculty member feels in control of the process. Our service is entirely voluntary, and the faculty member needs to know that this is a formative process. The staff is barred from reporting on consultations, or even who has had a consultation. We do not write letters, even at the request of the faculty member with whom we've talked.
Classroom Observation
We visit the classroom to observe the faculty member. Among the things one learns from a visitation are:
- What kind of relationship does the faculty member have with their students?
- What are the students doing during class?
- How responsive is the faculty member to what is occurring in the classroom?
- To what extent are the activities in the classroom contributing to the faculty's goals for the course?
Second Meeting
Following the classroom observation, we meet again to discuss what went on. We preview it, and note parts we want to comment on when we watch it with the faculty member.
Faculty are often times befuddled by this question. They assume what they lectured on is what students learned. That there might be a discrepancy between the two often times has not occurred to them. This conversation sets up the opportunity for us to present the basic findings about pedagogy. Namely, that knowledge, especially the deeper, more usable type (knowing how and when to use the knowledge), is best attained by students when several conditions are met:
- students have a shared cognitive set with the instructor (they have an adequate knowledge base),
- students are engaged in the material (they are motivated),
- students construct their knowledge, using personal examples of the material to be learned (they are active learners),
- their learning affects future classroom activities (formative feedback).
We look at how their course design and classroom activities address these four points, and discuss specific classroom activities that will promote each of these
components of successful pedagogy. At this point, we often use our own courses as examples of these four points, and why we do what we do. I have found that faculty members profit from a specific example. To make things a little simpler, we generally break The Question down into four simpler questions based on the four points mentioned above:
- were your students prepared for class today, and how do you know it?
- were they motivated in class today, and how do you know it?
- were they actively learning in class today, and how do you know it?
- will their learning today affect what happens in class next time?
If they can't answer The Question with some certainty, or the more specific questions listed above, then they probably need to rethink what they did in class that day. This conversation sets up an opportunity for the faculty member to begin considering techniques that will promote active learning.
Follow-up Meetings
Have follow-up meetings with the faculty member. Follow-up is crucial, for the following reasons:
- improvement, especially with established teachers, is a slow, evolutionary process.
- the process of change is oftentimes intimidating for the faculty member. "Losing control," as many faculty members see it, demands support and assurance from a committed, supportive group of colleagues. Until the faculty member has experienced success in active learning, the switch seems foreboding. This is especially true with people who feel vulnerable.
- new techniques don't always work well when faculty first try them. The switch from a teacher-centered to a student-centered class requires a great deal of effort and planning. We usually ask faculty to change a limited segment of the course the first semester. I suggest that the faculty member try only one cooperative learning assignment the first semester. Learning how to structure
effective active learning exercises requires a switch in cognitive set, and that takes time. Without follow-up, many will revert back to less risky (but less effective) techniques.
The Process
The procedure focuses on the components of the course that the class as a whole feels are important. The particular variant that we use has the following five step process:
- Individual Writing
- Small Group Discussion
- Reporting Out
- Rating Key Points
- Sharing the Results
Individual Writing
Students first write individually for ten minutes, using a sheet that we hand out. We ask them to write about (with specific examples):
- the components of the course/instruction that they like best,
- the components of the course/instruction that they like least, and how the course could be improved.
- what they (the students) could do to improve the course.
As part of their description, they should tell why they do/don't like that aspect of the course/instruction, and why the specific improvement would be valuable. We ask the class to focus on specific behaviors and their reactions to them rather than making blanket characterizations. For example, a statement such as "I don't like it when the teacher gets mad at 'stupid' questions. It makes me feel stupid, even when I'm prepared. I won't ask questions anymore." is preferred to "She's a
lousy teacher." We also ask the students to rate the importance of the positive and negative components of the course that they have listed.
Small Group Discussion
We assign students to groups of 3 or 4, and we assign roles facilitator, recorder, time keeper, and checker. Assigned groups minimizes cliques so that there is a freer exchange of views rather than friends getting together to continue a gripe session. We ask that each person in turn list their three most important positive aspects of the course. All students list their items before there is any discussion.
This gets everyone's opinions on the table, and tends to prevent a dominator from controlling the group's agenda. After all have presented their lists, they are to discuss these components, and arrive at a consensus on the three most important positive components of the course. They then repeat this process for the negative aspects of the course and for the improvements that could be made in the course. The recorder records the group's final consensus on another sheet we hand out ("Group Report").
Special note should be taken of the third question. This is a variation to the process we added a couple of years ago as we were discussing how to improve our consultation process. We wanted to make sure that the students spend some time discussing what they could be doing to make the class better. This is something many have not thought about, and our experience is that it works well at this point in the discussion.
They have been focusing on the professor, and now seem willing to see the endeavor more as a partnership. We have heard back from faculty that their students seem to be more cooperative, and work harder.
Students usually come up at the end of the session and thank us for coming into the class, which also indicates to me that they found the process beneficial. They frequently comment on the fact that they had not thought about their role in the class, and found that particular component of the process to have been most valuable.
Reporting Out
Following the small group work, the group’s report out during a discussion involving the entire class. We get all of the points on the board, then the class decides which items are the most important. This is usually done by way of reaching a verbal consensus. The major points are usually pretty self-evident.
Rating Key Points
We rank order the points for each of the three questions, then ask the class to rate the degree to which they agree or disagree with the group's consensus. We use the rating sheet that is included ("Final Rating"), which is on the reverse of the original sheet that they filled out. A graphical representation of this numerical rating is what we give to faculty member. We've found it to be a very important part of our procedure, since it tells where there is agreement among students, and the strength of feeling associated with each point. Most items show wide agreement among the students, but occasionally there are items that some of the class strongly agrees with, while another component of the class strongly disagrees with. For example, there was disagreement on some personalizing of information, but wide agreement about lack of structure. The level of agreement on an item is important information for the faculty member. Another advantage of the numerical rating is that many faculty take data-based reports much more seriously.
Sharing the Results
We give the graph of the numerical results to the faculty member, then discuss the results with them. This is usually a sensitive part of the process, since the faculty member will often try to justify their actions for each of the negative points brought up by students. It is important to get the faculty member to think about the information as the perceptions of the students in their class, and not as an objective, summative evaluation of their performance as a teacher. They may well have good reasons for all of the "negative" comments. But since these are consensus statements, they need to hear the comments and be willing to act on
them, either by changing their practices or by communicating better to their students why class runs as it does.
This technique has several advantages:
- Students feel that their voices have been heard. Our experience is that students usually feel powerless, and are more willing to work with a professor if they believe their needs are of concern to the professor. The process by itself seems to have beneficial effects, even before the instructor makes changes based on the feedback.
- It brings back into the group those with extremely divergent views. Students oftentimes feel that everyone else shares their opinions of events that have occurred in the class. When they state their concerns to their small group, they may find out that others interpret events quite differently. Because the group must agree to a statement forwarded to the professor, the anonymity of individual students is protected.
- Because the information is qualitatively different than that gotten in end-of-thesemester ratings.
New Tools
On the next pages, we've reproduced the three response forms and the overhead instructions for the students that we use. These may be downloaded and adapted to your needs.
Instructions and Handouts
For the first 10 minutes, you will write individually on the following topics:
- What do you like best about the course/instruction?
- What do you like least about the course/instruction, and how could the instructor improve the course?
- What could you do to make the course better for you and the instructor?
For each of these, please try to focus on specific behaviors, and describe why you like/dislike something, or why you think your suggested improvement would be beneficial.
For the next 20 minutes, you will have small group discussions of these topics.
For each of the three topics listed above, I would like you to briefly describe your points. Only after all members of the group have spoken should you discuss the points raised. You should come up with 2-3 main points for each topic, with the group reaching consensus on the points.
For the final 30 minutes, we will have a large group discussion of these topics.
We will come to consensus on the most important points for the four topics. After we have come to consensus, I will ask you to rate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each point. I will collect your individual and group write-ups, but will not show them to your instructor. I will write up a report that will go to your instructor.
Handout: Individual Report
Instructions: For the first 10 minutes, write individually on the following topics:
- What do you like best about the course/instruction?
- What do you like least about the course/instruction, and how could the instructor improve the course?
- What could you do to make the course better for you and the instructor?
Handout: Group Report
- What do you like best about the course/instruction?
- What do you like least about the course/instruction, and how could the instructor improve the course?
- What could you do to make the course better for you and the instructor?
Final rating
- What do you like best about the course/instruction?
- What do you like least about the course/instruction, and how could the instructor improve the course?
- What could you do to make the course better for you, your classmates and the instructor?
The reality of Psychology reflected many of the ideas presented in the course proposal but also created questions and surprises. I found that my initial plans for the course were too ambitious, and I spent considerable time rethinking what aspects of the course were most critical for student understanding. The lessons learned focused on how the common experiences, write exercises, and three-part critical incident journals supported resiliency as a path to integration.
The topic of resiliency provided an effective way to engage students, to link course goals across the semester, and to integrate what was learned by students involved in different forms of inquiry.
An older student hesitant to join the class stated that she changed her mind immediately when the topic of resiliency was introduced. She said, "It was a sense of moving right to the goal made me want to stay in class and hear more." At the end of the semester several students remarked that resiliency seemed so central that they couldn't imagine the course without it.
Using a generative topic led to a more engaged classroom, but it presented challenges. In the early weeks students reported feeling overwhelmed by the many activities and handouts. They were accurate in their assessment, and I realized that I needed to be more limited and focused in my assignments. The new common experience of having all students visit sites in the community in the
first weeks involved many logistical issues that added to student confusion. The time and organization required for the visits did not seem worth it in terms of student learning. From discussions with the class I think that a better plan would be to have students not involved in service-learning visit other students at a site later in the semester. In this way both students would have more context for understanding what was happening.
The exercise of having students write on the question of how to promote resiliency at the beginning and end of the semester did not work well. Students did provide somewhat more complex responses at the end of the semester, but they were not that much different from earlier answers. One activity that seemed to generate more reflection involved responses to a good article (from Psychology Today) on resiliency. The article was assigned to students on the first day of class; I then asked students to reread the article in the last week and to highlight information that they now understood in a different way. The more structured activity of responding to the article helped students to assess how their understanding had changed. I plan to develop this assignment in more detail for next semester.
The three-part critical incident journal showed the most promise for helping students to see situations from multiple perspectives and to confront the social implications of mental disorders. In using examples from class to model how to complete the journal, I found students actively involved in questioning and offering alternative explanations to each other. The critical incidents students presented had more meaning because they emerged from student's own experiences at service sites. For example, the critical incident of one student involved dealing with a child who had attention deficit disorder. As the semester progressed, the child began to lie and skip school regularly. The class discussions on how to deal with lying and how to accommodate for the child's diagnosis provided an excellent forum for understanding the social implications of mental disorders.
I would like to develop the critical incident journals in stages over the next semester with more pair and small group activities. Students involved in service-
learning will continue to select a critical incident from their sites, while other students can create a critical incident based on current news stories. The incidents became a central topic of discussion this semester; students were interested in the dilemmas of classmates and often related concepts of resiliency in their explanations. We had class discussions of critical incidents early in this semester and again in the final week. The final discussion served as a culminating performance for the class and will provide a way to introduce the incoming class to practical applications of course content.
My own investigations into the area of resiliency have been productive. At the American Psychological Association's conference I learned about many programs in intervention and prevention that fit into the course and the theme of resiliency. I introduced some of the ideas this semester and plan to focus more on ways to create safety nets in communities. The APA has many initiatives dealing with topics such as adolescent health and anger management that may help students to better understand the role of society in dealing with mental health issues.
I used the act and image of juggling throughout the course to talk about how to develop coping strategies; resiliency is learning how to juggle and be able to add one more ball at the right time. The image was helpful throughout the course as an informal way to monitor student understanding. We talked about juggling too many things too fast at the beginning and figuring out how to find a comfortable balance at pressure points during the course. I think the juggling image fits with my own attempt at integration. The balance was off somewhat this semester, and I realize that I need to make more adjustments in my approaches. I am struggling with the most effective way to weave in the topic of resiliency while using the text and community as resources. I would like to create a guide for the course with different pathways available for students, similar to the books in which you create your own end to the story. Such a guide may provide the structure for most students who need more help in finding connections, but it would also permit multiple paths for learning the material. Responses to guide questions would serve as ongoing assessment and allow for corrections when things get out of balance.
Megan Wilson is a teacher, life strategist, successful entrepreneur, inspirational keynote speaker and founder of https://Ebookscheaper.com. Megan champions a radical rethink of our school systems; she calls on educators to teach both intuition and logic to cultivate creativity and create bold thinkers.
Source: https://ebookscheaper.com/aspects-of-the-course-most-critical-forstudent-understanding/