RIT Faculty Learning Community
The Faculty Learning Community
Rochester Institute of Technology
2002-2003
Faculty Learning Community
Principles of a FLC
Cross-disciplinary
Year-long
Enhances teaching and learning
Faculty Learning Community
Goals
Collegiality Respect and trust Innovative teaching Scholarship
Scholarly teaching Contributions to scholarship of teaching
and learning
Faculty Learning Community
Activities
Regular meetings Lilly Conference on College Teaching Readings Projects Associates (faculty, student) Portfolios
Faculty Learning Community
FLC at RIT
Modeled after Miami of Ohio’s plan developed by Milt Cox
Project of the IETC, supported by the Provost’s Office
Facilitators: Vinnie Gupta, Susan Donovan Pilot 2001-2002 Second FLC 2002-2003 Applications available for 2003-2004
Faculty Learning Community
Participants
Sidney Barefoot (NTID)
Maurino Bautista (COS)
Jessica Bayliss (GCCIS)
Marcia Birken (COS) Grant Cos (CLA)
Dominique Lepoutre (NTID)
Christine Monikowski (NTID)
Jeffrey Porter (NTID) Maria Rubino
(CAST) Glenda Senior
(NTID)
RIT Faculty Learning Community
Just Ask Them: An Inquiry Approach to Student-Teacher
Learning Partnerships
Sidney M. BarefootSpeech-Language Department, NTID
Faculty Associate – Dominique Lepoutre
Student Associate - Brennan Vining
Faculty Learning Community
The Course
Individual Speech-Language Therapy, an individualized non-credit course focusing on the improvement of spoken communication.
Learning goals are variable, based on student needs.
Faculty Learning Community
The Need forStudent-Teacher Partnering
Many limitations to teacher-generated assessment and instruction
Backgrounds highly parent/teacher- directed
Need to promote thinking conducive to life-long self-assessment, goal-setting and improvement
Faculty Learning Community
Inquiry by Interview
Question: what are key areas of inquiry that can guide an instructional partnering process?
Method: interview 4 students, each at a different stage of instruction. Videotape and transcribe.
Faculty Learning Community
Preliminary Results
Students highly engaged in interviews Found several key areas of inquiry Student data complemented and informed
other assessments Inquiry process itself appeared to foster
subsequent cooperative and self-directed learning
Faculty Learning Community
Future Plans
Continue analysis of current interviews Modify interview to focus on key areas Develop student inquiry of instructor Scholarship:
online tutorial for professionals in the field national presentations
RIT Faculty Learning Community
Improved Acquisition of ASL through the Reduction of Anxiety in
Language Learning
Dominique LepoutreAmerican Sign Language and Interpreter Education, NTID
Faculty Associate: Sidney Barefoot
Faculty Learning Community
A Little History
Serendipity in the year 2000 “Where ever you go, there you are” by
Jon Kabat Zinn Personal reflections/ potential
applications Academic year 2000-01 and the
summer of 2001
Faculty Learning Community
The Project
The problem Participants’ concerns about language
learning The experiment
Faculty Learning Community
Methods and Strategies
Suspending judgment/letting go Meditation Journal writing “Contacting the language” Processing language learning
(metacognition)
Faculty Learning Community
Outcomes
Reduced stress Increased focus leading to increased
ability to correctly produce signs and grammatical features of ASL
Increased motivation for learning Understanding of own learning style
Faculty Learning Community
Outcomes
Increased awareness, focus and ability to self correct
Ability to monitor pace when signing Understanding of emotions that block
learning Development of kinesthetic awareness Decreased postural rigidity
RIT Faculty Learning Community
Communication Apprehension in the Online Course
Grant Cos
Department of Communication, College of Liberal Arts
Faculty Learning Community
Objective
The objective of this study is to explore the construct of communication apprehension within the context of an online, virtual classroom. While the construct has been investigated across a number of different contexts, it has yet to be examined from this perspective. Through a preliminary, exploratory study, I hope to sketch out the dimensions of online communication apprehension
Faculty Learning Community
Project Overview
Northedge (2002) defined distance education. Mc Croskey (1977) defined communication
apprehension and significance of comm. app. in the classroom.
Flaherty, Pearce, and Rubin (1998) found that CMC apprehension was significantly different than interpersonal apprehension .
Clark and Jones (2001) compared traditional and online formats for a public speaking course at a community college, found no significant differences in communication apprehension or perception of speaking abilities.
Faculty Learning Community
Project Implementation
10 students from a graduate level, online course in Communication Law and Ethics were interviewed by telephone for this study.
An interview protocol was adopted from McCroskey’s PRCA-24, a self-report instrument used to measure communication apprehension. The researcher adapted questions from the instrument for the study.
Faculty Learning Community
Preliminary Results
This study found two themes emerge from the interview
– Positive theme of “involvement” from 8 of 10 interviewees. Online discussion requires participation, leaves time to reflect, better express self - all these contribute to reduced apprehension.
– Negative theme of “permanence” from 6 of 10 interviewees. Online discussion has certain permanence, not as easy to provide feedback, more open to criticism.
Faculty Learning Community
Future Plans
This study serves as a pilot for a broader study of communication apprehension in the online classroom.
Further study would include:– Expanding on this preliminary study with a
broader, more empirical measure of students’ online apprehension.
– Developing an instrument to specifically measure online apprehension.
RIT Faculty Learning Community
Paired Programming in an Introductory Computer Science
Course
Jessica D. BaylissComputer Science Department, GCCIS
Thanks go to James Heliotis, the Intro. Course Seq. Committee individuals, and all the professors and
teaching assistants involved with the CS1 labs
Faculty Learning Community
The Project
Issue: Most computer programming in industry is
done with a group while most computer programming in classes is done individually
Question: Are there benefits to using paired
programming in an introductory programming course?
Faculty Learning Community
Paired Programming What it is:
Two individuals sit at one computer. One will control the mouse/keyboard One is in charge of on-line debugging and
continuous design review. The two switch roles around every 20 minutes.
Experiments have shown: With only a 15% increase in overall production time,
there is a significant decrease in bugs. [Williams & Upchurch 2001]
People are more satisfied when working as a pair.
Faculty Learning Community
Implementation
~30 sections of Computer Science 1 PAIRED condition: 1/3 did paired programming INDIVIDUAL condition: 1/3 did individual
programming MIXED condition: 1/3 did some paired labs and
some individual labs
Paired groups stayed in the same teams for 3 labs and swapped seats every 20 minutes
All groups assigned the same work
Faculty Learning Community
Preliminary Results Paired and mixed groups more likely to want to
work with others in CS2 (54% and 52% vs. individual groups at 29%)
Students:– Large numbers of students were neutral (40-50%)– Didn’t want to switch partners weekly (~76%) or every other
week (~67%)– Would do paired programming if choosing their own partner
(76%)– Highest preference for partner at same skill level (~80%)
Faculty Learning Community
Future Work
Correlation between grades and lab section type.
Correlation between those who dropped in CS2 and their CS1 lab section type.
What to do for people who are unable to pair How do those who participated in the fall feel
about paired programming now? Implementing changes based on the results.
RIT Faculty Learning Community
Increasing Active Learning in Workshop Calculus
Marcia Birken
Department of Mathematics & Statistics, College of Science
Faculty Learning Community
Workshop Calculus
Workshop Calculus is in 2nd year at RIT Students work in small groups to solve more
in-depth problems Faculty have no prior experience as
workshop leaders Need to improve my performance as
workshop facilitator Need to assist students to become active
learners in group work
Faculty Learning Community
Goals/Objectives
Promote active learning Promote shared group work Overcome the “divide & conquer”
method of approaching group work Have students discuss mathematical
methods Learn to be a better workshop facilitator
Faculty Learning Community
Implementation
Rotate group members Assign a leader in each group who is
responsible for ensuring that all group members discuss each problem
Put some workshop problems (in simplified format) on hour exams.
Practice being a guide, rather than lecturer in workshops
Faculty Learning Community
Preliminary Results
Students reported that workshops in winter were a vast improvement over fall quarter
After first instance, students take seriously that workshop problems appear on tests
Students ask questions in class about workshop problems
Faculty Learning Community
Future Plans
Will be teaching workshop calculus next fall, providing another opportunity to try out techniques
Will offer colloquium to department faculty on successful workshop techniques
RIT Faculty Learning Community
Using Teacher Designed Feedback Form and Student Generated Test Questions with Model Answers to Improve Learning in Differential
Equations
Maurino P. BautistaDepartment of Mathematics & Statistics
Faculty Learning Community
Goals/Objectives 1
To develop ability to review, evaluate and apply what they have learned
To develop ability to recognize the more important concepts or techniques in a subject
To develop a commitment to accurate work To develop the ability to ask meaningful
questions
Faculty Learning Community
Goals/Objectives 2
To obtain immediate feedback on instruction and be able to make timely adjustments to improve teaching
To encourage participation from students who may be too shy to say anything in class
Faculty Learning Community
Implementation
Three question feedback form administered almost daily during the first 3 weeks of the quarter with decreasing frequency later in the quarter
Week-long group activity to formulate exam questions with the instructor selecting up to 50% of the points in the next exam from these questions (with possible modifications)
Faculty Learning Community
SGTQ Participation
Yes No
Test 1 42.3% 57.7%
Test 2 25% 75%
Test 3 13.5% 86.5%
Faculty Learning Community
Test Averages
02-2 01-3 00-4 99-4
Test 1 68 74 65 60.3
Test 2 67 70 76 51.6
Test 3 60 57 64 58.1
N 66 56 64 58
Faculty Learning Community
Feedback Participation
No response 1
0 6
1 - 5 times 36
6 - 10 times 6
More than 11 times 2
Faculty Learning Community
Future Plans
Continue using both techniques with appropriate modification in all my classes
Design feedback forms that are more content specific to be given at appropriate times
RIT Faculty Learning Community
Experimenting with myCourses & Cooperative Group Learning
in a Biology Laboratory
Glenda SeniorScience/Engineering Support Department,
NTID
Faculty Associate: Dr. Tom Frederick
Student Associate: Annemarie Ross
Faculty Learning Community
INTRODUCTION: Problem
Winter quarter e-lab manual is relatively unstructured
Students are unfamiliar with on-line learning Students do not integrate lecture and lab
exercises Student interaction is low
Faculty Learning Community
PROCEDURE
Developed an easily navigable myCourses website
Adapted Millis & Cottell’s cooperative learning method
Elicited and collected student feedback at intervals during course and with a final open evaluation
Faculty Learning Community
RESULTS
Results of student survey 1/30/03 Most useful myCourses sections: 100% TESTING section 100% OUTLINE - access lab manual 95% OUTLINE - lab objectives 100% OUTLINE - “what to study for next quiz” 95% FILES - “what to study for next quiz”
Faculty Learning Community
RESULTS (continued)
Results of student survey 1/30/03 asking about the value of group activities: 52% = it helps me with the lecture material [4 rating] 33% = I love it, it’s fun and helps me learn [5 rating]
Responses to whether activity should be kept, changed or dropped: 86% = Keep e.g. “If it works, don’t fix it” 5% = Change 9% = Drop
Faculty Learning Community
RESULTS (continued)
Elicited student feedback on my instructor evaluation, with the following probe: “Your lab instructor experimented with group work in the lab. Please comment on the value of this activity” (22 comments received)
68% positive comments e.g. “I enjoyed the group work, b/c it forced me to
put on paper & words that I knew in my head”
Faculty Learning Community
CONCLUSION/DISCUSSION
myCourses site post everything in OUTLINE section learn to use the grade book keep SYLLABUS section
Group work keep this activity (86%) because it helps with
lecture and/or helps students learn (85%) continue refining the cooperative group format
RIT Faculty Learning Community
Assessment Techniques and
Critical Thinking
Maria Rubino
MMET-PS Department, CAST
Faculty Associate: Glenda Senior
Faculty Learning Community
Goals
1. To develop assessment tools : how the students are processing and
learning the material presented in class
2. To improve critical thinking: To help the student to become an “active
thinker”
Faculty Learning Community
Project Description
and Implementation
1. Students had to formulate questions regarding the material discussed in class
2. The best question was included in the exam
3. Implementation: The day before the exam each student brought
to class a question At the end of the class period the students were
organized in small groups (maximum 4).
Faculty Learning Community
Project Description
and Implementation cont…
3. Each group: discussed the questions and answers selected the best question.
4. Each group presented the question to the class.
5. Only one question was included in the exam.
Faculty Learning Community
Preliminary Results
1. The exercise had been adjusted throughout winter term
2. Student responds very positively to the exercise
3. An entire class was dedicated to consider the process on how to generate a question.
4. An interesting set of questions were obtained
Faculty Learning Community
Revisions
1. Develop a set of instructions on how to develop questions
2. Explain and train students in team work interaction
Faculty Learning Community
Outcomes
During the small group activity the students
had to explain the question and the answer to
the group as a consequence:
Provides a mean to assess how the students are learning.
a new way to present the material using the student language.
Help students to manage the fundamentals
RIT Faculty Learning Community
Incorporating cooperative learning - a beginning
Christine Monikowski
Dept. of ASL and Interpreting Education, NTID
Faculty Associate: Rico Peterson, Chair – ASLIE
Student Associate: Desiree Leonard – student in BS program
Faculty Learning Community
Project Description
Incorporating more “cooperative learning” into the course, Discourse Analysis for Interpreters (first year, 2nd quarter)
Began as a time issue but the Lilly conference clarified things for me
Directed activities that help the students process information and also help the students KNOW what they should be doing
Faculty Learning Community
Goals/Objectives
determine “how much work” is appropriate for a 4 credit course
incorporate more “cooperative learning” activities into the course work
Faculty Learning Community
Implementation
time sheets “reflective learning” worksheets specific “new” activities were included:
homework, guidelines for reading, one-minute papers, outlines
Faculty Learning Community
Preliminary results
positive” responses from students highest grades ever for this course excellent papers!
Faculty Learning Community
Future plans
continue to incorporate cooperative learning activities in courses
national workshop for peers
Faculty Learning Community
Efforts toBreak a Vicious Cycle:
“Not Ready” Learners
“Overly Directing” Teacher
Jeff PorterNTID Learning Consortium
Faculty Learning Community
Project Description/Objectives
Graduate-level course (20 students) Tinkering with new strategies for fostering
more student responsibility for their own learning
Objectives: Increase student engagement with assigned
readings Increase student role in guiding class discussions Increase student self-assessment
Faculty Learning Community
Project Implementation
Strategy #1: Teacher-developed Study Questions for assigned chapters
Strategy #2: Teacher-developed Discussion Point for assigned chapters (Web-based Bulletin Board)
Strategy #3: Teacher-developed 10-question Self-Assessment Quiz for each assigned chapter (Web-based)
Faculty Learning Community
Project Results
Strategy #1: course became less lecture-based, more seminar-based; mid-term and final exams built around Study Questions (content emphasized = content assessed)
Strategy #2: out-of-class student exchanges re: personal understandings and real-life applications of key course concepts; teacher assessment tool
Strategy #3: student appreciation for tracking their own mastery; teacher assessment tool
Faculty Learning Community
Future Plans
Strategy #1: develop in-class tutoring/ discussion vehicle to group those students who understand a set of Study Questions with those who don’t
Strategy #2: improve Bulletin Board format to make it more user-friendly
Strategy #3: develop on-line tutoring regarding missed questions on Self-Assessment and Quizzes