• “Focus on fundamental and powerful concepts with high generalizability. Don’t cover more than 50 basic concepts in any one course.” Instead of presenting more new material, spend the time thoroughly analyzing these fundamental concepts.
• Keep these basic concepts in the “foreground.” When a new concept is presented, weave it into those that students already understand. Show how the whole relates to this new part and how the part relates to the whole.
• “Speak less so that they [students] think more.”
• “Don’t be a mother robin—chewing up the text for the students and putting it into their beaks through lecture.” Rather the goal should be teaching students how to read the text for themselves.
• Model good critical thinking for students. Think out loud for students; puzzle your way through problems. “Try to think aloud at the level of a good student, not as a speedy professional.” Students won’t be able to emulate the thought process if you think it through at too advanced levels or work too quickly.

This miniature guide is part of a “Thinker’s Guide” series that includes short books on a range of topics relevant to college teaching. Find them and a number of other excellent sources on critical thinking at this website: www.criticalthinking.org

The argument on the other side went something like this: “Say a student comes to you and says, ‘I’d like to blow you away with the assignment. How do I do that?’ Would you be able to tell the student how to do that?”

Then the discussion turned to whether the rubrics most benefitted teachers or students. There was more agreement that they helped students—that they took away the mystery of what the instructor wanted. These faculty teach at a two-year institution where many students come with very little knowledge of what college-level work looks like. Rubrics do help instructors by keeping them honest and focused on what they’ve said the assignment should be about. Not everyone agreed that was a good thing.

Like so many instructional strategies, rubrics have assets and liabilities. They can be used in ways that are constraining, ways that so dissect the details of an assignment that it’s overall shape and purpose are lost. They can be used in ways that help both instructors and students think clearly about the learning that should result from completing an assignment.

You can make this activity (it could be a graded assignment) manageable by having students write a designated number of times (say three) while the group is working and maybe once when the project is complete. You can have them write online so you can respond there, and you can limit your commentary to two or three questions, which you might encourage students to answer in their next installment. Individual members’ confidentiality should be respected—other group members should not get to read what anyone else has written.

I found an excellent prompt to guide student reflections in a study that used these student journals as part of a research project. Here’s a slightly condensed version of it.

“Write a report describing significant aspects of your team experience. Your comments will not be judged on whether they are ‘valid’ or ‘correct’ because … they are supposed to represent your perceptions of your experiences. Instead, you are asked to strive to provide clear and complete descriptions. You may comment on any aspects that you consider significant; however, if you want some guidance, consider discussing issues such as: The extent to which your team worked together and on what, what general ‘team rules’ you followed, whether your expectations met or differed from your actual team experiences, what factors you believe contributed to effective and/or ineffective team behavior, and how have your views about team projects evolved since your last report.” (p. 19)

This kind of activity/assignment forces the kind of reflection that results in insights for many students. I’ve found even without a lot of instructor feedback, students start to see how important leadership is in groups, how different roles function including their own, how the work gets partitioned, and what the group does or doesn’t do about those members who aren’t carrying their weight.

Reference: Hilton, S. and Phillips, F. (2010). Instructor-assigned and student-selected groups: A view from the inside. Issues in Accounting Education, 25 (1), 15-33.           

·        Good teachers are also good learners; for example, they learn through their own reading, by participating in a variety of professional-development activities, by listening to their students, by sharing ideas with their colleagues, and by reflecting on classroom interactions and students’ achievements. Good teaching is therefore dynamic, reflective, and constantly evolving.

·        Good teachers display enthusiasm for their subject and a desire to share it with their students.

·        Good teachers know how to modify their teaching strategies according to the particular students, subject matter, and learning environment.

·        Good teachers encourage learning for understanding and are concerned with developing their students’ critical-thinking skills, problem-solving skills, and problem-approach behaviors.

·        Good teachers demonstrate an ability to transform and extend knowledge, rather than merely transmitting it; they draw on their knowledge of their subject, their knowledge of their learners, and their general pedagogical knowledge to transform the concepts of the discipline into terms that are understandable to their students.

·        Good teachers set clear goals, use valid and appropriate assessment methods, and provide high-quality feedback to their students.

·        Good teachers show respect for their students; they are interested in both their professional and their personal growth, encourage their independence, and sustain high expectations of them.

The description sets the bar high. But it so ably captures the essence of what we should aspire to be and do for our students.

Reference, Ramsden, P. D., Margetson, E. M. and Clarke, S. Recognizing and Rewarding Good Teaching. Canberra: Australian Government Printing Services, 1995.

Noel Entwistle writes in the conclusion of an impressive chapter that provides an overview of key research findings about learning that the evidence leads to “seeing the purpose of higher education as going beyond the acquisition of knowledge and skills; to recognize that for the demands of current society and employment, graduates need to have acquired a personal conceptual understanding of the main ideas and ways of thinking in their area of study so as to experience ‘learning that lasts.’ Only this will provide flexibility in applying knowledge, skills, and understanding that will suffice at a time of rapid change and ‘super-complexity’ in dealing with emerging issues and new problems.” (p. 43)

Entwistle encourages the development of courses “that set a broad agenda from the start, highlighting the ways of thinking and practicing that are required, and introducing broad questions as ‘throughlines’ that keep students focused on the importance of reaching understanding for themselves.” (p. 43)

In theory, I suspect most of us would agree. Learning is about so much more than mastery of material in a rote, deterministic way. But curricular constraints make so many courses about covering material—there’s so much material that little time remains for any of the larger purposes that relate to learning processes. And then there’s the question of how one teaches so that students acquire “a personal conceptual understanding.” That doesn’t mean students get to interpret the material as they see fit. It’s more about them making the material their own, storing it where they can find it, and configuring it so that it usefully connects with what else they know.

I am convinced that most of our courses need to be reconstructed, if not destructed and rebuilt. I know, individual faculty often don’t have time or the institutional support necessary to redesign courses and curricula. But the truth is we’re living in old buildings that need to be modernized. In some cases, that means torn down. In other cases it means extensive retro-fitting if what we teach students is to serve them well in the decades to come.

Entwistle, N. (2010). Taking stock: An overview of key research findings. In J. C. Hughes and J. Mighty, eds., Taking Stock: Research on Teaching and Learning in Higher Education. Kingston, Ontario, Canada: School of Policy Studies, Queens University.

If teaching a course taught previously, instructors spend, on average, about two hours before the class begins planning the course. Most of the planning for these courses happens while the course is underway with the emphasis on fine-tuning or making adjustments as they are needed.

When planning a new course, instructors think first of content. In one study, 46 percent of the faculty reported their first planning step involved selecting the course content. Only 15 percent reported that they started by thinking about student needs and characteristics, and only 9 percent said they started to plan by choosing activities that promote learning.

The chapter in the book referenced below that summarizes what is known about course planning documents further how content oriented faculty are. When asked to list objectives for introductory courses, nearly half of the goals identified by faculty focused on learning the concepts, principles, or facts of the discipline. Faculty may say (in one study 90 percent who taught introductory courses did) that the purpose of education is to develop thinking skills, but when asked about the goals for a particular course, faculty start by listing the principles, concepts, and theories students need to learn.

When asked how they organized content in introductory courses, 41 percent said that they organized it the way major concepts and relationships are organized within the field; 20 percent said that they organized content based on the way students learned; andr15 percent said that they organized material based on the way relationships occur in the real world.

Certainly content should play an important role in course planning. But I think it’s a problem when it’s the only consideration or such an important consideration that everything else pales by comparison.

Reference: Luttuca, L. R., and Stark, J. S. Shaping the College Curriculum: Academic Plans in Context. 2^nd ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2009. See chapter five on “Creating Academic Plans.”

I think that’s such a good idea. It encourages the use of office hours. It offers a different way to participate—one that might help students who want to participate in class but still find doing so very anxiety provoking. An office visit gives them a chance to safely test the waters. Both instructor and student interact face-to-face and come to know each other a bit better. It gives the instructor the opportunity to encourage the student to participate in class by speaking about participation directly or by positively responding to the student’s ideas and insights.

Dosanjh Zucker does advocate giving students some guidance as to appropriate discussion topics for those office visit that “count” as participation. She doesn’t think students should get credit for visits focused on grade issues or assignment details. She recommends having them come to the office prepared to share an experience relevant to what’s been discussed in class or assigned in the reading. Or, the student could discuss one of their opinions that has been confirmed or challenged by course content. Or, the student might bring something they’ve read or heard in the news that relates to topics currently under consideration in class. I like how these suggestions put the onus on students to contribute to the conversation. Of course, they may ask questions, but they don’t get credit for asking the instructor to re-explain something as they sit there saying nothing. These conversations mainly focus on what students are thinking.

You might need to consider how much an office visit will “count” in the participation calculation, whether a student gets full credit for showing up or if the exchange is somehow evaluated. Does only one visit count or may they show up multiple times for participation credit? It might also be useful to make this an option early in the course and use it as a way to get to know students and convey the seriousness of your commitment to interaction. Or maybe it happens sometime during the course as a way of encouraging those students who aren’t speaking in class but would still like some participation credit.

I was re-energized by a chapter on the characteristics and skills of a motivating instructor in the fairly recent third edition of Ray Wlodkowski’s venerable book, Enhancing Adult Motivation to Learn. He writes, “Motivating instructors are not entirely magical. They are unique; they do have their own style and strengths. But research, observations, and common sense all point to essential elements that are the foundation of their instruction. These core characteristics can be learned, controlled, and planned for by any one who instructs adults [and I would add even young adults].” (p. 49)

And what are those essential elements that characterize instructors who motivate students? Wlodkowski’s chapter explores five: expertise, empathy, enthusiasm, clarity, and cultural responsiveness. The list doesn’t contain any surprises, although Wlodkowski’s discussion of each includes many helpful insights and ideas.

But it’s his idea about how we become motivating that can help us face classes this week and the rest of the semester with a renewed sense of energy and purpose. “Instruction is a pragmatic art, a craft. We create, compose, and perform for the benefit of learners. Every professional artist has a practice regimen, and fundamentals make up a considerable portion of it. Just as exercise is an inherent part of the lives of fine dancers and daily practice is a continual ritual for outstanding musicians, so too are those basic elements the foundation for motivating instruction. If we use them steadily and strive always to refine them, they can be developed and enriched. They are achievable.” (p. 50) So carry on, make the effort and if Wlodkowski is right, we will motivate students and find motivation ourselves.

Reference: Wlodkowski, R. J. Enhancing Adult Motivation to Learn: A Comprehensive guide for Teaching All Adults. 3^rd ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2008.       

Despite having written that a number of years ago now, I still believe it’s true. You never know when your teaching will have this kind of lasting impact; sometimes you don’t find out that it happened until years later; and sometimes you never find out. One of my very favorite colleagues has told me several times about a music teacher to whom he attributes his lifelong love of classical music. He lost track of the teacher only to rediscover him many years later. He was about to make contact—a personal visit and the then elderly teacher passed away. My colleague cannot recount this story without tears, “I never got to tell him what he did for me … never got to say thank you.”

Teaching with the goal of making a difference in a life requires faith—you have to believe it will and is happening even if the credit you deserve is never acknowledged. I think you have to find your way to a place where you are trying to make a difference without expecting to be recognized for all that energy that kind of teaching requires. Maybe the motivation is better sustained by thinking of the commitment as repayment to that teacher (or teachers) who so positively changed your life. Or maybe it’s what Roland Christensen observed some years back: “Like virtue, teaching is its own reward.” It feels good when you know you are doing your best to make a difference.

• PBL uses problems as the starting point in the learning process. Typically these problems derive from real-life situations and events, although they are usually edited for use in courses. PBL promotes learning by emphasizing the formulation of questions raised by the problem rather than definitive solutions to it.
• The PBL problems may be constructed by the teacher or the students. Students new to PBL tend to do better when the teacher formulates the problems. However, with a set of guidelines and some teacher instruction, experienced students in upper-division courses can create PBL problems.
• Experience plays a key role in PBL. Students start with their own experiences and build out from there. Linking the problem to individual experience positively impacts motivation. It’s the principle of connecting what is new to what is already known.
• PBL relies heavily on active learning. Students work on the problem. They do research, make decisions, prepare reports, and give presentations or some combination of these activities. Because these activities force students to deal with content directly (as opposed to theoretically or abstractly), more deep learning results.
• PBL work is usually interdisciplinary, even though the course may not be. Real-world problems do not generally fit within the boundaries of a single discipline. They cross fields, thereby encouraging students to integrate knowledge.
• PBL work involves application. Although students gain a deep knowledge of the specific problem area, the goal is to solve the problem with an application of relevant content. What students have learned about the relevant fields in other courses or earlier in this course must be transferred and applied to the more narrowly defined content area typically associated with these specific problems.
• PBL is a group, as opposed to individual, activity. Students work on problems in groups or teams, thereby gaining experience and skill in small-group dynamics.

Reference: Graaff, E. D., and Kolmos, A. (2003) Characteristics of problem-based learning. International Journal of Engineering Education, 19 (5), 657-662.