Up until today, I was kind of maintaining 2 blogs…this one, and a reflective commentary that I included in my teaching portfolio wiki. The portfolio is something that our faculty suggests we keep for when we apply for promotion, etc. but I thought it could be something more. So when I started teaching in 2007, I thought about putting all of my teaching-related activities online in a public wiki, both for my own archiving purposes and for anyone else who might find it useful / interesting. Over time, it grew to become a portal to some of what I’m interested in. For example it’s also where I document my PhD progress, and my Open Textbook project. I’ve decided that since I was essentially doing the same thing in 2 places, albeit with subtle differences (evident only to me), it was time to post those reflections on teaching practice in one place, which from now on will be here.
One of the resources I enjoy most is the Tomorrow’s Professor blog, which is almost always a great starting point for a few minutes of reflection. I’ve just finished reading this post on improving the teaching of poor teachers, taken from the book A Guide to Faculty Development: Practical advice, Examples, and Resources by Ann F. Lucas.
One of the first points made is that poor teachers will often externalise the blame for underperforming students, often citing low student motivation or high teaching loads as the reasons for this. Effectively, this frees the lecturer from any responsibility to improve. When I first started teaching, I remember clearly how my tendency was also to look outside of myself for the problem, and it was only with a great deal of personal honesty that I could admit to myself that I wasn’t always doing a very good job. Having no teaching experience other than the teaching I was subjected to, I had taken on the role that had been modeled to me as a student, with most of my colleagues having the same viewpoint. There was no incentive to change teaching practice, especially not at the expense of research activities. This is changing at UWC though, with both grassroots programmes and upper management policies rewarding a scholarship of teaching and learning.
When you think about the misguided notion that knowledge of a subject conveys some kind of ability to teach it, you begin to understand how deeply entrenched is the centrality of content in a standard curriculum. What the universities are saying is that you don’t need to be able to teach in order to transmit content, an idea that is hardly ever challenged by our students, who seem to accept (and expect) that their experience of higher education will be a continuation of the previous 12 years of learning. Maybe that’s because the voice of the student is often missing from conversations on improving teaching practice? To address this issue in our department, we’ve taken steps to not only formalise our student feedback process, but to implement it in a way that facilitates engagement with that feedback by eliminating the more repetitive tasks associated with it e.g. data capture and analysis. I believe that if students are give the opportunity to be more involved in the teaching and learning process, to see their concerns addressed and suggestions valued, they may move to a space where the rewards for their participation are clear to them, and are no longer things that need to be externally motivated.
However, giving students an authentic voice means having to address them. I’ve had a few students openly reject the idea that they are at university to exercise their minds, and that instead, I should just pour forth the knowledge they require to be good physiotherapists. In these situations, it’s all too easy to throw your hands in the air and shout: “Why should I care if they don’t”? But isn’t the whole point of the job to guide students to a place where where their preconceived notions of education and the world are challenged? If we’re not up to the challenge, should we rather consider employment elsewhere?
Posted in education, research, technology.
Tagged with blog, open textbook, phd, reflection, research, scholarship of teaching and learning, students, teaching, teaching practice, wiki.
By Michael Rowe
– February 8, 2010
I’ve been playing around with Gnome-shell on Ubuntu over the past week or so and am still trying to decide if I like it. It’s going to replace Compiz in the next generation of the Gnome desktop and the idea is that it’s supposed to enhance productivity by creating an innovative user interface that more easily exposes the day-to-day tasks of the user. But besides some pretty cool transitions between virtual desktops, an “overview” of the running tasks, and some additional shortcuts in the Activities panel, I’m not sure what else it adds.
I know that it’s going to improve with time and I’m hoping the developers include more features that actually challenge the current desktop paradigm like KDE has done with their 4.x release. I do like my desktops shiny so I’m happy to see Gnome finally moving in that direction, which is why I’m not going to get all upset about the fact that the developers are breaking with tradition to try something new.
Check out this tour of Gnome-shell for details of the features and screenshots. If you like to play with bleeding edge tools, I’d recommend installing it and playing around for a while. It’s stable enough to get an idea of how it’s supposed to work and you might just like it enough to keep it.
Posted in Uncategorized.
Tagged with desktop, gnome, gnome-shell, innovation, kde, technology, ubuntu.
By Michael Rowe
– January 22, 2010
As part of their clinical placements, our students are required to complete some reflective components and submit them along with their clinical files at the end of the block. These reflections are usually in the form of SWOT analyses, SPAR stories, reflective journals or critical reflections of journal articles. The writing exercises are meant to encourage students to reflect on meaningful experiences during the placement, but which actually end up being “busy work”, a meaningless requirement to pass the block.
This lack of reflection (or rather, the lack of understanding around the process and benefits of reflection) seems to be a common problem in education. This article from Tomorrow’s Professor highlights the issue and offers some insight that I think is quite useful.
Writing is thinking, whereas students think that thinking is what happens after writing
- Students need to have a variety of activities to write about i.e. we shouldn’t necessarily be telling them what topics to write on
- Practicing “freewriting” (different to stream of consciousness) may be a way for students to discover things they hadn’t realised they thought or felt (grammar / spelling / structure isn’t important here)
- Encourage students’ unique voices to come through. (I’ve experienced how powerful this can be during an ethics assignment I gave my third year class. See my post: Giving students a voice in physiotherapy ethics)
- Begin the class with a 10 minute writing exercise. Don’t give a theme or topic, let students write about whatever is on their mind. Later on in class, ask them to freewrite about the topic you’ve just covered. The first session is a warm-up for the second, and the output is often better as a result
- A journal is a safe place to explore personal creativity
- Writing tasks must be associated with feedback (not necessarily grades in order to be meaningful
- Ask students to select 2 pieces of their writing from the course and to write a reflection on why those 2 pieces were chosen (i.e. a meta-reflection), submitting all 3 for grading (this is hard to grade)
- Model the behaviour you expect from the students, so when they’re freewriting, so should you
- Writing / journaling should be integrated with the course, not a separate activity
Posted in Uncategorized.
Tagged with education, freewriting, reflection, reflective writing, writing.
By Michael Rowe
– January 14, 2010
Posted in Uncategorized.
Tagged with cms, diigo, education, geekretreat, ICT, intellectual property, learning management system, moodle, open learning, open science, personal learning environment, pln, science commons.
By Michael Rowe
– January 11, 2010
