Bridging the Gap: A Faculty Development Program to Help Instructors Connect Learning

Research to Instructional Practice

Debra Swoboda, Behavioral SciencesYork College of the City University of New York

Overview of BtG

History of BtG development

BtG participants

BtG syllabus and seminar format

Instructor learning outcomes

BtG Goal: closing the gap

How can we help instructors improve their teaching practices using research-based principles of learning?

BtG participants

BtG seminars were conducted at six CUNY CTLs during the 2012-13 and 2013-14 AYs

BtG participants included several dozen instructors from diverse ranks and disciplines

At York College/CUNY, 2012 and 2013 BtG participants included 18 instructors from diverse ranks and disciplines

BtG format

BtG consisted of six (6) 2-hour facilitated sessions that involved:

1. Discussion of common teaching and learning challenges;

2. Examination of principles and supporting evidence informing how learning works;

3. Identification of strategies that apply these principles to improve teaching and learning; and

4. Development of an implementation plan to apply research-based principles of learning in a future course

BtG readings

Ambrose, S., Bridges, M., DiPietro, M., Lovett, M., & Norman, M. (2010). How learning works: Seven research-based principles for smart teaching. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Additional texts, links and handouts

Assessment of instructor learning

Pre-post survey Knowledge and practice of research-based learning

principles and strategies Attitudes about BtG design and participation Significant teaching and learning experiences Additional comments

Implementation plan Pedagogical approach or strategy used Learning principle(s) addressed Expected outcome Assessment plan

Principle One

Students’ prior knowledge can help or hinder learning.

What is going on here?

Information is understood through the lens of existing knowledge, beliefs, and assumptions.

Prior knowledge lays the groundwork for new knowledge.

What does the research tell us about prior knowledge (PK)?

Learning requires activation of accurate, sufficient, and appropriate PK (Garfield, Del Mas, & Chance, 2007; Kole & Healy, 2007; National Research Council, 2000; Vygotsky, 1978)

Learning can be hindered by • Accurate but insufficient PK (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001)

• Inaccurate PK (Brewer & Lambert, 2000)

• Inappropriate PK (Kaplan, Fisher, & Rogness, 2009)

What PK strategies does the research suggest?

Diagnostic assessment Investigation of patterns of errors in student work Discussion of PK with colleagues Explicit linkages of new and previous course material Use of analogies/examples to connect student

knowledge with new knowledge Identification of the PK students are expected to have Remediation in cases of inappropriate/inaccurate PK

Participant challenges to understanding PK

Discarding the notion of students as ‘blank slates’ or ‘lacking motivation’

Understanding PK as both accurate & inaccurate, as both potential aid & obstacle to learning

Confusing PK with student study skills or ‘learning how to learn’

Pre-post survey results about PK

Pre-seminar: All participants report that they do not employ

specific activities to identify PK, or not often enough, even though many students lack prior knowledge

Post-seminar: All participants report that they will use more

strategies and activities to identify and address student PK

Participant post-survey comments about PK

“Reflecting on what I assumed students knew vs. what they actually know was eye-opening. I think reading about PK really helped me understand why some things were happening in my classes.”

“I was certainly not aware of the importance of helping students access and apply prior knowledge.”

“I learned that the instructor should not make assumptions about students’ background knowledge or skills.”

Principle Two

How students organize knowledge influences how they learn and apply what they know.

What is going on here?

Learning requires organizing and connecting elements of information in meaningful ways.

It’s not just what you know but how you organize what you know that influences learning and performance.

What does the research tell us about knowledge organization (KO)?

Learning requires organizing knowledge in order to use it (Levi-Strauss, 1969; Stone, 2000)

Experts organize knowledge differently than novices• Connections are more dense (Bradshaw & Anderson,

1982)

• Organization is deeper and more meaningful (Gobet & Charness, 2006)

What KO strategies does the research suggest?

Scaffold tasks to aid organization of knowledge over time

Make connections among key concepts explicit

Highlight deep features and expert processes

Participant challenges to understanding KO

Understanding KO as a process, not just a product

Decoupling understanding of KO from attitudes about students’ motivation and intelligence

Identifying ‘expert KO processes’ in their domain

Recognizing discipline-specific differences in practices of KO

Pre-post survey results about KO

Pre-seminar: Most participants report they take steps to help

students organize information but equate this with developing syllabi, providing handouts, or holding brainstorming sessions

Some participants report that they do not know what KO means

Post-seminar: All participants report that they will use more and

different strategies to promote student KO Some participants report they will discuss expert KO

practices more explicitly with students

Participant post-survey comments about KO

“I learned that while I focus a lot on constructing lessons through which my students learn content, I spend little or no time on how students might learn to organize information.”

“I had little or no knowledge of strategies that enable students to see the ‘big picture’ and link theories, concepts and related information.”

“I learned we must model for our students what expert knowledge is and how we develop it.”

Impact of BtG on instructor knowledge and practice

Instructor implementation plans and survey results show that BtG:

1. Promotes adoption of active learning approaches with insight and intentionality• Cast-off of notions of students as ‘blank slates’ or

‘lacking motivation’• Recognize expert-novice learning differences• Realize importance of mapping learning objectives to

assignments

Impact on instructors, cont.

2. Supports reflection on the instructor’s role as a facilitator of learning vs. a teacher of content• Concede content coverage vs. deep learning trade-off• View knowledge as a process, not just as a product

3. Fosters understanding of disciplinary similarities and differences concerning teaching & learning challenges

4. Affirms the importance of teaching as an inquiry process

Additional resources

Donald, J. (2002). Learning to think: Disciplinary perspectives. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Fink, D. (2003). Creating significant learning experiences. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Reif, F. (2008). Applying cognitive science to education: Thinking and learning in scientific and other domains. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Saroyan, A., & Amundsen, C. (2004). Rethinking teaching in higher education. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.

Walker, P. (2008). What do students think they (should) learn at college? Student perceptions of essential learning outcomes. Journal of the scholarship of teaching and learning, 8, 45-60.

Acknowledgments

Harriet Shenkman, CUNY Bronx CTL Director, who developed the idea for the CUNY BtG

Karrin Wilkes, former CUNY Dean for Undergraduate Studies, who coordinated CTL Director BtG training

Mosen Auryan, CUNY Hunter Director of Assessment, who designed the BtG pre-post survey

CTL Directors who facilitated and assessed BtG on their campuses