Bridging the Gap: A Faculty Development
Program to Help Instructors Connect Learning
Research to Instructional Practice
Debra Swoboda, Behavioral Sciences
York 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