Methodist University
Title III Times
From the Director
Colleagues,
Since our previous edition of the Title III Times, much has happened. We are now in Year III of the Title III
project. As you know, Methodist University (MU) received funding for a Title III grant in October 2010. Title
III funds are to be used to upgrade our technology, both in terms of installing a campus-wide integrated database and installing instructional technology in our academic facilities. Here is a review of activities that have
occurred in the last few months.
•
We are in the process of analyzing data from Year 2 (which ended September 30) and preparing the
Volume 5, Issue 5
January 15, 2013
Inside this issue:
Annual Report which will be due at the end of January, 2013.
From the Director
1
We have drawn down Title III funds to finish payment for Jenzabar and to fund additional Technology
Integration Plans for faculty.
Calendar
2
Morgan’s Minutes
3
•
Jenzabar campus-wide student database software project:
Teaching Tips
4
•
We will have an online meeting with our Jenzabar Project Manager in January.
•
All Jenzabar web portals (JICS) have been launched. Students and faculty used these portals during
•
pre-registration for spring 2013 classes. Faculty members have entered semester grades with the portal.
A JICS support system for students has been set up.
•
A JICS training strategy and schedule has been developed, along with a Help Desk located in the CAC lab
in the Trustees Building.
•
A “post-launch” consulting visit by a Jenzabar staff member is being scheduled for late January, 2013.
•
OIC Programming staff continue to work on helping staff develop customized reports from the main
system (Jenzabar EX), as well as adding functionality to the JICS web portals.
Instructional technology:
• Currently, Dr. Bruce Morgan, the Director of Instructional Technology, is focusing on instructional
technology for the new sophomore residence hall and the library remodeling project. He has completed implementation of instructional technology for the new Nursing Building.
• Dr. Morgan continues to hold training sessions on the use of Smartboards, iPads, and other instructional technology.
• Dr. Morgan is also continuing Smartboard certification training sessions for faculty and staff.
• We continue to obtain additional instructional technology equipment, particularly a number of iPads
recently, for our technology “sandbox.” This equipment is available for faculty to check out and try
out in their teaching.
• We continue our diligence in reminding faculty to give us their assessment reports regarding use of
instructional technology in their classrooms. These reports are being prepared by faculty members
who had a TIP funded in Year 2.
• We have also been receiving from faculty their plans for sharing what they have learned while attending instructional technology conferences where their travel was funded by Title III funds.
(continued on page 2)
Page 2
Title III Times
(continued from page 1)
•
We have received thirty-four Technology Integration Proposals (TIPs) for integrating instructional technology Inside this issue:
into teaching and learning. A number of these TIPs have been funded for Year 3, while others are being
From the Director
tweaked and resubmitted. There is still time to submit TIP proposals for funding, as well as faculty development proposals. We are pleased by the enthusiasm shown by faculty for using instructional technology in the Calendar
classroom.
We are very excited about the direction our Title III project is taking our institution. All members of the MU community,
particularly students, will benefit from this major transition. I will keep you posted on developments, and please keep
monitoring your Methodist email account for important information regarding Jenzabar and instructional technology
training opportunities.
1
2
Morgan’s Minutes
3
Teaching Tips
4
Best regards,
Don Lassiter
Title III Director
Calendar of Events
January 2013
February 2013
Su Mo Tu
W
Th Fri Sa
1
2
3
4
5
S
M
Tu W
Th Fr S
1
2
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
27
28
29
30
31
24
25
26
27
28
January 17th—Jenzabar Module Managers’ Meeting (Training Center
January 21st— MLK Holiday, University closed
January 30th—SAS Webinar on using SAS Enterprise Guide
January 30th—February 1st—Jenzabar follow-up consulting visit with Pam
Zimmerman (Training Center)
Page 3
Title III Times
Morgan’s Minutes
Food for thought:
Teaching by Lecture
Educators’ preference for lecturing is not surprising given three facts: Most of us were
taught that way, a lecture appears easy to prepare and present, and lectures are widely accepted by students and peers. But since so much time is spent lecturing to our students,
let’s look at some of the pros and cons of this popular teaching method. The guidelines
here are loosely based on recommendations by Eble and suggest how we might approach
the planning and delivery of a lecture.”
Available at: http://www.liberty.edu/academics/cte/index.cfm?PID=24462
•
Use the lecture format appropriately. Change the pace. Don’t be a bore.
•
Put your handouts in Blackboard
•
Add a voice track to your PowerPoint for explanation and place in Blackboard
•
Vary your approach to teaching using Active learning approaches, Cooperative
learning approaches and ‘Flip’ your lectures
•
Do formative assessment and regularly checks student comprehension (clicker do
this well)
“Does Active Learning Work?" - A Review of the Research
MICHAEL PRINCE
Department of Chemical Engineering
Bucknell University
ABSTRACT
This study examines the evidence for the effectiveness of active learning. It defines the
common forms of active learning most relevant for engineering faculty and critically examines the core element of each method. It is found that there is broad but uneven support
for the core elements of active, collaborative, cooperative and problem-based learning.
Inside this issue:
From the Director
1
Calendar
Morgan’s Minutes
2
Teaching Tips
3
4
Page 4
Title III Times
Teaching Tips
Inside this issue:
SevenPrinciplesforGoodPracticeinUnder‐
graduateEducation
Arthur W. Chickering and Zelda F. Gamson
Adopted from the March 1987 AAHE Bulletin
1. Encourage Contact Between Students and Faculty
Frequent student-faculty contact in and out of classes is the most important factor in
student motivation and involvement. Faculty concern helps students get through
rough times and keep on working. Knowing a few faculty members well enhances
students' intellectual commitment and encourages them to think about their own values and future plans.
2. Develop Reciprocity and Cooperation Among Students
Learning is enhanced when it is more like a team effort that a solo race. Good learning, like good work, is collaborative and social, not competitive and isolated. Working with others often increases involvement in learning. Sharing one's own ideas and
responding to others' reactions sharpens thinking and deepens understanding.
3. Encourage Active Learning
Learning is not a spectator sport. Students do not learn much just by sitting in classes
listening to teachers, memorizing pre-packaged assignments, and spitting out answers. They must talk about what they are learning, write about it, relate it to past
experiences and apply it to their daily lives. They must make what they learn part of
themselves.
4. Give Prompt Feedback
Knowing what you know and don't know focuses learning. Students need appropriate
feedback on performance to benefit from courses. When getting started, students
need help in assessing existing knowledge and competence. In classes, students need
frequent opportunities to perform and receive suggestions for improvement. At various points during college, and at the end, students need chances to reflect on what
they have learned, what they still need to know, and how to assess themselves.
From the Director
1
Calendar
2
Morgan’s Minutes
3
Teaching Tips
4
Page 5
Title III Times
Inside this issue:
(continued from page 4)
5. Emphasize Time on Task
Time plus energy equals learning. There is no substitute for time on task.
Learning to use one's time well is critical for students and professionals
alike. Students need help in learning effective time management. Allocating
realistic amounts of time means effective learning for students and effective
teaching for faculty. How an institution defines time expectations for students, faculty, administrators, and other professional staff can establish the
basis of high performance for all.
6. Communicate High Expectations
Expect more and you will get more. High expectations are important for
everyone - for the poorly prepared, for those unwilling to exert themselves,
and for the bright and well motivated. Expecting students to perform well
becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy when teachers and institutions hold high
expectations for themselves and make extra efforts.
7. Respect Diverse Talents and Ways of Learning
There are many roads to learning. People bring different talents and styles of
learning to college. Brilliant students in the seminar room may be all thumbs
in the lab or art studio. Students rich in hands-on experience may not do so
well with theory. Students need the opportunity to show their talents and learn in
ways that work for them. Then they can be pushed to learn in new ways that do
not come so easily.
For more information, see Techniques & Strategies for Teaching and Learn
ing.
Applying the Seven Principles using technology for teaching and learning
Building from Content to Community: [Re]Thinking the Transition to Online Teaching
and Learning (White Paper applying the Seven Principles – from the Center for Teaching
Excellence at Virginia Commonwealth University)
Implementing the Seven Principles: Technology as Lever (Arthur W. Chickering and
Stephen C. Ehrmann)
A Model of Learning Objectives (has a nice flash model)
Based on:
A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing:
A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives*
NEW: PDF handout of the Model of Learning Objectives (1.7MB)
(continued on page 6)
From the Director
1
Calendar
2
Morgan’s Minutes
3
Teaching Tips
4
Page 6
Title III Times
(continued from page 5)
Inside this issue:
If you have trouble accessing the interactive Flash-based model below, the content is
available in a text-only table.
A statement of a learning objective contains a verb (an action) and an object (usually
a noun).
• The verb generally refers to [actions associated with] the intended cognitive process. From the Director
1
Calendar
2
Morgan’s Minutes
3
Teaching Tips
4
•
The object generally describes the knowledge students are expected to acquire or construct. (Anderson and Krathwohl, 2001, pp. 4–5)
The cognitive process dimension represents a continuum of increasing cognitive complexity—from remember to create. Anderson and Krathwohl identify 19 specific cognitive
processes that further clarify the bounds of the six categories (Table 1).
Table 1. The cognitive processes dimension — categories, cognitive processes
(and alternative names)
remember understand
apply
recognizing interpreting executing (identifying) (clarifying, (carrying
recalling paraphrasing, out) (retrieving) representing, implementtranslating) ing exemplifying (using)
(illustrating,
instantiating) classifying (categorizing
, subsuming) summarizing (abstracting,
generalizing) inferring (concluding,
extrapolating, interpolating, predicting) comparing (contrasting,
mapping,
matching) explaining (constructing
models)
analyze
evaluate
create
differentiat- checking generating ing (coordinating (hypothesizin
(discriminati , detecting, g) ng, distin- monitoring, planning guishing, fo- testing) (designing) cusing, se- critiquing producing lecting) (judging)
(construct)
organizing (finding coherence, integrating, outlining, parsing, structuring) attributing (deconstructi
ng)
(Table 1 adapted from Anderson and Krathwohl, 2001, pp. 67–68.)
(continued on page 7)
Methodist University
5400 Ramsey St.
Fayetteville, NC 28311
(910) 630-7081
Title III Times
Page 7
(continued from page 6)
The knowledge dimension represents a range from concrete (factual) to abstract
(metacognitive) (Table 2). Representation of the knowledge dimension as a number of
discrete steps can be a bit misleading. For example, all procedural knowledge may not be
more abstract than all conceptual knowledge. And metacognitive knowledge is a special
case. In this model, "metacognitive knowledge is knowledge of [one's own] cognition and
about oneself in relation to various subject matters . . . " (Anderson and Krathwohl, 2001,
p. 44).
Table 2. The knowledge dimension — major types and subtypes
factual
knowledge of terminology knowledge of specific
details and elements
conceptual
procedural
metacognitive
knowledge of classifi- knowledge of subject- strategic knowledge cations and categories specific skills and al- knowledge about cogknowledge of princi- gorithms nitive tasks, including
ples and generaliza- knowledge of subject- appropriate contextual
and conditional
tions specific techniques
knowledge knowledge of theories, and methods models, and structures knowledge of criteria self-knowledge
for determining when
to use appropriate procedures
(Table 2 adapted from Anderson and Krathwohl, 2001, p. 46.).
Recommended resources
Bloom's Digital Taxonomy by Andrew Churches – a thorough orientation to the revised
taxonomy; practical recommendations for a wide variety of ways mapping the taxonomy
to the uses of current online technologies; and associated rubrics
Bloom et al.'s Taxonomy of the Cognitive Domain (Dr. William G. Huitt, Valdosta State
University)
Bloom's Taxonomy - An Overview and Bloom's Taxonomy - Designing Activities
(Colorado Community College System Faculty Wiki)
Revising Bloom's Taxonomy. Theory Into Practice, 41(4), Autumn 2002. 212-264. This
issue of Theory Into Practice includes the following articles:
(continued on page 8)
Inside this issue:
From the Director
1
Calendar
2
Morgan’s Minutes
3
Teaching Tips
4
Methodist University
5400 Ramsey St.
Fayetteville, NC 28311
(910) 630-7081
Title III Times
Page 8
(continued from page 7)
Author
Title
A Revision of Bloom's TaxonKrathwohl, D. R.
omy: An Overview
The Role of Metacognitive
Knowledge in Learning,
Pintrich, P.R.
Teaching, and Assessing
Rote Versus Meaningful
Mayer, R.E.
Learning
Raths, J.
Improving Instruction
Using the Revised Taxonomy
to Plan and Deliver TeamFerguson, C.
Taught, Integrated, Thematic
Units
The Revised Taxonomy and
Byrd, P.A.
Prospective Teachers
The Role of Assessment in the
Airasian, P.W. & Miranda, H.
Revised Taxonomy
Curricular Alignment: A ReAnderson, L.W.
Examination
Additional Resources for
Classroom Use
Pages
212-218
219-225
226-232
233-237
238-243
244-248
249-254
255-260
261-264
Learning Domains or Bloom's Taxonomy (Don Clark)
The Best Resources For Helping Teachers Use Bloom's Taxonomy In The Classroom
(Larry Ferlazzo's Websites of the Day...)
*Anderson, L.W. (Ed.), Krathwohl, D.R. (Ed.), Airasian, P.W., Cruikshank, K.A., Mayer,
R.E., Pintrich, P.R., Raths, J., & Wittrock, M.C. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives (Complete
edition). New York: Longman.
A Model of Learning Objectives–based on A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives by Rex Heer, Center
for Excellence in Learning and Teaching, Iowa State University is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Inside this issue:
From the Director
1
Calendar
2
Morgan’s Minutes
3
Teaching Tips
4