From Lessons Learned the Hard Way to Lessons Learned the Harder Way

26 V olu m e 8

● 2 0 1 3

From Lessons Learned the Hard Way

to Lessons Learned the Harder Way

Andria Foot e Schwegler , PhD

Assist ant Professor , Depar t m ent of Psychology and Counseling Texas A&M Universit y - Cent r al Texas

My depart ur e from t radit ional m et hods of t eaching and assessm ent ( i.e., lect ure and close- ended ex am s) w as prom pt ed years ago by a “ gut feeling” t hat has m orphed

int o an explicit exam inat ion of m y t eaching pract ice and st udent s’ react ions t o it . The scholarly approach and em pir ical ev idence in “ Teacher s and Lear ning” ( Hut chings, Huber & Ciccone, 2011, Chapt er 2) pr ovided m e w it h t he scient ific and

social support I needed t o publically challenge exist ing nor m s regarding t eaching pract ices, r eev aluat e m y dat a collect ion effort s, and advocat e for change based on

best pract ices, not on t radit ion, bot h inside m y classroom and beyond.

So t here I was, less t han a y ear int o m y fir st assist ant pr ofessor posit ion, t eaching on a July aft er noon in a poorly vent ed classroom in Texas. I was deeply involv ed in an anim at ed lect ure about an ev ent I had experienced as a public school t eacher t hat beaut ifully dem onst rat ed a concept for t he Educat ional Psychology course I was t eaching, when a st udent in t he front row looked at her w at ch. At t hat m om ent , I quest ioned everyt hing I k new about t eaching.

I froze m id- sent ence and st ared in disbelief at t he st udent s in t he room . How could t hey consider check ing t he t im e in t he m idst of m y t horoughly-resear ched, w ell- craft ed exam ple? How could t hey be dist ract ed by hunger or heat in t he room w it h such an excellent exam ple of facult y engagem ent , ent husiasm , and preparat ion before t hem ? How could t hey be ant icipat ing t he end of class, j ust 20 m inut es aw ay, when t her e w as st ill so m uch academ ic gr ound t o cov er?

At t hat m om ent I r ealized t hat I was t he hardest w orking person in t he room , and ironically, t he only one w ho already knew t he m at er ial. St aring at m y class, I knew t hat I was t he only one paid t o be t here, and logic w ould dict at e t hat if I am paid t o do a j ob, I should w ork. But t hat not ion did not ease m y confusion. Aft er all, lear ning is effort ful; it requir es w ork. So w hy w ere m y st udent s not w orking? I w as w orking as hard as I could at t eaching. Why were t hey not working hard at learning? I m ent ally com par ed w hat I w as doing at t hat m om ent t o how I was t aught : dry erase m arker, lect ur e, t ext and t est relevance, real- world applicat ion, cont ent exper t ise. All checked out . So I st ill could not figur e out w hy m y st udent had looked at her wat ch, unt il I realized t hat I had done t he sam e as an undergraduat e st udent .

The creeping realizat ion t hat m y st udent s were m arking t im e unt il class w as ov er, j ust as I had done, m ade t he heat in t he r oom int ense. Slow ly , it daw ned on m e t hat m y st udent s w er e not w ork ing because I w as not m ak ing t hem w ork. I was doing it all. Then I realized t hat m y graduat e school exper iences provided no solut ions t o t he problem t hat result ed in 25 pair s of eyes bearing quizzically down on m e as m y st udent s wondered why I had st opped t alking for so l- o- n- g. I ret ur ned t heir glassy- eyed, confused st ar e as I cont em plat ed t hat t ree falling in t he forest … I f I am t eaching in a classroom , but st udent s are not lear ning, am I really t eaching?

no one will com e t o class.” “ Use scant rons so t he m achine w ill gr ade it for you.” Not hing helped. I could not see w hy I was having st udent at t ent ion problem s in t he higher educat ion classroom , when I did not have t hese pr oblem s in t he elem ent ary classroom s of m y “ form er life” ( i.e., t he one before graduat e school) . Of course, t hat was a different wor ld. When t eaching children, I quickly discovered t hat I m ust keep t he children act iv ely involv ed in learning act ivit ies and allow t hem som e freedom t o pursue t heir int erest s, or t hey will becom e act ively involv ed in ev ery form of m isbehavior im aginable. But univ ersit y classes j ust w ere not conduct ed in t his m anner. “ I f only t hey were…,” I t hought .

Thus began m y j ourney int o nonconform it y. St art ing out , I im plem ent ed t hose lessons t hat I learned t he hard way , when t he st udent look ed at her wat ch. I t ransferred som e of t he w orkload I had previously shouldered m y self t o m y st udent s. This shift was not well received. St udent s who had been t aught t hroughout t heir college careers t o depend on t he t eacher t o dir ect learning, resist ed peer input t hat shaped class cont ent , and w ere disgrunt led w hen passiv e list ening and sporadic not e t aking wer e replaced w it h m ore effort ful act ivit ies requir ing act iv e part icipat ion. I was not persuaded by t he com plaint s t hough, because I felt em pow ered by t he phy sical evidence of st udent s’ lear ning. I nst ead of view ing t he st acks as sim ply papers t o grade, I saw t hem as valuable feedback t hat reflect ed st udent s’ under st andings and confusions. Through t his feedback- rev ision process, I had devised a w ay t o im prove st udent lear ning, helping m e w it hst and t heir resist ance.

Unfort unat ely, social suppor t for m y changes rem ained sparse unt il I read

The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning Reconsidered: I nst it ut ional I nt egrat ion and I m pact. As a r esult of t heir r esear ch, Hut chings, Huber , and Ciccone ( 2011) acknow ledge t hat “ leader s and part icipant s in effor t s t o im prov e st udent s’ educat ional ex periences and out com es oft en feel t hey are working against t he grain” ( p. 6) . This st at em ent accurat ely sum m ar ized m y early exper iences. But , having r ead Hut chings et al. ( 2011) , I am now craft ing a new underst anding of t he m odificat ions I have m ade t o m y t eaching t echniques t hat aim t o im prove st udent learning. The scient ific and social suppor t provided in t he t ext allows m e t o publically challenge ex ist ing norm s regarding t eaching pr act ices and advocat e for change based on best pract ices, not t radit ion, bot h w it hin t he boundaries of m y classroom and beyond: an arguably daring m ove for an unt enur ed facult y m em ber in a t enur e- t rack posit ion.

Applying Discipline-Specific Knowledge to Teaching and Learning

Considering t he scholar ship of t eaching and learning as “ t he int ellect ual work t hat facult y do when t hey use t heir disciplinary know ledge t o invest igat e a quest ion about t heir st udent s’ lear ning” ( Dew ar , 2008, p. 18) , I am now m or e explicit ly view ing m y t eaching role from m y discipline of social psy chology, and crit ically exam ining how I can use what I know t her e t o im prove t eaching and learning. When v iew ed as a social influence pr ocess, em pir ically based resear ch findings r egarding group influence can be applied t o t eaching w it h useful result s.

28 V olu m e 8

● 2 0 1 3

of whet her t his is m ost effect ive, m ay help facult y reex am ine t heir own behav ior and confront t hese subt le pr essures t o conform .

More difficult t o address, however, ar e t he social pressures exer t ed by inj unct iv e nor m s. These ar e dist inguished fr om descr ipt iv e nor m s by t heir elem ent of perceiv ed social pressure, indicat ing w hat people should do and carrying t he w eight of social appr oval or social sanct ions ( Reno et al., 1993) . These nor m s ar e m ade salient when ot hers com m ent on our t eaching pract ices, especially when t hese differ from t heir ow n pract ices. My st udent s’ com plaint s aft er I shift ed t heir workload from passiv e list ening t o act ive writ ing indicat ed t heir disapproval and rem oval of social support for m y act ions.

Such social pressur e is difficult t o wit hst and, especially when it com es from one’s colleagues and supervisors. Though no one w ould balk at m y goal t o im prov e st udent lear ning, colleagues are quick t o com m ent on t he am ount of w ork I require of m y st udent s and m y self t ow ard t his end. For exam ple, during m y pr esent at ion at a recent facult y brow n bag, m y colleagues appeared quit e alarm ed at t he num erous m oderat ed discussion forum s I required in an online cour se and recom m ended t hat I consider doing som et hing else. These com m ent s clear ly indicat ed t heir disapproval of w hat t hey init ially per ceived as a w ork- int ensive t echnique. Such social sanct ions, w hen com ing from groups t hat w e value ( i.e., referent groups) , exert a power ful influence on our behavior and t end t o shift it in t he dir ect ion pr efer r ed by t he gr oup ( Reno et al., 1993) . How ever , by m aint aining a focus on ot her group norm s t hat support our act ions, w e can wit hst and t his influence ( Kallgr en Reno, & Cialdini, 2000) . So, as I explained how I used t he m oder at ion t ool t o k eep st udent s’ subm issions hidden unt il t he due dat e and t hat t his st rat egy reduced repet it ion of cont ent and led t o m ore original r esponses, I t hought of t he scholar s descr ibed by Hut chings et al. ( 2011) w ho have m ade m uch m or e subst ant ial cont ribut ions t o st udent learning. I n t heir eyes, m y t echnique would be st at us quo, and t hinking of t his referent group allow ed m e t o face public social disapproval of m y t ried- and- t rue t eaching t echnique wit h confidence and wit h t he pat ience of a t eacher w ho is w elcom ing a new set of lear ners.

Since r eading “ Teachers and Lear ning” and apply ing m y discipline- specific know ledge t o ret hink how I approach t eaching, no longer do t he sam e descript iv e and inj unct iv e norm s prom pt m y conform it y. I nst ead of looking t o t r adit ion and t ypical behav ior ( i.e., descr ipt ive nor m s) , I have a m ore clearly art iculat ed rat ionale for seek ing out em pirical ev idence t o subst ant iat e m y t eaching t echniques, and I am t aking a m ore vocal and direct approach t o r evise exist ing inj unct ive norm s for how t eaching in t he higher educat ion set t ing should be conduct ed.

Making Learning Visible through Students’ Active Participation

Aft er t he shock of t he st udent look ing at her w at ch w or e off, one of m y early, angry , gut - level react ions t o solving t he problem was t o sim ply keep t he st udent s so busy t hat t hey w ould not hav e t im e t o look at t heir w at ches. Though init ially brash, wit h som e t w eaking, t his t ur ned out t o be a really good idea.

Quiet ly list ening t o lect ures, t aking sporadic not es, and asking for an occasional clar ificat ion did not provide m e w it h any solid ev idence t hat m y st udent s were learning, but it was not unt il I st art ed t eaching online t hat I had t his realizat ion. I n preparing for m y first fully online course, I w as daunt ed by t he fact t hat I had absolut ely no surv eillance of m y st udent s. Out side of exam s and a paper assignm ent , I had no way t o det erm ine if st udent s were reading t he m at er ials, t aking not es, t hinking cr it ically , or doing anyt hing except click ing links in t he learning m anagem ent syst em . I n planning m y w eek ly lessons, I felt as t hough m y abilit y t o m onit or st udent learning in progress had been st ripped from m y possession. I want ed t o ret r eat t o t he cer t aint y I felt in m y face- t o- face courses.

deeper int o course cont ent . Assignm ent s early in t he w eek requir ed com prehension- level paraphr ases of im port ant cour se concept s, providing t he foundat ion for lat er applicat ion of t hese concept s t o personal exam ples or hom ework problem s. Finally, t he unit concluded w it h analysis and synt hesis of concept s in t he end- of- t he- w eek essay s. This need t o “ see” st udent lear ning in t he absence of being able t o “ see st udent s lear ning” cat apult ed m y online st udent s int o act ive part icipat ion in cour se cont ent . Such act iv e part icipat ion in learning is unfam iliar t o m ost st udent s and requires t hem t o for m ulat e new approaches t o cour sew or k ( Dr ingus, 2000) .

This shift in t eaching st rat egy provided m e w it h evidence of m y st udent s’ learning t hat I nev er had before. Exam ining t hese assignm ent s, I realized t hat in m y face- t o- face courses I had few ways t o det er m ine if m y st udent s w ere reading t he m at er ials, t aking not es, t hink ing cr it ically, or doing anyt hing except m aking ey e cont act , nodding, w rit ing unknow n cont ent in not ebooks, and reply ing t o quest ions ( which, in ret r ospect , t ot aled less t han one quest ion per class period per st udent ) . Cert ainly, t hese st udent s’ behaviors are reassur ing dur ing lect ur e, but w hile reading “ Teachers and Learning,” I was prom pt ed t o cr it ically exam ine t his dat a and ask , “ Are t hese classroom behav iors valid oper at ional definit ions of st udent learning?” As a researcher, had I begun t o read a r esear ch art icle wit h such a loose set of behavior s t o operat ionally define a dependent var iable, I would have t ossed t he art icle int o t he recycle bin w it hout fur t her considerat ion. So, as a t eacher , giv en t he sam e infor m at ion, w hy did I feel assured t hat m y st udent s w ere learning?

The cer t aint y t hat m y st udent s wer e learning based on m y abilit y t o see t hem in m y face- t o- face courses crum bled. No longer would I rely on m y assum pt ions and residual posit ive feelings from int er act ions wit h st udent s t o convince m yself t hat t hey w er e lear ning. Now , I r equire t hat all st udent s, w het her online or face- t o- face, be act ive part icipant s by producing and subm it t ing evidence of t heir lear ning. I appear t o be in good com pany . Hut chings et al. ( 2011) adm it , “ …m ost of t he facult y w ho have been draw n t o t he scholarship of t eaching and learning have also been draw n t o pedagogies t hat act iv ely engage st udent s” ( p. 28) . I cert ainly under st and why. I f learning is not “ visible” ( p. 33) , how can it be observed and m easur ed? Having st udent s creat e a product or dem onst rat e a relevant behavior provides evidence of learning ( not m erely ev idence of polit e m anners during lect ure) t hat can be m easured, const r uct iv ely cr it icized, and im proved.

Putting a Spin on the Webs of Change

Working in m y ow n classroom t o exam ine and im pr ove st udent lear ning has generat ed opport unit ies for m e t o collaborat e w it h colleagues. Very quickly, casual sm all t alk has t urned int o research proj ect s involving ot her facult y in t he depart m ent . For exam ple, aft er discussing t he chronic anxiet y st udent s feel t oward st at ist ics courses, m y colleague and I quest ioned how w e could reduce t his anxiet y and w het her a reduct ion w ould lead t o im proved st udent learning. Aft er craft ing a m anipulat ion t o r educe anx iet y bor n out of t he at t it ude- change lit er at ur e, w e ar e current ly collect ing dat a t o t est our t echnique. Not only does t his collabor at ion have t he pot ent ial t o rem edy a shared problem , but also, aft er reading Hut chings et al. ( 2011) , I now see beyond m y classroom applicat ion and can v iew t he lar ger relevance of t his w ork.

30 V olu m e 8

● 2 0 1 3

Learning” has enabled m e t o see a larger audience for m y dat a ( Hut chings et al., 2011, p. 35) . I hav e j ust begun t o cr it ically exam ine it s ut ilit y t o infor m issues beyond m y classroom .

This new v iew inform s not only m y w ork as a t eaching facult y m em ber but also m y role as an online coordinat or, in w hich I m ent or and facilit at e facult y m em ber s’ effort s t o im prov e t eaching effect iveness online. As par t of t his role, I coordinat e peer review s of online cour ses and am building work ing r elat ionships wit h facult y out side of m y depart m ent . Ser ving on t hese peer rev iew s has provided a broader group of professionals w it h div erse per spect ives and applicat ions of cont ent wit h whom t o exchange ideas and discuss t eaching t echniques. This dialogue is creat ing avenues for int erdisciplinary collaborat ion and validat es shared desir es t o im pr ov e learning. Thr ough discovering t hese shared connect ions, new groups of individuals are revising inj unct ive norm s r egar ding w hat const it ut es effect iv e t eaching, and t hese new nor m s are beginning t heir creep forward t o affect larger- scale norm at ive change.

Support ing t his effort , m y inst it ut ion’s dist ance learning office is em erging as a hub for facult y who are int erest ed in holding larger- scale conversat ions about im prov ing t eaching and st udent learning. Launching dist ance lear ning int o t his r ole w as t he addit ion of required t raining for facult y w ho t each online, accom panied by volunt ary par t icipat ion in t he peer r eview process. Word- of- m out h inform at ion about t he t rainings and peer review s spread rapidly, and facult y m em bers began t alk ing about t eaching, bot h online and face- t o- face, in w ays not pr eviously heard. Though som e facult y m em bers at t acked t hese policies, ot hers saw t hem as form alized at t em pt s t o im pr ove t eaching, a process in w hich t hey were int erest ed. To cont ext ualize t his int erest , I leveraged m y underst anding of The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning Reconsidered. For exam ple, t o r ecruit facult y t o part icipat e in our first brow n bag on im proving inst ruct ion using online t ools, I sent an em ail aft er a w eek of low regist rat ion rat es t o t he facult y in m y school, cit ing Hut chings et al. ( 2011) and couching t he m eet ing fr om a “ perspect iv e of gr ow t h” and explaining it as a “ bot t om - up” init iat iv e by facult y w ho shar e t he com m on goal of t eaching st udent s m ore effect ively. Regist rat ion rat es for t he session incr eased t he following day by 500% . Though t he act ual frequency of regist rant s from m y school grew from only 0 t o 5, linking t he m eet ing t o it s broader cont ex t w as favorably received.

And, t he m om ent um is cont inuing. My inst it ut ion is cur r ent ly r ev ising our definit ion of scholar ship t o explicit ly recognize t he scholarship of t eaching as legit im at e facult y w ork. I t ak e every opport unit y t o publically support t his revision. And, I use m y grow ing under st anding of t he scholar ship of t eaching and learning t o craft new ways t o approach naysayer s t o t his change. For exam ple, when a colleague t old m e t hat conduct ing r esearch on t eaching w as “ t oo easy” and dism issed it s v alue, I r equest ed t hat he show m e his dat a, claim ing t hat I did not find it easy and t hat he could t each m e how it is done. When he adm it t ed t hat he had no dat a, only y ears of experience, I pr essed him for an explanat ion of w hy he t hought resear ch on t eaching was easy, w hereas resear ch on ot her t opics was not ( Macfar lane, 2011) . He had none. I r em inded him t hat t hough lessons lear ned t he hard w ay t hrough experience w er e per sonally poignant , lessons lear ned t he harder w ay t hrough r esear ch w ere m ore com pelling ( c.f. Grove & Meehl, 1996) , and I invit ed him t o accom pany m e on m y m ore illum inat ed j our ney of nonconform it y.

References

Dew ar , J. M. ( 2008) . An apology for t he scholarship of t eaching and learning. I nsight : A Journal of Scholarly Teaching, 3, 17- 22.

Dringus, L. P. ( 2000) . Tow ar ds act ive online learning: A dram at ic shift in perspect ive for learners. The I nt er net and Higher Educat ion, 2( 4) , 189- 195.

Gr ove, W. M., & Meehl, P. E. ( 1996) . Com parat ive efficiency of inform al ( subj ect iv e, im pressionist ic) and form al ( m echanical, algor it hm ic) predict ion procedures: The clinical-st at iclinical-st ical cont roversy. Psychology, Public Policy and Law , 2, 293- 323.

Hut chings, P., Huber, M. T., & Ciccone, A. ( 2011) . The scholarship of t eaching and learning

reconsidered: I nst it ut ional int egrat ion and im pact. St anford, CA: Jossey -Bass.

Kallgren, C. A., Reno, R. R, & Cialdini, R. B. ( 2000) . A focus t heor y of norm at ive conduct : When norm s do and do not affect behav ior.

Personalit y and Social Psy chology Bullet in, 26, 1002- 1012.

Macfarlane, B. ( 2011) . Prizes, pedagogic research and t eaching professors: Low ering t he st at us of t eaching and learning t hrough bifurcat ion. Teaching in Higher Educat ion, 16, 127- 130.

Reno, R. R., Cialdini, R. B., & Kallgr en, C. A. ( 1993) . The t ranssit uat ional influence of social norm s. Journal of Personalit y and Social Psychology, 64, 104- 112.

Svinick i, M., & McKeachie, W. J. ( 2011) . McKeachie’s t eaching t ips: St rat egies, r esearch, and t heory for college and universit y t eacher s ( 13t h

ed.) . Belm ont , CA: Wadswor t h.