Senior instructional designer and faculty developer in the Center for Excellence in Learning and Teaching, Stony Brook University. Research interests: inclusive pedagogy, women of color leadership in higher education, qualitative research, creative writing.
View all posts by Carol Hernandez →
Writing to Learn (WRL) is a pedagogy approach that incorporates short low-stakes written assignments, peer-review, and feedback to help students gain conceptual understanding. A literature review of more than 200 studies that reported using WTL strategies in STEM courses summarizes that this approach has been shown to help students meet learning objectives related to content knowledge, conceptual understanding, scientific method, critical thinking, effective communication, metacognition, and professionalization (Reynolds et. al., 2002). Despite the evidence, WTL is still not as widely used as it could be. Join us this Wednesday for a panel discussion with faculty that have used WTL in their STEM courses.
Writing to Learn in STEM Panel Discussion Wednesday, Nov. 30, 2022 at 1 p.m. ET. In person: CELT Faculty Commons E1332 Melville Library and Zoom
Research shows that using Writing to Learn strategies in STEM courses helps students gain communication and critical thinking skills.
References
Finkenstaedt-Quinn SA, Petterson M, Gere A, Shultz G. Praxis of Writing-to-Learn: A Model for the Design and Propagation of Writing-to-Learn in STEM. Journal of chemical education. 2021;98(5):1548-1555. doi:10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c01482
Reynolds JA, Thaiss C, Katkin W, Thompson RJ Jr. Writing-to-learn in undergraduate science education: a community-based, conceptually driven approach. CBE Life Sci Educ. 2012 Spring;11(1):17-25. doi: 10.1187/cbe.11-08-0064. PMID: 22383613; PMCID: PMC3292059.
Is it impostor phenomenon or is it something else? The term imposter phenomenon was coined in 1978 by researchers who studied high-achieving women. It is used to describe feeling like a fraud that is experienced by some accomplished individuals, especially when undertaking high profile roles or assignments. However, critics point out that the 1978 study did not include women of color, poor women, or women from a variety of professions. These are limitations that we now recognize as pertinent to the lived experience of people who are marginalized in society. Now that we are more aware of larger systemic issues such as racism, classism, and other discriminatory practices that cause individuals to doubt themselves, Tulshyan and Burey (2021) write, it’s time to change the focus from trying to fix “women at work instead of fixing the places where women work.”
We will have a chance to discuss impostor phenomenon and strategies that instructors can apply to their teaching so that students do not have to suffer through self-doubt. Join us on Wednesday, Nov. 16 at 11 a.m. ET for a CELT Inclusive Teaching Panel discussion, Addressing Impostor Phenomenon Through Your Teaching Practice.
After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the meeting.
What are some ways to mitigate feelings of impostor phenomenon that your students may experience?
References
Clance, P. R., & Imes, S. A. (1978). The imposter phenomenon in high achieving women: Dynamics and therapeutic intervention. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research & Practice, 15(3), 241–247. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0086006
Tulshyan, R. & Burey, J. (2021). Stop telling women they have imposter syndrome. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2021/02/stop-telling-women-they-have-imposter-syndrome
By Carol Hernandez, Ed.D. Senior Instructional Designer carol.hernandez@stonybrook.edu
The CELT team has expanded and relocated. Come see us in our new office suite located in Melville Library, W-3519.
We have some new team members, new areas of research and new ways to apply teaching and learning excellence to your instruction. Watch the video and get to know us. Reach out by email: CELT@stonybrook.edu.
How can we collaborate with you? Here are a few ways:
Syllabus review: Are your learning outcomes measurable? Do they align with your assignments and assessments?
Active learning: Are you getting students engaged with the course content and each other?
Inclusive teaching: Are you creating opportunities for learners to feel that they belong and can succeed in an academic space?
Online teaching: Are you building a community where students feel that learning is a team effort?
Teaching with technology: Do you know how to pick the right tools for your teaching goals?
Virtual learning: How can you harness the virtual space to take your students to places and experiences that go beyond the physical limitations of space and time?
Research of teaching and learning? Got an idea that you want to work on for publication? We can work with you!
In my previous post, I outlined the problem that many undergraduate students do not take full advantage of faculty office hours, and gave a few suggestions for how instructors can encourage more students to attend. In this post, I want to take a look at another aspect of the problem: many instructors do not believe that it is their responsibility to encourage students to attend. The question guiding this post is: Why not? What assumptions underlie how instructors view their responsibilities around office hours?
To try to answer this question, I visited three instructors during their office hours and asked each of them what they were doing to encourage students to attend. Two said they included on the syllabus when and where office hours would be held. The third not only included when and where they would be, but invited students to drop by if they have specific questions, need extra help with the assignments, or if they simply want to talk. Of the three, he was the only one who had any students attend office hours within the first six weeks of the semester.
Do you explain to your students why they should come to office hours? Why or why not?
The first two instructors gave revealing answers about why they do not explicitly encourage students to attend. One explained that she expected students would attend if they had specific questions or wanted to discuss their grades on significant assignments. The other expected students to be able to monitor their own progress and assess for themselves whether to seek extra help in office hours. In other words, both assumed that students already know what office hours are for, and thought that there was no need to explain that asking specific questions, discussing assignments, or seeking extra help are reasons to attend.
However, recent research brings to light how these assumptions put certain students at a disadvantage. Assumptions around the proper use of office hours are part of the “hidden curriculum” of a university: those unspoken rules and expectations about how to interact socially with instructors and how to take advantage of institutional resources. As Anthony Abraham Jack notes, students rely on “cultural competencies developed before college” to navigate the hidden curriculum, but not all high schools have the resources to support students in developing such competencies (Jack, 2016). For instance, the “doubly disadvantaged” – students from economically disadvantaged backgrounds who enter college without any kind of prep or private school experience – tend to “lack the skill set or desire to engage faculty, even as they perceive their peers reaping the benefits of forging relationships” (Jack, 2016). These so-called “doubly disadvantaged” students experience higher degrees of disengagement, to the extent that some feel unable to reach out to professors even when they are at risk of failing a class. One student reports that she did not realize that she needed to contact her professor until he reached out to her first: “Even though he said if you don’t turn in this paper you’ll fail, it wasn’t until I received that email that I realized I needed to email him” (Jack, 2016). While many students eventually learn the skills to engage with faculty and to advocate for themselves academically over time, they may also miss out on access to institutional resources and opportunities to build relationships until sophomore or for some, even the junior year. That could mean missed opportunities to apply for summer jobs, internships, grants, and other experiences that enrich the curriculum and lead to careers after graduation.
Jack’s research highlights the importance of meeting students where they are, rather than where we expect them to be. It is not fair to assume that all of our students know how to seek support when they are struggling. Since very simple things like explaining what office hours are for or emailing students who are falling behind can contribute significantly to creating an accessible and inclusive learning environment, we as instructors ought to do more to normalize this practice in our institutions.
Reference
Jack, A. A. (2016). (No) harm in asking: Class, acquired cultural capital, and academic engagement at an elite university. Sociology of Education, 89(1), 1-19.
By Carol Hernandez, Ed.D. Senior Instructional Designer Center for Excellence in Learning and Teaching (CELT)
carol.hernandez@stonybrook.edu
Teaching online requires a reconceptualization of how you will design and deliver your course.
CELT can walk you through all the steps to get your course ready for the online platform. And we can show you ways to create a sense of community where students interact with you, the course content, and (perhaps most importantly) with each other. In a well-designed and well-delivered course, both you and your students will walk away feeling seen, heard, and engaged.
Building a great online course takes some time, but CELT can help.
Join us for the Online Teaching Certificate Course, which starts October 11. You can take it in the 5-week format or the accelerated 2.5-week format. Both are live facilitated by the CELT team members. These multi-week online courses will provide you with basic pedagogical, research-based practices specific to the online space and will assist you in planning instructional activities for your course. We will not focus on how to use Blackboard or Brightspace, but rather how to best use technology to meet your pedagogical goals. These courses will be delivered asynchronously online with one optional synchronous session.
OTC: This is a 5-week asynchronous course. Plan on spending 3-4 hours per week with assignments due weekly. We suggest logging on 4 times/week during this course.
OTC Accelerated: This is a condensed, 2 1/2-week version of the OTC. Plan on spending 6-7 hours weekly with assignments due every 2-3 days. We suggest logging in daily during the course.
By Devon Coutts, Ph. D. Candidate
Student Instructional Assistant Center for Excellence in Learning and Teaching (CELT)
devon.coutts@stonybrook.edu
When I was a teaching assistant, students often came to meet with me. Sometimes, especially before exams, there were so many that I had to offer additional sessions and bring in extra chairs to accommodate them all. But when I became an instructor, that changed. Suddenly, students rarely came in. And when they did, the meetings would be brief, lasting only the time it took for me to answer a question or two. I began to wonder: what happened? Why did my students stop coming? It could have been because they felt intimidated by my new role as an instructor, or because my office hours conflicted with their other classes. Or, perhaps my students did not believe that attending office hours would benefit them?
Are students coming to your office hours?
Mine is not an isolated experience. Overall, faculty report that students don’t come to office hours. However, research shows that both students and instructors benefit greatly from interactions outside of the classroom. Building positive relationships with instructors personalizes the learning experience, and encourages students to succeed in all of their courses. Conversations during office hours are less structured and more spontaneous than lectures, and can generate new research opportunities and insights into the course material on both sides of the discussion. At the same time, the instructor is gaining experience in the art of teaching–and more importantly how to revise their teaching practice to connect with learners.
There are several reasons why students don’t come to office hours. Griffin et al. (2014), noted that the most important determining factors include things like perceived convenience of the office hours, the course level, or whether the course is required or an elective. In a recent National Public Radio story (Nadworny, 2019) students described office hours as “‘intimidating’ or ‘terrifying,’ ” because attending office hours means “talking to the smartest, most powerful person you know.” Because of such anxieties or the perceived inconvenience of attending, some students prefer to email, to ask questions during class, or to meet with a TA instead. In a research article titled, “Office hours are kind of weird:” Reclaiming a resource to foster student-faculty interaction, the authors studied survey responses from 625 undergraduate students and found that oftentimes students do not really understand what office hours are for or why attending could benefit them Smith et al. (2017).
So, how can instructors take a more active role in encouraging students to seek meetings outside of class? One option is to require students to come to office hours as part of their grade. An instructor who takes this approach assigns 5% of the final grade and requires students to complete two one hour office visits with him, the TA, or one each. In an editorial for Inside Higher Ed, the instructor explained his approach and reported that many of his students said they found it very or extremely useful (Nowak, 2021). Another option is to reframe office hours as tutoring sessions or review (Joyce, 2017). “Tutoring” has a clearer purpose than the traditional, open-ended “office hours,” and its benefit for students needs no explanation. Alternatively, holding office hours in public spaces on campus, in libraries, cafes, or even in the hall outside of class, can help students feel more comfortable approaching professors for help. Offering virtual sessions can also be a good way to make office hours more accessible to students whose schedules prevent them from attending in person.
As instructors, if we want students to take advantage of office hours, then we ought to make it clearer to them why office hours are valuable. However, raising student interest in attending office hours is only one part of it: instructors also need to make an effort to anticipate student anxieties and be available to meet with students.
The approaches mentioned here offer a few ideas that instructors can think about for restructuring their office hours to make them more accessible. In my next few posts, I’ll explore the barriers preventing students from attending office hours, and discuss ideas for instructors looking to restructure their office hours in greater detail.
How do you approach office hours? If you have any suggestions, please feel free to leave a comment. Join us for a CELT Inclusive Teaching Discussion Panel on Wednesday, Oct. 19 at 1 p.m. ET.
Griffin, W., Cohen, S. D., Berndtson, R., Burson, K. M., Camper, K. M., Chen, Y., & Smith, M. A. (2014). Starting the conversation: An exploratory study of factors that influence student office hour use. College Teaching, 62(3), 94-99.
Joyce, A. (2017). Framing office hours as tutoring. College Teaching, 65(2), 92-93.
Nadworny, E. (2019). College students: How to make office hours less scary. National Public Radio. Retrieved from https://www.npr.org/2019/10/05/678815966/college-students-how-to-make-office-hours-less-scary
Nowak, Z. (2021). Why I require office hours visits. Opinion: Teaching and Learning, Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/advice/2021/12/15/benefits-requiring-students-come-office-hours-opinion#.YyoRGLBq4Q0.link
Smith, M., Chen, Y., Berndtson, R., Burson, K. M., & Griffin, W. (2017). “Office Hours Are Kind of Weird”: Reclaiming a Resource to Foster Student-Faculty Interaction. InSight: A Journal of Scholarly Teaching, 12, 14-29.
By Kristin Hall, Ph. D.
Instructional Designer Center for Excellence in Learning and Teaching (CELT)
kristin.hall@stonybrook.edu
Ever wonder what the difference is between learning goals, learning outcomes and learning objectives? These terms are often used interchangeably but at other times they are referencing different concepts. This can cause a bit of confusion. So what exactly are these terms and how do you tell the difference? More importantly, what do you need to know as an instructor when you are planning your course design?
Elizabeth Barkley and Claire Howell Major decipher these three concepts in Learning Assessment Techniques: A Handbook for College Faculty (2016). According to Barkley and Major:
Learning Goals– include what you intend for students to learn. This can be seen as a macro view of what you want students to achieve after instruction. For example: the student will learn to drive a car.
Learning Objectives– include identifying the steps students need to reach the learning goal. These are specific steps we expect students will achieve as they work toward the learning goal. For example: the driving student will be able to identify common traffic signs.
Learning Outcomes– includes the action taken to determine if and how students achieved the learning goal. In other words, outcomes are what students actually achieved after instruction and can be determined based on evidence (assessment) of their learning. An example might be: during a road test, the driving student will demonstrate that they can safely and accurately perform parallel parking.
If you search for these terms, you will come across different definitions. Some educational accrediting agencies will use very specific terms. It can be perplexing but our best advice is don’t get caught up in semantics. Until there is a better consensus among educators, you can loosely call of these statements learning outcomes or learning objectives. They generally point to the same thing, which is a measurable learning activity. In other words, what do you plan to teach and how will you and your student know if the learning took place?
Perhaps if you want to put a finer point on this, the best learning outcomes should be student-focused and contain a concrete learning verb. That is a critical difference when planning instruction. So instead of only focusing on what you will teach, it is perhaps more important to plan for what students will learn and how you (and they) will show that it has been learned and to what degree. This is key no matter if you are planning an in-person, online, or hybrid course. The SUNY Online Course Quality Review Rubric (OSCQR) Standard #9 addresses this explicitly: “Course objectives/outcomes are clearly defined, measurable, and aligned to learning activities and assessments.”
Again, for the purposes of effective instruction, you want to make sure these statements are specific and measurable. Why? For both the learner and the instructor, there must be some concrete guidelines that steer the teaching/learning experience and show in a transparent way whether learning has been achieved–or not. Here are a few best practices when writing learning outcomes/objectives for your courses. Best Practices in Writing Learning Outcomes/Objectives
Use one specific and measurable verb. Avoid using more than one verb as students may be able to achieve one part of the outcome/objective but not the other.
Avoid using the following word/phrases as these are often open to interpretation and not measurable: “understand, know, demonstrate an understanding, learn, be familiar with, be aware of, appreciate, have knowledge of . . .” Instead ask yourself these questions: How will I be able to determine if students know or understand? What will they need to do? These questions will often help you identify the specific and measurable verb.
Well-written learning outcomes/objectives use student-centered specific, clear and concise language. Avoid using ambiguous words or phrases. Instead put the focus of the action the student can show or perform, not what the instructor can show or perform.
Learning outcomes/objectives should be designed to be achieved within the specific time frame of the semester or (time frame of instruction). In this way, there is a deadline or endpoint both you and the student must work toward. This aspect can help you determine what content must be included in your curriculum so that students can reach that goal. Ask yourself: is it nice to know or need to know?
Avoid references to course activities and specific assessments. For example, it would not be appropriate to state, “Students will be able to achieve a passing grade on the midterm exam.” This is not a learning outcome/objective for the course.
If you would like assistance in writing or revising your learning outcomes/objectives for your courses, contact CELT at celt@stonybrook.edu to schedule a consultation with an instructional designer. Do you have questions or comments? Please post them below or on our Twitter handle: @CELT_SBU.
Reference: Barkley, E. F., & Major, C. H. (2016). Learning assessment techniques: A handbook for college faculty. John Wiley & Sons.
By Hyunjin Jinna Kim Ph.D., Curriculum & Instruction
Postdoctoral Associate
Center for Excellence in Learning and Teaching (CELT) hyunjin.kim.4@stonybrook.edu
Practicing inclusive teaching, especially in the STEM fields, is recognized as a challenge. A 2017 study by Oriana Aragón and colleagues found that an instructor’s values provide a clue as to their ability to implement pedagogies that embrace equity.
In the article Colorblind and multicultural ideologies are associated with faculty adoption of inclusive teaching practices, which ran in the Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, researchers investigated the relationship between faculty beliefs and the adoption of inclusive teaching practices in STEM. Results demonstrated higher adoption of inclusive teaching practices from those who endorsed multicultural ideology compared to the endorsement of a colorblind ideology.
Using survey data from 628 attendees of the National Academies Summer Institutes on Undergraduate Science Education, the study measured faculty ideologies and the influence on inclusive teaching adoption processes. In terms of ideologies, the study measured colorblind and multicultural ideologies as opposing viewpoints. The colorblind ideology refers to beliefs that emphasize sameness and equal treatment with no attention to students’ differences. The multicultural ideology, on the other hand, is a set of beliefs that embraces differences and seeks to support underrepresented or marginalized students. The measurement of adopting equitable teaching practices included instructor actions such as adopting diverse teaching methods, reducing implicit biases, or providing classroom content with contributors from diverse backgrounds.
The Summer Institute curriculum was designed based on an EPIC model: Expose, persuade, identify, and commit. In the study, educators were exposed to inclusive teaching practices; then persuaded by personal values, a sense of duty to the organization, and the negative consequences of not implementing them. Next, educators identified with the inclusive teaching practices by seeing the compatibility of the practices with their teaching approaches. Commitment is the final step where educators implemented new teaching practices. This was measured by asking participants to indicate the inclusive teaching practices they applied to their teaching as a result of the Summer Institute.
The data collection started in October 2014, when a request to respond to a survey was distributed to all who attended the National Academies Summer Institutes between 2004-2014. The Summer Institute was sponsored by the National Academies and funded by the Howard Hughes Medical Institute and ran annually from 2004 to 2015. Typically, the program is a 4-day intensive training where participants focus on active learning, assessment, and inclusive teaching practices. Results of the study showed a higher rate of changes in the implementation of inclusive teaching practices after attending the Summer Institute.
The results are important to educators as they suggest that critical self-awareness is key for faculty who seek to eliminate exclusion of traditionally underrepresented students in STEM courses. Despite the self-report biases and the well-intended faculty who committed their time to attend the Summer Institute, it is critical to recognize that faculty ideologies and orientations could potentially affect efforts in implementing inclusive practices. The good news is that faculty can play an active role in reviewing their own biases regarding their teaching ideologies and in revising their teaching practice.
What are your thoughts on this study? On making your own teaching practice more inclusive? Leave a comment below.
Reference
Aragón, O. R., Dovidio, J. F., & Graham, M. J. (2017). Colorblind and multicultural ideologies are associated with faculty adoption of inclusive teaching practices. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 10(3), 201-215. https://doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000026
