Category Archives: Learning Outcomes

Exploring Teaching and Leaning Technology at CIT 2024

By Luis Colon
Instructional Designer
luis.colon@stonybrook.edu

Last month, members of CELT traveled to Buffalo, New York to attend the SUNY Conference on Instructional Technology (CIT) hosted by the University at Buffalo to participate in the event as well as present some of the work that we have been doing. The CIT conference started in 1992 and since has provided faculty and instructional support professionals a space to share their experiences, delve into common issues, work towards finding solutions, and explore the many innovative avenues that allow instructors to enhance the learning environment through the use of technology. 

The theme of this year’s conference was: Creating Inclusive Innovation in Higher Education, and showcased engaging sessions from faculty and instructional support professionals focusing on topics such as course design, assessment strategies, artificial intelligence (AI), immersive technologies, and more. In addition to these sessions, there were also exhibits from sponsors including D2L, Lumen Learning, and Respondus, as well as other exhibitors showcasing products and other technologies that could be used in the classroom to enhance the learning experience as well as increase engagement.

The University at Buffalo sign and some trees.
The University at Buffalo was a great location for this year’s CIT 2024 conference.

During the conference, we presented at two different sessions. Our first session, Critical Conversation on Generative AI, focused on our response to the boom of AI tools to support teaching and learning in college classes at Stony Brook University. The session opened with the CELT AI Timeline, illustrating how CELT started with collaborations with the academic integrity office. CELT proactively communicated to the SBU faculty about the best practices on generative AI in their classrooms and provided ongoing support and training sessions. We stay abreast on the latest AI tools and explore the benefits, challenges, and potential use cases with interested faculty members at Stony Brook University. During the past one-and-a-half-year period, CELT hosted 22 AI events with 1,110 Attendees. The AI panel discussion series covers topics like academic integrity, AI best practices, AI ethics, student perspectives, creative AI in art education, AI, and research. Monthly AI talk sessions allow faculty to ask questions and share their experience. Generative AI in Higher Education workshop series focuses on AI tools training, AI guidelines, assessment redesign, and ethical and practical AI usage for teaching and learning. 

Ultimately, as AI tools continued to develop and become more capable it became clear that we would need to expand our offerings to meet the needs and demands of interested stakeholders which we have done over the past year.

During the second half of the session, we opened up the floor to respond to questions for the audience to join the discussion and share their thoughts. The audience shared both valuable insights and ideas regarding AI usage as well as valid concerns regarding the capabilities and rapid growth of the technology. We shared resources at the end of the session and were able to speak to some of the audience members who had additional questions or were interested in continuing the conversation.

Our second session, Exploring VR Applications in College Classes – An SBU Showcasefocused on the applications of virtual reality (VR) of faculty members at Stony Brook University.  They explored the capabilities of these types of tools and how they can fit into their course goals and enhance their overall instruction. We began by discussing how the effective utilization of VR can positively impact teaching and learning and discussed specific tools that provide diverse experiences in VR that can be incorporated into any course. This included 360° photo and video, WebXR tools such as FrameVR, and immersive VR tools used in simulation-based learning. We then discussed our collaborations with faculty and staff members at the university and how they are currently using or planning to utilize VR in their courses. This included the work of Mark Lang from the School of Marine and Atmospheric Science (SoMAS), Dr. Guleed Ali from the Department of Geosciences, Dr. Carol Carter from the Department of Microbiology and Immunology, and Dr. Gary Marr from the Department of Philosophy in collaboration with Paul St. Dennis from the Department of Information Technology (DoIT). Then Dr. Guleed Ali presented via Zoom on VR virtual field trips as an inclusive pedagogy strategy  in his Geoscience class. 

The second part of our session was a hands-on immersive showcase, audience members could try on some of the VR applications we discussed. We set up three stations with Meta Quest headsets where audience members could see firsthand the diverse use cases of VR technology in the higher ed learning environment and familiarize themselves with working in VR. This also allowed us the opportunity to speak with audience members about their experiences with VR in the classroom, how they may be using VR in innovative and exciting new ways, and how they would like to be using VR in the classroom in the future. 

Members of CELT at the CIT 2024 conference.
CIT2024 was a great opportunity to gather insights and explore technology in teaching and learning!

The experience of attending and presenting sessions at CIT in Buffalo this year was an exciting and informative experience for our team. It was great to network and collaborate with other colleagues in teaching and learning more about the future of technology in our discipline. Our team returned with many great ideas and approaches that we are excited to implement in our own work.

2024 CELT Teaching and Learning Symposium – Focusing on Innovative Pedagogy

By Luis Colon
Instructional Designer
luis.colon@stonybrook.edu

On April 12th, the Center for Excellence in Learning and Teaching held their annual Teaching and Learning Symposium. Over the years, the event has allowed educators, researchers, administrators, and more to come together to discuss various aspects of teaching and learning as well as celebrate teaching and learning practices and initiatives at Stony Brook University. The central theme of the day was Innovative Pedagogy which was at the center of conversations and various learning experiences held throughout the day. The theme illustrates the importance of finding new and exciting ways to engage with and include students in the academic environment as well as empowering students to pursue lifelong learning. Close to 100 faculty members, graduate students, staff, and administrators attended the day-long event held in Ballroom A of the Student Activities Center.

The event opened with words from Dr. Carl Lejuez, Provost and Executive Vice President for Academic Affairs, and then led into the keynote event of the day. Dr. Marsha Lovett presented an interactive workshop on innovative teaching and how practice and feedback can be an impactful practice in the classroom. Dr. Lovett is the Vice Provost for Teaching & Learning Innovation at Carnegie Mellon University as well as a Teaching Professor of Psychology and former director of the Eberly Center for Teaching Excellence and Educational Innovation. Her passion for combining teaching and research is illustrated in the book How Learning Works, which has been translated into multiple languages and is now in its second edition with the new subtitle: How Learning Works: Eight Research-Based Principles for Smart Teaching. 

Attendees at the 2024 CELT Symposium during the keynote workshop.
Dr. Marsha Lovett delivered an informative and engaging keynote workshop.

The workshop focused on the importance of incorporating opportunities for students to engage in “deliberate practice” where they are challenged appropriately and focus on clear and specific goals. These opportunities allow for observed performance where students would be able to receive targeted feedback that they would be able to use to improve their skills and apply in further practice. To provide targeted feedback, Dr. Lovett recommended incorporating rubrics into assignments as a grading tool where criteria for success is outlined and to remind students to utilize the rubric before, during, and after working on the assignment. 

To address the concern of allowing students to practice often without having a huge amount of grading, Dr. Lovett suggested incorporating opportunities for students to engage in active learning. She touched on many different examples of active learning strategies from shorter tasks to whole-class activities which provide students the opportunity to not only practice applying important skills but also allows students to receive feedback through the explanations of concepts and discussions that spark from active learning in the classroom.

Dr. Lovett closed with a discussion on how to provide effective SPACE (Specific, Prioritized, Actionable, Constructive, Expedient) feedback in a manner that is not only easy but also efficient and applicable to courses of all types and sizes. Her suggestions included framing your feedback in relation to your overall learning goals, highlighting priorities in the work, providing class-wide feedback on common pitfalls and errors, and developing a “key” or collection of frequently used comments to use during grading.

Following the keynote session were breakout sessions where Stony Brook University faculty and staff delivered sessions focusing on four different tracks highlighting major topics in teaching and learning today including Course Design, Student Engagement, Virtual Experiences, and Artificial Intelligence (AI). There were three breakout sessions where attendants had the opportunity to either stick to one particular track or attend sessions on different topics of interest. Faculty presenters from across both campuses discussed practical approaches and strategies to implement in classes and recounted their own observations with these innovative teaching practices.

Attendees at the CELT Learning Symposium 2024.
Faculty and staff participated in learning sessions and activities throughout the all-day event.

The 2024 Teaching and Learning Symposium was an exciting event that provided an open forum for faculty, TAs, and staff to engage in discourse related to teaching and learning with their colleagues. From using generative AI as a “junk generator” and having students critique its outputs to effective practices to foster inclusivity in the classroom environment, this event addressed many facets of teaching and learning to help students feel welcomed, engaged, and appropriately challenged in their coursework and overall experience at Stony Brook University. 

If you would like to learn more about how to make your courses effective, engaging, relevant, and inclusive, you can purchase a copy of How Learning Works: Eight Research-Based Principles for Smart Teaching by Dr. Marsha Lovett at this Amazon link. Linked below is the Google Collaborative Note-Taking Document from the day’s events to catch up with session materials and notes from the various sessions offered.

Teaching as Performance

By Devon Coutts
Ph.D. Candidate, Philosophy
Devon.coutts@stonybrook.edu

It can be especially difficult for university faculty members to develop effective teaching skills. While we all invest a great deal of time and energy in learning our respective disciplines, many, if not most, of us are not given any kind of guidance for how to pass on learning to our students. Perhaps surprisingly, such guidance need not come from traditional educational theory; there is a lot we can learn about teaching from the performing arts.

Actors on a stage.
What can educators learn from actors who portray a role, a scene, or a concept to an audience?

That was certainly the case for me when I taught a class for the first time. I approached preparing my classes the way I would have approached preparing for a performance. I wrote out detailed scripts for myself and rehearsed giving lectures. I included “stage notes” for myself to indicate slide transitions, points of emphasis, the questions I planned on asking the students, and the questions that I anticipated students would ask me as we went along. While this method of preparation helped me to feel more confident going into the classroom, it was rare that a class ever played out exactly the way that I had envisioned it. This is because I assumed that my students would be a model audience, when in fact, I should have been thinking about them as my fellow actors. In my experience, the most effective and engaging classes were the ones in which students took an active role in guiding the lesson: where they asked questions, responded to one another, and made new connections within and beyond our course readings.   

Comparisons between teaching and the performing arts have been around since at least the 1960’s. In his 1968 article, “Qualitative intelligence and the act of teaching,” Elliot W. Eisner writes, “Teachers, like actors, attempt to communicate to groups of people in an audience-like situation . . . both the actor and the teacher employ qualities to enhance communication [and] must be able to control their actions in such a way as to capture the attention and interest of those to whom their message is directed.” In other words, for both teachers and actors, the mode of delivery is as important as the content being expressed. Although the goals of acting and teaching differ greatly, both employ similar means toward achieving them. 

For instance, one professor, Aaron Langille, who teaches in mathematics and computer science at Laurentian University, shared six strategies that he uses in his classroom teaching:

  • Voice dynamics: Practice projecting techniques, and varying tone and intonation to convey enthusiasm.
  • Eye contact: Rather than reading from notes or slides, this helps you to connect with your students.
  • Audience involvement: Build in ways of inviting students to share their ideas or generate their own examples in every class.
  • Pop culture: Try to bring in relevant examples, either by asking students directly or by giving them ways to bring what’s important or interesting to them to class discussions. For example, Langille creates meme threads for students to post memes relevant to the course material.
  • Humor: Remember to tread with caution when it comes to humor: keep things light, try to avoid excessive sarcasm,  and always be willing to laugh at yourself.
  • Improvisation: Try the “yes, and . . .” strategy, remember to go with the flow, stay flexible and open to surprises or new avenues of thinking that may pop up. 

 Langille reported that by working on his vocal dynamics and improvisation in particular, he was able to communicate his course material more effectively and with genuine enthusiasm. Bringing these certain performance elements into his teaching thus also helped him show care and concern for his students as learners, which in turn invited them to become “actors” guiding their own learning.

Some professors take the “teaching as performance” idea even further. As Noha Fikry writes in this first person article published on the website for the Society for Cultural Anthropology. Fikry quotes her former professor from the American University of Cairo, AbdelAziz EzzelArab (“Zizo”), who says: “Teaching is all about performance . . . it takes passion and performance skills.” For her mentor, Zizo, teaching “requires an active engagement with every muscle of your body, along with full and undivided attention through which a teacher plays with and builds on student engagements to inform class content and discussions.” The actual content of the lessons, for Zizo, take on secondary importance, but his dedication to his students seems to ensure that learning does not suffer as a result. Reflecting on her own experience of being Zizo’s student, Fikry writes, “Zizo’s intense passion, overwhelming presence, and wholesome engagement in class . . . captivated my entire being to remain fully focused.”  

It might not be possible for all of us to embody our teaching as fully as Zizo, but we can all benefit from incorporating certain performance techniques in the classroom. Even something as simple as making eye contact, rather than reading from notes, and trying out variations in tone and pace while giving a lecture can make a huge difference to how students respond to the material, the instructor, and to one another. What is more, bringing in techniques of improvisation helps to make space for students to become like actors themselves, and to take an active role in guiding their own learning.   

References

De La Vega, V. (2019). Teaching as performance. Centre for Teaching, Learning and Technology. The University of British Columbia. Retrieved from https://ctlt.ubc.ca/2019/10/30/teaching-as-performance/

Eisner, E. W. (1963). Qualitative intelligence and the act of teaching. Elementary school journal, 63(6), 299-307.

Fikry, N. (2022). Teaching as performance: On scripts, preparing for classes, and teaching with passion. Society for Cultural Anthropology. Retrieved from https://culanth.org/fieldsights/teaching-as-performance-on-scripts-preparing-for-classes-and-teaching-with-passion

 

  

 

Writing to Learn in STEM

By Kimberly Bell, Ph.D.
Teaching Assistant Development Specialist
kimberly.bell@stonybrook.edu

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

Register today!

(Coffee and cookies provided in the Commons.)
You can also join us on Zoom.

Panelists:

  • Mona Monfared, Associate Professor of Teaching, Molecular & Cellular Biology, UC Davis
  • Ginger Shultz, Associate Professor, Chemistry, University of Michigan
  • Joi Walker, Associate Professor, Chemistry, East Carolina University

Research from Ginger Schultz’s group provides advice for implementing WTL widely in high enrollment introductory STEM courses (Finkenstaedt-Quinn SA, 2021). 

Student in a lab coat with a microscope and taking noets.
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.

Learning Goals, Objectives, or Outcomes?

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

  1. 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.  
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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?
  5. 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.

Additional Resources:

CELT: Articulating Student Learning Outcomes and Bloom’s Taxonomy
SUNY Online Course Quality Review Rubric (OSCQR) Standard #9: Course objectives/outcomes are clearly defined, measurable, and aligned to learning activities and assessments.

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.