Category Archives: Research

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.

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.

Rethinking Office Hours

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? 

Two women sit and face each other in an office.
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.

Register:  https://stonybrook.zoom.us/meeting/register/tJYqceGtqzwqGN06H2GkNgQA2nS3EL5FVdFm

Questions: Carol Hernandez, Ed.D. carol.hernandez@stonybrook.edu

References

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.

Inclusive Teaching: From Exposure to Commitment

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

Opportunity to Participate in Teaching Related Research

Researchers from Ball State University are conducting teaching related research that explores faculty views and practices about sharing teaching materials. This study is looking for participants from a cross-disciplinary group of faculty and welcomes your participation. 

If you have taught at least one college-level class as the primary instructor, you are eligible to participate in this study. Participation involves completing a survey that will take approximately 20-30 minutes to complete. Participants are eligible to receive one of 10 Tango gift cards valued at $10 each. 

The study (Materials Dissemination) has been approved by the Ball State University Institutional Review Board (IRBNet ID 1649675-1). 

The link for the study is:

https://bsu.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_6xjfWnNCHZWvhZQ

If you have any questions about this study, please contact Kelsey Thiem (kthiem@bsu.edu, 765-285-8048) or Mary Kite (mkite@bsu.edu, 765-285-8197). For your rights as a research participant, you may contact the Office of Research Integrity, Ball State University, Muncie, IN 47306, (765) 285-5052, orihelp@bsu.edu.