A Justification for Collaborative Learning Environments.
Part 3 - A Peer Review
As part of our annual performance evaluation process, faculty are encouraged to invite other faculty to their class for peer evaluations. I was interested in hearing another instructor's opinion of my new collaborative learning environment as well. Below is a copy of the review from a fellow faculty member, providing yet another justification for this learning environment.
On the day that I observed class, Professor Kuhl returned and reviewed a recent exam and, afterwards, introduced a chapter that explored the circumstances under which parties to a contract can rescind it.
Nearly all students engaged the various topics that filled the class period, and attendance appeared to be at or very near 100%. As the class reviewed the exam, Professor Kuhl invited students to defend those answers for which she did not assign them credit. The exercise produced informed, spirited, and civil discussions filled with teachable moments that Professor Kuhl used to very good effect (even though she mostly—and, it seemed to me, rightly—resisted their attempts to add to their exam score).
Then, Professor Kuhl briefly introduced the new chapter. She aptly used a traditional format of talk and chalk and accompanied this with slides. She often asked students questions or prompted them for comments. The dead silence that instructors often confront in such situations was absent. Students were clearly comfortable speaking in class and several volunteered comments and questions. These exchanges most impressed me.
Professor Kuhl followed her brief lecture with an active-learning group activity, in which students worked through a series of case studies that required them to apply the concepts contained in the lecture. Students joined their pre-assigned groups and engaged the activity. Few if any students distracted themselves or others with tangential discussions and the like.
Throughout the exercise, Professor Kuhl visited each group and, when necessary, helped them along. Afterwards, groups shared and debated their responses. Like the earlier exercise, this activity produced informed and spirited discussions filled with teachable
moments. And, again, Professor Kuhl used these to terrific effect. Professor Kuhl assigned credit to each group based on their participation, rather than on the quality of their responses. If the credit that students receive for group exercises comprises a relatively small percentage (say 10% to 15%) of their final grade, then this assessment approach is, I think, an effective and low-cost way to stimulate discussion and maintain attendance; otherwise, Professor Kuhl may want to assess these outcomes more critically. In any case, the activity inspired me to try something similar in my courses.
In conclusion, Professor Kuhl is passionate about teaching. Her stage presence exudes confidence and control, while it comforts and earns the trust of her students. Most important, her hard work in the classroom (and in preparation for it) seems to contribute significantly to student learning. I applaud her efforts to balance active and more-traditional lecture-format learning approaches.
As part of our annual performance evaluation process, faculty are encouraged to invite other faculty to their class for peer evaluations. I was interested in hearing another instructor's opinion of my new collaborative learning environment as well. Below is a copy of the review from a fellow faculty member, providing yet another justification for this learning environment.
On the day that I observed class, Professor Kuhl returned and reviewed a recent exam and, afterwards, introduced a chapter that explored the circumstances under which parties to a contract can rescind it.
Nearly all students engaged the various topics that filled the class period, and attendance appeared to be at or very near 100%. As the class reviewed the exam, Professor Kuhl invited students to defend those answers for which she did not assign them credit. The exercise produced informed, spirited, and civil discussions filled with teachable moments that Professor Kuhl used to very good effect (even though she mostly—and, it seemed to me, rightly—resisted their attempts to add to their exam score).
Then, Professor Kuhl briefly introduced the new chapter. She aptly used a traditional format of talk and chalk and accompanied this with slides. She often asked students questions or prompted them for comments. The dead silence that instructors often confront in such situations was absent. Students were clearly comfortable speaking in class and several volunteered comments and questions. These exchanges most impressed me.
Professor Kuhl followed her brief lecture with an active-learning group activity, in which students worked through a series of case studies that required them to apply the concepts contained in the lecture. Students joined their pre-assigned groups and engaged the activity. Few if any students distracted themselves or others with tangential discussions and the like.
Throughout the exercise, Professor Kuhl visited each group and, when necessary, helped them along. Afterwards, groups shared and debated their responses. Like the earlier exercise, this activity produced informed and spirited discussions filled with teachable
moments. And, again, Professor Kuhl used these to terrific effect. Professor Kuhl assigned credit to each group based on their participation, rather than on the quality of their responses. If the credit that students receive for group exercises comprises a relatively small percentage (say 10% to 15%) of their final grade, then this assessment approach is, I think, an effective and low-cost way to stimulate discussion and maintain attendance; otherwise, Professor Kuhl may want to assess these outcomes more critically. In any case, the activity inspired me to try something similar in my courses.
In conclusion, Professor Kuhl is passionate about teaching. Her stage presence exudes confidence and control, while it comforts and earns the trust of her students. Most important, her hard work in the classroom (and in preparation for it) seems to contribute significantly to student learning. I applaud her efforts to balance active and more-traditional lecture-format learning approaches.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Hello