TLT Symposium Reflection

The symposium was a show of great ideas and technological innovations for use in teaching, all very good, some very bold, some easy to apply, others not so much... But yet, in the middle of those talks, in between trying hard to follow the speakers fast English - sometimes loosing track of it - and trying to picture all that being applied, I felt like "wow, that's so much... why again are people trying so hard to incorporate all that in the classrooms?". 

This sounds like a very stupid question I guess. But I think at that moment I was relating this to what I experienced from the education system in which I grew up in Brazil, where in a big number of colleges and schools, specially the public ones, there is a noticeable lack of infra-structure, transportation, textbooks, and preparedness of teachers. It just sounds like too much when there is a need for the basic things first, kind of like putting modern racing tires in a 1940 VW beetle that won't go past 50 mph.

That is why I think for me the most marking moment of the event was Dan Heath's talk. It was... eyeopening when he made everyone realize the reason why many don't achieve their course dream. When he reasoned about the importance of the syllabus and the appropriate way to make it. When he gave a lesson on how to make ideas stick, how to catch students attention and make them want to learn... The more conceptual tone of his presentation, showing the role of the professor's skills and understanding of their students learning process on their actual learning, independent of how many technological devices you have at your disposition, was something that I could see yielding more results at the moment. At least from my perspective.

An event I don't want to forget.

I will be honest; Saturday's symposium was my second one, and if someone asked me what do I remember from the first one, a year ago, I would be blank. In addition to the delicious food I ate on 2018 symposium, my mind could only retrieve vague memories. I remember I was as excited as I was last Saturday; however, the valuable knowledge that I know I learned rested hidden in some broken synapsis. Will it happen the same with this symposium? That was the question I made to myself time and time again while drinking roasted coffee and eating beagles during the multiple breaks. Actually, I noticed that it is a question I make to myself frequently, and I guess the reason is that I don't want to miss a thing of this beautiful and varied life.

But going back to my discouraging question about forgetting, Am I going to forget this symposium? And, I'm glad to say that not only this event but also our AEE530 class have given me the inputs to say NO, I won't forget. And I consider there is something different from last year that made me see this symposium differently: my current motivation to understand how do we learn. And that motivation, as we have seen in our course, is a critical factor in for learning.

Regarding the symposium, the first talk fit like a glove to help me answer my concern. If an idea, message, or whatever we want to communicate is Simple, Unexpected, Concrete, Credible, Emotional, and in a Story form, it will be more likely to remembered or to stick. And because it is expected that I won't remember these six words the next year, Dan Heath created a simple acronym that I'm not likely to forget, "SUCCES". I also had the opportunity to participate in Mr. Heath’s Questions/Answers session, space where great questions and magnificent answers came and went. I won’t forget an emotional story about how easily life changes. In this story, due to a mentor, Mr. Heat canceled his law career, changing what he studies, what he writes, and the audience he speaks.

As I learned from the book HPL II, emotions play a role in developing a neural substrate for learning. And this was a fact that came to my mind when I was in the session of “Learning through the art of storytelling.” Although storytelling is not as important to transfer knowledge as it used to be, two things make it still relevant, especially to increase learner engagement (there are more, but I prefer to stick to Dan’s “S” of Simple). The first one is that storytelling emotionally connect the learner, and the second one is that It makes complex concepts lucid, especially when linking theory to practice. And despite the session described a process that some professor followed in designing a course based on storytelling, the topic of the course was even more interesting to me: children adoption. I won’t forget that just before entering the session I was talking to a friend about my interests on child adoption, a topic that was told us then. Even more Unexpected, the professor who guided the session revealed us that she, as an adoptive mother, was one of the main characters of the story told to us.

The exercise of writing this note has made me think again about what I’ve retained from this great event; I’m sure this activity itself reinforces my symposium experiences, which will help me to don’t forget. 

Finally, being aware of this blog existence allowed me to dive into the thoughts and reactions of other students towards the 2018 event, the one I had forgotten. I could recall, for instance, about the keynote speakers. Probably I wouldn’t be able to do it if I wouldn’t know about the Blog, which took me to the conclusion that knowing where information is can be as worthful as knowing the information. I’m convinced that the massive amount of useful information generated demands us to be efficient and strategic in the way we organize it. I would love to hear from you about methods to keep information that allowed you to retrieve it successfully.

TLT Symposium: Thoughts and Reflections

I had never attended this symposium before, so I really didn't have any idea what this event would actually be like. I planned which talks I would attend, woke up early, had a great breakfast, and looked forward to anything I might be able to learn during this symposium. I will say, I'm glad I attended this event for reasons I'll get into.

Firstly, the keynote speaker was phenomenal. Dan Heath almost immediately captured my attention when he started his introduction as he delved into ways to improve teaching as well as overcoming common challenges. Coincidentally (on purpose, I'm sure), the part that stuck with me the most was his emphasis on making your talks, knowledge, and overall delivery of information 'stick' with people by making your ideas unexpected yet simple. While this was overall interesting to listen to, it was not necessarily new information as if anything you try to teach doesn't stick, that you and your student have effectively wasted each other's time. What really stuck me was when Dan began discussing the "Curse of Knowledge." This concept I know all too well, both on my own end trying to share my ideas with others during talks or in my writing as well as trying to understand the material of some of my own peers. As a result, I try very hard to avoid these scenarios when I teach by learning the material with the students/peers I would be educating. I read what I plan out and dissect each word, each term, to make sure that enough information is present that people are able to refence idea's they're already familiar with. While I never got to listen to his explanations for Credible, Emotional, and Stories (although I lean their importance later), I still found Dan's talk on SUCCES(S) to be the most interesting part of the symposium. 

There were two other talks I thought were interesting. First, "Learning through the art of storytelling" discussed, well, using real stories as an effective teaching method. The main draw in using a strategy like this is upon listening to the real stories told by real people, students will become emotionally invested (remember Dan's 'E' in "SUCCES") in the material and as a result, both retain the material better and become storytellers themselves. This is done by storyboarding stories told by these speakers and having students identify key moments in the story in order to summon empathy within themselves. This was a very straight forward talk and an interesting method of teaching that I never really considered until now. 

Second, ending the final round of talks, I attended "Serious games and gamification: What has research shown us since 2014." Ever since I learned that my middle school began using World of Warcraft to teach story building and money management, I needed to know why people thought this was a good strategy for teaching. As an occasional gamer myself, while I know of ways in which certain games and platforms can be used to teach aspects of life and some skills, I always believed there were better ways to teach the same idea. If the game isn't focused on the 'learning' aspect of the experience, I believe that the core idea of what might be gained by playing games is ultimately lost. The talk delved into the pros of using games to teach, examining the use of intrinsic vs. extrinsic rewards, allowing students a safe place to fail and work at their own pace, as well as finding ways to tie concepts into real-world situations, among others. Despite this, along with the other cons mentioned in the talk such as having the game be a closed system, lack of control over content, and an inability to analyze the gameplay done by students, I remain unconvinced that games should be used as a serious way of trying to teach any school subject-type material. While certain games can certainly improve social skills, and other more difficult games teach aspects of mathematics or other subjects, in the end I still think that other, more conventional methods of teaching are more effective and less risky. I would be open in the future to more ideas like this, however.

That more or less wrapped up my experiences at my first TLT symposium. I'm glad I attended and got to listen to ideas and opinions from many successful teachers. The shark-tank-like event was particularly great, and I'm a little upset only one could be funded (I thought they were all great). I'm excited to bring what I experience into my AEE 530 class and discuss with my peers what they got out of this enlightening experience.

Reflect of 2019 Penn State Symposium for Teaching and Learning with Technology (TLT).

The cold weather seemed not affecting the heat of the symposium. I enjoyed the keynote speech with good bacon. The six tricks of a sticky idea were delivered with simple but unforgettable examples, and Dan is a master of manipulating words, for sure. In his speech, SUCCES is the results of Simple, Unexpected, Concrete, Credible, Emotional, and Stories. Without fancy terminology and complex definitions, the speech kindled the thoughts of how to effectively deliver the knowledge to the audience. The Next session I attended was Technology Hacks for Cementing Learning. The time was limited for a full introduction of all tech hacks updates, but applying IT in each step of teaching a course would reduce the stress of students and helping teachers create various modules that tracking students attention. Open Educational Resources (OER) innovation was the following session and it introduced several updated practices of applying open sources in teaching. The application of BBookX can create a textbook that fits a specific, new frontier subject. I was also interested in providing video materials to enhance the teaching procedure. After the exciting open innovation challenge, two presentations I went were both introductions of new technology: Kaltura which introducing video into a course for both teachers and students, and GIKS writing-to-learn tool which can help teachers and students to assess the learning.

Learning some new idea in a single day was great, but concerns accumulated while I reflecting the symposium afterward. The six tricks of making an idea sticky are quite helpful for teaching a concept or a fact, and it will be a challenge to apply them to all courses and disciplines. In a course needs critical logical reasoning, or a pure theoretical course, like math or statistics, the tricks may not help much to teach calculating equations. Besides, instructors need to pay their major attention to the knowledge that students need to learn. If a teacher spends too much time on designing an idea sticky, the class may turn to a sideway of amusing students instead of teaching. The technics introduced in the symposium are fancy at first glance, and I believe they will accelerate students' learning. However, my concern is whether fast learning is better than the conventional way of learning like reading? The social media spreads immediate news and messages that can be swallowed in seconds, gifs and short videos can stimulate brain within a minute, these are the new ways to access information but are they effective in learning all course and disciplines? New technics will make it easier to access knowledge for students, and students may be satisfied with finishing watching a video or completing a quiz, but never come back. Learning is never a once-for-all deal. The conventional ways of learning, like reading, may not excite learners as much as new tech does, but old-fashioned ways can slow minds down and let the learner digest information.

New technology is always welcomed in the classroom, but they are just vehicles that deliver knowledge. We should not evaluate a teaching and learning process just based on how "fancy" of a class. By the way, advanced technology means a high investment of equipment in classrooms and some times the extra cost of students. This may also lead to educational inequity between students or schools, especially in developing countries.

In general, applying new techs in teaching and learning is exciting for all participants, while we should keep in mind that teaching and learning procedures are designed and built for the learners, not for showing new techs.

How can we use technology to help students review a course’s foundational knowledge?

Yesterday, March 16^th, I attended Penn State’s 2019 Symposium for Teaching and Learning with Technology (TLT; search “#TLTSym” on social media). It was a great day, with an awesome keynote presentation and a full day of sessions focused on how different technologies can be applied to transform education!

One of the sessions that I attended was “Creating digital content to engage students in prerequisite review”. I had selected this TLT session because many of the courses I have been a student in built upon knowledge from previous entomology, biology, chemistry, leadership, or other courses. It was important to recall information from these courses in order to understand the new class’s material. Most of the time, if I or another student needed to review something from a previous course, we would look back at our notes, presentations, or other materials from those classes. I also believe that courses I may lead in the future will also rely on prerequisite material, at least at some level. I was interested in seeing what types of digital content could be created to facilitate students’ review of material and the processes for making them.

Prior knowledge has been shown to predict student achievement and the depth of prior knowledge plays a role in future success. New knowledge is also influenced by prior knowledge and each student in a class comes in with a different background. The process for creating prerequisite review material should start by identifying the content to include. In other words, you need to decide what the students in your class need to know beforehand in order to succeed. The TLT session I participated in started with a simple, yet profound exercise for deciding this – answering three questions:

1.      What are 1-3 objectives that you expect students to have met before starting your course?

2.     What do you expect students to be able to do with this knowledge?

3.     How will you know what the students know?

Once you have outlined your objectives and expectations for incoming students, and you know how you can evaluate their competency of each area, you can begin to create review content that reaches these goals. As demonstrated in the TLT session, review modules in a class can consist of three parts:

1.     Content: videos and text that explain the prerequisite concepts, embedded with questions based on this material for self-testing.

2.     Practice Problems: a quiz consisting of 5-8 questions per objective (and drawn from a larger pool of questions) that students can take an unlimited number of times within the first two weeks of the course. The highest score on the quiz is retained and makes up 50% of the student’s grade for the prerequisite review assignment.

3.     Summative Assessment: a quiz, taken only once and either in class or at a testing center, that makes up the remaining 50% of the student’s grade for the prerequisite review assignment.

Since the Content is the most extensive part of the review module, I’m going to spend a lot of time describing it here. Content is created in a Kahn Academy (https://www.khanacademy.org/) like-style, using videos that can be recorded at Penn State’s One Button Studio (https://onebutton.psu.edu/). Other university systems or libraries may have resources available, or be able to obtain them for this purpose too.

In my opinion, the coolest technology used in the content creation example during the TLT session was a Lightboard. While you can record PowerPoint presentations, be shown in front of a greenscreen, or write on a chalk or whiteboard while being videotaped, there is evidence that videos made using Lightboards increase student engagement with the video (1). This is because a Lightboard is a large, clear pane of glass that you can stand behind and write on while recording. The recording is converted to a mirror image, so that students can see your face and the content you’re sharing with them simultaneously! This format simulates instructor presence. See it in action at this link (https://mediacommons.psu.edu/faculty/lightboard/) or by clicking play below:

Each content video is 5-10 minutes long, once edited using Adobe Premier or another software, and they are also interactive. At intervals throughout each video, the presentation of content is broken up with a self-testing quiz, which mimics a clicker quiz that students might have in class. This is done using H5P (see an example here: https://h5p.org/interactive-video), but other applications may have this function as well.

The Content portion of the module should also contain information about how the material in each module relates to the current course, to help students make and retain connections in what they are learning. Instructors can also include examples of learning strategies that students can use throughout the course as a part of their prerequisite content.

Students in the example used during the TLT session have the first two weeks of class to complete the prerequisite review assignment. However, they are encouraged to use distributed practice by instructor-set goals and incentives within this time frame. An example of this might be “complete half of the Content by X date and you’ll get X number of points toward the assignment”. This way, students review and learn a little at a time, and at their own pace to an extent, instead of cramming everything at once before the deadline. During this time, they are also learning new material as a part of the current course. Then, they can complete the Practice Problems potion of the review for one week, before taking the Summative Assessment at the end of the first two weeks of class.

I really like this outline and set of methods for engaging students in prerequisite review. Technology is becoming more widely accessible and students are interested in using it. It seems like it could take a lot of time to create the Content and access to resources could be a potential challenge to this as well. However, the benefits of the review to student learning would be worth the effort and then, once established, modules could be reused/adapted from year-to-year. I’ll look forward to seeing how other instructors use these types of technologies to facilitate prerequisite review in their classes, and incorporating it in my own future courses as well! 

If you have any thoughts or suggestions, please post a comment below. Additionally, if you’re interested in learning more about the annual TLT Symposium or attending the event next year, please visit the event website: https://symposium.tlt.psu.edu/

1.     Stull, A. T., L. Fiorella, M. J.Gainer, and R. E. Mayera. 2018. Using transparent whiteboards to boost learning from online STEM lectures. Computers and Education, 120, 146-159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.02.005

Finalizing the syllabus: a student’s perspective on the value of the peer-review process in critically informing revisions

As a student in AEE 530 this semester, I am responsible for creating a syllabus for a course on a topic that I would be interested in teaching in the future. During the process of the assignment, I had the opportunity to obtain feedback from several of my fellow classmates and professors in a “snapshot” session, as well as a “deep dive” with a specific partner in the class. This blog post details the comments I received and how I decided to address each of them.

After reviewing the feedback I received during each of these parts of the assignment, from people I considered to be “prospective students” interested in taking my course, a few key points about how I had structured my syllabus emerged. In particular, there were sections of my syllabus that I initially thought were well-structured or complete, but were viewed by others as confusing. A few details and other sections were also revealed to be missing. These points made it clear that my syllabus was not as student-centered as possible. The syllabus should serve as a guide that students, and me as the instructor too, would follow for success in the course. Therefore, incorporating changes and additional information was necessary for me to improve my work in the final assignment. I was also able to clearly see the parts of my syllabus that others thought were clear. As a result, I was able to focus my time and effort on addressing areas that needed attention.

In the “snapshot” sessions, I received the following feedback and addressed it as follows:

·      Some of my terminology (including class locations and course abbreviations) were not all from the same university system. This was an issue of consistency and appropriate to update; everything reflects Penn State’s standards, since I am currently a student here, but recognize that these details could change depending on the campus I teach my course at in the future.

·      Several of my course objectives, while worded well overall, were “double-barreled” and needed to be split into individual objectives or goals. I’ve created a section for course goals (broad) and a separate section for course objectives (narrow). However, I am not entirely certain that my course objectives are correctly phrased and also think I may have too many course goals (there are currently 19). This is a section that I would like additional feedback on for the assignment, but also use in future projects.

·      It was mentioned that I could add a section of “assignments addressed” to my course schedule, so that students would know what was being covered in lecture/lab that they would be later evaluated on. As a part of this, I was also suggested that I number my assessments in the course. I chose to do both of these items because I felt like it made it clear that if a student missed a session, they could miss information for 2-8 assessments! Having this information could also help me, as an instructor, better connect information in the course to students’ assignments each session.

·      Since I don’t have a TA established for the course at this time, I have not added this information to my syllabus. In the future, should I have one (which would make for a great instructional team, I feel), I would certainly include all of their contact information and office hours on the syllabus.

·      It was indicated that the required/recommended text/materials sections were a bit long. I agreed, and tried to find ways to make them shorter, but they were also found to be missing details, so now they are a little longer. I’m not sure if there is anything that can be shortened here or not – this is another area I’d like feedback on specifically for future projects. I want students to know what they need access to, how much it costs (I added a “total estimated cost” section, as suggested), and why it is necessary for the course, but don’t want to overwhelm them with information.

·      One of my peers said that they’d never take a class with 2 exams in a single week. When I looked back at my schedule, to see if changing this structure was an option, I decided not to since the materials covered in the lecture and lab exams focus on the same topics. If students study for one, I hope that it helps them to study for both and do better on each of them. I also hope the review sessions I included as a part of class time helps them better prepare for these evaluations.

·      I was asked about my attendance policy for the course. Attendance is required in the “student expectations” section, the “assessments section”, and now also part of the “assignments addressed” on the course schedule so that students can see that each day is part of this assessment. That said, I didn’t want students to confuse the “assignments addressed” column as a “deadlines” section (it’s not), so not all of the assessments are included as listed on the days that they are due (only this one is) – doing so would have been redundant with the “assessments” section. This seemed like a good balance, but feedback on other ways to approach this would be appreciated.

·      The lab/lecture numbers in my course schedule were also a bit confusing for several people at first glance, so I’ve worked to specify lectures and labs more distinctly in this column.

·      Many students felt that my “course significance” and “course goals” sections should be reordered and moved closer to the course description, and before the required/recommended text/materials sections. I’ve moved them up, since I agreed, but they are still after the “estimated total cost” section, since I want students to know how much extra they may need to budget for my course and I felt that the course description covers enough of the details about the topic to get them interested and keep them reading if they like it.

In the “deep dive” process, I received this additional feedback (thank you, Devin!) and addressed it as follows:

·      It was suggested that I clarify the course numbers at the beginning of my syllabus. I have two course numbers because my course is designed for enrolment by both undergraduates and graduate students. Unfortunately, I don’t know how to better represent this than with “#/#” and I think it has been standard to do this, based on the few courses I’ve been in which have this aspect, when they have the same instructor, to keep things consistent between all of the students. The lab and the lecture are co-enrolled as well, so there isn’t a separate number for each of them.

·      I have now specified that textbooks would be purchased from the instructor. I had assumed this was implied, but assumptions shouldn’t be made since everyone has the ability to interpret things differently – this was a helpful reminder!

·      The budget for the class is now detailed, as outlined above. I’m glad that most people seemed to think this would help students! I agreed, but it wasn’t something I’d thought of previously.

·      It was suggested that I add a repercussion to something to keep students accountable for maintaining and returning materials borrowed during the course. I agreed, so I’ve adapted and added this section.

·      I had some minor redundant information under the materials that were not required, but were recommended, that I hadn’t realized was repetitive, so I’ve removed this to make it simpler. It also helped make it a bit shorter overall.

·      I retained the Bloom’s verbs for my objectives (since they are great and we all agreed on that), even though this section is now split up based on feedback from others in the course.

·      My course significance was good, but the stronger “why” needed to be more strongly represented, so I’ve added a new sentence to strengthen this aspect. It was clear to me that making the importance of my course topic more obvious to students should help them decide if the class is something that they want to engage in or not. It may also help maintain their motivation in the course throughout the semester.

·      Everyone liked that I’d included essential questions for each week of the course, but Devin also specifically suggested moving them up ahead of the lecture/lab topic column. I didn’t end up putting them where she suggested (as this would have made connecting the topics to specific calendar dates difficult), but I did move them ahead in the column. I agree with the reasoning behind this suggestion too – posing the question first may better engage students’ thinking in the specific topics being discussed that week.

·      I tried to make lecture/lab term use more consistent. This is something that I didn’t realize could be interpreted as inconsistent in my original draft, so it was helpful to have it pointed out.

·      One of my sections is about a field trip schedule, and I also require field trips as part of a separate attendance grade. To make things more clear and connect this for students, as suggested, I’ve added a short line about the requirement to the general field trip schedule section of the syllabus.

·      Devin (and at least one other fellow classmate) felt that my assessments section may have had too many details and would overwhelm students, or that details would not be able to be changed later in the class. These are valid concerns and I think this section was a challenge to balance because of them. Others felt that my descriptions were of an appropriate length and didn’t need any changes. I ultimately chose not to change this section for a few of reasons: 1) leaving some of the details would help students connect the assessments to the course topics, goals, and objectives, 2) I want students to realize the amount of time and effort some of the assignments will take ahead of time (before they get a separate handout with the instructions and rubric for each assignment) so that they can plan their semester, and 3) I have included the minimum necessary standards/expectations for each assignment, which will not change at any point.

·      Similarly, I didn’t have a grading policy, so I added a short note and have referenced that each assessment will have its own specific requirements.

·      I also hadn’t specified a make-up policy for my course and this is now outlined fully. I realized that having this specified in the syllabus would be beneficial for both myself and my potential future students. This will allow them to make plans, and allow me to have an established protocol for keeping students and myself accountable.

·      My Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) & University Student Disability Resources section has been improved with details that Penn State requires in syllabi, but this section could also be flexible depending on the university my course would be offered at. Considering and including a university’s requirements is necessary when developing a syllabus. In general though, I agree with Penn State’s information provided in this section (as well as the Academic Integrity section, which I’ve also updated to align with Penn State’s since I’m currently a student here), and would include these sections/applicable details even if they were not required.

·      I did not have an established late policy, so I have added one (it will be helpful for reinforcing student expectations), but I am not sure at this time if it is as effectively worded as I would like it to be. This is something that I would like feedback on.

·      I chose not to add more specific lab policies to my syllabus as this is likely to change depending on the university, possibly even by semester, and I do include a statement about how they will be reviewed and acknowledged by students in the first lab session. I believe that this is enough to satisfy the requirement for the syllabus and adding more details might also be too much information for students at the start of the semester, or for those just considering taking my class.  

·      I have added a section detailing examination policies, since it was indicated that this could be clearer. I agreed, but am not sure if what I have now included is appropriate, if other possible details should be considered for inclusion, or if it could be worded better overall. Feedback would be greatly appreciated.

Overall, I believe that I addressed each of the concerns and suggestions made on my syllabus draft. Thank you, everyone, for sharing your critical, honest, and constructive feedback! This process was valuable and I think that the quality of my syllabus assignment is better as a result. I also know that I’ll use the insights I gained in future projects! I am also looking forward to further feedback, particularly in the areas noted above.