Transforming college teaching courses into authentic experiences: Learning through diversity

Authentic achievement requires learners to “engage in disciplined inquiry to produce knowledge that has value in their lives beyond simply proving their competence.” (Newmann, 1991) While college teaching courses provide an important role in preparing future faculty in STEM disciplines, a more authentic experience was the goal of one already successful course at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Similar to other courses across the nation, students write a teaching philosophy, design a syllabus and learning plans, and complete a micro-teaching experience. While the micro-teaching experience is continually ranked as the most valuable, the instructors experimented with making the micro-teaching more authentic. In so doing, they piloted a “micro-course” in which students identified real students, rather than their peers, to teach. The unique components to the approach involved both the teaching-as-research model and the authentic achievement model. The microcourse provided the context for potentially rich conversations about teaching and learning and, therefore, for learning itself. However, results of the pilot indicated that the authentic microcourse experience was not as significant as the instructors had assumed. Rather, the components of diversity, learning community, and teaching-asresearch were central to student learning; the basic micro-teaching experience returns as the authentic learning experience central to the course. This paper describes the microcourse, an innovative approach to micro-teaching, the experience of students in the pilot of this innovation, and results from this “teaching as research” experiment. This research approach to microteaching provided an opportunity to try out different teaching methods and strategies for engaging learners; learning through diversity remains key to authentic experiences. Background Designed especially for graduate students in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) disciplines, “Teaching Science and Engineering” provides a forum in which to discuss issues of learning, teaching, and assessment through the lens of “teaching-as-research.” We define “teaching-as-research” as “a deliberate, systematic, and reflective use of research methods to develop and implement teaching practices that advance the learning experiences and learning outcomes of students as well as teachers.” The graduate course is designed to promote the development of those skills and habits-ofmind, along with the knowledge base associated with high-quality teaching, learning, and assessment. Within the graduate course, students participate in a micro-course, an innovative adaptation of the traditional micro-teaching experience. The unique components to our approach are both the teaching-as-research model and the authentic achievement model. P ge 11347.2 2 Authentic Assessment Authentic projects involve specific content and human interactions that promote disciplined inquiry, also known as substantive conversation. In substantive conversation, each person is trying to express a point of view, to understand why others have their viewpoints, or to arrive at a solution to a problem that neither has previously is the most difficult. Four conditions are essential for authentic professional development: collaboration, access to tools and resources, discretion and ownership, and flexible use of time. According to Newmann, “substantive conversation is the key. It provides the crucible for practice, for seeking new knowledge that relates to the problem at hand, and for trial, feedback, and revision. In short, substantive conversation forces us to transform basic knowledge into applied, integrated knowledge.” [1] Authentic assessment has been the norm for the course since its beginning as a central component in the Delta Program [2]; however, the introduction of the micro-course is an “experiment” to make the traditional micro-teaching experience even more “real” or more authentic. For example, since its beginning, students have written and reviewed learning plans, assessment strategies, and a teaching and learning philosophy. In fall, 2004, we piloted the micro-course as an authentic assessment experience. Our hypothesis was that a microcourse would give students a more authentic teaching experience and, therefore, be more effective than a traditional micro-teaching experience. We invited students to define the microcourse. For example, they could establish an undergraduate “boot camp” for undergraduates who are motivated to either learn material at greater depth in their discipline or undergraduates who wanted more experience in applying the fundamentals of a course to their discipline. The microcourse could be part of their teaching assistant responsibilities (if it is compatible with the course instructor’s guidelines). Whatever direction they chose, it must provide an opportunity to try out different teaching and learning strategies and gain first hand experience with how to structure an active learning environment. In keeping with the Teaching as Research philosophy, their microteaching strategies must include the perspective of the research literature for teaching in your discipline. The strategies must include assessment methods that provide formative and summative assessment of the group’s learning as well as feedback for individuals in their group about their command of the material. Teaching-as-Research Just as research should be a collaborative activity, so should teaching as research. It was important to have someone with whom to collaborate as students planned and implemented their microcourse. Students were paired as peer partners and faculty partners. The entire microcourse experience was designed to replicate a genuine research experience. Students were encouraged to identify a course and its relevant concepts and apply research methods from their STEM discipline to examine a real course with real students. In a similar way, we as faculty for the course followed the same process. This process serves as an example of the teaching-as-research (TAR) process: Step one is to frame and define the problem. The context was the Delta College Classroom Course. The problem was how to build confidence in designing and P ge 11347.3 3 implementing a learning plan. The research question followed: What learning experience will help strengthen students’ confidence in designing and implementing a learning plan? Step two is to explore and construct a knowledge base including conducting a literature search, reflecting on past experiences, and investigating peers’ and students’ perspectives. Step three is to hypothesize and design learning experience: An authentic teaching experience will help strengthen students’ confidence in designing and implementing a learning plan including multiple assessment strategies. Step four is to implement and adapt teaching practice as outlined in the learning plan. Step five is to test the hypothesis by gathering data as identified in the learning plan. Data gathering instruments identified included –Pre and post surveys –Authentic assessment (teaching and learning philosophy and micro-course) –Focus group discussion –SALGains on-line survey Finally, step six is to reflect and improve continuously (use data). This “closes the loop” and fosters “teaching-for-learning.” The syllabus outlined formative assessment measures to answer a variety of questions. For example, what strategy would be most effective for helping students learn a specific concept in your discipline? How will you know? Have others had success with specific methods? If so, under what conditions? With what kinds of students? What research exists to demonstrate these results? What assessment technique/s would help you know that your students understand the concepts? What worked? What didn't? What revisions are appropriate? How successful was the re-design? What questions will you ask your peers as they observe your microteaching experience? The hope was to view classrooms as sites for ongoing research into teaching and to improve teaching to increase students' opportunities and potential for learning. Overview of Achievements and Challenges Identification of our significant accomplishments and challenges following fall 2003 and summer 2004 result from observations, students’ artifacts, and a multiple approach to assessment of learning. Achievements • Participants demonstrated an understanding of teaching-as-research and the ability to apply a wide rage of assessment practices, learning theories, and teaching practices. • Participants used concepts such as formative assessment, best practices, an absolute grading scale, and objectives in their micro-teaching and stated that they planned to use these in their future teaching as well. • Participants rated the class as helping a great deal in areas such as developing their strengths as a teacher, their ability to self-reflect, their ability to teach and assess, and their awareness of the diversity of their students. • Both the participants and the instructors represented diverse populations including gender, disciplines, positions, experience, and learning styles. • The course curriculum, teaching and learning philosophy, and micro-teaching were “authentic assessment” measures; that is the assignments met the criteria for P ge 11347.4 4 authentic achievement: construction of knowledge, disciplined inquiry, and value beyond school. • Practical real-world learning encouraged participants to seek out other professional development opportunities especially those sponsored by the Delta learning community. Challenges • Being explicit about both diversity and learning community concepts is important; for example, students often did not recognize that they were both part of a learning community within the class and designers of learning communities as they developed a learning plan and curriculum. • Students from diverse disciplines and ethnic background