– content contributed by TA consultant Saif Siddique, PhD candidate Material Science and Engineering, Cornell University
Attention…
“… is the taking possession by the mind, in clear and vivid form, of what seem several simultaneously possible objects or trains of thought. Focalization, concentration, of consciousness are of its essence.” -William James, 1890
William James, Psychologist and Philosopher. Photo licensed under CC BY-NC-ND
As we continue to identity the opportunities in this age of immediate access to digital information through – primarily – cellphones, it is necessary to keep in mind the key challenges these devices continue to pose to attention and learning in our higher education classrooms.
This post, is the first in a series of topics and strategies researched and developed by our Engineering Learning Initiative TA Consultants and revisits the real challenge of keeping student’s attention focused on learning and some of the solutions educators can use.
Understanding Cognitive Load
Cognitive load refers to the amount of information that our brains can process at a given time. This ‘load’ happens because our working memory is limited, and can only hold several ‘bits’ of information at a time. As we interact with the information in meaningful ways, it can be consolidated into long-term memory (as ‘schemas’). Increasing cognitive load is a primary way in which multitasking can lower productivity and academic performance.
Consider the following situations in which more than one task is attempted at the same time.
As you read each one, decide whether you think they represent ‘high cognitive load’ or ‘low cognitive load’:
Watching two movies simultaneously
Walking and talking on phone
Writing an essay and listening to a podcast
Driving a familiar route while listening to audiobook
Work a math problem while browsing Instagram
Scenario 2 and scenario 4 may jump out to you as the two task combinations that use sufficiently different cognitive processing pathways such that they represent situations with ‘low cognitive load’.
Unfortunately, in our classrooms, situations more similar to 3 and 5 might be more common while we are expecting students to be receptive to what we are sharing. An analog to scenario 3, ‘writing an essay and listening to a podcast’ in our classrooms might be ‘writing a text to a friend and listening to a lecture’.
Cellphones in the Classroom
In a complex study to better understand the interplay among cell phones, distraction, and timing of the distraction in the higher education lecture, Mendoza et al 2018 concluded that having cell phones, being distracted by them, and the time-frame within the lecture, all had potential to negatively influence quiz grades. Cohen’s d, the third column in the table, is an estimate of effect size related to the comparison between students retaining their cellphone and those who did not retain it during a 20 minute recorded lecture that was the focus of the experiment. Cohen’s d of 0.2 is considered a small effect, 0.5, a medium effect, and 0.8 a large effect size. This research also corroborates earlier research that shows, regardless of cellphones, attention in a lecture setting wanes within 10 to 15 minutes.
Table 1 from the Mendoza et al (2018) paper (pg. 56). This is a direct replica from the paper, but is missing the final column in which the overall mean and standard deviations for quiz scores for each quarter of the lecture are listed.
A 2023 study by Skowronek (et al.) similarly exploring the power of cellphone distraction on students in a classroom, showed that the simple fact of having a cellphone, without using it, could cause significant distraction. Notification sounds and vibrations, even when we don’t respond to them, can create very real distractions.
Solutions: Share research outcomes, Create Engagement, and Build ‘buy-in’
Cellphones are not going away. Indeed they are becoming more and more integrated into the moment-to-moment fabric of our everyday lives. Bradley and Howard, (2023) reported that the average use of cellphones in the undergraduate student population they studied (n=187) approached 7 hours per day, with 113 ‘pick ups’. Undoubtedly, some of these occurred during class and study time.
In higher education, where education is a choice made by individuals who are legally adults, institutional policies about cellphone use do not exist, except for language requesting students respect of the classroom and others around them. In any case, some research suggests that restrictive cellphone policies are ineffective in higher education classrooms. While research on intervention success is rare, there are viable approaches that may substantially help reduce the use and distractions caused by cellphones in learning environments.
Some of the same strategies that motivate student learning and improve learning outcomes in general likely can reduce the use of cellphones.
Share statistics and data from studies on the effect of cellphone use on grades.
There are plenty of studies (some used in this post) with figures and tables you can share. Do this at the start of the course, and revisit! Some students will be swayed by data.
Invite students to collect their own personal data and become aware of their behaviors so that they can set personal policies to improve their learning.
Invite the class to share and agree on course ground-rules (based on the research shared) that will minimize cellphone distractions for individuals and their neighbors as part of a larger set of respectful classroom communication choices.
Creating ‘buy-in’ has a greater chance of succeeding than do restrictive policies developed in the absence of student input.
Part of class structure may include a mid-class 5 minute ‘cellphone break’ that can be offered depending on if students as a whole respect the groups decisions.
Create engagement and participation in your classroom. When students come to a class where participation is expected and they begin to value and enjoy those learning experiences, they will have less time to ‘tune out’ from a traditional lecture.
As attention in a lecture wanes after about 10 minutes, structure lectures so that there is an activity with associated low stakes expectations every 10 minutes. These can include:
think/pair/share,
collaborative problem solving,
metacognitive discussion prompts
written reflection (we can use online discussion boards, or poll questions, but this does open up option for tangent cellphone use!)
Struggling with the challenges of attention in the digital age while choosing to use cellphones and applications for the benefit of learning are inseparable topics that inevitably will evolve in complexity as our technology does. McCoy, (2016) surveyed 675 students, and found that students were using devices in class primarily “to stay connected (63%), fight boredom (63%), and for entertainment (47%)” . As far as we can infer these data more generally, the suggested solutions of creating engagement and participation in class, may help students feel less bored and stay connect right inside the classroom.
Evidence-supported, student-centered teaching not only will improve learning outcomes by allowing students to process information into knowledge (schema), but also by their potential to keep students off their phones as they work with the material and with each other!
With increasing global mobility, international teaching assistants (ITA) are now a major part of the workforce in higher education institutes in the U.S. In 2020 National Science Foundation reported that 29% of science and engineering faculty were ‘foreign born’ and this same demographic received 6 out of 10 doctoral degrees in engineering, math and computer sciences. While we know, and the literature suggests, international students bring critical social-cultural perspectives and strengths that contribute to diversity in all programs, they still face a lot of challenges in their work as TAs and it is our responsibility to provide the support to help them overcome cultural, linguistic and instructional difficulties (Zhou, 2009).
Author and Teaching and Learning Specialist, Wenjing Luo, shares in discussion with some international TAs at the Fall 2023 Graduate TA training at Cornell Engineering. Luo began her higher education career as an International TA.
Ultimately, our ability to communicate with each other across different cultural norms, practices and languages, is crucial and can also influence the quality of learning and social interaction between TAs and students. Compared to domestic TAs, ITAs have to expend much more effort to tackle cultural, linguistic and instructional challenges in order to successfully communicate with students and even peers.
In this post, we provide suggestions from the literature and our own experiences with ITAs to help lower these barriers to communication, and to create support systems and greater understanding.
Cultural and social challenges
Cultural differences in pedagogies and social norms between students and teachers create challenges for ITAs and their students. In many cultures, teachers are respected as authority figures and have more influence over what and how students should learn. However, at American universities, students are expected to be more independent, and have more freedom and autonomy over their learning. Also, the relationship between teachers and students is more informal in the U.S. and students are often expected to discuss or argue as colleagues with those responsible for guiding their education. While making eye contact, smiling, and leaning forward may help signal involvement and listening in the United States, some ITAs, for example ITAs from Southeast Asian cultures, often do not incorporate nonverbal actions that might help them connect with students (Byrd & Constantinides,1992).
ITAs (and some of their international students) may come from an educational system where students
Having international TAs who are trained in pedagogy to lead trainings can lower the barriers for some of the ITAs as they train.
are expected to be silent during class and not question their professors, and they may not be prepared for American students who expect to participate actively and ask questions in the classroom (Sarkisian, 2006). As a result, these differences will affect the interactions between ITAs and students in different teaching and learning contexts.
Ellen Sarkisian (2006) offers a guide for international faculty and TAs in her book: Teaching American Students: A Guide for International Faculty and Teaching Assistants in Colleges and Universities.
Below are some suggestions about how faculty and staff can help ITAs navigate through those cultural differences:
Take time to recognize and listen to the educational experiences of ITAs so we can know where the challenges may be and can address the challenges rather than guess what they are! Different graduate students will face different challenges!
Provide workshops on those identified topics for ITAs before they begin their TA work.
Invite experienced instructors with strong multicultural competence to the interactive workshop for perspective and empathy.
Provide multiple ‘check-ins’ for ITAs to discuss successes and challenges with peers and colleagues in a “give-and-take” situation.
ITAs’ English language skills are another factor that might cause communication breakdowns between ITAs and students. Difficulties mentioned in the literature on this topic include that some students cannot understand and learn from ITAs (Alberts, 2008; Bailey, 1983; Plakans, 1997; Williams, 2011), that ITAs do not have extensive English vocabulary to provide clear explanations (Albert, 2008), or that non-standard pronunciation patterns can cause miscommunication and fail to provide the necessary context to assist students’ learning (Anderson-Hsieh, 1990; Molholt, 1988; Morley, 1991; Byrd & Constantinides,1992). English language skills are most challenging for ITAs who just arrived in the U.S. and have not yet been extensively exposed to the English language. These outcomes are not surprising when we invite talented and creative students to come and enrich the culture of ideas in our institutions, and then place them in the classroom to teach without enough support in either language or the practice of teaching in a different culture.
Below are some great resources to help alleviate ITAs linguistic barriers:
ITAs are often faced with a variety of instructional difficulties that derive from social and cultural challenges. Since most of them received their previous education in another country, they are not familiar with the academic level of their students.
ITAs often feel anxious and frustrated with the U.S. grading and testing system. Most American universities follow a similar grading system by assigning letter or numeric grades to evaluate students’ performance. This system generally provides clearer expectations and the associated structure allows opportunities for students to access support – some ITAs may not have experienced this. Therefore, to help students to improve their work, ITAs will have to take on the challenge of providing feedback, comments, and criticisms that are well-structured and accurately organized. They also have to be prepared for cases when students disagree or complain about their grades.
Even if ITAs are consciously aware of the need to apply more student-centered and active learning strategies in different teaching contexts, they often need more support and time to develop these skills because they are often fundamentally different approaches than what they experienced.
To address these instructional challenges, some universities provide TA training sessions, usually consisting of workshops, for TAs before they start their work. For example, at Cornell Engineering, we provide TA in-person trainings in both fall and spring semester for all new incoming TAs. We cover a range of topics tailored specifically toward engineering TAs, such as Universal Design for Learning, Active Learning, Fair and Effective Grading, and Group Dynamics and Processes. However, most of the content are geared toward TAs in general and do not offer specific guidance on how to tackle ITAs’ instructional challenges.
Benedetti, Plumb, and Beck (2022) propose an innovative model of peer-teaching and self-reflection in TA training which can be effective for training ITAs. For example, asking one of the ITAs to teach their peer-ITAs a type of student-centered pedagogy and self-reflect on their teaching practice afterwards. Peer teaching sessions offer ITAs a safe space to practice designing and delivering teaching sessions to their peers and receive constructive feedback from their peers. The peer audience also get the chance to experience teaching from a students’ perspective. Time is limited for graduate students, however a best-case scenario would be to provide more than one peer feedback teaching session in a semester.
Unpublished data from Cornell Engineering Teaching Assistant Development Program (Fall 2023)
This practice is similar to ‘microteaching’ that can be used as the culminating experience following interactive training workshops such as those listed above. Our Cornell Engineering Graduate TAs suggest that this type of practice and feedback is valuable:
“It was beneficial to watch other individuals present to get a better idea of how other people structure their lessons and see how they incorporate UDL and active learning”
They also benefit from watching a video of their ‘micro-teaching’ and an opportunity to reflect on what can be improved:
“The video replay of myself is very rewarding – I am getting critical of how I am perceived by students. I also learned a lot from what people suggest for other students and try to improve on those aspects as well”
The experiences of being observed and observing others can be a starting point for reflection, through which they will, over time and with practice, become more successful teachers and professionals.
Some additional tips that will help ITAs to cope with their instructional challenges:
Conducting follow-up activities. In addition to the initial training workshops, follow-up activities from these workshops, such as mentoring, in-class observation, and self-reflection, can be conducted to craft ITAs’ teaching skills.
ITAs can be paired with senior faculty member/TAs, who can mentor ITAs throughout their teaching journey.
Peer observations can provide an opportunity for ITAs to learn from each other’s teaching practice.
Reflecting on their own teaching practice is another key component for ITAs to refine and develop their teaching skills.
Creating a clear outline for one’s daily instructional activities. Having a well-structure outline will give students a better idea of today’s instructional goals, provide a context for students to better understand the topic, and give ITAs opportunities to check students’ understanding at different points in any instructional activities.
Grading papers and tests with informed knowledge. ITAs should spend enough time understanding the grading policy at their own universities by attending TA orientations/relevant workshops, and reading grading policies carefully. ITAs should also know the procedure to properly handle grading disputes.
In general, more efforts are needed to gain a better understanding about ITAs experience in American universities/colleges and to provide adequate resources to overcome their challenges. ITAs’ improved understanding of U.S. academic cultures and communications will not only help them improve the learning of their students. Educating faculty, staff, and American students about the cultural differences and the barriers their international peers face, can also encourage American students to embrace a more global mindset and to work with others across culturally diverse backgrounds (Council, 2009).
References
Anderson-Hsieh, J. (1990). Teaching suprasegmentals to international teaching assistants using field-specific materials. English for Specific Purposes, 9(3), 195-214.
Ashavskaya, E. (2015). International Teaching Assistants’ Experiences in the US Classrooms: Implications for Practice. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 15(2), 56-69.
Di Benedetti, M., Plumb, S., & Beck, S. B. (2023). Effective use of peer teaching and self-reflection for the pedagogical training of graduate teaching assistants in engineering. European Journal of Engineering Education, 48(1), 59-74.
Byrd, P., & Constantinides, J. C. (1992). The language of teaching mathematics: Implications for training ITAs. Tesol Quarterly, 26(1), 163-167.
Huang, T., Chen, S., Lin, J., & Cun, A. (2023). Marginalized, silenced, and struggling: Understanding the plights of chinese graduate teaching assistants. International Journal of Chinese Education, 12(1), 2212585X231156996.
Molholt, G. (1988). Computer‐assisted instruction in pronunciation for Chinese speakers of American English. TESOL quarterly, 22(1), 91-111.
Morley, J. (1991). The pronunciation component in teaching English to speakers of other languages. TESOL quarterly, 25(3), 481-520.
Sarkisian, E. K. J. (2006). Chemical Education Today-Book & Media Reviews-Teaching American Students: A Guide for International Faculty and Teaching Assistants in Colleges and Universities. Journal of Chemical Education, 83(12), 1763-1763.
Williams, G. M. (2011). Examining Classroom Negotiation Strategies of International Teaching Assistants. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 5(1), n1.
Black boxes are useful in a model system or the research we do as we work to understand the world. In those cases, the ‘unknowns’ are exciting and they represent what we are working to ‘know’. However, when it comes to what is expected of you as a learner in your classes, there should NOT be black boxes. Transparency is paramount for equitable, inclusive learning.
This post is intended to share materials and ideas for students to recognize transparency or lack of it, so that they can ask the right questions of their instructors and have those expectations clarified so that they have the best chance to be successful. The framework of transparency is not intended to be unidirectional – simply clarifying the information shared from faculty to student- but also a conversation where clarity and communication are maintained through a regular feedback cycle about how well it is working and what might be made even more clear.
What is transparency in educational settings and why does it matter?
Probably the most comprehensive set of materials on transparency in higher education comes from the Transparency in Learning and Teaching (TILT) Higher Ed. body of work inspired and directed by Dr. Mary-Ann Winkelmes. Many of the resources discussed or linked here are from that work in some way or another.
Most of the research and resources regarding transparency are aimed at teachers who are looking for examples and templates to increase transparency in their course materials. The number of these types of resources is growing, which means change is happening! As with most of the evidence-supported practices that make learning inclusive and effective, there is still work to do. In the meantime, learners need some tools.
You may be wondering how information that allows students to be successful can be ‘inadvertently’ withheld. Easily. As humans, without being intentional and reflective about the varied realities of others, we often operate based on our own past experiences, our own understandings of the world, and our own ‘entry points’ into ideas and tasks. Ultimately, we make assumptions. In an educational setting where we are working to develop a diverse group of learners and professionals, our assumptions can create biases and a very unequal playing field for students with different past experiences and understandings. Most often if we experience lack of transparency as learners, instructors are sharing what they experienced and haven’t taken or had the time to consider the assumptions they are making when they share expectations, use language, and/or expect certain outcomes on assignments.
How to recognize Transparency
Read your Syllabus and your assignments. Your syllabus is effectively your learning contract with the course, and the course’s learning contract with you. It takes time to develop these, even more time to make them transparent and welcoming. Each assignment should also be transparent so that students have clear understanding of what is expected of them to do well. Associated with transparency in assignments is the related transparency in assessment. Rubrics are the best ‘tools’ to help a student know what is required and valued in any assignment and how they will be graded. These can also lack detail and transparency. At their best, they are sufficiently detailed and concise so that a student can use the criteria to pre-check their work. At worst, rubrics are a great starting point for a more detailed discussion about expectations. Be sure you do the work of reading what has been shared so that you can ask necessary, specific and respectful questions that will allow you to meet instructor expectations.
the purpose (why are we doing this, learning outcomes objectives)
the task (what are we doing specifically)
the criteria – (what specifics are required to be successful)
How to ask for transparency, if it is lacking
Simply asking an instructor to provide a more transparent syllabus or assignment could require some clarification on your part as to what it is you mean. So what can a student do to recognize when transparency is missing and ask valuable clarifying questions?
Again, read your syllabus and your assignments. Look for purpose, tasks, and criteria. Read for unfamiliar terms or phrases. Remember, the language and expectations may not be familiar to you for a host of reasons, for which you are not to blame! After you have paid careful attention to the materials provided, go to office hours, ask in class when opportunities arise, or reach out after class to the instructor, TAs, or other members of the teaching staff.
Ask how the assignment connects specifically to the content and learning outcomes objectives
Ask for examples of good work
Ask for rubrics with detailed criteria
Ask for definition of any terms used in the syllabus or on an assignment with which you are unfamiliar
In the case where you are having difficulty getting the answers you feel you need, you can use the metacognitive cycle to help you fill in what you can until you get more answers.
Find a diverse group of peers to work with. Discuss and write what you collectively believe are the purpose, the task and the criteria. More ‘heads/persectives’ will represent different experiences and possibly include someone who can better intuit or understand (via their experiences) what is really expected. Reflecton what you are being expected to learn in the context of what has been happening in class. Here is a link to a previous Edublog with support for turning problem sets into study sessions using ‘metacognition’ (thinking about your learning process) that could help.
The bottom line is: we may be quite a distance from perfect transparency in our higher education classrooms, and slowly things are changing. All learners deserve an equitable opportunity to be successful, regardless of diversity of experience and cultural expectations. We are richer for our diversity. Lack of transparency is typically an oversight, and therefore calling respectful attention to it will help instructors recognize oversights and will benefit individual learners now and in the future.
Many of us have experienced that doing well on an exam, may not mean all that information we used to successfully answer the questions on the test is retained. Both remembering and forgetting are physiological processes likely driven by the need to prioritize bits of the massive amount of information to which we are exposed. While the science and biology of forgetting is an emerging and large part of the story that dictates what information ends up in our long, long-term memory, this post will focus on ‘remembering’ and practices that are shown to support it.
As finals time approaches in colleges and universities, there is still some time to structure study practices so that we not only remember and can use information from early in the semester and perform well on the final assessment, but that we are also more likely to take that remembered information (learning) forward so that it can be recalled and used long into the future. Program curricula are structured with the expectation of a high degree of pre-requisite learning from previous courses. So, practices that help to reinforce the neurological pathways that allow us to store and access information, not only support success on the final exams in the short-term, but also support more effective building of disciplinary knowledge throughout our chosen programs. The implications of these long-term effects of effective study deserve more consideration as motivations for adopting the strategies shared here.
What are the basic stages of memory?
Memory is more complex than this but here are the basics:
Sensory memory – subconsciously gathers information from the senses (allows time for your brain to process incoming information from the senses (retention is generally less than 1 second)
Short-term memory – if a sensation (visual, auditory, tactile) is attended to, it can move into this version of memory. Without further attention, this will be lost within seconds.
Long-term memory – Storage of information for longer time periods (retention is hours, days, months or years)
For learning to be effective, we want the information that we hope to use into the future to be transformed into memory, and specifically the kind that will be available to us for a long time. There are some practices that can be used to improve the likelihood of taking information with you into the future, for example, into a course for which this information is pre-requisite! These practices can be incorporated into course and assignment design by instructors, and they can be incorporated into personal study habits.
Retrieval Practice– referred to as ‘free recall’, ‘blank page testing’ or ‘brain dumps’. This practice simply entails writing down all you can remember associated with a particular topic or learning objective. Retrieval is particularly valuable as a way of finding out what you know and what you don’t know well enough… yet. The focus and cognitive struggle to pull those memories to the forefront is the practice that helps create those neurological changes that reinforce pathways in the brain to keep information accessible for longer time.
Collaborative learning – has been shown to improve learning outcomes because of the opportunity to share knowledge, fill in blanks for each other, reflect and share strategies and perspectives among learners. After some individual retrieval time, compare and discuss your individual sets of information with other learners, remind each other of ideas that may have been missed by making a collaborative braindump. Then individually and collectively, identify the most challenging pieces of the topic so they can be the focus of more practice. While the research on the value of collaborative recall is complex and can be very dependent on context and structure of the collaboration, according to a meta-analysis on the topic by Marion and Thorley, 2016:
“Generally, collaborative remembering tends to benefit later individual retrieval.”
When collaborating in study groups, intersperse opportunities to recall and reflect on information and process individually, with small-group collaboration to fill in knowledge gaps, teach and quiz each other, and work through and discuss the process in problem solving. End each session with a reflection on what you learned, what you know, and where you need to continue to work. This reflection requires retrieval of the information immediately after learning it and thus can improve long-term remembering
Two more critical concepts related to your retrieval of information and other active approaches to working with material during study are interleaving and retrieval spacing.
Interleaving is simply the idea of devoting short periods of focused, active time (not simply re-reading notes, etc) on one subject and then switching to another, or to several topics, and then, after a break, returning to the first and cycling through again. This can be done during a 3 hour study session where you alternate 35-45 minute chunks of working on 3 different topics (with short breaks between), to designing a weekly schedule for a set of 5 different topics spread across daily study sessions and re-organized and revisited several times across a week. As is common with active and collaborative learning strategies, even though assessments show students benefit from these practices, students find it difficult and thus do not ‘feel’ that it is working. Unfortunately, the bit of extra cognitive struggle required to shift gears and retrieve information multiple times, is the very reason it works. Treading the same path multiple times across a study session, a week, and a semester, is what leaves the traces in our brains that allow us to find our way back to that knowledge over time.
“Over 8 weeks, students in two lecture sections of a university-level introductory physics course completed thrice-weekly homework assignments, each containing problems that were interleaved (i.e., alternating topics) or conventionally arranged (i.e., one topic practiced at a time). On two surprise criterial tests containing novel and more challenging problems, students recalled more relevant information and more frequently produced correct solutions after having engaged in interleaved practice (with observed median improvements of 50% on test 1 and 125% on test 2). Despite benefiting more from interleaved practice, students tended to rate the technique as more difficult and incorrectly believed that they learned less from it.”
It is the time of year where the focus of learning moves toward being successful on those cumulative final exams in each course. There is still time to implement these practices on your own and to share them with like-minded collaborators. In the long-run, these strategies will allow students to be better prepared to move through a scaffolded curriculum in a disciplinary program, get the most out of individual courses, and lay the groundwork of concepts and knowledge that will make them more prepared to build on the next layer of learning in future courses or in chosen pathways beyond an undergraduate education.
After a fun and productive meeting with a couple of our undergraduate educators in my office last week, we shifted gears and started to talk about how very busy their own semesters were. One of them confided that they were committed to getting a good night’s sleep (Bravo!), and they had time for doing homework – mostly in the form of problem sets for engineering students in their first couple of years – but that they were having a hard time finding time to ‘study’. At that point I asked, “Isn’t doing a problem set ‘studying’?”
The brief conversation that followed reminded me that students sometimes compartmentalize tasks, experiences, and even related content information. And that ‘studying’ continues to mean finding large blocks of time to go over class notes and materials – often in passive, ineffective ways. It is what they are used to doing. Compartmentalization is often our default to get things done in a busy schedule. And we typically don’t support students in making those critical links and connections. But we can! When instructors are explicit about putting class activities, homework assignments, and topics into a larger context, and encourage complementary practices that prompt students to grapple with those connections, students become better, more self-directed learners, gain depth of understanding, new perspectives, and insight into their own thought processes. These powerful, under-used practices are reflection and metacognition.
This post will introduce the terms and share their value and some related links. Ultimately we suggest a practical way (and provide a worksheet to get started) to apply the ‘metacognitive cycle’ to problem sets so that the large amount of time students spend on these applications will become more efficient, deep- learning opportunities in which students actively retrieve, review and process course content while they apply their knowledge to solving problems.
Defining the terms
Whether we understand them in these specific terms or not, metacognition and reflection are critical parts of the ‘expert’ practitioner’s tool box. However, novice learners – early undergraduates – need to be instructed in the practice and the value of these tools. Generally, reflection is thinking back on an experience in order to process it and turn it into ‘knowledge’. In this way reflection can also be a version of ‘retrieval’ (pulling up information and working with it again, also a critical practice for making knowledge stick). Metacognition is most easily described as a type of reflection in which one examines the thought processes used during a task. So metacognition is ‘thinking about thinking. There is a lot of research on metacognition in the psychological literature and it is complex! Research suggests that adding metacognition to disciplinary teaching in the classroom where groups of students are solving problems can help them become better at solving open-ended problems and transferring that understanding to solving novel problems.
These higher order thinking skills are the goal of our disciplinary curricula, particularly in technical and applied sciences like engineering.
Applying the ‘metacognitive cycle’ to problem sets
Studying is most efficient when done in short, spaced, repeated, active, intervals. Interspersing topics, revisiting and actively engaging with the material several times before an assessment, has been shown to provide the best results. So, in a perfect world, we aren’t looking for large chunks of time to ‘go over notes’ or other more passive activities that are shown to not be very effective for learning. By adding a few extra minutes (30?) to the practice of ‘doing a problem set’, a student – ideally a group of students – can contextualize the problems they are solving in their growing conceptual understanding and make it an efficient, deep-learning study session.
The metacognitive cycle is broken into the following simple stages: planning (before beginning working on the problems in the set, gathering resources), monitoring (what is happening in ones thoughts while trying to apply knowledge to problem sets), and evaluation (how did it go, what was hard? what was learned? what do you need to ask at office hours or recitations?)
During the Planning Stage
Take a few minutes to look through the problems set and decipher the larger context of the problems there:
List what you know about conceptual information that surrounds the problems and the associated equations that are being applied – retrieval
Write 2 – 3 learning objectives. These are statements about what one should know by the successful completion of the problem set – goal setting. If they are not given in the assignment, it is your job as a learner to ‘figure them out’ from the types of problems in the worksheet – retrieval
At the start of each question, ask “what information do I need to know in order to begin this question and why do I need it? “- reflection, retrieval and metacognition
During the Monitoring Stage
As you work through each of the problems in the set, be intentional about the choices you are making. Ask the ‘why’ questions:
In a group or solo ask the question ‘why is this problem challenging?’. Responses to this question requires – reflection.
Explain the decisions/processes that led to the solving of each part of a problem. Ask why did you/I make that choice in this part of the problem. Answers to these questions require – metacognition
During the Evaluation Stage
At the close of the problem set, or the part of it that was completed in one session, look through and remember the content that was applied, the processes and the decisions.
Write a paragraph that summarizes (more detail is better) of what was learned and how ideas are connected and applied in the problems completed – reflection
Make a list of topics/concepts/skills that still need work for good understanding and bring these to the next office hours or recitation section to get the support needed – goal setting
These suggested practices are the same ones that experts use without conscious effort! For someone new to material, reflection and metacognition and using the simple application of these learning strategies in work that is required as homework, will make it more relevant and expedite learning! Less additional time will be needed for ‘studying’, and the time spent studying will be more effective and efficient. This should help with time management and result in deeper understanding of disciplinary material. Start slow, and see how it works. Here is a worksheet to remind about guidelines while applying these strategies to problem sets. Let us know how it goes, and enjoy the process of becoming an expert!
Cornell Engineering Peer Educators practice collaborative learning at the cognitive domain level of ‘apply’ while using the ‘receiving’ and ‘responding’ levels in the affective domain.
The Cognitive Domain – Learning as a hierarchy of increasingly difficult cognitive work
Educators use Bloom’s Taxonomy to think about and scaffold the degree of cognitive difficulty in courses and for helping to design activities and assignments appropriate to learning expectations. Cognitive challenge increases as we move ‘up’ the pyramid from ‘remember’ toward the pinnacle of cognitive complexity – ‘create’. Bloom’s taxonomy verb choices help teachers to write learning outcomes objectives at appropriate cognitive levels so that they can be sure they are facilitating learning in which the outcomes match the complexity of the objectives. As a reminder, here is one iteration of the classic but updated Blooms Triangle (with ‘create’ at the highest cognitive level):
Classic representation of Bloom’s Taxonomy with updated organization in which to ‘create’ is now the pinnacle of cognitive complexity.
A learning objective on the lowest rung of the taxonomy – the ‘remember’ level – might read: “by the end of this activity/class session the student will be able to define the 1st law of thermodynamics“. If the objective were to be at a higher cognitive level – the ‘apply’ level – the learning objective might read: “by the end of this activity/class session the student will be able to explain how the first law of thermodynamics applies to changes in a system when heat and pressure are applied”
In either case, the instructor can then design assessments at the level of the stated expectation and ‘backwards design’ appropriate activities or assignments to prepare students to be successful when they come to the assessment.
Bloom’s taxonomy has been through some iterative changes but, effectively, it’s been a really important framework for cognitive outcomes since the 1950s. This organization and development of critical thought processes (or cognitive difficulty) can guide curriculum development and learning tasks for students working with concepts and processes as they build deeper and more integrated knowledge.
The Affective Domain – Learning as a hierarchy of increasingly complex behaviors
Blooms Taxonomy has a critical parallel: Krathwohl’s Affective Domain. Discussions of the affective domain in teaching and learning are less common than the cognitive domain. This is at least true for STEM learning in higher education. Although Bloom still gets a lot of the credit for this ‘sister taxonomy’, the general consensus is that David Krathwohl, a close colleague who also worked on the cognitive domain, is the primary author and developer of the affective domain.Read a good review of both domains and the history of their evolution and authorship here.
A representation of Krathwohl’s Affective Domain. This is the critical parallel to Blooms Cognitive Domain and is the domain in which the work of making learning ‘stick’ happens
This is the domain in which listening, acknowledging, reflecting, and decision making, using information gleaned at levels in the cognitive domain, can result in value development and perhaps even behavioral shifts. This is the domain in which learning is contextualized or situated. While we focus on the cognitive Bloom’s taxonomy for learning objectives and disciplinary structuring, learning is a social and reflective endeavor and the key to helping learning happen is in the affective domain: receiving, responding, valuing, organizing and ultimately characterizing that information are what lead to deep learning and real change. The cognitive domain describes the development of knowledge through acquiring and manipulating information, and the affective domain describes how knowledge is integrated into the learners’ frame of reference and in a social context. If we explicitly understand both the cognitive domain and the affective domain, and their intersection, we can be intentional about how we use them together to intensify the benefits for learners.
Powerful Learning explicitly applies both domains through collaborative learning
Regardless of the cognitive level of the learning outcome, awareness of and attention to (affective domain) the point at which students are entering into the knowledge arena should be a primary consideration. Once learning outcomes objectives are written (step 1), the teacher imagines a matching assessment that would provide information about how well the objective was achieved – did students learn what was intended (step 2)? Designing learning activities moves the teacher and student more directly into the affective domain (step 3). This is all about structuring the emotional and cognitive engagement cycle (see our earlier blog for review of cognitive and emotional engagement) through which students receive the information, consider it, discuss it, use it, value it, and make choices about where it fits in their cognitive/emotional map. For short activities, design might include a more linear pathway of activities. For example: groups of students may work independently to master an aspect of a topic or approach to a problem (receiving), and then teach each other the specific piece with which they worked (receiving and responding). The group may then discuss and put together the components, discuss its value and apply it to a related problem (valuing, organizing). In a long-term project (design development or other task) the work in the affective domain is likely to be cyclical and iterative. As ideas are built, discussed and valued, a new cycle of receiving and responding (reflection) that deepens the learning, improves the project and motivates students would be natural, but should be structured. Developing and sharing specific learning objectives with students, and structuring collaborative and inclusive learning activities have been shown to improve outcomes. These two Domains of learning are not new, and explicitly linking them is simply a reminder to check the pieces of our practice. Ultimately, when learners situate the new disciplinary knowledge into their social-emotional frameworks, long-term learning and real student growth are the outcomes.
If you are teaching a topic, it is likely that you have a high level of preparedness, intuition, and ability that has been developed beyond the level of many of your learners. Unpacking a complex problem into logical steps, assessing what information is necessary to begin and move forward, and understanding what constitutes a ‘reasonable’ or ‘plausible’ answer may happen almost unconsciously!
‘expertise is based on the making of immediate, unreflective situational responses; intuitive judgment is the hallmark of expertise.’ (pg 779)
While some may disagree with the fine points of the Dreyfus and Dreyfus model, they do agree with the general process through which expertise is developed. At this high level of understanding, much of the early conscious decision making has been incorporated into unconscious processes that happen behind the scenes.
Thus, teaching this material to many novice learners requires a conscious ‘unpacking’ of the problems/material. The ability to unpack more complex problems may be one of the key features of the peer-educator ‘Super Power’. Being able to take apart the problem that is being shared via lecture, in real time, even if the Professor may have ‘intuited’ and thus not shared some of the sub-text, is incredibly helpful for ones own learning and the ability to share it with peers. This is not a skill that all learners have.
Lacking the ability to easily ‘unpack’ problems does not mean that one won’t learn the material, only that they are coming into the challenge with a different knowledge-base and skillset. Keeping a growth mindset is critical! The generic model shared here is a tool to help peer (and other) educators remember to make explicit the steps, to consider the assumptions about what knowledge is needed to move through the process to the solution, and how to facilitate the procedure through the problem using guided questions.
Asking learners to use the model can also enhance their metacognition, make clear the gaps in their knowledge, and kick-start the self-evaluation (metacognitive) processes.
Once the educator has helped the learners breakdown the problem and students are working through the problem in small groups (3-5), the most powerful learning will happen when the facilitator acts as a ‘guide on the side’ by practicing listening, asking questions at appropriate cognitive levels, inviting the group to answer their own questions, and by using questioning strategies. This is the most challenging part of facilitating group work. At first students may resist the attempts the facilitator makes because there is cognitive work involved in answering guiding questions. If students are new to working in collaborative groups and are focused on solutions and getting there quickly, they may initially find it frustrating to receive a question in response to their questions. But once this is the expectation in a class, most students will begin to see the value, and become more comfortable with the uncertainty they experience with struggle. A few may never value this process. The learning literature confirms that the deeper, long-term learning that happens in collaborative group work is worth the effort.
Below is a checklist of tips that can help create a learning environment that will result in the best outcomes for small-group collaborative learning.
Tips for Guiding Small Group Discussion – ‘Just-in-time facilitating’
Create an inclusive environment in which learners feel they can take risks
When you approach a group that seems like they are facing a challenge say something like, “Oh yes! This problem, this is a hard one!” (or, “This is the hardest part of this, I think!”)
Seeing you admit that it is challenging will allow them to feel better about the struggle and take the risk of discussing it!
Encourage ALL learners to participate
Keep the discussion from being dominated by a subset of learners.
Allow sufficient “wait-time” when learners or you ask questions. Try to be aware of who is quiet and give them time to prepare to contribute – without singling them out, you can ask, “Is there anyone else who can add to this part of the process?”
Intentionally ask the group members to take turns leading parts of a problem or different problems. Explain that the role of the leader is to begin the problem, invite others, and watch that group members are actively listening and sharing equally.
Listen actively and non-judgmentally, and encourage learners to do likewise.
Build what learners say into the discussion
When you are reiterating a question you have heard, try to weave the ideas of the group into the reiteration so they feel heard and valued.
Help learners communicate and build on each other’s contributions
Model being patient and encourage learners to do likewise.
Build what learners say into the discussion.
Use mainly open-ended questions or comments
Start with, “How is this problem going?” Follow with, “Is everyone feeling good about it, or would some discussion help?”
Then use factual, or probing questions (remember the cycle: a) listen (maybe repeat the question back to all), b) invite the group to answer, c) choose a guiding question, and finally, d) give a hint (repeat).
Encourage active listening
Modeling this in your group (as above) and inviting the group members to try it when each of them share questions can help group communication be more equitable and bring everyone into the conversation.
Foster dialogue amongst the learners and help them to see multiple points of view
After someone makes a comment or shares an idea: Wait for the others to think for a few seconds, acknowledge and appreciate the answer, and then ask, “Does anyone want to add to that, or have a different idea?”
Probe the learners’ understandings and foster higher-level thinking and discussion
Using the probing questions at this point will help foster more process-oriented thinking – higher-order thinking.
Help the learners digest what they are hearing
In a short session like the one you are working in, a collected short paragraph reflection as the students leave could be really valuable to get the feedback, but also to let students convert experience into understanding through reflection.
Educators, even peer educators, need to deliberately articulate the assumptions, prior knowledge, and process steps that can help new learners into and through a complex problem. Helping novice learners unpack the problem and guiding from the side with careful listening and probing questions, while the learners share the struggle of trouble-shooting, will result in the best learning outcomes. It is this process, facilitated with a growth mindset, that helps create equity and inclusion and starts all learners along a path to self-assessment and, with time, expertise!!
Ready or not! Here we go, back into the classroom! Back to teaching in physical spaces where we can see each other by simply turning our heads or wandering over to a corner of the room to offer needed support or direction, rather than popping in and out of Zoom breakout rooms like Samantha on the popular 1960’s TV show ‘Bewitched’.
Let’s go forward to our classrooms, not back in time
Many educators have reminisced about, and longed for, the ability to read expressions and body language that was denied them while teaching on Zoom or another platform. It is difficult to feel like one is on solid footing when a lot of cameras are off and when you are learning how to use a different set of tools to teach through your computer screen. Now, once again, many will have students gathered in a common physical space! If they come to class, the dilemma of whether or not we can see them is gone.
Overall though, remote teaching has been a mixed-bag with both challenges and silver-linings, depending on who you talk to. Looking at our own undergraduate peer educators in the fall of 2020 – after a semester and a half of emergency remote teaching- a surprisingly large proportion (42%) reported enjoying online learning because of their ability to create engagement. Getting comfortable with the technology was the biggest challenge, while only 29% and 25% respectively considered collaboration and engagement negative aspects of teaching online.
Creating engagement is difficult any way you slice it, and we have learned some big lessons and valuable takeaways from our time in the ‘Zoom classroom’. As we head back into the more familiar face-to-face environment, we should do at least these two things: 1) remember how to use physical space to its best advantageand 2) reflect on what we have learned and strive to keep some of the tools and strategies that can enhance and improve what we do.
Remembering how to work the room
Training undergraduate educators for in-person summer support courses, and working with TA Consultants to develop evidence-supported teaching and learning workshops and deliver them to new TAs, reminds me that it takes some getting used to to suddenly not have the control panel at your fingertips on your computer keyboard. Here are some things we have been wanting to do ever since they were denied us. Why not take full advantage of all the things you’ve been missing!
If you’ve transitioned to using PowerPoints, stop at some points and do the work on the board where students can follow and share in the process.
Get students using the whiteboards in classrooms or the chalkboard to collaboratively work on problems.
Move among your learners/groups when they are working on group tasks
Interact with your slides or other media in a real way.
point out/laser the take-home messages
describe the axes of graphs and interact with figures so students can interpret them
ask students to interpret the figures for you before you describe them (think pair share)
Embed active, student-centered learning in your class every 5-10 minutes – use variety of reflective, paired, and group activities
When you’re using high tech, make sure you have a low-tech plan B. In a classroom, as much can go wrong with technology as on Zoom (maybe more). Mix up the ways you have student working in the space (Paper, String and Colored Pencils work too!)
Use what we have learned (through some hardship!) about how to create environments where learning happens best
Not having a captive audience in online learning spaces seemed to highlight the importance of creating engagement and constantly building community so that all students would want/need to engage. We should remember the creativity and inclusive practices that worked best to encourage student participation online, and not take for granted that being in a physical classrooms means students are emotionally and cognitively present!
Intentionally build community everyday in your classroom. Do not assume that being in person will result in community!
Continue to craft structured learning activities that require collaboration and that allow application and retrieval of content information.
Clearly articulate learning objectives and share them with students
Don’t be afraid to ask your students to bring their laptops/devices and continue to use work on shared documents
Use asynchronous discussion boards to supplement your in class time, gather feedback, generate discussion.
Continue to use animation in power point slides if you use them, to give students one step, or concept at a time
Use polling technology to practice retrieval of information and gather ideas and feedback
If it makes sense provide videotaped lectures or record the audio from your lecture so students can revisit it
Now that you’re familiar or comfortable with being on a camera try sending weekly short 2 to 3 minute videos but reiterate the most important points that students should be focused on or you’re learning objectives for that week
As we were when moving into COVID-forced remote teaching, we are now in another transition. After more than a year of changes and a steep learning curve, students – especially new students – in our institutions may face a whole new set of challenges that we will need to help them to overcome. What we have learned by educating through a pandemic about intentionality, creativity, options for modes of engagement, feedback and compassion, assessment that focuses more on process than product, are all skills and strategies that will continue to be extremely valuable as we move back into the classroom and forward into the ‘new normal’. Best of Luck to everyone!
Teaching is a calling. It’s a calling that can be awakened at different points in one’s experience. But once awakened; evidence-based teaching practices must be cultivated. Part art and mostly science, the research that informs the best teaching practices is as wide and diverse as any. When a passion for teaching finds itself lodged in the heart of a creative, critically thinking, Engineering graduate student, it is incumbent upon us to provide a network of increasingly responsible leadership opportunities to help illuminate that path. Cornell engineers who find themselves with such a passion have opportunities in the College (ELI) to begin their leadership growth, and the University (CTI) to practice and broaden those skills. The path is not easy and it’s not always clear, as the authors of these 4 vignettes confirm. The best teaching applies the same practices as great leadership. These leaders of tomorrow need networks, expanding opportunities, and mentors. These inspiring stories show that it can be done, and that we have begun to build institutional networks and collaborations that benefit graduate students like these.
Celia A. Evans, Ph.D., Associate Director, Engineering Learning Initiatives (ELI)
Colleen
My first TA position in graduate school was the spring semester of my first year. While trying to settle into my research group and take a class of my own, I was also supposed to help third year engineering undergraduates learn the difficult subject of Process Dynamics and Control, and it did not go well. Unlike when I was a TA as an undergraduate, these students did not know me, and I could have better expressed what my role was within the teaching team. My undergraduate department was smaller than the chemical engineering school at Cornell, with only six main faculty members, which created a close community. I always appreciated my undergraduate professors, and a potential career in academia is part of the reason I went to graduate school, but I did not comprehend how much prep work they had to do before class to be effective!
As a graduate TA, my responsibility was assisting with homework, which required reviewing textbook sections, completing the assignment, and thinking through where the trouble spots would be for the students. This small aspect of the course still took several hours per week. The sentiment for graduate students is often that research is the only priority, and being a TA is not an opportunity, but a burden. This perspective is damaging to the undergraduates, who have unprepared or apathetic TAs, and to the graduate students, who do not realize that being a TA is a chance to learn a subject more deeply, practice effective communication, connect with others, experience being in a position of authority, learn management skills, and test information retrieval to answer unexpected questions, among other things. These skills are all transferable, because there are teaching opportunities in every career, such as mentoring, engaging with clients, and presenting to multidisciplinary teams. Once I realized this, I embraced being a TA and pursued more opportunities to learn about best practices for pedagogy.
This led me to seek out the CTI Fellowship and the ALS 6015 ‘Teaching in Higher Education’ course. Developing teaching portfolio components for these programs was a great exercise, because it showed me how my perspectives on teaching and diversity in the classroom are really based on my everyday interactions with people. I am seeking a position in industry as a next step, but I know that I am better prepared because of my experiences with teaching in graduate school.
Doğa
A few years ago, my friend asked me to take an online course in teaching with her. I had TA-ed once before—instructed labs, graded, held office hours—and gotten “good” evaluations from students. I said “yes,” not because I thought I needed to take the course, but because I like learning new things. However, that course showed me, a person who always thought of themselves as a “good” teacher, that I knew nothing about teaching. I also learned that not knowing may be okay as a graduate student, but if I wanted to be a better teacher, I needed to learn more.
My teaching style, until this point, had been similar to those of my undergraduate professors: mainly, uninterrupted lecturing. I realized that the only reason I graduated college is because I was able to learn from the “traditional instruction” style, which is not how everyone learns, or should learn. In fact, studies show that students learn best when they actively interact with the material and through a variety of ways (videos, readings, examples…). The more I learned about teaching, the more I wanted to learn; I attended several of CTI’s GET SET Workshops and took more courses. In the end, I have decided to get a teaching-related job when I graduate.
Photo credit: Michael Suguitan, psychomugs.com
As an engineering PhD student, what will put my job application ahead of other candidates is the teaching knowledge and experience that I have developed. I had already covered the former, but getting enough experience was challenging. At an R1 university, it is sometimes hard to get as many quality teaching opportunities as we want, simply because we are expected to spend most of our time doing research. For this reason, in addition to TA-ing every semester, I applied to ELI’s Teaching Assistant Development and CTI’s Fellowship Programs.
In these programs, I have had the opportunity to develop my own teaching workshops and train both graduate and undergraduate TAs using state-of-the-art education research. One thing I am very grateful about being a part of Cornell’s teaching community is the help and feedback I receive. For example, I was TA-ing and taking the Engineering Teaching Seminar (ENGRG 6780) course in Spring 2020, when all teaching had to transfer to online. It is a reflection-based course, and every week, I was reflecting on some aspect of my teaching I was struggling with. The instructor’s kindness and guidance helped me tremendously, and I went through that semester learning more about teaching than at any other time in my life.
Jason
I will never forget my first graduate teaching memory at Cornell. During my first year in the biomedical engineering PhD program, I served as the graduate teaching assistant (TA) for an undergraduate Thermodynamics course. Despite having years of undergraduate teaching experience, I remember the disaster that was giving my first lecture. I was deriving equations for a ‘Carnot cycle’ problem when a student pointed out a mistake. I froze up and did not recover, largely due to the anxiety that was imposter syndrome fueled with having an entire classroom’s eyes watching my every move. It was a completely different environment than what I was familiar with back at my undergraduate institution.
As an undergraduate TA, I was used to facilitating peer learning sessions for dozens of my classmates, many of whom I knew from other on-campus activities. When I was the graduate TA for Thermodynamics, I struggled with learning how to effectively navigate the new power dynamic with the students in my course while concurrently adjusting to a new state, institution, and lab environment!
Coming into Cornell, I knew that I was primarily interested in pursuing a tenure-track faculty position with a focus on both research and teaching. However, it was at that moment in the classroom when it genuinely seemed (to me) that I was not fit to teach in academia and that I might need to find a new career path. As dramatic as that was, it was truly a humbling experience that led me to seek out CTI, first as a participant of the Teaching Portfolio Institute, and now as a CTI Fellow to further expand and refine my pedagogy.
Attending the Teaching Portfolio Institute genuinely transformed my perception of what teaching in higher education could look like. Designing a syllabus, crafting teaching philosophy and diversity statements, curating a teaching portfolio—all of these components were new concepts to me as a second-year PhD student at the time. However, the exposure and advice I received from the institute facilitators, all of whom spanned various disciplines across Cornell, motivated me to apply for the CTI Fellow program and became instrumental in helping me identify an action plan and seek out additional resources to further my training with the long-term goal of becoming a tenure-track faculty member.
Thais
In my third semester as a PhD student at Cornell, I was assigned as a Teaching Assistant for the Feedback and Control Systems class. I was responsible for conducting Discussion sections, in which I summarized key points of the lectures and answered questions from the students. Even though I had previous experiences teaching science and engineering to undergraduates and high schoolers in my home country, Brazil, this was my first time teaching in English. I learned English by watching YouTube videos and, therefore, I was not confident about my communication skills. As the semester here at Cornell went by, I realized that no matter which country I was in, class I was teaching or language I was speaking, all the students trusted me to teach them something new and important. It was my job to give them my best and fulfill their expectations.
So every day before the sessions, I would practice what I needed to say to the students by myself. I worked as hard as the students to help them understand the difficult concepts of this class. At the end of the semester, I was awarded the Sibley Prize for Excellence in Graduate Teaching Assistance based on feedback from students. I was thrilled by such recognition and decided to improve even further my teaching and communication skills by becoming a CTI fellow. Organizing the workshops and participating in the meetings as a CTI fellow has helped me to better communicate a variety of subjects to a diverse audience. I particularly enjoy interacting and networking with grad students from different fields during these events. It is refreshing to hear and learn from people with different backgrounds and interests other than mine.
Epilogue
These diverse voices showcase how varied, yet similar, teaching experiences can be even within the same college. The Center for Teaching Innovation (CTI) Fellows are passionate about teaching and engage with their peers across campus to explore innovative teaching practices. This passion is evident in these four CTI Fellows. What began with Engineering Learning Initiatives’ (ELI) training to be successful TAs in their discipline, has clearly been transformative. Their diverse teaching and learning experiences in their engineering departments led them to seek out additional support through ELI and CTI graduate programming to further develop their teaching skills. This culminated in their interest in joining the CTI Fellows Program to learn more about teaching, mentoring and leadership through their work with graduate students and postdocs from across campus. Each of these stories share a common thread of exploring the various opportunities available at Cornell. By taking advantage of an opportunity to network with their peers from across disciplines, these four fellows have begun an exciting journey in their professional development as future leaders in their fields.
Derina S. Samuel, Ph.D., Associate Director, Center for Teaching Innovation (CTI)
One and a half semesters of mostly online teaching down, and at least one more to go in this COVID-altered academic world. As a growing part of the team supporting student learning outcomes, undergraduate peer educators have worked very hard, received training, and honed their skills as facilitators of engaged, compassionate, and student-centered online learning. EVERYONE has had to shimmy up the learning curve to make this last 9 months ‘work’.
At Cornell Engineering, our Academic Excellence Workshop (AEW) facilitators began their transition mid-spring semester when they were asked if they wanted to stay on as undergraduate educators and do their work in the online environment. All 44 of them agreed that they wanted to stay on and help in the most difficult time one might imagine as a college student. By the end of the spring semester 2020, these dedicated young educators had learned so much, faced challenges, and had made a difference for their peers! By the end of Fall 2020, some with 2 semesters online facilitating and training under their belts and some with just one, they used the tools of this new trade – breakout rooms, whiteboards, annotations – to share their hard-won trusted tips. This post will share their sage advice, simply copied from the whiteboard, collated and briefly annotated.
The most common bit of advice was about being comfortable saying “I DON’T KNOW”:
The first rule of collaborative learning facilitation – the teacher is not required to hold the answers to everything. As peer educators, knowing this allows the time to reach out to other teaching staff on matters of specific process or content. Even more importantly, and this takes some degree of confidence, not knowing the specific answer frees up space to develop ideas together, to involve the group, brainstorm processes and different possibilities with your students. And yes, ultimately we want to provide the right set of details, so a follow up with the group or class after consultation is always the way to end. In the online environment, an online discussion board is a great way to get that closure and feedback when the answers come after the synchronous session is over.
A close second category of advice was related to CREATING a WELCOMING, OPEN and FRIENDLY ENVIRONMENT:
Peer educators, who have been on the other side of the screen more recently than some of the more experienced teaching staff, know exactly how crucial these bits of advice are! This is even more true in the online environment, where it is easier to be anonymous, harder to feel connected, and where students can be easily distracted away from what you are facilitating.
Learning student names, doing activities to get to know them and help them get to know each other, goes a long way to creating a space where they want to be, feel noticed, and hopefully begin to trust each other enough to be part of the discussions you want to facilitate! While it carries its own different set of challenges, one of the most powerful things about being a peer educator is that you are one of ‘them’. As such, you are approachable and, should be, compassionate.
A little note of self-care here:
Even though your energy goes a long way to creating a climate, ‘checking in’ includes you. This whole time period is extremely energy demanding, and so while you try and bring your best game as a peer educator, give yourself an out when YOU need it. Ask for help and think of ways to take the pressure off yourself as well.
The third most offered advice was about how to “WORK THE ROOM” in a zoom session:
In the online environment you can’t just look across the room and see who needs your help, or interject a helpful question or hint. Being present and moving from breakout room to breakout room as students are working in groups, lets you intervene and redirect, or even invite others into the conversation. It goes without saying perhaps that these spaces have to be clearly structured before you move your students into them so they don’t spend time spinning their wheels!
Reminding about expectations for teamwork, taking turns to contribute, and the idea of ‘take time, make time’ just before sending your students off to breakouts is helpful. The online environment can create some useful anonymity for shy people (working through the chat and asynchronous discussions) but breakout rooms can be stressful for shy people and frustrating for all, if they are not structured.
A fourth bit of advice: Don’t assume your students are all on the same page and following everything you are facilitating. GET FEEDBACK:
Just as improving learning outcomes requires giving students regular and honest feedback, so becoming a better peer educator (or any educator) requires getting feedback about how it is going for students. Feedback can be general – about the perceived success of activities you try- and it can be more specific – about whether they understand what you are trying to get across to them. Feedback can be solicited in the middle of a class, at the end, or in the interim between when you see each other using online discussion boards.
Active learning strategies like ‘think-pair-share’ (using chat in a small class online) as well as polling or clicker questions, can be used at any moment to get students sharing and asking and answering each other’s questions. Asking students, in teams (breakouts), to apply a bit of lecture material to a problem or question helps the group move closer to the same level of understanding. They can also share group feedback afterwards.
Asking students, in teams (breakouts), to apply a bit of lecture material to a problem or question helps the group move closer to the same level of understanding. They can also share group feedback afterwards.
The 5th and last piece of advice from our experienced online peer educators (there is more…..) is FACILITATE COMMUNICATION and THINKING, DON’T JUST GIVE THE ANSWERS:
This is one that is at the crux of collaborative, student-centered learning. Being comfortable with silence is hard in the classroom, but at least you can watch to see if the wheels are spinning. Reading body language and facial expression is so challenging online, and if cameras are off, so are all bets.
But it is even more critical to be comfortable with silence with the lag time time that occurs on zoom, and with the difficulty of knowing whether students are thinking and preparing to answer. Give time for answers to come into the chat. Give time for students to figure out the technology for how to annotate the whiteboard or your presentation when you ask. In breakouts, really encourage cameras on (knowing there are legitimate reasons in some cases students aren’t comfortable with them on) so that you can make eye contact and have a better sense of the level of understanding, and so that you can support at the correct level (a question? a hint? maybe sometimes even the answer). If you end up giving the answer, ask them why the answer you give is the/a right one.
Remembering to enact this set of 5 tips in your classroom will take any educator a very long way to being successful in the online environment. Bravo peer educators, we could not do without you! And best of luck in Spring 2021!
In a complex study to better understand the interplay among cell phones, distraction, and timing of the distraction in the higher education lecture, Mendoza et al 2018 concluded that having cell phones, being distracted by them, and the time-frame within the lecture, all had potential to negatively influence quiz grades. Cohen’s d, the third column in the table, is an estimate of effect size related to the comparison between students retaining their cellphone and those who did not retain it during a 20 minute recorded lecture that was the focus of the experiment. Cohen’s d of 0.2 is considered a small effect, 0.5, a medium effect, and 0.8 a large effect size. This research also corroborates earlier research that shows, regardless of cellphones, attention in a lecture setting wanes within 10 to 15 minutes.
Struggling with the challenges of attention in the digital age while choosing to use cellphones and applications for the benefit of learning are inseparable topics that inevitably will evolve in complexity as our technology does. McCoy, (2016) surveyed 675 students, and found that students were using devices in class primarily “to stay connected (63%), fight boredom (63%), and for entertainment (47%)” . As far as we can infer these data more generally, the suggested solutions of creating engagement and participation in class, may help students feel less bored and stay connect right inside the classroom.
Again, read your syllabus and your assignments. Look for purpose, tasks, and criteria. Read for unfamiliar terms or phrases. Remember, the language and expectations may not be familiar to you for a host of reasons, for which you are not to blame! After you have paid careful attention to the materials provided, go to office hours, ask in class when opportunities arise, or reach out after class to the instructor, TAs, or other members of the teaching staff.
Lacking the ability to easily ‘unpack’ problems does not mean that one won’t learn the material, only that they are coming into the challenge with a different knowledge-base and skillset. Keeping a growth mindset is critical! The generic model shared here is a tool to help peer (and other) educators remember to make explicit the steps, to consider the assumptions about what knowledge is need
m and see who needs your help, or interject a helpful question or hint. Being present and moving from breakout room to breakout room as students are working in groups, lets you intervene and redirect, or even invite others into the conversation. It goes without saying perhaps that these spaces have to be clearly structured before you move your students into them so they don’t spend time spinning their wheels!
