EFFECTIVE TEACHING

1
EFFECTIVE TEACHING

• DJ Belarbi
• Professor of Civil Engineering
• Larry Gragg
• Distinguished Teaching Professor of History
• James Drallmeier
• Professor of Mechanical Engineering
• and Member of UMR Committee on Effective Teaching

2
What Teaching Should Be

• Professors should have
• Formal Teacher Training with Student Teaching and
  Peer Review.
• Understanding of Student Learning Styles.
• Practical Experience.
• Research Experience.
• Time and Resources to Develop Innovative Teaching
  Methods.
• Ability to Use Technology in the Classroom.
• Encouragement to do a Good Job!

3
BARRIERS TO GOOD TEACHING-GENERAL

• Lack of formal teacher training.
• Lack of understanding of student learning
  styles/modes.
• Lack of peer review.
• Overemphasis on research for promotion.
• No time to teach well.
• No reward for good teaching.
• Buy out encouraged.
• Teaching is often punishment for lack of
  research.

4
TEACHER TRAINING

• K-12
• Teachers learn education theory (pedagogy), but
  do not necessarily have strong backgrounds in
  subject matter
• College
• Experts in subject matter, but no formal teacher
  training.
• New faculty often put in the classroom with no
  supervision/training.
• Only evaluation is student rating.

5
Human see, Human do. -Planet of the Apes
6
HOW WE TEACH

• Professors tend to teach as they were taught.
• Those who can learn under that teaching style
  excel.
• Those that excel become professors.
• We think we teach to the average, but do
  we????????

7
Do well in college
Go to Graduate School
Do Research
Good Grades
Graduate
Get Job Because of Research
Teach Students
Assistant Professor
Associate Professor
Professor
Do More Research
Do Even More Research
8
8
8
41
43
Faculty
Kolb Learning Styles Inventory Student Learning
Styles
9
WHAT I LEARNED

• Students and professors tend to have different
  learning styles.
• Supported by research of Felder (NCSU)
• Professors prefer the abstract.
• Over half the students prefer the concrete.
• I THOUGHT STUDENTS LIKE PLUG AND CHUG BECAUSE
  THEY WERE LAZY OR STUPID. IT TURNS OUT THATS
  HOW MANY LEARN!

10
SPECIFIC BARRIERS TO TEACHING ENGINEERING

• Not suited to indirect teaching.
• Indirect teaching teaching through question and
  answer/small group discussion.
• Indirect teaching is best for concepts IF
  students have the background.
• Students are active.
• Direct Teaching lecture type presentation.
• Direct Teaching is best for How to or
  unfamiliar material.
• Students are passive.

11
The age old debate Teach a little but teach it
well OR Cover a given amount of subject matter
even if coverage is less than optimum. Often, we
are forced to the latter.
12
The Problem

• Professors are interested in learning for the
  sake of knowledge.
• Interested in theory.
• Interested in useless things
• Colleges still teach Latin!
• Students see knowledge as a means to an end.
• Tend to see college as job training.

13
WAYS TO BE MORE EFFECTIVE

• Give a Damn
• Know Your Audience
• Demonstrate Your Passion for the Subject

14
Some Suggestions

• Start with something they know.
• Give them a connection.
• Numbers first theory next.
• In touch with student learning style.
• Shows application.
• Practical knowledge!
• Why they need it.
• Show off your research!
• Show where theory and practice touch.
• Teach it, assign it, test it.
• Emphasize the important concepts.

15
Analogy When teaching children soccer, we dont
make them learn every rule of the game before
they play a game (imagine explaining the offside
rule to a 6 year old). Children start with
simplified rules and work up to the more complex
rules over time. When confronted with unfamiliar
material, we all all go back to a childlike
learning state.
16
Using Real Examples

• Helps connect material.
• Shows application of theory
• Tells them why
• Students remember better if they know why.

17
Be Consistent!

• Teach, assign and test similar material.
• Identify important concepts.
• Lectures, HW and Tests should be of similar
  material.
• Worst way to teach
• Lecture on one set of topics
• Give HW which has nothing to do with lectures.
• Give tests which have nothing to do with HW and
  Lectures.

18
Committee For Effective Teaching (CET)
http//web.umr.edu/cet/index.htm
Role of the Committee In April of 1995 the
Academic Council approved the following charge
for the CET The Committee on Effective
Teaching and Faculty Awards is authorized and
established by the Chancellor. It has
responsibility for developing methods for the
student evaluation of teaching, assuring the
integrity of the evaluations, recommending
methods for improving teaching, nominating
faculty members for special teaching awards
established at the University of Missouri-Rolla.
19
What has been UMR's practice with regards to
student evaluation of teaching? Toward the end
of the fall and winter semesters, the Provost's
office assembles then distributes evaluation
materials to departmental offices across campus.
If the department had indicated an instructor is
to be evaluated, the evaluation material will
include a packet of scan sheets and a packet of
comment sheets for that instructor. After the
students have completed the sheets, the packets
are returned to the Provost's office. The written
comment sheets are forwarded to the mail center
for return to the instructor after the completion
of the semester. The scan sheets are forwarded
for processing. Once tabulated, the results are
given in a confidential form to the CET at the
beginning of the fall to determine Outstanding
teaching Award recipients. This is a blind
selection process. The CET committee members do
not see the name of instructors.
20
What is the purpose of the student evaluation?
The primary purpose of the evaluation process
is to nominate faculty for the Outstanding
Teacher Award according to student opinion. The
secondary purpose of the evaluations is improving
teaching. The written comment sheets are not used
in the nomination process. They are collected for
the sole purpose of helping an instructor
identify ways in which a course can be improved.
21
Can these evaluations be used to determine my
raises/tenure/promotion? On December 8, 1988
the Academic Council approved Attachment III.A.1
called Policy for Evaluation of Faculty
Instruction. This policy states The results of
these evaluations will provide a portion of the
information used by the administration in
personnel decisions, including promotion and
tenure, salaries, and awards. Hence the Academic
Council has approved that these evaluation
numbers can be a portion of the decision making
process. The policy later elaborates that when
used for personnel decision These evaluations
must be broad-based, including input from student
evaluations, peer evaluations, and self
evaluations, with all tenure track faculty
participating in the evaluations on a periodic
basis. The CET abides by the policy proposed by
the Academic Council and believe that student
evaluation results should provide a portion of
the information used in making personnel
decisions, including promotion and tenure.
However, the CET also believes that the student
evaluation SHOULD NOT be the sole factor in
evaluation of teaching performance for personnel
decisions.
22
CET Selection Criteria for Outstanding Teaching
Awards Minimum of 10 students enrolled per
semester Minimum of 8 student responses per
semester Minimum of 3 courses per year with at
least 2 preparations per year, OR 4 courses per
year if same preparation Lecture classes
only Instructors with prime teaching/faculty
appointments only Distinguished Teaching
Professors not eligible Non-academic (e.g., ROTC,
orientation, help) courses not to apply The
number of awardees selected will be approximately
equal to the 10 of those evaluated. The
Committee will review the records of those
responsible for recitation sections and labs and
recognize an instructor (or two) in each of those
categories if the ratings warrant such selection