Tag: Teaching

  • Peter Elbow was right about teaching writing

    Peter Elbow was right about teaching writing

    In the New York Times obituary of Peter Elbow, the giant of composition studies, he is said to have “transformed freshman comp,” which he definitely did, but also, maybe not?

    Even as someone who has done his fair share of thinking and writing about teaching writing, I did not realize that his landmark book, Writing Without Teachers, was first published all the way back in 1973. For sure, the approach to writing he advocated for in Writing Without Teachers and subsequent books challenged the prevailing dogma of academic writing by emphasizing freedom, student agency and audience above correctness and authority, but to consider the full import of Elbow’s message and compare it to what happens in writing classrooms, it’s tough to see a full “transformation” at work.

    At the time I started teaching freshman composition as a graduate TA (1994), I had never heard of Peter Elbow, and none of the people tasked with preparing me for the job introduced me to his work. In fact, I would not encounter Elbow until 2001, when I expressed frustration with teaching through the lens of rhetorical “modes” and how I wished that I could get students writing more freely and authentically because I was tired of reading performative B.S. written for a grade.

    “You should try Peter Elbow,” I was told. I did, and it was like the clouds suddenly parted and I could see the sun for the first time. Anyone who teaches writing as a process, who uses peer review and reflection, is working from Elbow-ian DNA. This surely fits any definition of transformation, doesn’t it?

    But also, why was I not introduced to Peter Elbow as a beginning writing teacher? Why, at the time I did discover him, were departments still teaching rhetorical modes, or composition as (essentially) essays responding to literature?

    In hindsight, I can tell that Elbow’s views on writing must have had a significant impact on the kind of writing I was asked to do in school and how I did it. I’ve written extensively how my grade school teachers of the 1970s privileged creativity and writing problem solving over correctness, engendering a lifelong curiosity about how writing works.

    But by the time I was a teacher, it seems as though whatever transformation Elbow had caused had been beaten back, at least to some degree. Focus on process and revision remained, but this process was deployed in the making of very standard, significantly prescriptive artifacts that were easy to explain, straightforward to grade—as they fit established rubrics—and (at least in my experience) largely uninteresting to read and (in the experience of many students) uninteresting to write.

    It isn’t surprising that attempts at giving students room to maneuver, which make it difficult to compare them to each other or standards of sufficiency, are resisted by those who prefer order to exploration. The most popular composition textbook of recent years is They Say/I Say (well over a million copies sold) a book that literally coaches students to write using Mad Libs–style templates to imitate forms of academic writing, under the theory students will learn academic expression through osmosis.

    Having tried this book for half a semester, I understand its appeal. It’s really just a more refined version of the prescriptive process I used in the 1990s teaching rhetorical modes. If your primary goal is to have students turn in an artifact that resembles the kind of writing that would be produced through a scholarly process, it is very handy.

    If the goal is to get students to think like scholars or go through a process that requires them to wrestle with the genuine challenges of academic inquiry and expression, it is a lousy choice. These are simulations of academic artifacts, predating the simulations now easily created by large language models like ChatGPT.

    The orderly logic of “schooling” seems to repeatedly win over the mess and chaos of learning. Elbow argued that discovery and differentiation was the highest calling of the learning process, and that writing was an excellent vehicle for fulfilling this calling. This requires one to get comfortable with discomfort. For some reason this is serially viewed as a kind of threat to school, rather than what it should be, the focus of the whole enterprise.

    The New York Times obituary calls Elbow’s approach a “more reflective and touchy-feely process,” which I read a signal as to the lack of rigor of the approach, but in truth, it’s the opposite. There’s nothing particularly rigorous about compliance, particularly when enforced by an authority above with all the power, like a teacher wielding their grade book.

    As I’ve found over and over in my career, including weekly in this space for the last 13 years, there is nothing more demanding than being asked to deliver a thought that could only come from your unique intelligence. There is also nothing more interesting for both the writer and the reader.

    Ultimately, I evolved in ways that make me not quite a full Elbow-ian. The experiences in The Writer’s Practice are structured in ways that do not quite square entirely with Writing With Teachers, though even as I write this sentence, I cannot help but note that calling the assignments in the book experiences, and the fact that I wrote the book in such a way that it could be engaged in the absence of a teacher, suggests that maybe the gap isn’t as wide as I perceive.

    While I was working on the manuscript of what would come to be called More Than Words: How to Think About Writing in the Age of AI, I would play around with possible titles, as the title on the proposal—“Writing With Robots”—was used for the purpose of getting attention for a book proposal, not something that genuinely reflected the sentiments of the book I planned to write.

    One of the titles I considered was “Everyone Should Write,” a reference to one of Elbow’s later collected volumes, Everyone Can Write.

    One of the gifts of the existence of large language models has been to demonstrate the gap between machine prose and that which can be produced by a unique human intelligence. In a way, this only revalidates Elbow’s original insights of Writing Without Teachers, that we, as humans, have a higher purpose than producing school artifacts for a grade.

    I’m not giving up hope that we can accept this gift.

    Source link

  • The case against impartial university teaching

    The case against impartial university teaching

    “I don’t share my political or religious perspectives at work; I never have”, asserted my experienced professorial colleague over an informal coffee. “A bit of shame, but kind of admirable, right?”, I thought.

    I recalled a politics lecturer during my time as an undergraduate, who, like seemingly most of that generation of academics (1990s-00s), believed in impartiality and explicitly stated his liberal neutrality when presenting challenging topics: may the best arguments win. The problem was that through reading his online bio and finding his works in the library, one could very quickly discern his political and philosophical leanings!

    When I began teaching philosophy at the same university a few years later, I too attempted to feign neutrality; neither sharing my political nor religious leanings, nor ethnic or cultural heritage. It wasn’t the done thing. Autobiography and self-disclosure had no place in the philosophy seminar room.

    I’ve since thawed. I’m now leaning far more towards disclosure than when I started teaching. I long held neutral impartiality as the gold standard of instruction, whereby challenging – and perhaps controversial – topics were discussed, but the educator held the space for students to explore perspectives, without sharing their own. This, while often the received wisdom, and certainly well-intentioned, is, I now reflect, limited.

    For an academic to be teaching on a module, especially if they’ve created it, means they’re very likely to be published in that field of inquiry. Engaged students will find such materials, understand their lecturer’s perspectives, and recognise when they’re playing devil’s advocate in sessions. Furthermore, given that we teach face to face, and not in confession booths, the visibility of us as lecturers often speaks volumes; students will make an array of assumptions. For example, if in a session led by the university’s chaplain, it’s safe for students to assume that they’re a member of the Church of England.

    Kelly’s heuristic quartet

    There is a case to be argued for “committed impartiality” as per Social Scientist Thomas Kelly’s (1986) heuristic quartet:

    • Exclusive neutrality: The educator takes a neutral position and eschews any potentially controversial issues; i.e. appropriate in a school context, but too reductive for HE.
    • Exclusive partiality: The educator takes a biased position; i.e. traditionally a big no no. Think here of educators who use their classes to enact their activism.
    • Neutral impartiality: The educator is impartial and neutral, encouraging students to explore controversial issues; i.e. the gold standard of HE instruction based on received wisdom.
    • Committed impartiality: The educator takes a biased position while also being impartial; i.e. seen with scepticism by those who practise neutral impartiality. This is a potentially slippery slope into exclusive partiality.

    While referring principally to the teaching of “controversial” topics in school education, I think the quartet can be helpfully adapted to fit the context of contemporary HE teaching in the social sciences and humanities. Kelly claimed that owing to its contradictory position, “committed impartiality” is the most defensible course of action for educators to engage in teaching controversial issues. This is because it requires the educator to put their cards on the table and encourage debate without claiming an unbiased standpoint.

    Wading

    When discussing loaded issues such as race, sexuality and religious perspectives, perhaps this is where the received wisdom about steadfastly refusing to disclose shines through and avoids the – especially contemporary – quagmire of a shallow form of identity politics and virtue signalling that can sometimes turn into a form of oppression Olympics? The “disclosure dilemma” is, of course, ultimately a personal, context bound one.

    In the context of schools, the issue of disclosure is much more vexed, given that teachers are effectively agents of the state who have a moral duty to avoid prosletysing given the power dynamic of the classroom (I recall the example during COvid-19 of a teacher in Nottinghamshire getting national attention for encouraging students to write letters of frustration to the then PM).

    While school curricula are obviously created by groups of individuals with political agendas, in HE we too have areas of expertise, interest, and passion. In an increasingly regulatory framework, the dissemination of our darlings is bound by legislation such as the Equality Act (2010), and The Higher Education Freedom of Speech Act (2023). Furthermore, to adhere to these acts within a localised context, my employer has a university dignity policy, mission statements, and, within my department, enacts the Chatham House Rule. We also provide trigger warnings to create inclusive learning environments.

    Tightrope

    This discussion has implications for those in the social sciences, especially those who deal, like I do, with explicitly political content (I recognise that the personal is also the political). Of course, navigating the tightrope between committed impartiality and exclusive partiality is tricky. The received wisdom is valuable insofar as it helps the educator to avoid this balancing act. But when the educator has a specialism that speaks to a political issue of the day, it is arguably upon them to do so. For example, in March 2023 I was teaching a session for final year UG students on migration in the context of international education when the Gary Lineker “issue” kicked off. I had a well-informed perspective on that issue, and it linked neatly to the scheduled taught content that day. It’s fair to say that I teetered on that tightrope between committed impartiality and exclusive partiality!

    The challenge is not about self-censorship in the service of an apparently noble ideal of neutral impartiality, but enacting personal commitment and setting the groundwork for civic debate. Deciding to disclose may have the intended learning outcome of rapport building, modelling particular behaviours or perspectives, humanising oneself, normalising situations, or problematising a set of affairs; it’s about practising the messy craft of educating, and being open to self-transformation.

    Risk aversion

    I’m sure others could make equally compelling cases for different positions within, and outside of, Kelly’s heuristic quartet. I think a primary driver behind neutrality is, rather than a noble but impossible quest for untainted discourse, perhaps one of nervousness; nervousness of being seen as doctrinaire or unduly influencing students’ perspectives?

    Overall, the disclosing instructor must consider their visibility in terms of gender, age, physical presence, professional titles etc. that starkly reinforce a power imbalance between student and academic, aka judge, jury and executioner in terms of grades and longer-term prospects. Where the stakes are high boldness of speech, disclosing personal leanings in a learning environment are worth the risk.

    Source link

  • Teaching Public Speaking Skills for Our Remote Age With MindTap Bongo Present Activities

    Teaching Public Speaking Skills for Our Remote Age With MindTap Bongo Present Activities

    Reading Time: 4 minutes

    I remember that fateful day clearly, back in March 2020, when we were first told “Go home. We’re going remote.” On the way out the door, one of my colleagues said, “This changes everything.”  At the time, I thought they were overreacting. My focus was on health and safety. Naively, I thought the COVID-19 pandemic would pass quickly, and we would soon return to normal.

    Rarely have I been so wrong about so many things.

    As a communication professor for more than thirty years, I assumed public speaking meant speaking in-person, in public. At the beginning of remote learning, I instructed students to present speeches on Zoom in much the same way I had when our classroom was live, in-person. However, after several semesters of trial and error, I finally appreciated the truth of my colleague’s statement. Everything had changed. While many of the skills required for effective public speaking remotely were the same as public speaking in person, teaching additional skills was necessary.

    Public speaking skills: critical for career success

    Happily, I discovered learning these remote public speaking skills would not only support students’ academic success but would also support their long-term workplace success. According to research in Cengage’s Career Readiness eBook, 98.5% of employers think communication skills are very important. Additionally, LinkedIn ranked communication as No. 1 on their 2024 list of overall most in-demand skills. Ultimately, this is a skill that will only benefit students in the long run. So, how can students hone this skill?

    When it comes to public speaking in any environment, practice is always key. Experts often suggest students give practice presentations, paying close attention to things like their body language, tone of voice and breath control. Practicing in front of others can also be tremendously helpful when preparing.

    The challenge of incorporating peer feedback skills in remote teaching

    Providing constructive feedback is an essential skill for remote public speaking. Teaching my students how to provide constructive feedback had always been an integral part of my in-person public speaking curriculum.

    First, I would offer a lesson with guidelines on how to offer constructive feedback. Then, students would be responsible for completing a speech critique form of another student’s presentation. And finally, students would reflect on ways they could improve their performance based on the feedback they received. Research suggests this type of peer review process helps students to develop lifelong skills in assessing and providing feedback to others, while simultaneously equipping them with skills to self-assess and improve their own speeches.

    When I had a full class of face-to-face students, integrating these types of peer review experiences into my public speaking curriculum was relatively easy. However, I quickly learned that the remote learning environment presented a new set of peer review challenges. Just recording speeches to a viewing platform wasn’t enough to replicate the learning opportunities of the in-person experience. Ideally, students needed to be able to record their speeches for asynchronous viewing by the instructor and the assigned students, who would then offer written constructive feedback for the presenter and other peer reviewers to consider. These requirements seemed like a tall order but, amazingly, MindTap, Cengage’s online learning platform, provided me with exactly what I needed.

    Using MindTap to teach remote public speaking skills

    Prior to my public speaking courses shifting to remote learning, I had already been using online MindTap activities to supplement the print versions of my textbooks. After the pandemic, I began to rely more heavily on MindTap activities. I found using MindTap filled in some of what was lost from my students’ in-person experience, keeping them more engaged. Additionally, using the MindTap Bongo Present activities, which are available with many of the Communication Studies eBooks, solved a number of practical dilemmas including how to systematically evaluate their performance.

    Present Bongo activities, found in the MindTap learning path, help students become more comfortable with the act of speaking to a camera while being recorded to a screen through a variety of topic-specific, impromptu-style, low-stakes public speaking opportunities.

    Present activities can also be used as an effective delivery and evaluation system for more formal public speaking presentations, such as pre-planned informative or persuasive speeches. When students record their speech, in addition to receiving feedback and a grade from me, they can also receive feedback from other class members, either by a rubric-based peer review or live, real-time comments.

    Having the option to assign three or more reviewers for each speech provides additional benefits, for both the reviewer and the speaker. As reviewers, students get to see a wider range of work, and as speakers, they get more feedback on their presentations. If multiple reviewers make the same suggestion, a speaker may be more likely to take that suggestion to heart.

     

     

     

     

     

     

    The pathway to public speaking success in a remote setting includes setting aside time to rehearse and record presentations and asking colleagues for constructive feedback. In much the same way, MindTap Bongo activities provide students the opportunity to practice their speaking skills, learn from the review/feedback process  and, ultimately, to succeed in our remote age.

    Written by Sheryll Reichwein, MA, Adjunct Professor of Communication at Cape Cod Community College

    Interested in exploring how MindTap Bongo Activities can help your students develop remote public speaking skills effectively?

    The post Teaching Public Speaking Skills for Our Remote Age With MindTap Bongo Present Activities appeared first on The Cengage Blog.

    Source link

  • An argument against teaching demos (opinion)

    An argument against teaching demos (opinion)

    I have always found the teaching demo portion of a faculty job candidate’s visit to be the least useful component of assessing that individual’s fit for the position. Think about it—for teaching-focused institutions, teaching demos are held in high regard and are often a mandatory component of candidate job-talk visits. The prevalent belief appears to be that without seeing an individual in action in front of a live classroom, one cannot assess their teaching ability.

    To me, it seems rather like expecting an interviewing physician to come into an ongoing surgery and take over the operation for half an hour before retreating and handing the patient back to the original surgeon. This seems hardly fair to the visiting physician or the beleaguered patient.

    A teaching demo often involves the job candidate having to go teach a portion of a lecture in an already existing and functioning course. Right off the bat, the entire premise of the teaching demo is unnatural and flawed. Neither the demo giver nor the demo receivers benefit, and the observers (i.e., the hapless search committee members), who are the ones most invested in the demo, gain nothing of value, either. Yes, maybe you can determine in 20 minutes how a candidate speaks in front of an audience, but that factoid can be gathered from a research or job talk presentation as well. In that job talk presentation, perhaps the candidate can also talk about his or her teaching philosophy. That to me seems more valuable and more useful information to gather.

    One big issue for me about the teaching demo is that the students in attendance know it’s a demonstration and are probably not too fussed about paying too much attention, knowing that whatever the demonstration covers, the contents are unlikely to make it into the exams or quizzes given by their regular instructor. So it would not be surprising if they base their evaluations entirely on random criteria, such as one’s sense of sartorial style.

    Essentially, the demo serves as a distraction for students—a way to let their minds wander from their regular programming. I would argue that this sort of demoing is disruptive for student learning and regular instructor teaching. We are taking away valuable time that students would have gotten their regular teaching in order to subject them to a teaching demo, which they know doesn’t matter in the long run.

    And of course, this sort of demo interrupts the teaching plans of the regular instructor. Now that instructor has to hang around for the length of the time of the demo letting their attention wander, just like the students. And then the instructor has to go back to their regular class, out of which half an hour or longer has already been squandered.

    Furthermore, whatever evaluations are garnered from the teaching demo are not exactly trustworthy. There is evidence that course evaluations (conducted after an entire semester) are biased against women and minority professors. And mind you, that’s after an entire semester—how on Earth can one expect a 25- to 35-minute demo evaluation to be unbiased? They most assuredly are not unbiased and are probably reflective of similar biases against minority and women candidates. I’ve been on and chaired several search committees, and have seen some really random comments listed on the demo evaluations. Needless to say, those comments were not germane to the actual situation, in that they provided no useful evidence about the candidate’s teaching ability.

    Also, these sorts of teaching demos are especially rough on candidates who have social anxiety or are introverted. Teaching involves building rapport with your students—20 minutes is hardly enough time to do that. It is entirely possible for a candidate to be unfairly assessed based on a tiny sliver of time. A great teacher could have a bad teaching demo, and a poor teacher could have a great teaching demo—how accurate is it to judge someone’s teaching abilities based on a short lecture? Wouldn’t it be more accurate to actually take the time to pore over the candidate’s teaching evaluations instead? Yes, they are prone to error, but it stands to reason they are not as prone to error as a teaching demo. Preferring a teaching demo over a more complete semester-long evaluation is akin to judging a movie from its trailer. A trailer can be great, but the movie may still be terrible. Ditto with teaching demos.

    Alternatives to Teaching Demos

    I propose some alternatives to teaching demos. The first is to include a small teaching portion in the job talk itself. Give the candidate the leeway to talk about his or her teaching philosophy and perhaps about their approach to pedagogy. That, when combined with actual semester teaching evaluations, would be far more useful than a 20- or 30-minute demo. Anyone can fake being nice and approachable for 20 or 30 minutes—doing that over the course of a semester is a lot more difficult. Even faculty members who are perceived as rude and unapproachable by their usual students can pass themselves off as wonderful and approachable for a 20-minute window. How they behave throughout the semester is far more useful and predictive information.

    Another alternative to a live teaching demo could be to make it asynchronous. Have the candidate record a video lecture of themselves, and then have faculty and students watch the video to rate the candidate on their teaching performance. After all, the goal is to see how the candidate presents and teaches—why not take away the anxiety component of the live demo and instead make it a lot more equitable? Sure, recording a video could be anxiety-provoking in its own right, but it can’t be more anxiety-provoking than a live demo in front of a crowd, can it?

    The third alternative to live teaching demos is to open up the candidate’s research presentation to students as well. Far too often, the research presentations are only attended by department faculty members (some of whom have to be reluctantly corralled from their offices by the search committee chair). Opening these presentations up to students would serve a dual purpose, both bolstering the audience numbers and giving the students attending a good idea of how the candidate communicates. This does much the same job that the teaching demo does, but more effectively and efficiently.

    Conclusion

    To conclude, I am suggesting that we do away with the teaching demos in faculty job candidates’ visits. It is high time that we eliminate useless rituals that we follow just because of tradition. Let’s send teaching demos the way of the dodo.

    Source link

  • The Student Assistant Supports Learning and Teaching

    The Student Assistant Supports Learning and Teaching

    Reading Time: 3 minutes

    AI is becoming a bigger part of our daily lives, and students are already using it to support their learning. In fact, from our studies, 90% of faculty feel GenAI is going to play an increasingly important role in higher ed.

    Embracing AI responsibly, with thoughtful innovation, can help students take charge of their educational journey. So, we turn to the insights and expertise of you and your students — to develop AI tools that support and empower learners, while maintaining ethical practices, accuracy and a focus on the human side of education.

    Training the Student Assistant together

    Since we introduced the Student Assistant in August 2024, we continue to ensure that faculty, alongside students, play a central role in helping to train it.

    Students work directly with the tool, having conversations. Instructors review these exchanges to ensure the Student Assistant is guiding students through a collaborative, critical thinking process —helping them find answers on their own, rather than directly providing them.

    “I was extremely impressed with the training and evaluation process. The onboarding process was great, and the efforts taken by Cengage to ensure parity in the evaluation process was a good-faith sign of the quality and accuracy of the Student Assistant.” — Dr. Loretta S. Smith, Professor of Management, Arkansas Tech University

    Supporting students through our trusted sources

    The Student Assistant uses only Cengage-authored course materials — it does not search the web.

    By leveraging content aligned directly with instructor’s chosen textbook , the Student Assistant provides reliable, real-time guidance that helps students bridge knowledge gaps — without ever relying on external sources that may lack credibility.

    Unlike tools that rely on potentially unreliable web sources, the Student Assistant ensures that every piece of guidance aligns with course objectives and instructor expectations.

    Here’s how:

    • It uses assigned Cengage textbooks, eBooks and resources, ensuring accuracy and relevance for every interaction
    • The Student Assistant avoids pulling content from the web, eliminating the risks of misinformation or content misalignment
    • It does not store or share student responses, keeping information private and secure

    By staying within our ecosystem, the Student Assistant fosters academic integrity and ensures students are empowered to learn with autonomy and confidence.

    “The Student Assistant is user friendly and adaptive. The bot responded appropriately and in ways that prompt students to deepen their understanding without giving away the answer.” – Lois Mcwhorter, Department Chair for the Hutton School of Business at the University of Cumberlands

    Personalizing the learning journey

    56% of faculty cited personalization as a top use case for GenAI to help enhance the learning experience.

    The Student Assistant enhances student outcomes by offering a personalized educational experience. It provides students with tailored resources that meet their unique learning needs right when they need them. With personalized, encouraging feedback and opportunities to connect with key concepts in new ways, students gain a deeper understanding of their coursework. This helps them close learning gaps independently and find the answers on their own, empowering them to take ownership of their education.

    “What surprised me most about using the Student Assistant was how quickly it adapted and adjusted to feedback. While the Student Assistant helped support students with their specific questions or tasks, it did so in a way that allowed for a connection. It was not simply a bot that pointed you to the correct answer in the textbook; it assisted students similar to how a professor or instructor would help a student.” — Dr. Stephanie Thacker, Associate Professor of Business for the Hutton School of Business at the University of the Cumberlands

    Helping students work through the challenges

    The Student Assistant is available 24/7 to help students practice concepts without the need to wait for feedback, enabling independent learning before seeking instructor support.

    With just-in-time feedback, students can receive guidance tailored to their course, helping them work through challenges on their own schedule. By guiding students to discover answers on their own, rather than providing them outright, the Student Assistant encourages critical thinking and deeper engagement.

    “Often students will come to me because they are confused, but they don’t necessarily know what they are confused about. I have been incredibly impressed with the Student Assistants’ ability to help guide students to better understand where they are struggling. This will not only benefit the student but has the potential to help me be a better teacher, enable more critical thinking and foster more engaging classroom discussion.” — Professor Noreen Templin, Department Chair and Professor of Economics at Butler Community College

    Want to start using the Student Assistant for your courses?

    The Student Assistant, embedded in MindTap, is available in beta with select titles , such as “Management,” “Human Psychology” and “Principles of Economics” — with even more coming this fall. Find the full list of titles that currently feature the Student Assistant, plus learn more about the tool and AI at Cengage right here.

    Source link

  • The buzz around teaching facts to boost reading is bigger than the evidence for it

    The buzz around teaching facts to boost reading is bigger than the evidence for it

    Over the past decade, a majority of states have passed new “science of reading” laws or implemented policies that emphasize phonics in classrooms. Yet the 2024 results of an important national test, released last month, showed that the reading scores of elementary and middle schoolers continued their long downward slide, hitting new lows.

    The emphasis on phonics in many schools is still relatively new and may need more time to yield results. But a growing chorus of education advocates has been arguing that phonics isn’t enough. They say that being able to decode the letters and read words is critically important, but students also need to make sense of the words. 

    Some educators are calling for schools to adopt a curriculum that emphasizes content along with phonics. More schools around the country, from Baltimore to Michigan to Colorado, are adopting these content-filled lessons to teach geography, astronomy and even art history. The theory, which has been documented in a small number of laboratory experiments, is that the more students already know about a topic, the better they can understand a passage about it. For example, a passage on farming might make more sense if you know something about how plants grow. The brain gets overwhelmed by too many new concepts and unfamiliar words. We’ve all been there. 

    A ‘Knowledge Revival’

    A 2025 book by 10 education researchers in Europe and Australia, “Developing Curriculum for Deep Thinking: The Knowledge Revival,” makes the case that students cannot learn the skills of comprehension and critical thinking unless they know a lot of stuff first. These ideas have revived interest in E.D. Hirsch’s Core Knowledge curriculum, which gained popularity in the late 1980s. Hirsch, a professor emeritus of education and humanities at the University of Virginia, argues that democracy benefits when the citizenry shares a body of knowledge and history, which he calls cultural literacy. Now it’s a cognitive science argument that a core curriculum is also good for our brains and facilitates learning. 

    Related: Our free weekly newsletter alerts you to what research says about schools and classrooms.

    The idea of forcing children to learn a specific set of facts and topics is controversial. It runs counter to newer trends of “culturally relevant pedagogy,” or “culturally responsive teaching,” in which critics contend that students’ identities should be reflected in what they learn. Others say learning facts is unimportant in the age of Google where we can instantly look anything up, and that the focus should be on teaching skills. Content skeptics also point out that there’s never been a study to show that increasing knowledge of the world boosts reading scores.

    It would be nearly impossible for an individual teacher to create the kind of content-packed curriculum that this pro-knowledge branch of education researchers has in mind. Lessons need to be coordinated across grades, from kindergarten onward. It’s not just a random collection of encyclopedia entries or interesting units on, say, Greek myths or the planets in our solar system. The science and social studies topics should be sequenced so that the ideas build upon each other, and paired with vocabulary that will be useful in the future. 

    The big question is whether the theory that more knowledge improves reading comprehension applies to real schools where children are reading below grade level. Does a content-packed curriculum translate into higher reading achievement years later?

    Putting knowledge to the test

    Researchers have been testing content-packed lessons in schools to see how much they boost reading comprehension. A 2023 study of the Core Knowledge curriculum, which was not peer reviewed, received a lot of buzz. The students who attended nine schools that adopted the curriculum were stronger readers. But it was impossible to tell whether the Core Knowledge curriculum itself made the difference or if the boost to reading scores could be attributed to the fact that all nine schools were highly regarded charter schools and were doing something else that made a difference. Perhaps they had hired great teachers and trained them well, for example. Also, the students at these charter schools were largely from middle and upper middle class families. What we really want to know is whether knowledge building at school helps the poorest children, who are less likely to be exposed to the world through travel, live performances, and other experiences that money can buy.

    Another content-heavy curriculum developed by Harvard education professor James Kim produced a modest boost to reading scores in a randomized controlled trial, according to a paper published in 2024. Reading instruction was untouched, but the students received special science and social studies lessons that were intended to boost young children’s knowledge and vocabulary. Unfortunately, the pandemic hit in the middle of the experiment and many of the lessons had to be scrapped. 

    Related: Slightly higher reading scores when students delve into social studies, study finds

    Still, for the 1,000 students who had received some of the special lessons in first and second grades, their reading and math scores on the North Carolina state tests were higher not only in third grade, but also in fourth grade, more than a year after the knowledge-building experiment ended. Most of the students were Black and Hispanic. Forty percent were from poor families.

    The latest study

    The Core Knowledge curriculum was put to the test in another study by a team of eight researchers in two unidentified cities in the mid-Atlantic and the South, where the majority of children were Black and from low income families. More than 20 schools had been randomly assigned to give kindergarteners some lessons from the Core Knowledge curriculum. The schools continued with their usual phonics instruction, but “read aloud” time, when a teacher ordinarily reads a picture book to students, had been replaced with units on plants, farming and Native Americans, for example. More than 500 kindergarteners looked at pictures on a large screen, while a teacher discussed the topics and taught new vocabulary. Additional activities reinforced the lessons. 

    According to a paper published in the February 2025 issue of the Journal of Education Psychology, the 565 children who received the Core Knowledge lessons did better on tests of the topics and words that were taught, compared with 626 children who had learned reading as usual and weren’t exposed to these topics. But they did no better in tests of general language, vocabulary development or listening comprehension. Reading itself was not evaluated. Unfortunately, the pandemic also interfered in the middle of this experiment and cut short the analysis of the students through first and second grades.  

    Related: Inside the latest reading study that’s getting a lot of buzz

    Lead researcher Sonia Cabell, an associate professor at Florida State University, says she is looking at longer term achievement data from these students, who are now in middle school. But she said she isn’t seeing a clear “signal” that the students who had this Core Knowledge instruction for a few months in kindergarten are doing any better. 

    Glimmers of hope

    Cabell did see glimmers of hope. Students in the control group schools, who didn’t receive Core Knowledge instruction, also learned about plants. But the Core Knowledge students had much more to say when researchers asked them the question: “Tell me everything you know about plants.” The results of a test of general science knowledge came just shy of statistical significance, which would have demonstrated that the Core Knowledge students were able to transfer the specific knowledge they had learned in the lessons to a broader understanding of science. 

    “There are pieces of this that are promising and encouraging,” said Cabell, who says that it’s complicated to study the combination of conventional reading instruction, such as phonics and vocabulary, with content knowledge. “We need to better understand what the active ingredient is. Is it the knowledge?” 

    All the latest Core Knowledge study proves is that students are more likely to do well on a test of something they have been taught. Some observers errantly interpreted that as evidence that a knowledge rich curriculum is beneficial. 

    Related: Learning science might help kids read better

    “If your great new curriculum reads articles about penguins to the kids and your old stupid curriculum reads articles about walruses to them, one of these is going to look more successful when the kids are evaluated with a penguin test,” explained Tim Shanahan, a literacy expert and a professor emeritus at the University of Illinois at Chicago who was not involved in this research.

    Widening achievement gaps

    And distressingly, students who arrived at kindergarten with stronger language skills absorbed a lot more from these content-rich lessons than lower achieving students. Instead of helping low achieving kids catch up, achievement gaps widened.

    People with more knowledge tend to be better readers. That’s not proof that increasing knowledge improves reading. It could be that higher achieving kids like learning about the world and enjoy reading. And if you stuff a child with more knowledge, it’s possible that his reading skills may not improve.

    The long view

    Shanahan speculates that if knowledge building does improve reading comprehension, it would take many, many years for it to manifest. 

    “If these efforts aren’t allowed to elbow sound reading instruction aside, they cannot hurt and, in the long run, they might even help,” he wrote in a 2021 blog post.

    Researchers are still in the early stages of designing and testing the content students need to boost literacy skills. We are all waiting for answers.

    Contact staff writer Jill Barshay at 212-678-3595 or [email protected].

    This story about Core Knowledge was written by Jill Barshay and produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for Proof Points and other Hechinger newsletters.

    The Hechinger Report provides in-depth, fact-based, unbiased reporting on education that is free to all readers. But that doesn’t mean it’s free to produce. Our work keeps educators and the public informed about pressing issues at schools and on campuses throughout the country. We tell the whole story, even when the details are inconvenient. Help us keep doing that.

    Join us today.

    Source link

  • Online Teaching Challenges Using Virtual Classroom Software

    Online Teaching Challenges Using Virtual Classroom Software

    What is a virtual classroom software?

    A virtual classroom is a digital replica of a traditional classroom, the only difference is that it uses technical tools to interact with students in real-time. The virtual classroom software for teachers helps higher education institutions to manage classes remotely using interactive tools for collaboration, brainstorming, ideation, and discussion. All this is followed by instant assessments and result publications to measure the learning that happened in the session.

     

    The sudden school closures and the need of Virtual classroom software for teachers

    There can never be a PAUSE mode for Education nor Learning. But what if a situation demands it? Let’s take the example of our current COVID-19 scenario.

    The UNESCO states that globally, over 1.3 billion children are out of the classroom, across 186 countries, as on March 2020.

     

     

    There are schools and universities closures everywhere, forcing educational institutions to look for an option to deal with the crisis.

    Thanks to the distinctive rise in the online teaching environment and virtual classroom software, what we could now call the only future of higher education and universities.

    Even the traditional universities and higher eds that were once tabooed to using online teaching are now racing to adapt their programmes and classes to online alternatives. The situation may be pressing, but retorting to any technology wouldn’t help.

    An intuitive, high-end, modern, virtual classroom software for teachers would serve the purpose—a tool that acts as a bridge to offering uninterrupted teaching/learning even during the difficult times.

    Creatrix Campus is end-to-end higher education software that brings campus online on-the-go. You could plan online exams, assignments, execute tasks, conduct online quizzes, group discussions, polling, all virtually.

    Creatrix Campus virtual campus management system has always helped faculty indulge in successful ways of teaching, revolutionizing digital education.

    There’s data analysis, visualization, forecast of assessments that predict learning outcomes, personalized learning pathways for students, and much more. We have figured out 12 successful ways by which Creatrix facilitates successful online teaching and learning, virtually. Here are they;

     

    How to Create an Engaging Virtual Classroom Environment with Virtual classroom software for teachers

     

    top-ways-to-teach-online-with-virtual-classroom-software

     

    1. Get scheduled first

    Now, this is a great feature to start an online classroom—setting up schedules and a set of predefined rules.

    Faculty are allowed to create schedules that most suits their online sessions. Creatrix Scheduling allows schedule creation based on faculty and student preferences.

    Multiple class schedules could be created for different time periods with options to add, edit or cancel schedules, and assign student groups, all this without conflicts.

    There’s enough flexibility here. While any new and complicated topic can be scheduled up in the forenoon, the rest can make up for the afternoon session. Achieving a balanced timetable schedule is also possible with faculty management software that will accommodate all changes instantly and meet your criteria.

     

    2. Build a course and student community

    The next crucial step in virtual teaching lies in the creation of a course and student community. The faculty is the moderator and the courses she creates are the community. On logging in, the faculty would see the list of batches he handles on her personal dashboard.

    The act of the faculty clicking on a particular batch is alike to the real-life scenario of getting into a classroom, with the bunch of students waiting to be marked attendance, hear their performance reports, and submission of assignments, etc. Before the class commences, the faculty marks attendance of the day.

    Nothing goes lacking in this sort of online teaching. Faculty plans well ahead of the classes with a solid curriculum management system from Creatrix.

    The faculty strategically adapt to the industry trends as well as the unique needs of the students. There’s enough option to track the daily progress of the students in line with the curriculum.

     

    3. Digitize the course contents

    At Creatrix we know the real purpose of a virtual LMS; we make learning enjoyable, accessible, and meaningful to students, improving their learning outcomes.

    The faculty takes control of the class, adding course materials to suit her course’s plan. Creatrix virtual Learning Management System (LMS) is brings in a lot of tools for applying various learning models in a wide range of digital formats.

    Instructors are allowed to create, upload, the course’s content, back it up with videos and files, deliver them to students, assign tasks and assessments, administer and track their progress, followed by record-keeping. There’s complete transparency on all these processes.

    The topic planned and covered are kept track of and those that need attention are extended for longer hours. The simplified workflows in Creatrix helps to focus students by giving constructive feedback and personalized recommendations.

     

    4. Adopt collaborative tools to maximize participation

    Virtual teaching is successful only when there’s maximum student participation. Creatrix has many collaborative and communication tools to keep the students glued to the actual teaching process.

    Creatrix virtual LMS allows students to team up on live sessions and video conferencing through external integrated tool.

    Faculty can put forward techniques including quizzes, debates, interactive discussions, etc. There are options to share additional resources for any topic by uploading videos, share relevant PDFs, PPTs, website links, etc. The sessions could be made more fun by bringing in polling, surveys, and map each topic with learning outcomes.

     

    benefits-of-digitizing-course-contents-using-virtual-LMS

     

    Creatrix Campus’s Virtual LMS comes with adaptive teaching models like blended learning, self-paced learning, collaborative learning, and flipped learning to arouse student participation. The lesson planner option in Creatrix helps users to plan and execute both physical and virtual classes for the same course.

     

    5. Focus on keeping the students engaged

    Online remote classes at any cost should be made interesting, mainly because the faculty-student is not in direct interaction. Classes hence have to be delivered in such a way that it builds engagement for learning.

    Creatrix has the Digital Whiteboard tools which come with a virtual pointer to facilitate brainstorming activities. In addition, there are discussion forums and messaging, which is another way of keeping students engaged. 

    Just like how Quora, Yahoo Answers, and Reddit act as amazing discussion forums, Creatrix LMS does the same. 

    The activity wall acts as a message board for further collaboration; students get to post doubtful questions, create polls, and share documents with faculty and his peers.

    There are enough ways a faculty could add advantage to online teaching by sharing learning videos, texts, podcasts to students.

     

    6. Introduce self-learning techniques

    Not all courses in the syllabus would call for a synchronous way of teaching. Some subject’s objectives maybe just research and self-learning. Creatrix virtual LMS creates a self-learning environment that gives enough room for real-time student engagement and self-reflection.

    On completion of topics, student take up auto-assigned, online assessments and quizzes that are used to track their understanding level on the current topic. Uploading videos related to the topic expands the learners to self-learn.

    The progress the student makes can be seen in their personalized dashboards on their real-time status bar reports displaying current, past, and future course progresses, along with the tasks due.

    The faculty’s journey is similar to a facilitator who provides relevant resources and course materials, create tutorials, short lessons, all made possible through online course repositories.

    Students could take part in live streaming and self-paced learning (video upload), conveniently accessible from a single point.

     

    7. Centralize the communication efforts

    There should be an organized way of communication keeping both the students and their parents/guardians informed about the teaching happening.

    This allows the stakeholders to stay informed with auto-notified alerts and reminders about deadlines on assignment submission, feedback, as well as missed topics. They get real-time status via email, SMS, and push notifications.

     

    8. Customize the testing and assessments for personalized learning outcome

    This is an unmissable feature in any online teaching. Assessments help to gauge the learner’s proficiency. Customizing them is incidentally what most software systems lack.

    With customized assessments, faculty have the option to personalize tests for students with different attainment levels. This gives the option to focus on weaker students in a much better way.

    Creatrix has options to conduct both online and offline Assessments/assignments in the form of quizzes, MCQs, long papers, articles, followed by instant onscreen evaluation. Based on the learning outcomes mapping, the system would then intimate the students attainment levels, individually.

      

    9. Get gamified

    A good online teaching platform should work on making things simple for the learners. They won’t really enjoy teaching that’s monotonous, after all, their eyes are starring the digital devices all day long.

    Pick out elements of game playing to add spice to your teaching. Students look for such a twist in their learning experience.

    Assign tasks and projects online, track the submission rates, and provide them badges or scores.

    Integrate with the course schedule and bring forth activity-based learning in line with the Curriculum. This will help instructors and students track topics better. Students, on the other hand, will have access to course information times during absenteeism. Wouldn’t that be great?

     

    10. Link to Incidents Tracking

    There are also options to deal with tardy behavior. Online teaching doesn’t mean you have to compromise on bad behavior incidents, students cheating during online exams by conducting online proctoring etc. A university management software with conduct management system make sense here.

     

    link-to-incidents-tracking

     

    Instantly parents get notified in real-time via email, SMS alerts, and push notifications.
    Besides capturing incidents, rules could be configured, discipline letters created, referrals initiated, analyze trends, and generate reports for faster decision-making to resolve behavior problems.

     

    11. Reporting

    With real-time reporting, instructors should be able to generate real-time reports, right in their hand. They get to know the stand of their students and work on their continuous improvement gradually.

    The instructor could track those students who are accessing the course content and who isn’t.

    Creatrix classroom management software is capable of generating real-time reports including students’ demographics, assignments, attendance, assignments, fee payments, grades, discipline incidents, coursework, assignments, etc.

    All these reports from the virtual classroom software help at deriving insights into learning for a bigger picture of the institutional reporting.

    The best thing about using Creatrix Online LMS is student’s progress data is right in their hands. They have the ability to track their own progress, their dips and ups with the progress status bar on their personal dashboard.

    They get to view the current, past, and future course progresses, along with the tasks due.

     

    12. Mobile support, 24*7

    Wrap up all the above-mentioned features into an all-time accessible mobile app!  A mobile tool is a necessity to support students with uninterrupted learning these days.

    Creatrix Online Learning Management System (OLMS) gives any time, anywhere access to learning where students team up for live sessions via mobile devices and tablets.

    They get the feel of in-the-classroom training with options to view the session’s content visually and communicate via text chat and audio; they can submit assignments, view grades & course materials, and interact with each other just the way they would do in the real classroom.

     

    Conclusion

    It’s high time we try and reset higher education learning to meet the present 2020 demands by giving uninterrupted online learning.

    A virtual classroom software for teachers is the call of the day; a tool like Creatrix Campus is sure to break the shackle that disrupts the flow of higher education by waking up to a better tomorrow.

    Let the higher education institutions get into virtual learning mode and blend with technology for incessant learning even during a crisis like Covid-19 and beyond. Connect with team Creatrix Campus to learn more about virtual classroom software for teachers!

    Source link

  • Thoughts on 20 years of college teaching (opinion)

    Thoughts on 20 years of college teaching (opinion)

    I have now been teaching at Duke University for 20 years. I have been through all kinds of teaching fads—active learning, team-based learning, alternative grading, service learning, etc. You might assume that I have become a better teacher over these many years. Yet I am noticing a curious trend in my course evaluations: Some of my students like me and my courses less and less.

    As a teaching faculty member, this matters greatly to my own career trajectory, and so I’ve wondered and worried about what to do. Why am I struggling to teach well and why are my students struggling to learn?

    Looking back on the past two decades of my teaching and reaching further back into my own college experience, I see six clear differences between now and then.

    Difference No. 1: Access to Information

    When I took my first college environmental science class, way back in 1992, I was mesmerized. This was before the days of Advanced Placement Environmental Science, so I came into the class knowing almost nothing about the topic, motivated by my naïve idea to be part of “saving the world.” To learn, I had a textbook (that I still have, all highlighted and marked up) and the lectures (for which I still have my notes). Sure, I could go to the library and find books and articles to learn more, but mostly I stuck to my textbook and my notes. I showed up to the lecture-based class to learn, to listen, to ask questions.

    Today, my students show up in my course often having taken AP Environmental Science, with access to unlimited information about the course topics, and with AI assistants that will help them organize their notes, write their essays and prepare for exams. I have had to shift from expert to curator, spending hours sifting through online articles, podcasts (SO many podcasts) and videos, instead of relying on a single textbook. I look for content that will engage students, knowing that some may also spend their class period fact-checking my lectures, which brings me to …

    Difference No. 2: Attention

    When I lecture, I look out to a sea of stickered laptops, with students shifting their attention between me, my slides and their screens. I remind them that I can tell when they are watching TikTok or texting, because the class material probably isn’t causing their amused facial expressions.

    Honestly, I am finding myself more distracted, too. While lecturing I am not only thinking about the lecture material and what’s on the next slide—I am also wondering how I can get my students’ attention. I often default to telling a personal anecdote, but even as they briefly look up to laugh, they just as quickly return their eyes to their screens.

    The obvious advice would be to have more engaging activities than lecturing but …

    Difference No. 3: More Lectures, Please

    After 2020, one comment showed up over and over on my course evaluations: lecture more. My students seemed not to see the value of small-group activities, gallery walks, interactive data exercises and discussions. They felt that they were not learning as much, and some of them assumed that meant that I didn’t know as much, which leads me to …

    Difference No. 4: Sense of Entitlement

    While I teach at a private elite university, my colleagues across a range of institutions have backed this up: Some students seem to not have much respect for faculty. The most common way this shows up is at the end of the semester, when students send me emails about why my course policies resulted in a grade they think is unfair, or after an exam, when they argue that I did not grade them fairly, which leads me to …

    Difference No. 5: Assessment Confusion

    When I was in college, I took midterms and finals. I rewrote my notes, made flash cards, created potential exam questions, asked friends for old exams and studied a lot. I took multiple-choice exams and essay exams, in-class exams and take-home exams. When I first started teaching my lecture-based class, I assigned two midterms and a final. I took the business of writing exams seriously, often using short-answer and essay exams that took a whole lot of time to grade. I wanted the experience of taking the exam to help students feel like they had learned something, and the experience of studying to actually entice them to learn.

    Then, two things happened. We faculty got all excited about alternative assessments, trying to make our classes more inclusive for more learning styles. And the students started rebelling about their exam grades, nitpicking our grading for a point here and there, angry that, as one student put it, I was “ruthless” in my grading. Students didn’t show up at my office hours eager to understand the concepts—they wanted more points.

    So, I threw out exams in favor of shorter papers, discussions and activities. In fall 2024, I had 74 students and I gave a whopping 67 of them A’s. To do well in my class now, you don’t really have to learn anything. You just need to show up. Except the problem with grading for attendance is …

    Difference No. 6: Our Students Are Struggling

    We all know that our students are struggling with more mental and emotional health issues, perhaps due to COVID-related learning loss, the state of the world and so many other things. Many of us include mental health resources in our syllabus, but we know that’s not enough. Students are much more open about their struggles with us, but we aren’t trained therapists and often don’t know the right thing to say. Who am I to determine whether or not one student’s excuse for missing a class is valid while another’s is not? How can I keep extending the deadlines for a struggling student while keeping the deadline firm for the rest? Sure, there are suggestions for this (e.g., offer everyone a “late assignment” ticket to use), but I still spend a lot of time sifting through student email requests for extensions and understanding. How can we be fair to all of our students while maintaining the rhythm of course expectations?

    Usually, one acknowledges the differences between students now and “back then” at retirement, reflecting on the long arc of a teaching career. But I am not at the end—I have a long way to go (hopefully). I am expected to be good at this in order to get reappointed to my teaching faculty position.

    Teaching requires much more agility now as we attempt to adapt to the ever-expanding information sphere, our students’ needs, and the state of the community and world beyond our classrooms. Instead of jumping to solutions (more active learning!), I think it’s reasonable to step back and acknowledge that there is no one change we need to make to be more effective educators in 2025. We also can acknowledge that some of the strategies we are using to make our classes more engaging and inclusive might backfire, and that there still is a time and place for really good, engaging lectures and really hard, useful exams.

    There are fads in teaching, and over the past 20 years, I have seen and tried plenty of them. We prize teaching innovation, highlighting new techniques as smashing successes. But sometimes we learn that our best-laid plans don’t work out, that what students really want is to hear from an expert, someone who can help them sort through the overwhelming crush of information to find a narrative that is relevant and meaningful.

    The students in our classrooms are not the same students we were, but maybe there is still a way to spark their enthusiasm for our subjects by simply asking them to be present. As debates about the value of higher education swirl around us, maybe caring about our students and their learning means asking them to put away their screens, take out a notebook and be present for our lectures, discussions and occasional gallery walk. For my part, I’m reminding myself that some students aren’t all that different than I was—curious, excited, eager to learn—and that I owe it to them to keep showing up committed to their learning and, maybe, prepared with a few more light-on-text lecture slides.

    Rebecca Vidra is a senior lecturer at the Nicholas School of the Environment at Duke University.

    Source link

  • Balancing Structure and Emergence in Teaching – Teaching in Higher Ed

    Balancing Structure and Emergence in Teaching – Teaching in Higher Ed

    Throughout my teaching career, I’ve often swung between two extremes when it comes to structure and flow. At times, I’ve been highly structured and organized—a good thing, but one that can become limiting when I miss what’s emerging in the moment. On the other end of the spectrum, if I lose track of the overall goals of a session or workshop, I risk not meeting my commitments or aligning with participants’ expectations. It also creates challenges for the broader structure of the course or event—whether it’s a class within a degree program or a workshop designed to support a university’s teaching and learning goals.

    Mia Zamora discusses this tension on Episode 475 of Teaching in Higher Ed: Making Space for Emergence. In the interview, she describes how we can create “buckets” to hold topics that we can explore together, which is especially helpful for the kind of class content that will be responding to what’s happening in an internal or external context, for example. In my business ethics class, we analyze news stories weekly, and there’s a “bucket” where our reflections and analysis can be placed.

    Alan Levine has co-taught with Mia previously and they both talk about courses having “spines” to keep the needed structure. You can see an example of their #NetNarratives class spine mid-way through Alan’s blog post: My #NetNar Reflection. On Episode 218, Alan discusses the importance of giving people opportunities to explore, as part of their learning. He shares:

    You get better by just practicing. Not rote practicing, but stuff where you’re free to explore.

    Speaking of exploring… I just went to visit Alan’s CogDogBlog – and discovered a recent post with “one more thing about podcasts” where he talks about a cool podcast directory that I wasn’t aware of… and ways of sharing one’s podcast feed with others. Now it is taking every ounce of discipline not to go down the rabbit trail of discovering more. But I leave for Louisiana in three days, the semester starts tomorrow, and I have a 5:30 AM keynote on Tuesday morning. All this to say, I had better behave myself and share a few more things about facilitiation I’ve been thinking about, as I prepare for those adventures.

    Two Additional Approaches for Managing the Tension Between Structure and Flow

    Over time, I’ve discovered two other helpful strategies for balancing structure and in-the-moment flexibility. These tools and insights have transformed how I prepare for and facilitate learning experiences.

    1. SessionLab: Visualizing and Adjusting the Flow

    A while back, I discovered a tool called SessionLab, and it’s become a game-changer, especially when preparing workshops. It helps me create a “run of show” document—something Kevin Kelly has discussed both on Episode 406: How to Create Flexibility for Students and Ourselves, as well as in his book on flexibility in teaching: Making College Courses Flexible Supporting Student Success Across Multiple Learning Modalities. A run of show outlines the timing, activity titles, descriptions, and any additional information for a session, helping me stay on track while leaving space for flexibility.

    SessionLab allows me to break down a workshop or class into blocks of time and activities. Though it includes a library of standard activities, I mostly use it to map out my own. One of my favorite features is the ability to highlight sections in the “additional information” column. This has been a game-changer for virtual facilitation. For example, when sharing resources or instructions during a Zoom session, I pre-highlight key content so I can easily copy and paste it into the chat in real time.

    Beyond that, the tool allows you to color-code blocks to visually assess the balance between different types of learning activities—like how much time you’re spending on lecture versus active learning. It even lets you generate a PDF version for offline reference.

    This morning, I was preparing for Tuesday morning’s keynote and realized (yet again) I’d tried to squeeze too much into my allotted time. SessionLab helped me get realistic about pacing, build in breathing room, and ensure space for those organic moments that make these moments of learning in community so powerful. After all, if everything were going to be rigidly planned, why not just record a video and skip live interaction altogether?

    If you’re looking for a tool to help you balance structure with flexibility, I highly recommend giving SessionLab a try.

    2. Padlet: Unlocking a Hidden Feature for Better Facilitation

    The second resource I want to highlight is in an upcoming book by Tolu Noah on facilitation: Designing and Facilitating Workshops with Intentionality: A Guide to Crafting Engaging Professional Learning Experiences in Higher Education. I had the privilege of reading an advance copy, and it felt like every page introduced me to a new tool or a fresh way of thinking.

    One of many insights that stood out was a feature I hadn’t realized existed in Padlet, a virtual corkboard I already use often for collaborative activities. Tolu explained that you can create breakout links to share just a single column from a Padlet board rather than the entire board.

    This has been incredibly helpful for making my Padlet boards more user-friendly. Before, when I shared an entire board, participants sometimes found it visually overwhelming—unsure where to post their contributions. Now, if I’m running an activity with multiple columns (e.g., ideas related to sustainability in one, corporate social responsibility in another), I can send a direct link to the specific column where I want participants to share. It simplifies the process and improves clarity for everyone.

    When Tolu Noah’s book comes out, I can’t recommend it enough—it’s packed with facilitation wisdom and practical strategies for creating more engaging learning environments.

    Resources

    Here’s a summary of the tools and people mentioned in this post:

    • Episode 475 with Mia Zamora
    • Episode 218 with Alan Levine
    • SessionLab – A tool for creating run-of-show plans, structuring workshops, and balancing structure with flexibility.
    • Kevin Kelly – Educator and author who explores flexibility in teaching and learning; referenced for his insights on “run of show” documents.
    • Making College Courses Flexible Supporting Student Success Across Multiple Learning Modalities – Kevin Kelly’s book: “Addressing students’ increasing demand for flexibility in how they complete college courses, this book prepares practitioners to create equivalent learning experiences for students in the classroom and those learning from home, synchronously or asynchronously.”
    • Padlet – A virtual corkboard tool for collaborative activities, with a feature for sharing breakout links to individual columns.
    • Tolu Noah – Educator and author of a forthcoming book on facilitation, emphasizing practical strategies for inclusive teaching.
    • Designing and Facilitating Workshops with Intentionality: A Guide to Crafting Engaging Professional Learning Experiences in Higher Education – Tolu Noah’s forthcoming book: “Workshops are one of the most frequently used forms of professional learning programming in higher education and beyond. However, in order for them to have a meaningful impact, they must be crafted with intentionality. Designing and Facilitating Workshops with Intentionality_ offers practical guidance, tools, and resources that can help you create more engaging, enriching, and effective workshops for adult learners.”

    Source link

  • Challenging climate hypocrisy in higher education learning and teaching 

    Challenging climate hypocrisy in higher education learning and teaching 

    By Dr Adrian Gonzalez (@AGonzalez05) Senior Lecturer in Sustainability and Director of Learning and Teaching, Department of Environment and Geography at the University of York.

    Climate hypocrisy in Higher Education

    The climate crisis and global attempts at strengthening the sustainable and low-carbon transition is arguably the most critical issue we face and there is clear evidence to show strong Higher Education (HE) support for this twin approach. However, HE, particularly in the Global North, faces increasing scrutiny and critique over its implementation of the sustainability agenda. This has led to accusations of greenwashing, in which universities (willingly or perhaps erroneously) overmarket and/or underdeliver their sustainability policies, and climate hypocrisy, where an internationalist agenda frames student recruitment (the drive towards overseas markets), research activities and partnerships. For example, in UK tertiary education (further education and higher education), the largest sources of travel emissions are student flights, but there has been limited focus on the emissions stemming from learning and teaching, particularly fieldtrips, which this post is keen to reflect on.

    Destination long haul; Higher Education residential undergraduate student fieldtrips

    Outdoor education, particularly fieldtrips, offer a wide array of learner benefits and can be integral to different undergraduate programmes such as Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences (GEES), archaeology, history and classics. However, the competitive UK higher education market has helped generate an internationalisation of undergraduate fieldtrips which are now used as a critical marketing tool to attract prospective students, who as ‘consumers’, are increasingly keen on knowing where these trips go to inform applications. For example, a brief internet search of UK GEES departments shows undergraduate trips heading to exotic locations such as the Amazonia region, Colombia (BSc Environmental Science), Bahamas (BSc Ocean Science and Marine Conservation) and Malawi (BA Human Geography). 

    Climate hypocrisy is evident here; students are studying programmes that acknowledge and grapple with the climate crisis and the need for transformational structural changes, yet at the same time will be enrolled on degrees that facilitate long-haul international learning opportunities without significant acknowledgement or reflection of the environmental impacts. Whilst there is no reliable publicly available data on the level of carbon emissions generated by GEES and other subject fieldtrips in UK higher education, I can give an indication by drawing on a case study of the department I work in.

    Department of Environment and Geography, University of York

    The department runs a wide variety of one-day and residential fieldtrips across its undergraduate and postgraduate programmes. It is the undergraduate residential trips that, owing to their design, have particularly significant carbon emissions and were made the focus of the subsequent investigation. Until 2022-2023, the department ran several residential fieldtrips that encompassed both UK and overseas destinations for its four undergraduate programmes (BSc Environmental Science; BSc Physical Geography and Environment; BSc Environment, Economics and Ecology; BA Human Geography and Environment). 

    I used the University of York’s carbon calculator, which draws upon the UK government’s Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs greenhouse conversion factors to calculate the carbon emissions stemming from travel and accommodation and the offsetting requirements. The table below shows the residential fieldtrips and carbon emissions from travel (including coach and flights where relevant) and accommodation on a per-person and 50-person basis. For four 50-person trips, this generated 108,521.85 kg CO2e (or 109 metric tonnes rounded up), equating to a carbon offsetting cost of £3,437.97 for the Department on an annual basis.

    Table 1: Department of Environment and Geography, University of York fieldtrips up to 2022-2023

    What does this total figure equate to? A good comparison is the Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI), an international non-profit that focuses on environment and development challenges and employs 170 staff working across several international regional centres. At the time of these fieldtrips operating, SEI’s 2020 annual report indicated that its air travel emissions were almost 550 metric tonnes CO2e (in 2019). So these department fieldtrips made up the equivalent of almost 20% of the total air travel emissions of a major international research organisation.

    Conclusion: a call to action

    These figures indicate the scale of the socio-environmental impacts caused and the urgent need for UK higher education learning and teaching operations, particularly in GEES given the subject areas, to be seen as ‘walking the talk.’ There have been recent efforts to address this issue through the work of the RGS-IBG who have developed a list of voluntary principles to guide geography fieldwork, including the adoption of ‘sustainable fieldtrips’ which acknowledge the need to recognise and justify the resulting carbon impacts. Whilst it is positive to see 31 institutions signed up, this is less than half of the UK GEES departments and does not incorporate any wider disciplinary commitments. 

    This article raises a call to action for all learned institutions and UK HE departments operating residential fieldtrips to adopt sustainable fieldtrip principles and operations. Without system-wide change, climate hypocrisy remains unchallenged in UK higher education learning and teaching. 

    To support academic staff and departments, several steps towards sustainable fieldtrips can be taken:

    • Conduct a carbon audit of fieldtrips to ascertain the impacts as undertaken at the Department of Environment of Environment and Geography, University of York; 
    • Using this data, consider revising long-haul fieldtrip locations to relevant localised destinations that can be reached through low carbon (i.e. no flights) transport; 
    • Publish the carbon costs on the department or university website to support wider debate and discussion of sustainable fieldtrips;
    • Implementing sustainable fieldtrips can lead to multiple Equity, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) benefits, particularly around accessibility and inclusivity. Use this opportunity to review and seek to strengthen the EDI agenda. 
    • Disseminate best practice guidance through research and conference outputs;
    • Lobby learned institutions to adopt sustainable fieldtrip principles that align with those adopted by the RGS-IBG;

    Through these steps, UK higher education can begin to create a more holistic, robust and transparent sustainability and decarbonisation agenda. 

    However, these actions cannot happen in isolation or nullify wider critical discussions around the UK HE sustainability agenda. One of the most significant discussion points is the impact of international students studying in the UK, a country which is the second most popular study destination in the world. Whilst these students provide significant economic benefits to the UK economy (£41.9 billion between 2021/22) and are vital to the UK higher education business model (one in six universities get over a third of their total income from overseas students), the carbon footprint far surpasses the UK higher education fieldtrip contribution. A 2023 report from 21 UK further education and higher education providers concluded that student flights accounted for 2.2 metric tonnes of CO2e or 12% of total emissions, whilst globally, student mobility is estimated to generate at least 14 megatones of Co2e per year (14 million metric tonnes). It is clear therefore that in the UK context, there is an urgent need for a robust policy debate on UK higher education funding and student mobility, otherwise the sector’s decarbonisation agenda will remain only partially addressed through sustainable fieldtrips. 

    Source link