Academic Affairs Model

This week I would like to share derivatives of multiple SoTL ideas, which includes Academic Affairs (AA) models. Through the years, I have shared specific SoTL research on the many dimensions of AA, and this week I would like to try and connect the research to how AA can be most effective.

First, I will suggest framework components which are at times part of AA programs, although I have found some of these missing and others less emphasized. These include:

1. Pedagogy

2. Motivation

3. Learning Spaces

4. Class Size

5. Time

6. Academic Support

—

1. Pedagogy

The primary path to effective pedagogy is a clear sense of course design (i.e., alignment of learning outcomes, authentic (formative) assessment, teaching methods and appropriate, well-integrated technology. The primary outcome of a well-designed course is elevated student engagement, which is an essential driver for every major component of learning.

Alkaher and Dolan (2011) found that effective teaching methods focus on an inquiry-based (inductive) model to engage and motivate students in a sustained way. Inductive teaching and learning is an umbrella term that encompasses a range of instructional methods, including inquiry learning, problem-based learning, project-based learning, case-based teaching, discovery learning, and just-in-time teaching. Inductive teaching is a learner-centered model where learners detect patterns and work out rules for themselves.

Mintz (2020) summarizes a shift in pedagogy suggesting that instructors reconsider the "way we conceptualize the teacher-student relationship, and view our students not simply as objects of instruction, but as partners, collaborators, providers of fresh perspectives and creators.” Lockard and Hargis (2017) further found that deeper learning occurs when students

• invest and engage;

• are empowered through choice and control;

• develop autonomy and initiative, which leads to greater confidence;

• are motivated internally rather than through external validation;

• appreciative the value of making mistakes;

• take greater accountability for failed events, which make them more resilient; and

• experience a higher level of enjoyment of the course.

Course design integrates purposeful, accessible, universal design, including ideas from the University of Michigan’s Center for Research on Learning and Teaching (2019); or How to Make Your Teaching More Inclusive by Sathy and Hogan (2019). Georgetown University Center for New Designs in Learning (2021) has created an Inclusive Pedagogy Toolkit that shares how inclusive assessment is about being thoughtful so that you can measure student learning.

Finally, Chickering and Gamson (1987) created a foundational resource, Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education, which can be useful in course design. The principles include:

1. Encourage contact between students and faculty.

2. Develop reciprocity and cooperation among students.

3. Encourage active learning.

4. Give prompt feedback.

5. Emphasize time on task.

6. Communicate high expectations.

7. Respect diverse talents and ways of learning.

1. Motivation

Why are students here (and perhaps why are faculty here)? What gets our students up in the morning and moves them to attend and actively engage in our classes? Is it jobs, money, social connections, it could be fun/enjoyable, parents, they have nothing else to do. In Daniel Pink’s book, Drive (2009), he cites three common attributes for human motivation - autonomy, purpose, mastery.Often, many students simply do not know how to “do school.”

The introduction of the FYE is often attributed to events that occurred in the U.S. in the early 1970s (Gore & Metz, 2017). In the article, College Seminars for First Year Students (2000), the authors summarize key factors in FYE. Another way to organize FYEs are Freshman Interest Groups (FIGs), which are living and learning communities, organized around a theme. Data show a higher retention rate and higher first semester grade point average. High Impact Practice (2012) is a common attribute of FYE, learning communities. HIPs emphasize the development of skills like critical thinking, reliability, qualitative reasoning, work ethic and time management.

An effective method to imprint on student intrinsic motivation is the university offering an engaging first-year experience (FYE). Barefoot and Fidler (1996) found in their College Seminars for First Year Students paper the need to emphasize active, experiential learning is key to first year students. Also key is instructor development. FYE has the potential to reach at-risk students including first-year, first-generation, undeclared, and underrepresented minority students. Padgett, Keup, and Pascarella (2013) found positive results in their article, The Impact of First-year Seminars on Students' Life-long learning Orientations. Findings suggest that FYE enhances students' life-long learning orientations and that the effect is mediated through vetted effective practices. They found that participation in a FYE significantly increased the likelihood of integrating ideas, information, and experiences as well as academic challenge and effort.

1. Learning Spaces

There has been significant research published on the concept of Active Learning (AL) spaces, detailing the potential benefits of engaging students in authentic, meaningful experiences and well-aligned assessment, measurement and evaluation. AL spaces typically include highly mobile furniture, mobile and/or portable white-boards, more than usual mounted whiteboards (or whiteboard paint on walls); untethered methods to share/project information (tablet computer with remote app to operate desktop system or Apple TV-like remote, which instructor or students can share the work on their mobile devices); fixed video-camera s to capture instructor/student object demonstrations; robust WiFi connections along with plentiful (perhaps portable) electrical outlets; reliable, broadband Internet service to facilitate collaborative work, such as sharing a Google or One Drive Document. Many faculty create AL spaces by integrating several of the 289 Active Learning methods. Additional methods to create an active space are to gather formative assessment in the form of Student Response Systems (SRS). These include Answer Garden, Tricider, Poll Everywhere, Kahoot, Jamboard, Padlet, and Mentimeter. There are also ways which your students can create active representations of their conceptual understandings by creating Electronic Learning objects (eLO) using ShowMe, Educreations, Explain Everything, Video Scribe, Stop Motion, Flipgrid, Green Screen or Pecha Kucha.

Recent Research on AL Spaces include: Comparison of Student Learning Gains in High- and Low-Tech Active-Learning Environments, results suggest that the benefits of an active learning experience can be achieved at lower cost without technology features. Data suggest that student-centered classrooms are effective only when instructors' epistemic framework of teaching is consistent with a student-centered pedagogy.

A substantial support mechanism for intrinsic motivation is a student's ability to use metacognition and Self-Regulation in their learning. In the article, Metacognition in Teaching: Using A Rapid Responses to Learning Process to Reflect on and Improve Pedagogy the authors (Cox, Jongbloed & Black, 2022) share a concise instrument to help us collect data on student reflections through rapid responses. In Hill and West’s (2022) Dialogic Feed-Forward in Assessment: Pivotal to Learning but not Unproblematic, they share how dialogic feed-forward can act as a pivotal moment in learning, where students reflect on their work, judge their standards against criteria, and co-create positive actions for improvement.

1. Class Size

Often we think of class size as a facilities or registrar function, when in actuality, it is a very integral aspect of course design. At times and for various reasons, an institution may need to elevate the class size above the typical 20-30 students/class. However, just because there are over one hundred students in a class should not dictate that the only interactions would be teacher-centered lectures. Indeed, to offer the active learning that research supports as necessary for learning, faculty will require additional expertise and support in well-aligned pedagogy methods, and perhaps managing teaching assistants. In the article, Rack em, pack 'em and stack em: challenges and opportunities in teaching large classes in higher education, by Kumar (2013), the author reminds us of the benefits of creating an active environment. This paper sites Burnett and Krause's (2012) research on effective teaching, recommending timely, regular and alternate forms of communication; establish helpful strategies on key issues; provide other support mechanisms; designing effective, engaging courses, using multiple strategies; encourage interaction during the teaching and learning process; and using low threshold, functional technology to enhance activities. The author addresses assessments (measurement and evaluation) which can be helped by ensuring clear linking (and alignment) of content with learning outcomes and assessment; using early formative assessment strategies to identify issues; teaching students about how they process information and methods to approach assessments; and using automated assessments in the learning process.

The author also shares an affective or dispositional perspective, recommending building interest and rapport with students; taking interest in strong and weak students; ensuring there are clear pathways for communication; recognizing that different students learn differently using diverse means; and provide access to support services (international students and students from diverse backgrounds). Hyper focus on engaging students in activities that the instructor's involvement will significantly enhance their experience. As part of the lecture, include specific and relevant examples of the theories and models, ideally from the instructor's research and/or projects they have worked on personally.

1. Time

In 1909, the Carnegie Unit was accepted as the standard measure of class time (Shedd, 2003) and the U.S. DoE defined a credit hour as one hour of class instruction and a minimum of two hours out of class work each week for fifteen weeks. There is debate on the exact number, what students should be doing, and even if we should be updating the amount with the increased use of technology. Regardless, in the 2015 article, Questioning the Two-Hour Rule for Studying, Paff suggests activities to help students be most productive outside of class.

Careful attention to the activities that we offer in-class should be tightly aligned with the learning outcomes. Ultimately, to determine the class activities, we should hyperfocus on offering activities that students could not do without a subject matter expert. Therefore for an effective course design, faculty should be triaging activities that cannot be completed in isolation, which could include instructor demonstrations, facilitating role plays through exemplar modeling, gaining a clear sense of student performance in a two-way feedback loop, etc. The design should be intentional as to the expectations for out-of-class time, which could include connective activities, such as asking students to use prior information to synthesize into new concepts; bringing to subsequent class sessions to further connect to instructor facilitation of new concepts.

Three hours can be ideal for some instructors if their course design is aligned to this amount of timing. For this time period (and all instructional interactions), we need to provide opportunities for students to deeply engage; create a safe, inclusive, accessible environment where they feel welcomed, supported, and part of an enduring community; where they can access each other as a community instead of just the teacher. Longer class periods can facilitate these approaches when designed to do so. Learning takes time. We need to ask students to analyze (not just do) problems, view/review/connect videos, discuss conceptual framework WITH a mode instructor and their colleagues who are modeling, encouraging, motivating in a way that persists. These approaches will build students self-regulated abilities and an elevated sense of self-efficacy and metacognitive skills, which will endure beyond the classroom.

In addition, there is research on compressed and accelerated courses (CC), which are typically 3-6 weeks in duration. In Boeding's Dissertation, Academic Performance in Compressed Courses: A Phenomenological Study of College Student Success (2016), the author finds that CC's showed improved grades and learning (Gamboa, 2013; Scott, 2009; Tatum, 2010); promoted student productivity and provide opportunities for students to become immersed in activity during class periods (Tatum, 2010); allowed restructuring to include pedagogy that promotes engagement (Anastasi, 2007; Gamboa, 2013; Lee & Horsfall, 2010); produced equal, often exceptional, learning outcomes compared to traditional courses (Scott & Conrad, 1992); earned at least 30% higher success rates; grade point averages; and course completion rates were higher; and were superior in terms of learning outcomes.

In the Influence of a Compressed Semester on Student Performance, Choudhury (2017) found using Chi-square statistics, students performed significantly better. Also, in The Influence of Session Length On Student Success, Logan and Geltner (2000) examined the counter-intuitive idea from a database consisting of 446,000 students. They examined factors affecting the finding including teaching performance, type of course, frequency of class meetings, length of class meetings, type of student, quality of student scholarship, student maturity, and student background. In summary, much of the results refer to the importance of clearly articulated, well-aligned, active, measurable learning outcomes and research-based instructional methods.

1. Academic Support.

In addition to the critical elements shared, faculty (as well as all of us) need timely, targeted support. For teaching, support could be in the form of well-qualified teaching assistants, post-doctoral assistants, student liaisons, colleagues from a Center for Teaching and Learning, peers, mentors, leaders, external/industry colleagues and many more.

References

AAC&U Recent Trends in Gen Ed Design, Outcomes and Teaching (2016). Retrieved from https://www.aacu.org/leap/liberal-learning-research.

Alkaher, I. & Dolan, E. (2011) Instructors' decisions that integrate inquiry teaching into undergraduate courses: How do I make This fit?," International Journal for SoTL, 5(2).

Barefoot, B & Fidler, P. (1996). The 1994 National Survey of Freshman Seminar Programs: Continuing Innovations in the Collegiate Curriculum. Columbia: University of South Carolina, National Resource Center for The First-Year Experience and Students in Transition.

Benson, D., Mattson, L. & Adler, L. (1995). Prompt Feedback. In Susan Rickey Hatfield (Ed.), The Seven Principles In Action (55-66). Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing Company.

Berry, J.W. & Chew, S.L. (2008). Improving learning through interventions of student-generated questions and concept maps. Teaching of Psychology, 35: 305-312. Binghamton University Syllabus Policy.

Boeding, L. (2016). Thesis: Academic performance in a compressed course: A phenomenological study of community college student success. Doctor of Education in the field of Education College of Professional Studies Northeastern University.

Brooks, D.C. (2012), Space and consequences: Impact of different formal learning spaces on instructor and student behavior, Journal of Learning Spaces, 2(1).

Brown, D. & Ellison, C. (1995). What is Active Learning?. In Susan Rickey Hatfield (Ed.), The Seven Principles In Action (39-53). Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing.

Bunda, Mary A. (1993). The Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education. Instructional Exchange 4 (1-6), 1-4.

Burnett J., & Krause, K. (2012). Teaching large classes: Challenges and strategies. GIHE Good Practice Guide on Teaching Large Classes.

Chickering, Arthur W. (1991). Institutionalizing the Seven Principle and the Faculty and Institutional Inventories. New Directions For Teaching And Learning. Jossey Bass. 47.

Chickering, A. & Ehrmann, S. (2000). Implementing the Seven Principles: Technology as Lever.

Chickering, A. & Gamson, Z.. (1987). Seven Principles for Good Teaching in Undergraduate Education. AAHE Bulletin 39, 3-7.

Cox, S, Jongbloed, K. & Black, C. (2022). Metacognition in teaching: Using rapid responses to the learning process to reflect on and improve pedagogy. Teaching & Learning Inquiry, 10. https://doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.10.27

Cross, K. Patricia. (1997). The Freshman Year: Working Out the Puzzle of a College Education. Paper presented at the Sixteenth Annual Conference on The Freshman Year Experience, Columbia, SC, February 22.

Driscol, D. (2014). Clashing values: A longitudinal, exploratory study of student beliefs about general education, vocationalism, and transfer of learning. Teaching & Learning Inquiry, 2(1), 21–37.

Grabowsky, G., Hargis, J., Davidson, J., Suh, J., Wright, C., & Paynter, A. (2017). Convicts, cadavers, coral reefs, coffee shops and couture: How customizing experiential learning increased learner comfort and engagement. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, 14(3).

Heffernan, J.M. (1973). The credibility of the credit hour: The history, use and shortcomings of the credit system. The Journal of Higher Education, 44(1): 61-72.

Hill, J. & West, H. (2022). Dialogic feed-forward in assessment: Pivotal to learning but not unproblematic. Teaching & Learning Inquiry, 10. https://doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.10.20

Kumar, S. (2013). Rack em, pack 'em and stack em: challenges and opportunities in teaching large classes in higher education. F1000 Research, 2:42.

Lockard, E., & Hargis, J. (2017). Andragogical design thinking: A transition to anarchy in and beyond the classroom. Transformative Dialogues, 10(4).

Millis, B. J. (1991). Fulfilling the promise of the "seven principles" through cooperative learning: An action agenda for the University classroom. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching. 2, 139-144.

Padgett, R. D., Keup, J. R., & Pascarella, E. T. (2013). The impact of first-year seminars on college students' life-long learning orientations. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 50(2), 133.

Shedd, J.M. (2003). The history of the student credit hour, New Directions for Higher Education, 122: 3-12. US Department of Ed Credit Hour Definition.

Singer-Freeman, K., & Bastone, L. (2016). Pedagogical Choices Make Large Classes Feel Small. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois and Indiana University, National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment.