1. STUDENTS EXPECTATIONS ASSESSMENT OF STUDENT EXPECTATIONS IN THE CLASSROOM AND APPLICATIONS FOR FACULTY Lilly Graduate Fellows: Andrea Andrew, Abdel-Hameed Badawy, Mara Dougherty, Katie Marie Hrapczynski, Elise Larsen, Matthew Walker Miller, Breanne Robertson, Karl Schmitt, Artesha Taylor Sharma, Breanne Robertson Co-Investigators: Spencer Benson, Sabrina Kramer, Alexis Williams Presenters: Hameed Badawy and Karl Schmitt

2. Motivation Student expectations for a course? Teaching techniques? Technologies and tools? Different Assessments? Student expectations for instructors? Types of Communication?

3. Motivation II Do these student expectations match faculty’s impressions? How can we identify similarities and discrepancies? How do we address these?

4. Outline Motivation Related Work Tool Description Pilot Results Faculty Feedback Conclusions Q&A

5. What Others Say… Sanders, et al. Planning for 4-year curriculum/course of study Did not compare with faculty perceptions of student expectations (gap analysis) Trudeau & Barnes Focused on instructor traits Royal, Eli, & Bradley Focused on instructor goals for student development Umbach & Wawrzynski Showed positive correlation with many of the techniques our survey addressed and student engagement

6. A Simple, Deployable Tool Tool Requirements: Components of interest Learning activities Learning assessments Technology Instructor communication Broad applicability Appropriate length Sufficiently informative Flexibility

7. 1 st Page of Content on Survey This page collected demographic information and will be trimmed down or eliminated in final draft as much of this information is directly available to professors. We have not displayed our consent form, it was however the first actual page of the survey.

8. 2 nd Page of Content The bulk of our questions lie on this page.

9. 3 rd Page of Content Our final question and open ended question are on this page

10. Participation Summary Pilot Student Survey Instructor Survey  288 instructors across all disciplines at University of Maryland, College Park  816 undergraduate students enrolled in STEM courses  27 Instructors; 25 courses

11. Outline Motivation Related Work Tool Description Pilot Results Faculty Feedback Conclusions Q&A

12. Think, Pair, Share, Predict - Results Learning Activities Classroom Discussion, Readings, Chalk-/White- Boards, Study Guides, Demonstrations Learning Assessment Exam types, Projects, Papers, Homework, Class Participation Technology PowerPoint, ELMS, e-Texts, Clickers, Social Media Instructor Office Hours, Classroom, Non-Office Hours, Naming, Answering Emails and Phone- calls, Assignment return, Grade posting

13. Learning Activities: Which do you think students expect the most? 1. Study Guides 2. Discussions 3. Readings 4. Demonstrations 5. Chalk/White-board

14. Learning Activities (Students vs. Faculty) Spring 2012

15. Learning Activities (by Class) Spring 2012 Seniors expect more discussion, fewer demonstrations, and less use of the chalkboard/whiteboard than other students

16. Learning Activities Classroom Discussion, Readings, Chalk-/White-Boards, Study Guides, Demonstrations Learning Assessment Exam types, Projects, Papers, Homework, Class Participation Technology PowerPoint, ELMS, e-Texts, Clickers, Social Media Instructor Office Hours, Classroom, Non-Office Hours, Naming, Answering Emails and Phone- calls, Assignment return, Grade posting Think, Pair, Share, Predict - Results

17. Learning Assessment: Which do you think students expect the most? 1. Multiple Choice Exams 2. Essay-Based Exams 3. Individual Projects 4. Group Projects 5. Written Papers 6. Homework 7. Class Participation

18. Learning Assessment (Students vs. Faculty) Spring 2012

19. Learning Assessment (by Class) Spring 2012 Seniors expect more sophisticated learning assessment components, such as essay-based exams, group projects, and written papers

20. Learning Activities Classroom Discussion, Readings, Chalk-/White-Boards, Study Guides, Demonstrations Learning Assessment Exam types, Projects, Papers, Homework, Class Participation Technology PowerPoint, ELMS, e-Texts, Clickers, Social Media Instructor Office Hours, Classroom, Non-Office Hours, Naming, Answering Emails and Phone-calls, Assignment return, Grade posting Think, Pair, Share, Predict - Results

21. Technology: Which do you think students expect the most? 1. PowerPoint 2. Learning Management System (ELMS, etc) 3. E-Textbooks 4. Social Media 5. Clickers

22. Technology (Students vs. Faculty) Spring 2012

23. Technology (by Class) Spring 2012 Fewer freshmen expect PowerPoint compared to other students Students tend not to expect e-textbooks and social media in STEM courses

24. Learning Activities Classroom Discussion, Readings, Chalk-/White-Boards, Study Guides, Demonstrations Learning Assessment Exam types, Projects, Papers, Homework, Class Participation Technology PowerPoint, ELMS, e-Texts, Clickers, Social Media Instructor Availability Office Hours, Classroom, Non-Office Hours, Naming, Answering Emails and Phone-calls, Assignment return, Grade posting Think, Pair, Share, Predict - Results

25. Instructor Availability: Which do you think students expect the most? 1. Office Hours 2. Interaction with Students in Class 3. Accessibility Outside Office Hours 4. Know Student Names

26. Instructor Availability (Students vs. Faculty) Spring 2012

27. Instructor Availability (by Class) Spring 2012

28. Interesting Comparisons - Results Honors vs. Non-honors students 200 vs. 400 level course comparison

29. Honors vs. Non-Honors Students Learning Assessment Components Comparison In general, honors students have fewer expectations compared to non-honors students. This trend was also observed with learning activities components.

30. Comparison of Student Response for BSCI 223 and BSCI 440

31. Outline Motivation Related Work Tool Description Pilot Results Faculty Feedback Conclusions Q&A

32. Faculty Feedback “I thought this survey was great at getting a cross section of what my students expected from the class. Plus, we are trying some new formats for the course, and we want to see how the student body changes. I was surprised at some the expectations, but the complaint of the majority: this class is too much work is wrong, in my opinion.”

33. “What misconceptions do you think faculty have about students?” Students had the opportunity to comment on their perceptions of faculty misconceptions Dominant themes included: Constraints on student time Student effort Student attitude toward classes Other themes: Faculty communication Effectiveness of pedagogy Course pace Overall comprehension

34. “What misconceptions do you think faculty have about students?” “We don't want to be engaged. I am very frustrated that so many of my classes are so geared toward the exam, yes I want to learn the information but I could just read a book. I want to be engaged.”

35. “What misconceptions do you think faculty have about students?” “That students prefer an excessive amount of ‘easy’ questions on exams in comparison to a shorter amount of more difficult questions.”

36. “What misconceptions do you think faculty have about students?” “That the students know exactly what the faculty member expects of them…every teacher has their own standards and expectations.”

37. Conclusions Students and instructors do not always agree on expectations in the classroom. Many students feel that instructors adopt a condescending attitude and underestimate their abilities. This tool provides an early opportunity for instructors and students to communicate and to improve learning.

38. Reflection Which student expectations do not match your current teaching style? What curriculum changes might you make based on this information? Are there questions specific to your course or to your discipline that you would want to add?

39. Coming this fall… Student Survey Tool Improvements to pilot survey will be made based on faculty and student feedback The refined survey can be customized and available for individual faculty use Format for course management system at UMD for easy distribution

40. Thank You UMCP Center for Teaching Excellence Spencer Benson, Sabrina Kramer, Alexis Williams Instructors and students who participated in the surveys Faculty who distributed the student survey