2. RIT Faculty Learning Community The Faculty Learning Community Rochester Institute of Technology 2002-2003

3. Faculty Learning Community Principles of a FLC l Cross-disciplinary l Year-long l Enhances teaching and learning

4. Faculty Learning Community Goals l Collegiality l Respect and trust l Innovative teaching l Scholarship n Scholarly teaching n Contributions to scholarship of teaching and learning

5. Faculty Learning Community Activities l Regular meetings l Lilly Conference on College Teaching l Readings l Projects l Associates (faculty, student) l Portfolios

6. Faculty Learning Community FLC at RIT l Modeled after Miami of Ohio’s plan developed by Milt Cox l Project of the IETC, supported by the Provost’s Office l Facilitators: Vinnie Gupta, Susan Donovan l Pilot 2001-2002 l Second FLC 2002-2003 l Applications available for 2003-2004

7. Faculty Learning Community Participants l Sidney Barefoot (NTID) l Maurino Bautista (COS) l Jessica Bayliss (GCCIS) l Marcia Birken (COS) l Grant Cos (CLA) l Dominique Lepoutre (NTID) l Christine Monikowski (NTID) l Jeffrey Porter (NTID) l Maria Rubino (CAST) l Glenda Senior (NTID)

8. RIT Faculty Learning Community Just Ask Them: An Inquiry Approach to Student-Teacher Learning Partnerships Sidney M. Barefoot Speech-Language Department, NTID Faculty Associate – Dominique Lepoutre Student Associate - Brennan Vining

9. Faculty Learning Community The Course l Individual Speech-Language Therapy, an individualized non-credit course focusing on the improvement of spoken communication. l Learning goals are variable, based on student needs.

10. Faculty Learning Community The Need for Student-Teacher Partnering l Many limitations to teacher-generated assessment and instruction l Backgrounds highly parent/teacher- directed l Need to promote thinking conducive to life- long self-assessment, goal-setting and improvement

11. Faculty Learning Community Inquiry by Interview l Question: what are key areas of inquiry that can guide an instructional partnering process? l Method: interview 4 students, each at a different stage of instruction. Videotape and transcribe.

12. Faculty Learning Community Preliminary Results l Students highly engaged in interviews l Found several key areas of inquiry l Student data complemented and informed other assessments l Inquiry process itself appeared to foster subsequent cooperative and self-directed learning

13. Faculty Learning Community Future Plans l Continue analysis of current interviews l Modify interview to focus on key areas l Develop student inquiry of instructor l Scholarship: n online tutorial for professionals in the field n national presentations

14. RIT Faculty Learning Community Improved Acquisition of ASL through the Reduction of Anxiety in Language Learning Dominique Lepoutre American Sign Language and Interpreter Education, NTID Faculty Associate: Sidney Barefoot

15. Faculty Learning Community A Little History l Serendipity in the year 2000 l “Where ever you go, there you are” by Jon Kabat Zinn l Personal reflections/ potential applications l Academic year 2000-01 and the summer of 2001

16. Faculty Learning Community The Project l The problem l Participants’ concerns about language learning l The experiment

17. Faculty Learning Community Methods and Strategies l Suspending judgment/letting go l Meditation l Journal writing l “Contacting the language” l Processing language learning (metacognition)

18. Faculty Learning Community Outcomes l Reduced stress l Increased focus leading to increased ability to correctly produce signs and grammatical features of ASL l Increased motivation for learning l Understanding of own learning style

19. Faculty Learning Community Outcomes l Increased awareness, focus and ability to self correct l Ability to monitor pace when signing l Understanding of emotions that block learning l Development of kinesthetic awareness l Decreased postural rigidity

20. RIT Faculty Learning Community Communication Apprehension in the Online Course Grant Cos Department of Communication, College of Liberal Arts

21. Faculty Learning Community Objective l The objective of this study is to explore the construct of communication apprehension within the context of an online, virtual classroom. While the construct has been investigated across a number of different contexts, it has yet to be examined from this perspective. Through a preliminary, exploratory study, I hope to sketch out the dimensions of online communication apprehension

22. Faculty Learning Community Project Overview l Northedge (2002) defined distance education. l Mc Croskey (1977) defined communication apprehension and significance of comm. app. in the classroom. l Flaherty, Pearce, and Rubin (1998) found that CMC apprehension was significantly different than interpersonal apprehension. l Clark and Jones (2001) compared traditional and online formats for a public speaking course at a community college, found no significant differences in communication apprehension or perception of speaking abilities.

23. Faculty Learning Community Project Implementation l 10 students from a graduate level, online course in Communication Law and Ethics were interviewed by telephone for this study. l An interview protocol was adopted from McCroskey’s PRCA-24, a self-report instrument used to measure communication apprehension. The researcher adapted questions from the instrument for the study.

24. Faculty Learning Community Preliminary Results l This study found two themes emerge from the interview –Positive theme of “involvement” from 8 of 10 interviewees. Online discussion requires participation, leaves time to reflect, better express self - all these contribute to reduced apprehension. –Negative theme of “permanence” from 6 of 10 interviewees. Online discussion has certain permanence, not as easy to provide feedback, more open to criticism.

25. Faculty Learning Community Future Plans l This study serves as a pilot for a broader study of communication apprehension in the online classroom. l Further study would include: –Expanding on this preliminary study with a broader, more empirical measure of students’ online apprehension. –Developing an instrument to specifically measure online apprehension.

26. RIT Faculty Learning Community Paired Programming in an Introductory Computer Science Course Jessica D. Bayliss Computer Science Department, GCCIS Thanks go to James Heliotis, the Intro. Course Seq. Committee individuals, and all the professors and teaching assistants involved with the CS1 labs

27. Faculty Learning Community The Project l Issue: n Most computer programming in industry is done with a group while most computer programming in classes is done individually l Question: n Are there benefits to using paired programming in an introductory programming course?

28. Faculty Learning Community Paired Programming l What it is: n Two individuals sit at one computer. n One will control the mouse/keyboard n One is in charge of on-line debugging and continuous design review. n The two switch roles around every 20 minutes. l Experiments have shown: n With only a 15% increase in overall production time, there is a significant decrease in bugs. [Williams & Upchurch 2001] n People are more satisfied when working as a pair.

29. Faculty Learning Community Implementation l ~30 sections of Computer Science 1 n PAIRED condition: 1/3 did paired programming n INDIVIDUAL condition: 1/3 did individual programming n MIXED condition: 1/3 did some paired labs and some individual labs l Paired groups stayed in the same teams for 3 labs and swapped seats every 20 minutes l All groups assigned the same work

30. Faculty Learning Community Preliminary Results l Paired and mixed groups more likely to want to work with others in CS2 (54% and 52% vs. individual groups at 29%) l Students: –Large numbers of students were neutral (40-50%) –Didn’t want to switch partners weekly (~76%) or every other week (~67%) –Would do paired programming if choosing their own partner (76%) –Highest preference for partner at same skill level (~80%)

31. Faculty Learning Community Future Work l Correlation between grades and lab section type. l Correlation between those who dropped in CS2 and their CS1 lab section type. l What to do for people who are unable to pair l How do those who participated in the fall feel about paired programming now? l Implementing changes based on the results.

32. RIT Faculty Learning Community Increasing Active Learning in Workshop Calculus Marcia Birken Department of Mathematics & Statistics, College of Science

33. Faculty Learning Community Workshop Calculus l Workshop Calculus is in 2nd year at RIT l Students work in small groups to solve more in-depth problems l Faculty have no prior experience as workshop leaders l Need to improve my performance as workshop facilitator l Need to assist students to become active learners in group work

34. Faculty Learning Community Goals/Objectives l Promote active learning l Promote shared group work l Overcome the “divide & conquer” method of approaching group work l Have students discuss mathematical methods l Learn to be a better workshop facilitator

35. Faculty Learning Community Implementation l Rotate group members l Assign a leader in each group who is responsible for ensuring that all group members discuss each problem l Put some workshop problems (in simplified format) on hour exams. l Practice being a guide, rather than lecturer in workshops

36. Faculty Learning Community Preliminary Results l Students reported that workshops in winter were a vast improvement over fall quarter l After first instance, students take seriously that workshop problems appear on tests l Students ask questions in class about workshop problems

37. Faculty Learning Community Future Plans l Will be teaching workshop calculus next fall, providing another opportunity to try out techniques l Will offer colloquium to department faculty on successful workshop techniques

38. RIT Faculty Learning Community Using Teacher Designed Feedback Form and Student Generated Test Questions with Model Answers to Improve Learning in Differential Equations Maurino P. Bautista Department of Mathematics & Statistics

39. Faculty Learning Community Goals/Objectives 1 l To develop ability to review, evaluate and apply what they have learned l To develop ability to recognize the more important concepts or techniques in a subject l To develop a commitment to accurate work l To develop the ability to ask meaningful questions

40. Faculty Learning Community Goals/Objectives 2 l To obtain immediate feedback on instruction and be able to make timely adjustments to improve teaching l To encourage participation from students who may be too shy to say anything in class

41. Faculty Learning Community Implementation l Three question feedback form administered almost daily during the first 3 weeks of the quarter with decreasing frequency later in the quarter l Week-long group activity to formulate exam questions with the instructor selecting up to 50% of the points in the next exam from these questions (with possible modifications)

42. Faculty Learning Community SGTQ Participation YesNo Test 142.3%57.7% Test 225%75% Test 313.5%86.5%

43. Faculty Learning Community Test Averages 02-201-300-499-4 Test 168746560.3 Test 267707651.6 Test 360576458.1 N66566458

44. Faculty Learning Community Feedback Participation No response1 06 1 - 5 times36 6 - 10 times6 More than 11 times2

45. Faculty Learning Community Did it work for you? YES34 NO17

46. Faculty Learning Community Future Plans l Continue using both techniques with appropriate modification in all my classes l Design feedback forms that are more content specific to be given at appropriate times

47. RIT Faculty Learning Community Experimenting with myCourses & Cooperative Group Learning in a Biology Laboratory Glenda Senior Science/Engineering Support Department, NTID Faculty Associate: Dr. Tom Frederick Student Associate: Annemarie Ross

48. Faculty Learning Community INTRODUCTION: Problem l Winter quarter e-lab manual is relatively unstructured l Students are unfamiliar with on-line learning l Students do not integrate lecture and lab exercises l Student interaction is low

49. Faculty Learning Community PROCEDURE l Developed an easily navigable myCourses website l Adapted Millis & Cottell’s cooperative learning method l Elicited and collected student feedback at intervals during course and with a final open evaluation

50. Faculty Learning Community RESULTS l Results of student survey 1/30/03 Most useful myCourses sections: n 100% TESTING section n 100% OUTLINE - access lab manual n 95% OUTLINE - lab objectives n 100% OUTLINE - “what to study for next quiz” n 95% FILES - “what to study for next quiz”

51. Faculty Learning Community RESULTS (continued) l Results of student survey 1/30/03 asking about the value of group activities: n 52% = it helps me with the lecture material [4 rating] n 33% = I love it, it’s fun and helps me learn [5 rating] l Responses to whether activity should be kept, changed or dropped: n 86% = Keep e.g. “If it works, don’t fix it” n 5% = Change n 9% = Drop

52. Faculty Learning Community RESULTS (continued) l Elicited student feedback on my instructor evaluation, with the following probe: “Your lab instructor experimented with group work in the lab. Please comment on the value of this activity” (22 comments received) l 68% positive comments n e.g. “I enjoyed the group work, b/c it forced me to put on paper & words that I knew in my head”

53. Faculty Learning Community CONCLUSION/DISCUSSION l myCourses site n post everything in OUTLINE section n learn to use the grade book n keep SYLLABUS section l Group work n keep this activity (86%) because it helps with lecture and/or helps students learn (85%) n continue refining the cooperative group format

54. RIT Faculty Learning Community Assessment Techniques and Critical Thinking Maria Rubino MMET-PS Department, CAST Faculty Associate: Glenda Senior

55. Faculty Learning Community Goals 1. To develop assessment tools : n how the students are processing and learning the material presented in class 2. To improve critical thinking: n To help the student to become an “active thinker”

56. Faculty Learning Community Project Description and Implementation 1. Students had to formulate questions regarding the material discussed in class 2. The best question was included in the exam 3. Implementation: n The day before the exam each student brought to class a question n At the end of the class period the students were organized in small groups (maximum 4).

57. Faculty Learning Community Project Description and Implementation cont… 3. Each group: n discussed the questions and answers n selected the best question. 4. Each group presented the question to the class. 5. Only one question was included in the exam.

58. Faculty Learning Community Preliminary Results 1. The exercise had been adjusted throughout winter term 2. Student responds very positively to the exercise 3. An entire class was dedicated to consider the process on how to generate a question. 4. An interesting set of questions were obtained

59. Faculty Learning Community Revisions 1. Develop a set of instructions on how to develop questions 2. Explain and train students in team work interaction

60. Faculty Learning Community Outcomes During the small group activity the students had to explain the question and the answer to the group as a consequence: n Provides a mean to assess how the students are learning. n a new way to present the material using the student language. n Help students to manage the fundamentals

61. RIT Faculty Learning Community Incorporating cooperative learning - a beginning Christine Monikowski Dept. of ASL and Interpreting Education, NTID Faculty Associate: Rico Peterson, Chair – ASLIE Student Associate: Desiree Leonard – student in BS program

62. Faculty Learning Community Project Description l Incorporating more “cooperative learning” into the course, Discourse Analysis for Interpreters (first year, 2nd quarter) l Began as a time issue but the Lilly conference clarified things for me l Directed activities that help the students process information and also help the students KNOW what they should be doing

63. Faculty Learning Community Goals/Objectives l determine “how much work” is appropriate for a 4 credit course l incorporate more “cooperative learning” activities into the course work

64. Faculty Learning Community Implementation l time sheets l “reflective learning” worksheets l specific “new” activities were included: homework, guidelines for reading, one- minute papers, outlines

65. Faculty Learning Community Preliminary results l positive” responses from students l highest grades ever for this course l excellent papers!

66. Faculty Learning Community Future plans l continue to incorporate cooperative learning activities in courses l national workshop for peers

67. Faculty Learning Community Efforts to Break a Vicious Cycle: “Not Ready” Learners “Overly Directing” Teacher Jeff Porter NTID Learning Consortium

68. Faculty Learning Community Project Description/Objectives l Graduate-level course (20 students) l Tinkering with new strategies for fostering more student responsibility for their own learning l Objectives: n Increase student engagement with assigned readings n Increase student role in guiding class discussions n Increase student self-assessment

69. Faculty Learning Community Project Implementation l Strategy #1: Teacher-developed Study Questions for assigned chapters l Strategy #2: Teacher-developed Discussion Point for assigned chapters (Web-based Bulletin Board) l Strategy #3: Teacher-developed 10-question Self-Assessment Quiz for each assigned chapter (Web-based)

70. Faculty Learning Community Project Results l Strategy #1: course became less lecture-based, more seminar-based; mid-term and final exams built around Study Questions (content emphasized = content assessed) l Strategy #2: out-of-class student exchanges re: personal understandings and real-life applications of key course concepts; teacher assessment tool l Strategy #3: student appreciation for tracking their own mastery; teacher assessment tool

71. Faculty Learning Community Future Plans l Strategy #1: develop in-class tutoring/ discussion vehicle to group those students who understand a set of Study Questions with those who don’t l Strategy #2: improve Bulletin Board format to make it more user-friendly l Strategy #3: develop on-line tutoring regarding missed questions on Self- Assessment and Quizzes