In my February blog entry on what makes a good teacher, I mentioned the concept of the “reflective practitioner” brought to prominence by Donald Schon in his 1983 book, The Reflective Practitioner, How Professionals Think in Action. The concepts behind this book are summarized well here.

This is the time of year when reflective practice comes into play. Many instructors have completed their courses for the year and now have time to reflect on what went well and what needs improving. Over the summer they can plan to make changes and seek new ideas for enhancing what they do.

One particularly interesting concept in relation to reflective practice is that of double loop learning. In single loop learning you basically plan to do something, do it, reflect on how it went and correct anything you see wrong. However, you continue with the same basic approach in the future. In double loop learning you reflect not only on what you do, but your process of planning, doing and reflection. You are open to completely changing your basic approach. This applies to both individuals and organizations.

A good example of this was covered in a recent issue of Faculty Focus (a useful resource for all instructors). The article is titled, “It’s Time to Face What Isn’t Working in Our Courses and Find Out Why”. It refers to a case in which a professor believed he had a problem with his students and discovered it was actually his approach to the assignment that was at fault. The full story can be found here:

Van Auken, P. (2013). Maybe it’s both of us: Engagement and learning. Teaching Sociology, 4 (2), 207-215.

A difficulty in the reflective process is that when looking for new ideas or solutions to problems instructors may go on gut instinct or seek magic bullet technologies instead of investigating learning science or collective experience. There are a few sources for an instructor who wishes to take advantage of past knowledge of what works and what doesn’t in education.

In terms of research, one key resource is ERIC, the Education Resources Information Center. This is an online digital library of education research and information sponsored by the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) of the U.S. Department of Education.

Since every practitioner does not have the time to read and distill research, there are a number of web sites that provide research-backed practice guidelines for various disciplines, including education. The National Center on Universal Design for Learning guidelines web site is a good example of this. Here is one example of a research-backed guideline on the use of multi media.

When you think you are unwell you might call a doctor. Likewise, if you think your course is ailing it is a good idea to consult a professional instructional designer. Instructional designers have extensive knowledge of design guidelines, processes and learning research. They can help shortcut the process of improving your practice.  Here is a short video created by a professional instructional designer demonstrating how a course was changed in collaboration with an instructor who was open to double loop learning.

This week while attending a health informatics conference I heard something interesting from the chief information officer at a large hospital system. He said, “Sorry, Microsoft, I do not envision installing Windows 8 anywhere”, the reason being that the iPhone 5 and the iPad mini have become the de facto standard devices used by professionals in his hospital. This is not likely to be an isolated case in the healthcare industry. The day after, there was a report of a large drop in sales of personal computers.

Mobile devices offer the advantages of lower cost, more portability, instant on and constant connectedness to the Internet. The less obvious advantage is the development of the app infrastructure for software. Software for the PC tends to come in big packages, which have lots and lots of features and, consequently, complicated interfaces to manage them all. Most users access only a few of the features but still have to deal with the complexity created by those they do not use.

At an Apple developers conference I attended shortly after the launch of the iPhone, the message was that a well-designed app would tend to do one thing very well. Apps are much more specialized than traditional PC software and the app store creates a market where users can pick and choose the features they need and configure their devices to have a custom tool at hand. There are online communities and reviews to advise which apps work best. If users do not like one of the features (apps), they can replace it, usually at a low or no cost. So while every PC owner in an organization may have the same version of Microsoft Office, no two people will likely have the exact same set of apps. They each will have a personal collection of apps that suits how they work and organized in a way they can understand.

Although many apps are focused on personal use, there are a growing number that support specific professions. There are more emerging each day for the healthcare industry (see top eighty health apps). The potential for future developments are described by Eric Topol about his book, “The Creative Destruction of Medicine: How the Digital Revolution Will Create Better Health Care” and are summarized in this TED talk:

There are a number of good apps available to those in the education profession. Here is one guide. Despite this  PCs/laptops are still predominant in education and many institutions are still dependent on large PC-like packaged software, such as what is commonly referred to as a learning management system. It will be interesting to see if this will one day be replaced by a set of apps on mobile devices.

Sounds like the beginning of a joke but this actually was the lineup for the Janice Cutler Symposium on Undergraduate Science Education at the New York Academy of Sciences, which I attended last week. The speakers were Dr. Brian P. Coppola, a professor of chemistry at the University of Michigan, Dr. Edward Redish, a professor of physics at the University of Maryland and Dr. Diane Ebert-May, a professor of Biology at Michigan State University.

The main theme that ran through the three presentations was that undergraduate science education needs to be more engaging and focused on more advanced and effective methods of learning. Dr. Coppola went so far as to suggest banning PowerPoint and multiple-choice quizzes as a way to improve undergraduate education everywhere. Class size should not be an excuse for innovation: all the presenters use interactive teaching with class sizes of up to 500 students.

Each presenter took a slightly different approach to making their courses more engaging. In Dr. Coppola’s classes students teach each other by creating presentations that use video and animation to illustrate lessons in chemistry. They are assessed on their ability to identify flaws and misconceptions in the presentations. This method is based on the concept that the best way to learn is to teach and the best way to improve peer teaching is through peer review.

Dr. Reddish uses activity-based problems and makes use of interactive clickers to gauge students’ responses. The responses demonstrate that underlying principles of physics sometimes are not fully understood and answers are often influenced by intuition rather than scientific principle. Identifying and correcting these misconceptions is an important part of the teaching process. Teaching resources relevant to this approach are available on the University of Maryland Physics Education Research Group website.

Dr. Ebert-May described a study that she co-authored that examined the syllabi and assessments of 75 introductory biology courses around the country in relation to Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, which is illustrated above. Although the course goals were linked to high levels of the taxonomy (e.g. analysis, evaluation), up to 80% of the assessments (i.e. exams and quizzes) were associated with the lowest levels. The authors concluded that introductory biology courses emphasize facts more than higher-order thinking (reference). In her own courses Dr. Ebert-May first designs the assessments around problem-based learning. Students work in groups to create models of their understanding in notebooks.

As a student of these teachers for the day, I wondered how average undergraduate students reacted to these teaching approaches, which are probably different from their normal experience in a large undergraduate class. Checking the infamous RateMyProfessors website, I found the comments about these award-winning teachers to be mostly positive, but there were a few like this one: “… very colorful individual, but … teaching style is a bit too intense for me … grades very harshly on homework assignments and tests – which all consist of writing/making models – no multiple choice. Don’t take this class unless you’re willing to put in a whole lot of effort for minimal results”.

It is undoubtedly the case that a professor has to be committed to take a more engaging approach and that it places more demands on students. Some students have become comfortable with not participating in class and memorizing content for multiple-choice quizzes (relatively minimal effort for a whole lot of result) and they will not like change. This was described in the article “A Perfect Storm in Undergraduate Education” as a “disengagement compact,” where students and teachers “place fewer demands on each other so that other interests—research for the professor and social activities for the students—can be pursued with fewer distractions. Professors pretend to teach, students pretend to learn.”

“It’s Not About the Bike: My Journey Back to Life”.
 
This is the title of the autobiography of the now infamous Lance Armstrong. The title implies that you do not win the Tour de France just through having the most advanced bike technology, you do so through human factors – having peak physical and mental strength. Of course he forgot to mention the drugs. 
 
I continually emphasize that in education you do not achieve results solely though good technology, you do so through having the best teaching methods. You also have to pay attention to the human factor. Good education requires good teachers who are dedicated to their profession and continually seeking to improve. This is something for which there are no performance-enhancing drugs.
 
So what makes a good teacher? Are good teachers born or are they created? Unfortunately, there are no clear answers to these questions. Ironically, an interesting talk on what makes a good teacher, which cites some of the available data, comes from one of the biggest proponents of technology based-approaches: Bill Gates:

Although science does not yet tell us conclusively what makes for good and bad teachers, a number of theories exist relating to this question. Theories relating to good teachers often focus on personal qualities, e.g. their ability to express concern for their students. One relevant theory was made prominent by Donald Schön in “The Reflective Practitioner”. Reflective practice is “the capacity to reflect on action so as to engage in a process of continuous learning”. Although this is applicable to all professions, it can certainly be argued to be one of the important qualities of a good teacher.

One of the main innovative methods we have highlighted is “flipping the classroom”, where what was covered in lectures is put online and during class time students are engaged in interactive exercises. In the September post I emphasized that this is not just about putting what you already do in your lectures online, it is also about rethinking everything you do and making it more interactive. In the October post on reusable content I emphasized that it makes sense to make use of the large variety of free online content for out-of-class learning. In this month’s post I highlight some free software tools that can be used to enhance the interactive experience in a class that replaces a traditional lecture.

The idea of interacting in class traditionally revolves around discussing content. For example, students are asked to read a paper before class and then discuss it in small groups in class. While this is a valid approach, it requires a good group facilitator to ensure everyone participates. Asking students to create something that can be demonstrated and critiqued, such as a visual representation that illustrates part of what is covered in the text of a paper, involves an even more intensive level of interaction. The process of creating, reviewing and editing visual representations of understanding requires more engagement than just hearing an explanation in a lecture or discussion. Lucidchart is a good example of a free general diagraming tool that can help students collaboratively create visual representations of their understanding.

Mind mapping is a well established educational technique that can help students build and review their understanding of a topic area. Students create concept maps to illustrate the main concepts and their relationships in a text or area of study. Lucid Chart enables mind mapping and there are a number of other tools available here. The following is a concept map that illustrates concept mapping:

A variation on this is to have students create interactive presentations of their understanding on the web that can be used offline or stored online. An excellent free tool that moves a little beyond the linear approach of PowerPoint is Prezi. Here is an example of a Prezi:

Google has a number of free, easy-to-use web tools through its Apps For Education program that can assist students in interactive work. Some of the tools are:
Sites – used by many colleges so students can create free online portfolios and resumes;
Groups – enables students to collaborate on group projects;
Docs – enables the creation and sharing of documents;
Pictures – enables the creation and sharing of photo libraries.

In addition to diagraming tools there are free image editing tools that can be used to label or highlight things in a photograph. One of the best available is GIMP. If this has piqued your interest you might wish to explore College Times’s “50 Free Collaboration Tools For Education”.

I re-emphasize that improving education is not just about the technology; it is about changing the mindset and the methods. A good interactive task will help a student learn even if you use paper instead of technology. A poorly designed task will not be enhanced even with the best technology. While technology has its place, I have seen classes being very interactive using just walls and Post-it Notes.

I attended the EDUCAUSE conference in Denver in November. This is the largest gathering of leaders involved in technology in education in the US. It also has the largest exhibition of educational technology. The term technology covers a lot more than just information technology and there were a number of classroom furniture vendors participating in the exhibition. Furniture is an important part of defining the learning experience in a classroom.

In the last blog entry I included a video on the history of educational technology and suggested you look at the classrooms. Here are pictures of a classroom today and one from a hundred years ago:

Do you notice the similarities? Although the design, colors and materials may have changed, the basic layout has remained consistent with this abstract diagram:   The display has progressed from blackboards to whiteboards to projector screens. Seating has developed from hard wooden seats to soft ones with power adapters for laptops. However, the basic layout and model of the classroom has not changed. They are still designed so students can sit in rows and absorb information from a podium and display in front of them.

Many of the furniture vendors at the EDUCAUSE exhibition are creating prominent designs for more collaborative classroom furniture that integrates IT. Here are a couple of examples:

Most classrooms in most colleges are not designed for the innovative learning described in this blog. That classroom furniture designers are promoting more collaborative designs suggests this is beginning to change. I have continually emphasized that technology alone cannot innovate learning; it has to be accompanied by new methods. This video illustrates the difference a collaborative classroom layout can make when accompanied by a more interactive method of teaching:

One of the biggest problems in modern education is the widespread belief that educational technology is going to solve all our problems. This is not a new phenomenon, with every new wave of technology (radio, television, video discs, personal computers, CD-ROMs, laptops, the web, and now smartphones and tablets) there has been hype about how everything in education will change.

This video illustrates the waves of technology change:

Please note the design of the classrooms in the pictures used in this video.

In fact, the predominant educational experience has not changed significantly with each wave. The lecture still dominates as the main educational method and the multiple-choice test as a main assessment method.

An excellent article in The Chronicle of Higher Education illustrates this point:
Lectures Still Dominate Science and Math Teaching, Sometimes Hampering Student Success

This quote illustrates the thrust of this article:

“Using a curve separates students’ performance from the grades they receive. It is part of a general pattern often seen in STEM courses, say several experts, in which rote tasks obscure the subject matter’s underlying concepts, and tests and laboratory activities are disconnected from authentic scientific practice.”

Technology does have the power to change, but only if we change our methods as well.
There is a famous Einstein quote “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results”. Educational insanity might be doing the same thing over and over again with a different technology and expecting different results.

There is a sense we are finally seeing a push to change methods of education and not just the technology. This may bring a new reality to the educational market. In the commercial world, companies that have not been able to adapt to new realities (e.g. Kodak, Circuit City, Borders) have fallen by the wayside. Educational institutions may not be immune to the same thing happening to them.

Thousands of professors in different colleges and universities each year sit down and create class notes, PowerPoints and all sorts of learning content for the same course. No one other than their students and occasionally a peer reviewer sees this content. Some of it will be excellent quality and some will contain errors or be unintelligible to the average student it is intended for. Educational institutions and professors often believe it is in their interest to restrict access to the content. Restricting access protects others from using good content without paying for it and avoids negative publicity from exposing deficient content.

This is not an optimal approach from a systems view of education in general (not the view of individual institutions). It results in duplication of effort and poor quality control. It also ignores the reality that professors are seldom masters of all the varied skills involved in creating an educational experience. They may be skilled in their discipline but may not have the skills needed to create high quality content in a variety of media.

It can be argued that the development of the Internet doomed any attempt to restrict access to digital content. This cartoon illustrates this in relation to the music industry.

There is now a well-developed model of shared open learning content that offers an alternative to traditional restricted access. Harvard and MIT launched edX in May 2012 to make all their educational content available for free on the Internet:

Many other institutions and professors are placing learning content online too. This has led to an open marketplace in free reusable content.

Instructors, even in locked-down institutions, no longer need to create all their own learning content. They can find high quality content ranging from basic building blocks (pictures and diagrams) to complete lessons if they know where to look. This enables them to divert their time from content creation and presentation toward more direct support for student learning (e.g. more interaction in a flipped classroom).

The world of open learning content is relatively new but fast evolving. One of the main difficulties is knowing where to look for open reusable content. A simple Google search may not be enough. One guide to the varied repositories of learning content can be found on WikiEducator.

Over time, finding the best content for a particular course should become as easy as finding the best restaurants and hotels in a certain location. User reviews are a great help. College librarians can have a role assisting instructors with cataloguing and finding material.

Flipping has become a fashionable term describing what seems like a new approach to teaching. In fact, many instructors have been doing this for some time but had not thought to give it a nice, catchy name. Basically, instead of lecturing in class and giving practical work in the form of homework, a flipped classroom requires students to access instruction online and collaboratively do in the classroom the practical work they might have done for homework. The interactive work in class is intended to deepen the students’ understanding of content and their ability to apply what they learned online. The instructor goes from being a presenter of information to a facilitator for the interactive exercises.

There are several important considerations before making a change like this:

Is the flip an actual improvement in the learning experience? Or are you just doing the exact same thing in a different way? Or are you creating more work for students without any clear benefit?

Flipping the classroom should be done as a process to improve the educational experience. It is not simply a case of learning a new technology (like Camtasia) to enable the creation of online instruction. It requires careful planning and thought and provides an opportunity to reflect on your whole educational approach.

Some pointers when flipping:

• Do not try to flip a whole course at once. Select only a couple of units first and perfect your redesign method before extending it to other areas of the course.
• Do break up what you want to do into small learning units (5-20 minutes of student time).
• Do not just record what you already do in lectures.
• Do not feel you need to create all the instructional aids yourself. Instead, include material from other sources. Look for free, professionally produced, online resources such as videos (see, for example, the Kahn Academy, www.khanacademy.org), animations and interactive lessons that will give students a varied experience.  More importantly, this will free you to spend more time planning the interactive exercises in class, which are what make the real difference in the flipped method.
• Do use this as an opportunity to consider your course content. Are you trying to teach too much material? What are the nice-to-know and the need-to-know parts of what you teach? Can you eliminate some nice-to-know to free up time to reinforce the need-to-know? Make sure you are not adding more things for the students to do on top of what they already do.

If you are recording your own instructional material:

• Do a few 10-20-minute recordings rather than a 50-minute lecture
• Try not to make just a “talking head” video. Use graphics and animations and intersperse self-tests
• Script it before you record it.

Always keep students informed of any change. Tell them in advance what you are going to do and why before they experience your flipped classroom. Seek their views as to what worked and what did not from their perspective.

Finally, it is most important to understand that planning and design are what make the flipping effective, not the technology used. It helps to have expert advice from a professional instructional designer, who can review your design thinking or provide direction if you are new to this concept.

There is a lot of talk of the need to integrate 21st century skills in the curriculum. The basic idea here is to move away from the main concern of pre-21st century learning, which is ensuring graduates carry around a basic core of knowledge in their heads. Although this goal has not lost its relevance, many would argue it is less important for two main reasons. First, the exponential development of human knowledge makes this difficult to achieve; e.g. knowledge obtained in the first year of some courses may be outdated by the time a student graduates four years later. Second, large amounts of human knowledge are available instantly through mobile devices connected to the Internet, reducing the need for memorization. In the pre-Internet age, if you did not have knowledge immediately at hand you may not have been able to solve problems without a time-consuming trip to a library. Knowing how to find and evaluate the relevant knowledge on the Internet is one of the main 21st century skills that must be developed. For much of history the librarian was the expert in helping people finding knowledge. In a sense, we must all become librarians now. Librarians can be key players in changing the education system in this respect.

Among the other skills listed as 21st century are the ability to: communicate, adapt to change, work in (diverse) teams, solve problems, analyze and conceptualize, reflect upon and improve performance, self-manage, innovate, critique, engage in life-long learning, work with people in other cultures and disciplines.

All of these can inspire debate about their relevant importance, or how much they are 21st or pre-21st century skills. One skill I will highlight is creativity. Is this innate or can it be learned? Is it underemphasized in education? An inspiring TED talk by Sir Ken Robinson examines this issue.