2. +
We are very excited to share this PowerPoint presentation with
you online! In the notes section of the slides we have provided
some additional context to help you navigate the presentation.
This presentation was delivered on July 4th, 2013 at the
International Study Association on Teachers and Teaching
(ISATT) in Ghent, Belgium.
Please cite this presentation in the following format: Seifert, T. &
Arnold, C. (2013). How to Train Your Professor: Tips for Flight
According to Students [PowerPoint Slides]. Presentation for the
annual meeting of ISATT, Ghent, Belgium. Retrieved from:
http://supportingstudentsuccess.wordpress.com/.
If you have any questions about this presentation please contact
the Principal Investigator, Dr. Tricia Seifert at
triciaseifert@utoronto.ca.
35. +
Follow us @CdnStdntSuccess
Like “Supporting Student Success”
Check out the research study blog at:
www.supportingstudentsuccess.wordpress.com
• Sign up to receive regular updates
• Contribute to the conversation by leaving a comment
on the blog
Editor's Notes
Dr. Tricia Seifert is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Leadership, Higher and Adult Education at the University of Toronto/Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (OISE). Christine Helen Arnold is a Doctoral Candidate in the Department of Leadership, Higher and Adult Education at the University of Toronto/OISE.
This presentation is composed of the following components: 1) an overview of the research project (the problem, purpose, methodology, data analysis and literature review); 2) an introductory activity where participants were asked to consider how they prepare their classrooms for inclusive learning and reflect on structural/procedural obstacles; 3) students’ visual and oral accounts of their teaching and learning experiences both within and outside the classroom; 4) the application of our research findings to the ‘Double-Loop Learning’ model outlined by Argyris and Schön (1974), Brockbank and McGill (2007) and Tagg (2007); and 5) a set of reflection questions followed by a Q&A period.
In the current knowledge based economy there is a greater demand for higher education and the resulting benefits are discussed throughout the literature: Lower levels of unemployment, poverty and crime ratesPositive outlooks and behaviour with regard to personal health Higher levels of civic participationIncreased charitable giving/community volunteer service Social cohesion/appreciation of diversity Improved ability to adapt to and use technology (Baum & Payea, 2005; Cunningham,2006; HRSDC, 2008) With the enormous public and personal costs incurred by students to undertake higher education, ensuring student success is critical. When students fall short of their potential, both students and taxpayers experience opportunity costs. As educators we need to support each student in obtaining their goals. Structures and services in place within higher education institutions need to be function according to student needs. Traditional administrative policies and practices may require reflection, and ultimately a paradigm shift, if institutions are to be truly learner-centred and learner-controlled (Barr & Tagg, 1995). As Barr and Tagg (1995) explain in their reflective article, From Teaching to Learning- A New Paradigm for Undergraduate Education, “our mission is not instruction but rather that of producing learning with every student by whatever means work best” (p.1).
Though the study is now in its fourth year, the overarching purpose has remain unchanged: learning about how colleges and universities support student success from a stakeholder perspective. While this perspective was originally that of student affairs and services staff members, the study has expanded to include students, faculty and senior administrators. This research consists of two primary constructs. The first is organizational structure. Organizational structure includes the formal reporting lines of who reports to who; what academic programs and student support services are aligned. Organizational structure is also informed by aspects which are largely related to the institutional culture. The approach to leadership, the styles and forms of communication and coordination and a look at who (outside of formal lines) works with whom, as well as the assumptions and values that undergird this work. The second construct is student success. In our work, we use a broad and holistic notion of student success; one that includes academic, personal, social and professional components. While investigating both of these constructs within our data we realized that our student and faculty stakeholders frequently commented on how learning was impacted by both organizational/institutional culture and notions of student success. The students that participated in our research were extremely metacognitive in thinking about the teaching and learning process and the elements they require for intellectual growth. This presentation will detail several elements discussed by students and faculty: class size, experiential learning, meaningful lesson planning and the use of technology in the classroom.
Phase II (Winter 2011- Spring 2013): While completing the analysis from the first phase of the Supporting Student Success research study, it became clear that we needed to go back to the participating institutions and hear from students, faculty and senior administrative leaders. We wished to investigate how these groups view their institutions in terms of supporting student success. With grants from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) and the Connaught New Researcher program at the University of Toronto, the Supporting Student Success research team completed this phase of data collection. By speaking with students, faculty, senior administrative leaders and additional staff members, we gained a 360 degree understanding of stakeholders’ perspectives on how Ontario’s postsecondary institutions organize to support student success.
In this presentation, we focus exclusively on data collected from student and faculty interviews/focus groups. The analysis process began with the Supporting Student Success research team listening to the audio files recorded from each interview/focus group and transcribing each session. At the end of each transcript, a brief summary of the primary themes was created. This process assisted the team in developing large overarching domains across institutions involved in the research study that characterized the data. Moving forward, we began to describe the elements of each domain more specifically, the types, forms and examples.
According to Mazur (2009) and Barr and Tagg (1995), the university system and professors alike often function under the instructional versus learning paradigm. The former views the teaching and learning process as distinct entities that exist prior to and independent of any whole (Barr & Tagg, 1995). Barr and Tagg (1995) coined this process ‘educational atomism’ and it is dependent on teaching as lecturing. Alternatively, in the learning paradigm, the structure of a course and its lectures become negotiable and dispensable. This paradigm prescribes no one answer of how to arrange a learning environment; instead this is determined on an individual basis swayed by what works for the learner. A portion of the professoriate and higher education administrators still view teaching as lecturing and learning as the rote memorization of facts onto paper for examination (Knight & Wood, 2005). However, Knight and Wood (2005) note that while thirty years ago the future success of students might have been predicted by the amount of factual knowledge they had accumulated in their postsecondary courses, today’s students “will be required to apply conceptual knowledge to problem solving rather than simply to know many facts, and they will probably be asked to work as members of a team, rather than individually” (p.1). Learning now includes in its definition “learning-while-doing with multiple options of learning resources” (p.1) (Nasseh, 1999). Nasseh (1999) explains that students must be self-directed and life-long learners in order to survive tough expectations of job markets. Learning is transforming from being process-oriented to outcome-oriented and from teacher-centered to student-teacher-centered (Nasseh, 1999). Transformations of this kind are difficult as they often require institutional shifts in the way higher education is organized, presented and evaluated. O’Banion (1997) writes that educational institutions encounter four limitations when making learning a priority. Institutions are largely 1) bureaucracy-bound; 2) time-bound; 3) place-bound; and 4) faculty are role-bound. Institutions are often bureaucracy-bound, focusing on procedures, schedules, master plans, legislation and budgets. They are also time-bound, focusing on the compartmentalization of each course offering, semester and academic year and place-bound viewing learning as something that takes place in specific places- labs, libraries and classrooms. Finally, faculty are role-bound in that they are often taught to work alone as experts in their field providing students with knowledge. An opportunity for learning among faculty members and the sharing of resources and content rarely occurs. In order to break from these traditional moulds, Argyris & Schön (1974), Brockbank and McGill (2007) and Tagg (2007) demand that administration and faculty name their governing values and take a moment to reflect upon them. Much like Kelly’s (1955) discussion of construct theory, Tagg (2007) emphasizes the importance of questioning governing values that we hold about learning spaces and processes. In order to be learner-centered, educators must move beyond examining their action strategies when student success is not being achieved and further examine if it is their governing values/constructs that need to be adjusted. Tagg states, “The distinction between single-loop and double-loop learning applies to much that we do in higher education. And it explains why most innovations, even those that produce unambiguously good results, fail to transform institutions. Most innovations alter action strategies without moving on to make the second loop and re-examine the governing values” (p. 38). Single-loop learning describes everyday learning, while double-loop learning describes learning that makes us change what we think and how we think about things, breaking down our preconceived constructs in favour of something new (Kelly, 1955; Tagg, 2007).
During the following introductory activity, participants were asked to consider how they prepare their classrooms for inclusive learning and engage students in everyday class sessions. Participants wrote their responses on coloured sticky notes to be later shared with the larger group.
After completing the first task, participants were then asked to consider how they would envision teaching the same class if there were no boundaries in place. Participants discussed several of the structural/procedural obstacles faced when lesson planning at their institutions. Participants wrote their responses on coloured sticky notes to be later shared with the larger group.
After completing both tasks, participants were asked to crumple their sticky notes and throw them behind or in front of them for others to read. Participants shared each other’s ordinary and dream sessions. An open conversation followed with regard to technology, space and resource challenges often faced when lesson planning; student demands and expectations; and the honesty and sincerity that changing one’s teaching practice requires. Those attending the session noted that experimentation in teaching is not always straight forward; varying approaches are required for different courses, situations and student groups. Teaching is never a ‘one approach fits all situation’ and therefore trial and error is required at each juncture.
After the introductory activity which helped the session participants become immersed in the kinds of conversations we had with study participants, we shared findings from Phase II of the Supporting Student Success research project. Turning to our results, in Phase II we asked students and faculty to depict/draw how their institution supports student success and asked them to describe their roles, both as individuals and partners in collaborations supporting student success. Focusing on students, we took note that our participants view themselves as living a dual life. Academic and social learning were two key aspects of student success defined openly during our focus group sessions. One student referred to the academic and social interplay as a simulation game, where students are forced to make decisions affecting their health and success at university. This creative drawing made reference to the interactive online game, The Sims, where players strive to keep all of the meters of his or her character’s health and happiness in balance in order to be successful. Placing oneself in a university simulation, this student described a situation in which all academic and social bars must be kept in equilibrium: “I drew these little meters here... Have you guys ever played The Sims game? In order for yourself to be happy, I kind of saw it as, you've got to keep all your meters up. So if you have a bit of that, whatever ‘Success’ is for you, I think it's best reached through keeping all those meters in balance and high” (University Student). The meters referenced include: mental health, social interaction, physical education, academics, study and course work. In order to make progress in one area, much like the simulation, all meters must be functioning and maintained. Another student depicted the academic and social interplay in a unique way, describing student life as a book with two pages (academic and social), both equal to success. The student describes the drawing in the following manner:“I drew mine to start off with a book, because that's what you think of as something that you use at the school. But on it I drew two pages. One the one page I included what you expected of university - like the academic side, some of the things that I've gained from, including seminars and professors, knowledge, ideas and new ways of thinking…And then on the other page, I drew the other things that I've gotten from university aside from just the academic side. I put: opportunities, leadership and bringing about change” (University Student). The student describes the items on both pages playing a vital role in education. The critical thinking that course work has provided this student and the seminar system’s ability to assist in the application and processing of information are essential. On the other side, participation in the various clubs, societies and the student union has provided a chance to improve on leadership skills and network. These activities have allowed this student to become involved and be a part of the change occurring on campus. Success was described by students as all encompassing-education consisting of grades, course work, seminars, leadership, participation, clubs, councils, community, social responsibility and peers. This is a multidimensional definition of success that encompasses every corner of the institution and community in which education takes place.
Students and faculty were further asked to provide descriptions/examples of efforts on campus to support student success. Faculty reflected on student expectations of their learning experiences, services and programs on campus and how student needs were being met. Most importantly, students themselves voiced strengths and weaknesses in current pedagogical approaches used by faculty and staff as well as institutional procedures and policies. Students clearly described that they value the teaching techniques and learning strategies used by faculty. Students appeared metacognitively conscious of their own learning; demonstrating a knowledgeable of classroom strategies; the use of technology and media; and their professors’ teaching habits. Curricular and co-curricular initiatives were discussed as well as opportunities for growth. Students’ top ‘Tips for Flight’ include:Learning among 800 undergraduate students is challenging. Large lectures require breakout seminars, tutorials or labs during which concepts can be discussed and applied. Technology is not a panacea. Technology is effective when it supports learning outcomes, eases student workload and content delivery.Sitting and listening are basic skills. Students are eager to move beyond the basics and engage in active and problem-based learning. Remember our names and our aims. Use experiential learning opportunities aligned with student interests in the workforce/community. Make it Engaging and Challenging. Demonstrate expertise by bringing research findings into classroom discussions; offer a variety of examples; and set consistent policies and guidelines. Each theme will be discussed herein with specific examples.
There is an abundance of literature on teaching and learning, across North America, with a focus on class size and the importance of this factor in supporting student success. Class size does not ultimately determine what is achievable in the classroom; skilled professors can engage an 800 student class in activities and problem-based learning. Class size is an important theme discussed throughout our research by students and a well-known area of concern for many. During our focus groups, students often stated that large lectures require breakout seminars, tutorials or labs where students have the opportunity to discuss, clarify, apply and extend meaningful concepts introduced during lecture. The seminar system at many of our participating institutions was found to be a supportive peer atmosphere where students could scaffold each other’s understanding of important concepts. Students spoke positively about the benefits of the seminar system stating, “With the seminar system, you really get … a ‘supportive peer’ base … you get to know people in your program and in your faculty. So I think the seminar system does a lot to … help peers help peers” (University Student). Another student highlighted the importance of participating in the activities arranged during such sessions: “So instead of just standing up there and lecturing, it's more like group discussions and contributions and you just kind of lead the discussions. I feel like that's the best way to learn and to really include everyone and get everyone participating. … often people tend to zone out when someone's talking for a really long time without any involving of anyone else” (University Student). Contrastingly, students often discussed lectures as stark periods of time during their post-secondary careers where they are unable to question material, crave real life examples of concepts taught, desire active learning, dread verbatim text book teaching and read slides previously distributed with little to no elaboration. One student compared seminar and lecture formats in the following manner: “[In seminar] you're able to apply the theories in class and look at it critically in a 16-14 student format and be able to feed off each other. Whereas in the lecture of 1 of 90 … once you put your hand up, the prof's like, ‘Ok, you can email me that question, right?’ It's no longer a discussion” (University Student).
Technology can be a wonderful outlet for teaching and learning when used intentionally. When used primarily for the sake of spicing up the classroom environment, technology can often fail and leave students desiring more. Technology is used most effectively as a means to achieve predetermined learning outcomes. Backwards design, an instructional design method, is particularly useful when designing educational curriculum by setting goals before choosing instructional methods (Wiggins & McTighe, 1998). This design approach has three stages: Identify desired results (learning outcomes) What should students know, understand and be able to do? 2.Determine acceptable evidence (assess if learning has occurred) What will evidence of student understanding and proficiency look like? 3. Plan instruction and experiences (determine the methods and materials) What instruction, activities and technology will be used? (Wiggins & McTighe, 1998) The use of technology when used skilfully would fall into the latter, being used as a tool to achieve learning outcomes versus as a means unto itself. Backward design begins with the end in mind; learning outcomes (goals) are the first priority when lesson planning. Instructional methods are determined thereafter; all educators are asked to consider why certain experiences, materials and technologies are integral to the learning process. Students in our study commented on the frustration they experience when technology is used for the sake of ‘using technology’. Students described searching for useful course and enrollment information across multiple websites, trying to follow online course discussions and uploading various assignments. One student shared his frustration with the online seminar model that is emerging at his institution in place of face-to-face interaction: “Now that some classes have no seminars, some professors are trying to do online seminars as a class, and I don't find that as effective. I mean, once you have a hundred responses… by the time you get to the 80th person, you're like, ‘I didn't even get to that point!’ And it may be a great point, but you couldn't really contribute; if it was in a seminar style, you would've” (University Student). Professors must consider how their students will use the technology they implement and test each application before use. The choice of technology one has selected may be useful, but the way in which it has been applied may not be effective. What classroom environments lend themselves to certain media and technological applications? What assignments and evaluation processes can be reimagined to include technology? And most importantly, is the use of technology contributing to the learning outcome(s) set for the course or session? While there are certain consequences one can experience when using technology, a few students and professors in our study cited the many benefits that can be gained if used efficiently. One professor discussed using her students’ curiosity for web technologies as a fact checking and note taking tool during her classes. She detailed her use of Facebook in the following inventive approach, “So we crowd source and fact check all the way through. We end up using Facebook as the place to do all this crazy amazing stuff, while I am lecturing, because I know they are on there anyway. I will play a video, play a commercial from the Super Bowl … and then I'll say 'just for purposes of sharing, can somebody put this on the Facebook wall?’ ... So the whole lecture is basically captured really in a way, but in this grassroots way that I don't know it just blows me away” (University Professor). This inventive use of a social media tool students are already engaged within is unique. The strengths of the technology have been reimagined for use in the classroom, despite the rap this web platform might typically receive.
Experiential learning opportunities aligned with the workforce/community resonate with students. It is evident that students seek meaningful learning opportunities. Those participating in our research were quick to recall positive faculty practices that incorporated experiential learning. One student described her constructive experiencing exploring career pathways in lecture: “When you go to a class, lessons are based on a textbook and you have already read that, so then class is dull. She [the professor] comes in with real stories of what she experienced and what we may experience. What you may do in your career. The good and the bad. So it’s not a cookie cutter type of thing” (College Student). Another student described the opportunities his professor provides in allowing students to experience her occupation outside the classroom, stating: “One of my profs- she is a defense attorney. She sets up opportunities for us to go to court so we can watch how that all plays out. Things above and beyond the classroom. She has volunteers come with her to wrongful convictions proceedings” (University Student). Our research findings outline the application of knowledge that students seek.
Students recalled several examples when they were aware that faculty members understood their interests and cared about them both in and out of the classroom. One student described speaking with her professor about future career opportunities and graduate education. This student was amazed that her professor remembered the personal goals they discussed and ultimately provided her with an opportunity for development: “I just got talking to her [faculty member], and she asked me what I wanted to do, I want to go to grad school for Occupational Therapy, and when an opportunity came around, she actually offered me a position to go to study in New York for two weeks for a program that would just be good to put on my grad school application. So she said, ‘Oh, I remember you said this, do you want to do this?’” (University Student). Students gave numerous examples of faculty taking the time to prepare students for future stages of their education, whether it be graduate school, internships or community service work. Such initiatives take time to organize and professors must be willing to work after hours to ensure student success. One professor described an initiative where Statistics students are given hands-on experience working with data in a community setting: “[My students] work with community organizations to help them analyze piles of data. Students get real world experience in data analysis, working with partners and the whole class makes the final presentations so everyone can learn about analysis and these community groups. Leads them to moving out of student culture and to real work. To manage this takes a lot of personal time investment” (College Professor). Whether opportunities are attached to a specific course or are taken on after-hours, students appreciate these one-on-one moments.
Faculty can demonstrate expertise by bringing research findings into classroom discussions; offering a variety of examples; and setting consistent policies and guidelines. Students discussed their enjoyment when professors brought in personal examples and storytelling into the classroom. Students are able to recall concepts where elaboration was used more than concepts learned from a textbook. One student referred to the personal life of his professor in describing how relatable lectures can be: “My [course name] professor was really, really passionate and everyone loved the way he taught… He was just so passionate about what he was teaching, and he often gave examples from his own life. Like he showed us his transcript and how he flunked out first year and then he became a professor after that. He was using that to illustrate how teenagers are exploring and their brains aren't fully developed, which often leads to more risk taking. And he'd also show pictures of his youth and how he was involved in teenage rebellion activities. And so, I think it really makes it more real when he brings in more stories from his own life” (University Student). This student continued to explain that this professor typically relates lessons to his own life and research. In teaching a lesson on counterculture, a subculture whose values rival that of mainstream society, this faculty member presented students with photographs of him participating in such events and reflected on the experience during the 1960s. Additionally, we heard about professors that draw on the community, colleagues and former students for examples when teaching. One faculty member informed us about her rationale for bringing in alumni and having them speak about their work place experiences. She discussed how this relationship benefits her students and allows her to keep a pulse on the field: “It helps me stay current in the field. It keeps my list of employers up-to-date, because companies are always getting bought out, or going under bankruptcy, or changing their name. It also allows me to keep in touch with past graduates… so it's nice to see the grads come back and that they went through the program, they had success, and now they're giving back to the community a little” (College Professor).
What does this all mean? When examining our student and faculty data, we determined that Argyris & Schön (1974), Brockbank and McGill (2007) and Tagg’s (2007) conception of single-loop and double-loop learning was a useful theoretical framework from which to analyze our data. This framework applies directly to our ‘Tips for Flight’ according to students; the tips outlined often beg for a change in current learning structures and constructs. Students seem to be willing to challenge the boundaries of the traditional classroom, faculty interactions and what constitutes a learning experience and therefore it is time that more educators examine the second loop.
The above illustration, created by AFS Intercultural Programs, is based on Argyris & Schön’s (1974) original writings on single-loop and double-loop learning. To learn more about this illustration please visit AFS Intercultural Program’s website: ‘Single-Loop and Double-Loop Learning’ (2012) http://www.afs.org/blog/icl/?p=2653. AFS Intercultural Programs describes the difference between the two types of learning in the following manner: “Single-loop learning involves connecting a strategy for action with a result. For example, if an action we take yields results that are different to what we expected, through single-loop learning, we will observe the results, automatically take in feedback, and try a different approach. This cyclical process of applying a new strategy to achieve an expected or desired outcome may occur several times and we may never succeed. Running out of strategies may push us to re-evaluate the deeper governing variables that make us behave the ways we do. Re-evaluating and reframing our goals, values and beliefs is a more complex way of processing information and involves a more sophisticated way of engaging with an experience. This is called double-loop learning and looks at consequences from a wider perspective” (AFS Intercultural Programs, 2012).
The above illustration, created by the University of Texas at Austin’s Centre for Teaching and Learning, describes double-loop learning in relation to Kolb’s (1984) classical depiction of the learning cycle. To learn more about this illustration please visit the University of Texas at Austin’s website: ‘Teacher to Teacher’ (2013) http://www.utexas.edu/academic/ctl/criticalthinking/accessible.php?asset=76&tags=17. The University of Texas at Austin’s Centre for Teaching and Learning describes the difference between the two types of learning in the following manner: “Kolb's (1984) classic depiction of the ‘learning cycle’ concisely depicts the process of single-loop learning, and can be considered a simplified version of the scientific method. Kolb's learning cycle begins with Experience, upon which we Reflect, then Generalize, and finally Test our generalizations, which leads to more and more informed experience. Reflection, however, is the stage at which we may venture into double-loop learning: a much less frequent but more powerful-and potentially unsettling-experience of fundamental change in our understanding. Brockbank and McGill (2007) made the case that emotional energy can be the force that opens the door to reflection which leads to double-loop learning, citing Barnett's (1997) statement that ‘critical energy has to have a head of steam behind it’(p. 172)” (University of Texas at Austin, 2013).
The following illustration is located within Tagg’s 2007 article, Double-Loop Learning in Higher Education; the link with further examples of single-loop and double-loop learning is downloadable at: http://web.ypu.edu.tw/ctl/blog/lynnchang/attachments/month_0809/m200891621512.pdf. This practical example of single-loop learning is ‘stuck’ in the ‘time-bound’ limitation (O’Banion, 1997) inherent in the traditional academic calendar in place at most postsecondary institutions. Each calendar is structured according to semestered or quarterly sessions that mandate all students should learn all subjects in 16 weeks, for example. Thus, the governing value constrains the way subjects are taught and students are expected to learn. Within this governing value faculty will draw on a range of action strategies to cover the material students should reasonably be expected know about a subject in 16 weeks. If the consequences of their teaching strategies do not work, faculty and institutions will take a single-loop learning approach and modify the action strategies; the assignments and assessments will be changed in hopes of a more positive consequence. This is the difference in strategy as you can see from the blue to red boxes. However, the situation may call for double-loop learning if positive consequences are not received or if the actions taken turn out to be short term solutions. If the governing value is modified (as is the case in the first green box), students learn material at different rates, a range of action strategies that were previously closed off are now available. Tagg (2007) explains the modification that must be made: “The fatal flaw resides in the governing value itself, which is embedded in higher education’s standard routines. It is not the teachers who do the learning, it is the students. The only way to liberate the curriculum from the constraints of single-loop learning is to revise the governing value. If we adopt in practice the governing value that the curriculum is what students learn rather than what teachers teach, it will dramatically change the way we make decisions about it. The emphasis will shift from what teachers are doing to what students are doing. We will have to ask what we want students to learn in a course, what we want students to be able to do during and after a course. The traditional curriculum committee questions will suddenly appear, at best, partial and sketchy” (p. 39).
Highlighted herein are two examples of double-loop learning we identified within our own data. First, drawing on the power of peer-to-peer support, one participant described a tutoring program in which Faculty of Education students tutor the young children of Aboriginal students attending university. This innovative program is an interesting take on typical peer-to-peer initiatives in that the direct benefit to one peer group is the intergenerational academic support it provides to their children, which frees the parents to focus on their own studies. One administrator explains the benefits of the program: “Childcare affects your ability to do work. So those students [Aboriginal students] would drop out to take care of their kids. I thought about that; there has to be something we can do. I am going to start a tutoring program for these kids. This is indirect support for these mothers. . . . Education students all want to learn about First Nations issues. But before they do that, they have to get some training on cultural awareness. Then I am going to debrief with them all the time. They are going to start to discover their own bias; they will likely need space to talk about it. And they did. The program has grown its much bigger. That was the idea. You start with some indirect support and it works” (University Administrator). Traditionally, family and academia have been viewed as separate entities. The above program breaks down this construct in favour of combining family and academics to provide Faculty of Education students and Aboriginal parents/students with opportunities to learn. Classroom knowledge related to early childhood education and teaching at the junior elementary level is coupled with an out-of-class application that requires students to simultaneously develop intercultural awareness.
Second, we heard about a Faculty in Residence (FIR) program that provides students direct contact with their faculty members. Faculty from a variety of disciplines are taken out the classroom and brought into the residence hall to spend time with students. The program has a career and academic focus, but relationship building is a large component of its success. Faculty involvement ranges from having breakfast with students, living in residence for a weekend and visiting community spaces (art galleries or museums). This program challenges traditional student-faculty interactions (primarily classrooms and office hours) by asking faculty members, and at times their families, to enter residence and engage with students in activities and everyday routines. This form of double-loop learning breaks down several identified constructs and asks faculty to step outside of their typical action strategies in interacting with students.
The following reflection questions were presented to participants at the conclusion of the presentation. The constructive conversation provided participants with an opportunity to apply our research findings and theoretical framework to their home institution and individual teaching experiences.
![+
We are very excited to share this PowerPoint presentation with
you online! In the notes section of the slides we have provided
some additional context to help you navigate the presentation.
This presentation was delivered on July 4th, 2013 at the
International Study Association on Teachers and Teaching
(ISATT) in Ghent, Belgium.
Please cite this presentation in the following format: Seifert, T. &
Arnold, C. (2013). How to Train Your Professor: Tips for Flight
According to Students [PowerPoint Slides]. Presentation for the
annual meeting of ISATT, Ghent, Belgium. Retrieved from:
http://supportingstudentsuccess.wordpress.com/.
If you have any questions about this presentation please contact
the Principal Investigator, Dr. Tricia Seifert at
triciaseifert@utoronto.ca.]()