Go directly to links on this page:  Required Evaluations   Other Data   Feedback Benefits
Removing Roadblocks   Creating Dissidence   Promoting Discourse    Changer/Changed 

Self Evaluation. The last component of my course portfolio is an introspective self-evaluation. Because I understand the importance of self-evaluation for personal and professional growth, I modeled this for my students by reflecting upon the required course evaluations; and on other forms of formative and summative data such as students’ Learning Logs, regular anonymous evaluation of instruction, and end-of-semester electronic evaluations. I also assessed the benefits of analyzing student feedback and “just in time teaching.” In a real sense, this portfolio represents my Learning Log for E328. I found it to be a useful way to think about how the common ground of success could be used as a tool to enhance students’ intellectual engagement; and how removing learning roadblocks, confronting students’ preconceptions, and promoting intellectual discourse helped them understand that teaching as a complex, amorphous activity which requires an intrinsic understanding of the teaching-learning process. Although I could see evidence of students’ increased engagement with intellectual ideas and real world teaching issues, some things I hope my students learned were difficult to measure. .Although I have no tangible evidence, I hope that by making students aware of my own self-study within a community of scholars, they were inspired to become reflective practitioners and researchers of their own teaching and will one day become master teachers. Here, then, is a summation of the evaluation data I collected, and my thoughts on what this all means.

Required Class Evaluations. Required student evaluation data is of little value in helping me evaluate my teaching because the data collected does little to shed light on what regularly happens in the classroom. From a numerical viewpoint, my evaluations do show significant grains from the first semester I taught. But numbers tell only part of the story. They cannot adequately show how the regular collection and analysis of student feedback enabled me to better understand what students’ learned (or don’t learn) and to adjustment my instruction “just in time.”

Return to Top of Page

Other Evaluation Data. In addition, I collected and analyzed data from three other sources: Learning Logs, regular evaluation of instruction throughout the semester (see samples below), and end-of-the-semester electronic evaluations. The most useful data is the feedback in the Learning Logs. I read the Logs as soon as class was over, and took appropriate action. If three or more students asked the same question, I often e-mailed information to the entire class. If only one student asked a question, I called, e-mailed or wrote a response in that student’s Log. I also used student feedback to identify misconceptions or concerns, which resulted in the redesign of activities or added discussion time. In addition to Learning Logs, I also got regular feedback in the form of anonymous teaching evaluations like these:

Removing Roadblocks. This portfolio represents my journey to a more complete understanding of what it means to be a university instructor, and how I learned to use the common ground of success as a tool to enhance the intellectual engagement and academic quality of my classes. Through assiduous observation and reflection, I learned how to remove learning roadblocks, create cognitive dissidence, and promote discourse in order to make changes in how I dealt with students’ preconceptions of teaching. What changes did I make? Perhaps the simplest change was removing a learning roadblock by attending to a “basic need” of my students––grade anxiety (I have the reputation of being a hard grader). I accomplished this, not by lowering my standards or making assignments easier, but by focusing on quality. To accomplish this, I accepted only “draft” work at the beginning of the semester (example: Elephant Teaching Reflection), and imposed the “ten-minute rule” (students spend NO MORE than ten minutes responding to assignments). By “limiting” students, they were freed to work in their own way and typically spent more time and effort on informal assignments than in previous semesters. Less became more. I then used students’ “drafts” as tools to teach them how to achieve excellence though a “batting practice” approach (batting averages are not kept, but you are paid for showing up). Although there were no grades on these informal assignments, students received abundant feedback (example: Science for All). The result was a win-win learning situation. By removing the impediment of grades, students felt safe to “think outside the box,” and those who tried to take advantage of the “easy grades” learned that poor work had to be resubmitted in order to receive credit. (“Incomplete” work received no credit until it was completed, a grading system self-selected by students as part of the “Design Your Own Dream Course” activity.) Although it took time to provide detailed feedback and re-grade poor work, I was rewarded by the increased quality of students’ work as they learned the difference between a trite response and a meaningful one. I found it gratifying to watch their thinking skills develop as they learned to present concrete examples and well-reasoned arguments to support their ideas (example: Midterm student sample).

I also removed roadblocks to learning by implementing TEAM (Together Everyone Achieves More) reading assignments. Through the application of Johnson and Johnson’s Jigsaw Model––and by understanding that the best way to learn something is to teach it to someone else––I had students became the expert on one part of the reading assignment (typically one journal article) and teach it to their teammates; thereby reducing the reading load, diminishing students’ feelings of isolation, and creating a more collaborative, supportive, learning environment. The big bonus for me was that students devoted more time to understanding what they read. I was no longer greeted by blank stares when I asked questions about ideas from assigned readings. Once again, less became more. By not giving grades, accepting only drafts, reducing the reading workload, and refocusing students’ attention on excellence rather than on grades, most students learned to activate their own intellectual capacities. The quality of exams and projects improved, and both my students and I felt successful.

Return to Top of Page

Creating Dissidence. Another area of change that resulted in enhanced intellectual engagement and academic quality was the creation of activities that produced cognitive dissidence. My goal was to confront students’ preconceptions of teaching by setting up learning situations where “aha has” were more likely to happen. These activities were typically unique experiences designed to create disequilibrium, for as Piaget pointed out, the key to learning lies in the mutual interaction of the accommodation of concepts (schema) and the assimilation of experiences (events). For example, I ended the first class with the “Tale of the Teaching Elephant,” my version of the “Blind Men and the Elephant.” Students were asked to think about the part of the elephant they were holding, and to analyze and discuss what aspect of teaching it represented. This assignment allowed me to evaluate students’ thinking and writing abilities, and to validate their “internship of observation.” It also made the point that we cannot encompass the whole teaching-learning task unless we work collaboratively, a theme that was woven into many aspects of the course. An investigation designed to promote cognitive dissidence juxtaposed the use of different models to confront students’ misconception that the best place to begin a science lesson is by defining terms. Embedded within the investigation of apples and eggs (see pages 1-3) was a lesson on the use of models in science teaching. Students were able to analyze the two activities and to see that using models can result in either “activitymania” or “doing science.” As they learned so often throughout the semester: it’s not the activity, it’s how you use it.

The Changer & the Changed. The result of removing learning roadblocks, creating cognitive dissidence, and promoting intellectual discourse was the expanded ability of students’ ways of thinking and knowing. These strategies enhanced my students’ engagement with intellectual ideas and real world teaching issues, and, once again, both my students and I shared the common ground of success. In everything I did, I attempted to challenge students’ self-created pedagogy so that, as they journeyed throughout the semester (and life), they could begin to see that mountains are viewed one side at a time. I asked them to explore different parts of the mountain, to see all that they could, but to understand that it was never all. While on my own teaching-learning journey, I also explored the many different parts of the mountain. I discovered that less can be more, and that intellectual engagement and academic quality can be enhanced when students’ “basic needs” are met. Perhaps the most important outcome of reflecting on my teaching within a community of scholars was that, as I worked to overcome my students’ preconceived ideas of what it means to be a teacher, I changed my conceptions of what students could accomplish and the changer became the changed.

This portfolio website is an outgrowth of a paper version originally created in 2002.