NUTSHELL NOTES "Teaching tips in a nutshell" - The University of Colorado at Denver's One-page Newsletter for Teaching Excellence

 

Office of Teaching Effectiveness & Faculty Development  1250 14th St. Room 720  Denver, CO 80217-3364

Phone (303) 556-4915 FAX (303) 556-5855 Volume 10 Number 3 April, 2002

 

Designing Experiences for Higher Level Thinking - Putting it All Together

Some time ago (1994, NN v.2, n7 - http://www.cudenver.edu//OTE/nn/vol2/2_7.htm) we introduced knowledge surveys as a way to disclose the contents of an entire course to reviewers and to students, and then to verify in detail the content learning by students. Since that time, we have done quite a bit more with that tool (Nuhfer, E. B., and Knipp, D., 2002, The knowledge survey: a tool for all reasons: To Improve the Academy, v. 20, in press). A sample lesson that uses a knowledge survey as its basis is shown below. The first step is to consider the learning outcomes one wants to achieve, and then to frame these as survey items that could test achievement of the outcomes. Next the items can be coded according to Bloom's levels (NN v9 n5 - http://www.cudenver.edu//OTE/nn/vol9/9_5.htm) to insure that the levels of challenge we intended are indeed conveyed. When we have such a detailed plan in writing, it enables us to choose/design pedagogical approaches that make the most sense in achieving the learning. As we learned recently (NN v9 n6 - http://www.cudenver.edu//OTE/nn/vol9/9_6.htm), asking a high level question does not guarantee that students will respond with high level thinking as an answer. In order to insure that this occurs, we must convey rubrics to students that disclose what we will look for to identify high quality in a response. As a capstone, a self-assessment exercise (NN v9 n7 - http://www.cudenver.edu//OTE/nn/vol9/9_7.htm), possibly in the form of a self-assessment journal assignment, will help us mentor students to higher level thinking and allow them to reflect upon their own metacognition (NN v10 n1 - http://www.cudenver.edu//OTE/nn/vol10/10_1.html). The item numbers on the reverse side come from a 200-item survey of a course, and the figures show effects of the course in terms of content learning (Fig. 1) and thinking (Fig. 2). This example confirms what was taught, the levels of challenge, what students experienced, and the outcomes that resulted. What is most important, however, is that the outcome of such lesson design is a superior learning experience.

Consider what it takes to achieve this level of sophistication: only the will to construct a knowledge survey, which takes a few hours of one-time prep that incorporates test and quiz items already in most of our computers, and familiarity with the Nutshell Notes cited. For those who have doubted the value of such assessment, consider FCQ summative results and how looking at the work being done contrasts with rating professors against one another on a scale of 1 to 5.

Next, look at the abscissa on the two figures and think "4-year curriculum" as opposed to "16-week course." If each faculty member in a program brings to a department meeting his/her knowledge survey of the courses required in the program, it is a splendid way begin to assess any program. Where this occurs, the design of curricular outcomes in content learning, levels of thinking, and design of experiences for students suddenly become clearly visible, and a superior curriculum design will result.

 

 

Figure 1. Pre- & post-course results of a 200-item knowledge survey Ordinate scales are from 1 (low confidence) to 3 (high confidence). The survey elicited confidence ratings to items (abscissa) in the order in which students encountered them in the course. The sample items 20-26 provided on the reverse side are from this same course. The lower darker area (on this and Figure 2) reveals the class averages of confidence to address each item at the start of class; the upper shaded area displays the ratings to the same items at the end of class.

 

 

 

A knowledge survey utilized in depth

Example: Lesson topic - The asbestos hazard

 

CHOSEN OUTCOMES (1) Apply the definition of science to a real problem and use the framework of the methods of science to recognize the basis for evidence and the difficulty associated with arriving at a sound conclusion. (2) To understand the asbestos hazard, what the material is, and how it became identified as a hazard. (3) To be able to evaluate the true risks posed to the general populace based upon what constitutes the currently strongest scientific argument.

 

CONTENT LEARNING and LEVELS of THINKING (Bloom taxonomy chosen)

 

PEDAGOGIES - Numbers correlate with content items above. (20) Lecture with illustrations, crossword, short answer drill; (22) guided discussion with formative quiz; (23) demonstration calculation, handout and in-class problems followed by homework; (24) paired (jigsaw) with directed homework on web; (25) based on data taken from "24," teams of two reflect on two scientific methods and relative strengths weakness of each in this; (26) Personal evaluation of conflicting evidence submitted as short (250 word maximum) abstract.

CRITERIA FOR ASSESSMENT(Rubric) - Be able to realize the basis for distinction between types of asbestos. Understand the nature of chemical formulae that describe minerals. Clearly separate testable hypotheses from advocacy of proponents as a basis for evidence. Clearly distinguish the method of repeated experiments from the historical method in the kinds of evidence they provide. Use science as a basis to recognize evidence, and formulate and state an informed decision about the risks posed to oneself.

 

SELF-ASSESSMENT - What do you now know about asbestos as a hazard that you did not know before this lesson? You have investigated two competing hypotheses about the degree of hazard posed to the general populace, and you now know the scientific basis for each argument. Do you feel differently now about the asbestos hazard than you did before this lesson? Whether your answer is "yes" or "no," explain why. Describe some possible non-scientific factors that could affect the arguments presented by each sides of the argument. How do you now feel about the risks posed to yourself, and what questions do you still have? (from Nuhfer and Knipp, 2002)

 

 

 

BOOT CAMP for PROFS is ON! July 21-27

see http://www.cudenver.edu//OTE/nn/vol6/6_6.htm

 

 

Dear Colleagues:

It has been my greatest pleasure and privilege to have been your Director of Teaching Effectiveness since July, 1992. I want to thank all of you for your outstanding dedication to students, to the enterprise of teaching, learning, and thinking, and for the support you have given to me both personally and professionally. May's issue, which will be in your mail box shortly, will be the last Nutshell Note I'll produce at UCD.  In July, 2002, ten years to the date, I will assume the directorship for the Center for Teaching and Learning at Idaho State University in Pocatello, where I will manage several directors & their staff in space dedicated to faculty development and student academic support. The larger kinds of unit-level contributions that I've been invited to make there are not feasible here, but the excitement of expanded opportunity is balanced by an immense sadness in leaving you and this community. You have touched my heart in every