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

Passages from dualism through the three stages of multiplicity are, in general, traversed gradually by students. In comparison, the passage to relativism is a punctuated change characterized by realization and replacement of a long-standing paradigm. This revolutionary change occurs at the individual level of the student and is not something that can be counted upon to occur at any particular class rank or time.

In multiplicity, students recognize dualism as one particular approach to thinking. Relativism is achieved when students recognize dualism as a limited method of thinking—one that works only for simple problems, which are not representative of most  problems encountered in real life. The stage of relativism is also called "contextual relativism," because multiple ways of thinking about an issue are now perceived not merely as alternative choices of equal value, but rather as choices among thought processes that have different value and are either appropriate or inappropriate according to the context of the problem or issue addressed. In essence, relativism is achieved when one recognizes the value of having a system for deciding which among multiple arguments or working hypotheses is indeed likely to be better than its competitors.

Perry captures the realization in an interview with a student: "I don't know if complexity itself is always necessary. I'm not sure. But if complexity is not necessary, at least you have to find that it is not necessary before you can decide, 'Well, this particular problem needs only the simple approach.'"

This ability to distinguish relative value of competing arguments involves development of conceptual frameworks from which to make judgements. Any framework is itself contextual, and frameworks must differ in much the same way that rules must differ with different games. For example, a student may be told that a particular argument or claim is "scientific." A framework one can use to evaluate the claim is to query (a) whether the argument or claim is about the physical world (matter, energy or rates of change of these) and (b) whether the argument involves testable hypotheses. If true, then the scientific framework should work well as a means to evaluate the validity of the claim against its competing explanations and hypotheses. If the issue cannot meet both of these essential criteria, one may well be dealing with an issue of value, but one that likely cannot be resolved well within the framework of science or scientific methodology. A good example of an issue not readily resolved through the framework of science is "What is good teaching?" Can it be deduced on a scale of one to five based on student ratings of faculty; by measures of student learning of content; by measures in changes in students' ability to think; by how students are inspired to continue with lifelong learning on their own? Clearly the question is important, but because it's not resolved by any study of the physical world or by testing any single hypothesis, another framework, other than the purely scientific one, would be more appropriate for resolving this issue.

Studies by King and Kichener (1994, Developing Reflective Judgement, San Francisco, Jossey-Bass, 323 p.) show that most new holders of undergraduate degrees have multiplicity as the most sophisticated mode of reasoning that they can routinely use to address real-world problems. Dr. Craig Nelson in "Tools for Tampering with Teaching's Taboos" (New Paradigms for College Teaching, 1997, Edina , MN, Interaction Press, p. 66) notes that this disappointing outcome is common to students of both liberal and professional education.

What can we do to better promote the passage from multiplicity to relativism? We can teach the conceptual frameworks of reasoning that lie at the cores of our disciplines. We can provide these in our syllabi, in our lessons, and we can require students to apply frameworks to real world problems that reveal each framework's strengths and limits. We can formally structure in some "thinking about thinking."
 
 

Mini-series—Constructing Unit Level Assessments that Support Outcomes We Want

In spring of 2000, Dean Mark Heckler  agreed to send a team of faculty to the CU-Denver summer Boot Camp for Profs® program to use the contents of that program and the week as a basis for a retreat under which to develop a unit level assessment plan for teaching. The four faculty from the College of Arts and Media: Bill Clark, Lorre Hoffman, Kathy Maes and Scott Massey, wrote a successful teaching enhancement grant that was reviewed by the Teaching Committee and funded by the Office of Academic and Student Affairs to send the team to the seven-day program held in Leadville in late July. The assessment plan they  initiated is based on applying the principles of a Teaching System at a different scale—that of the unit level. Individual professors who have a teaching system have an operational base in ethics, and reasons for selecting particular learning outcomes, particular pedagogies for achieving the outcomes, and particular evaluations that insure the outcomes are achieved. They operate from a sophisticated teaching philosophy that they themselves author and control, which includes their own desires and objectives and awareness of what the course is supposed to do within the context of responsibilities to the larger curriculum. Critical parts of the philosophy are clearly conveyed to students and peer reviewers, along with built-in checks that help insure that the philosophy is successfully enacted in practice.

In the same context but at a different scale, units (programs, departments, colleges and universities) that have an operational philosophy have reviewed the ethical basis for their choices, have clearly stated goals for particular outcomes they want students to achieve, have clearly stated reasons for selecting these outcomes and thereby are able to establish some checks that show how their chosen outcomes are being met.

The faculty team from Arts and Media, in record time, has been able to set a firm foundation for a unit level assessment plan. They have suggested a mini-series based on the most critical components provided at Boot Camp for Profs® that enabled their rapid development of a sophisticated unit level assessment. This mini-series is primarily to allow all members of the College of Arts and Media access to the information provided in the components that the team chose as their foundation.

Through co-sponsorhip from the Office of Teaching Effectiveness and the College of Arts and Media, we invite small teams from other colleges who may be interested in using this information for their own assessment plans.

The mini-series is scheduled as follows:

Ed Nuhfer - Building a Teaching System September 8 1-2 P.M. location Tivoli 444

This presentation brings together nearly nine years of work at CU-Denver by the Office of Teaching Effectiveness. In order for units to have an effective assessment plan, the units must consist of faculty who are aware of their own individual choices based upon critical literature that reveals advantages of multiple approaches to pedagogy, measurement of successful teaching, and understanding students? ways of knowing. This awareness has been developed as recorded in the eight volumes of Nutshell Notes. Units can now make use of this awareness by helping faculty to employ it at a unit scale.

Mitch Handlesman - Ethical Foundations
 October 13 1-2 P.M. location Tivoli 642

Mitch has done specialty research in ethics and has served on the ethics committee of Rose Medical Center. His workshop on ethics has been a keystone of Boot Camp... since 1994. Every academic decision we make has its ultimate foundation in ethics. The key aspects of workshops on good practices in diversity, affirmative action, legal obligations and effective teaching lie within ethics. Just as teaching choices are made more clear when ethics is incorporated into an operational philosophy, a unit is helped when it can clearly recognize and convey its own basis of operational philosophy in the context of ethics.

Mike Pavelich - Thinking about Thinking November 10 1-2 P.M. location Tivoli 444

Mike and his colleagues from Colorado School of Mines are involved in one of the most exciting research projects going on anywhere. Recent Nutshell Notes have stressed intellectual development as revealed by the Perry model. Deducing a student's level of thinking has required lengthy interviews done by experts at the individual level. Mike and his colleagues are investigating a way that this measure can be done by on-line computer survey, the results of which are analyzed via NeuralNet. If successful, it will allow units and institutions to monitor students? intellectual development in higher level thinking. To register, please email enuhfer@carbon.cudenver.edu.
Space is limited.
 
 

Ed Nuhfer, Director Teaching Effectiveness & Faculty Development
CU-Denver Campus Box 137 PO Box 173364 Denver, CO 80217-3364
(303) 556-4915 Fax (303) 556-5855