© C LAUS B RABRAND BRICS / FIRST PH.D. SCHOOL RETREAT 2005 (SANDBJERG) O CT 25, 2005 C LAUS B RABRAND © BRICS 2005 Department of Computer Science University

© CLAUS BRABRAND BRICS / FIRST PH.D. SCHOOL RETREAT 2005 (SANDBJERG) OCT 25, 2005

CLAUS BRABRAND

© BRICS 2005

Department of Computer Science

University of Aarhus, Denmark

INTRODUCTION TO UNIVERSITY DIDACTICS

”Teaching/Learning: What the students do when we teach”

© CLAUS BRABRAND[ 4 ]

OCT 25, 2005BRICS / FIRST PH.D. SCHOOL RETREAT 2005 (SANDBJERG)

Talk Structure

Introduction: Empathy Teaching/Learning “Susan and Robert” Cognitive levels (“The SOLO Taxonomy”) Alignment Definition: Good Teaching Beyond Good Grades A bit of Assessment- and Evaluation Theory “Bag of Tricks”


INTRODUCTION

Empathy Teaching/Learning



Consider the following alphabet (60”):

Exercise: Now write my office phone#: 89425771 ?

Exercise one

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

6. 7. 8. 9. 0.



Exercise one (cont’d)

Suppose I showed you:

Exercise: Now write my office phone#: 89425771 ?

1 2 3

4 5 6

7 8 9



Exercise one (cont’d)

So what is the point? Random information is really hard to remember We learn (efficiently) by associating (building)

new unknown information / with (on) old know known information

1. (One of the many) roles of the teacher is to build on known* knowledge (empathy)

2. Knowledge is constructed as a result of the learner’s activity

*/ assumed prior knowledge

Constructivism = base teaching on what the learner does



Empathy

About helping/teaching others:

Basically: empathy! Know/anticipate what your students know (/don’t know)!

"At man, når det i sandhed skal lykkes en at føre et menneske hen til et bestemt sted, først og fremmest må passe på at finde ham der, hvor han er, og begynde der.

Dette er hemmeligheden i al hjælpekunst. Enhver der ikke kan det, han er selv i indbildning, når han mener at kunne hjælpe en anden.

For i sandhed at kunne hjælpe en anden, må jeg forstå mere end han - men dog vel først og fremmest forstå det, han forstår. [ empathy! ]

Når jeg ikke gør det, så hjælper min mere-forståen ham slet ikke. Vil jeg alligevel gøre min mere-forståen gældende, så er det fordi jeg er forfærdelig stolt, så jeg i grunden i stedet for at gavne ham egentlig vil beundres af ham.”

-- “Brudstykker af en ligefrem meddelelse”, Kierkegaard, 1859



Running Example (Semantics’05)

Introduction [background]: Prerequisitional Math // 1 week

Part I: From imperative/functional SOS // 3

weeks

Part II: From SOS new formalism (CCS) // 1 week

Part III: From CCS program equivalences // 1 week

Practice [link to real world]: Semantics in Practice / Industry // 1 week


IMPERSONALIZATION

A language for teaching impersonalizes teaching



A taxonomy / language for teaching impersonalizes teaching

Emotional detachment (aka. “dissociation”) The teacher is good/bad

identity: good/bad teacher The teaching methods are good/bad

knowledge: good/bad method behavior: good/bad method

With dissociation: more capable of dealing with critique => better to listen

to constructive advice (…just like with our research)

Impersonalization

identityconvictio

nsknowledgebehavior

“Neutological levels”

[model of the mind, “NLP”]

ethics

experience

reactions


“SUSAN AND ROBERT”

Good student vs. Bad student

Depth learning vs. Surface learning



Let’s look in the Auditorium

Auditorium:

“Robert”

“Susan”

When is the

break …?

This is interestin

g …!



Consider two Students

Susan: Robert:

“It’s just the way the students are; either good or bad”

Note: this labelling (conveniently) defers reponsibility: In particular, we cannot do anything about it!

Good student

Bad student



Levels of Thinking about Teaching

Level 1: what student is “Blame-the-students” (Good vs. bad students)

Exam = sorting good from bad students after teaching

Level 2: what teacher does “Blame-the-teachers” (Good vs. bad teachers)

Acquiring an armoury of teaching techiques and tricks

Level 3: what the student does Maximize likelihood of students using deep approach Minimize likelihood of students using surface approach



“Blame-the-Students”

Unfortunately a predominant view: “Blame-the-students”:

“My students are lacking the ability to learn…!” “Why won’t they learn the interesting bits?” “So many bad students; they just don’t understand!”

Deferring responsibility: “Nothing’s wrong with my teaching; I state things clearly!” “I taught them (right); they didn’t learn!”

Now, let’s instead focus on learning process and outcome (what the student does):



Returning to Susan & Robert:

“Susan” Homo Sapiens Goal: likes to get to the

bottom of things; to reach understanding (often reflects about possibilities/ implications/applications..)

Characterized by: predisposed for depth

learning; spontaneously uses the

higher cognitive processes

(almost teaches herself)

“Robert” Homo Sapiens Goal: just wants to pass

exams; get a degree and get a decent job (doesn’t really care about learning in itself)

Characterized by: predisposed for surface

learning; will only apply higher

cognitive processes if he really has to

(will cut any corner)

Now we can do something about it (= Robert’s learning)!



Let’s look in the Classroom

Auditorium:

“Robert”

“Susan”

Wait, isn’t this the same as …

except for … ?

Wait, is that a colon or a semi-

colon ?*

*/ if he asks questions at all


COGNITIVE-LEVELS

“The SOLO Taxonomy”:

- to memorize vs. to theorize



“The SOLO Taxonomy”

Cognitive levels of understanding: SOLO 1 (aka. “prestructural”):

no understanding: misses point !

SOLO 2 (aka. “unistructural”): identification, memorization, simple procedures, …

SOLO 3 (aka. “multistructural”): enumerate, describe, perform algorithms, …

SOLO 4 (aka. “relational”): compare, analyse, relate, apply, …

SOLO 5 (aka. “extended abstract”): theorize, generalize, hypothesize, …

dee

pe

r u

nd

erst

and

ing

surfaceunderstanding

depthunderstanding

Often, examiners and censors distinguish “good” and “bad” student performancebased directly on this taxonomy, and often, without being consciously aware of it!

S.O.L.O. (Structure of the Observed Learning Outcome)



Course Objectives

“What are the students supposed to learn”? State explicitly (as verbs) the skills they are to acquire

Makes it clear what they are supposed to be able to do and they are able to check themselves against it

…and at which cognitive level: to recite … // SOLO 2 to describe … // SOLO 3 to explain … // SOLO 3 to compare / relate … // SOLO 4 to prove … // SOLO 4 to apply … // SOLO 4 to hypothesize … // SOLO 5d

eep

er

un

der

stan

din

g



Example (Semantics’05)

Course Objectives (aim & goal)



Running Example (dSem’05)

Introduction: Prerequisitional Math // 1 week

Part I [describe/explain/analyze]: Structural Operational Semantics // 3

weeks

Part II [compare/reason]: Concurrency and Communication (CCS) // 1 week

Part III [compare/prove/apply]: Equivalence: Bisimulation and Games // 1 week

Practice: Imperative Features + Sem in Practice // 1 week


ALIGNMENT ()

Course objectives = exam assessment



Alignment ()

$2000 Question: “How do we make the students learn what we want

them to”?

Answer: “Alignment”:

Course objectives = exam measurement



Alignment () Unaligned Course: Aligned Course:

Teacher’sintention

Student’sactivity

Examassessment

Teacher’sintention

Student’sactivity

Examassessment

e.g.- explain- relate- prove- apply

e.g.- memorize- describe

e.g.- memorize

Phenomenography = learner’s perspective (not teacher’s intention) defines learning

“dealing with the test” CS: “it commutes”



Example (Semantics’05)

Assessment = Objectives (i.e., Alignment):


DEFINITION: GOOD TEACHING

Maximize #students doing (cognitively) high-level learning



Definition: “Good Teaching”

“Definition”:

“Teach so that Robert behaves like Susan”

Good news: You should now know how to do this:

Explicitly defined course objectives (as verbs) Alignment!!! avoid surface-encouraging aspects add depth-encouraging aspects Better with depth than breadth of coverage

”Good teaching is getting most students to use the higher cognitive level processes that the more academic students use spontaneously”

-- “Teaching for Quality Learning at University”, John Biggs, 2003



Year 2030

Susan and Robert graduated 20 years ago (and both became teachers):

Susan has 20 years of teaching experience Reflective teacher (aka. reflective practitioner) Reflects: pre, during, post

Robert has 1 year of teaching experience (repeated 19 times)…

Ok no need to change Bad Blame-the-students / blame-the-administration


MOTIVATION BEYOND GRADES

Explain how the knowledge impacts life



Motivation Beyond the Exam

Motivational problem (why bother learn it?): Tell them why it is important to learn these things…

What would they be able to do (with the investment) How could it benefit them in their work/life/…



Example (Semantics’05)Program world

Model world

ConcreteAbstract

~

P

P’

M

M’

1. P ~ P’ ?2. abstract

3. M ~ M’ ?

4. relate

5. M ~ M’ !6. concretize7. P ~ P’ !

What discerns a really good programmer from one that is not so good is the capability of moving (consciously or unconsciously) between the concrete world of programs and the abstract world of semantic models (via abstraction and concretization).

Specifically, such a programmer is capable of (consciously or unconsciously): - 1) abstracting programs into models - 2) reasoning about the models - 3) concretizing the insights back into the world of programs



Example (Semantics’05) cont’d



Notes on Skill Acquisition

From the world of psychoanalysis: Skill acquisition progresses according to the following

cognitive steps: 1. Unconscious incompetence 2. Conscious incompetence 3. Conscious competence 4. Unconscious competence



Assessment (Exam)

“Norm-Referenced Assessment” Relative grading (bell-curve grading)

Comparing students against each other

“Criterion-Referenced Assessment” Absolute grading

Relative to (objective) course objectives



Evaluation Theory

1. Evaluator The students fill out

2. Time at the end of the lectures (and before the exam)

3. Method a questionnaire

4. Application so that the teacher and the administration can measure

5. Standard if satisfactorily and to which degree

6. Criterium among the students there has been:- the course overall;- the teacher (and TAs);- exercises; and- materials

7. Evaluee as a result of the teaching and the teachers(…in conjunction with understanding Semantics)

Student Satisfaction (“tilfredshedsundersøgelse”):



Evaluation Theory

1. Evaluator The students fill out

2. Time at the end of the lectures (and before the exam)


4. Application so that the teacher and the administration can measure

5. Standard if satisfactorily and to which degree

6. Criterium among the students there has been initiated:- high-level activity;- responsibility for own learning;- new knowledge and competences; and- autonomous thinking

7. Evaluee as a result of the teaching process

Cognitive-level & Academic (from Middle Georgia College):



Evaluation Theory

1. Evaluator The students and teachers fill out

2. Time around half-way into the course


4. Application so that the teacher and students can exchange experiences and opinions on

5. Standard if optimal

6. Criterium teaching has been supported

7. Evaluee by the teaching process

Teaching/Learning Cooperation (from Political Science, AU):


THANKS FOR YOUR ATTENTION!


BONUS SLIDES



*Scratch*

Is this going to be on the exam?

Extremely relevant question!!!

1. Blame the student2. Blame the teacher3. Focus on what the student does

Universities have changed:- central management, economic considerations- More Roberts than Susans

Reflective practitioner:- pre- during- post

Susan almost teaches herself(we almost can’t prevent her from learningeven if we wanted to)



The Bloom Taxonomy

The Bloom Taxonomy: 1. Knowledge 2. Comprehension 3. Application 4. Analysis 5. Synthesis 6. Evaluation

dee

pe

r u

nd

erst

and

ing



Book Recommendation

“Teaching for Quality Learning at University” John Biggs, 2003



Roles

Student Learning responsibility

Teacher (To the best ability) Aid students in learning

Evaluator Neutrally assess the students’ level of understanding



(My Personal) Bag of Tricks

“Bag of Tricks”: Positive (and respectful) answers Reflective timeout (1-2 minutes neighbor discussion)

Questions sanctioned (“approved” as relevant by neighbor)

Better questions (they thought and talked about them)

Jokes (to ease atmosphere) Competitions (to stimulate creativity+provide incentive) Variation (to keep interest and focus) Interaction (to activate the students) Metaphores (to associate with prior known knowledge) Breaks-by-need* (*/ not your need)

However, for these kind of things:ask somebody with more teaching experience…



Hidden Abstract

Target audience:-30x Ph.D. students from four Danish Universities

(=> keep it more abstract/theoretic than concrete/example-driven)-10x VIP and secretaries (=> careful with computer science specific examples)-international crowd, many cultures (=> in English, no Danish-specific examples)

Context (of the talk):Prior to my talk, they have just had exercises on Empathy

=> move all things pertaining to Empathy to the beginning and add transitional example (relating empathy to teaching/learning) giving them a chance to see and experience the effect of (using/not using empathy in) building/not building on prior knowledge.

Practice what you preach (take your own medicine):- Talk objectives (what you should learn and be able to do) => alignment!!!- Variation => mild hypnosis ; activation => 60” reflective timeouts ; …

Information about this talk and the audience

Documents

© C LAUS B RABRAND BRICS / FIRST PH.D. SCHOOL RETREAT 2005 (SANDBJERG) O CT 25, 2005 C LAUS B RABRAND © BRICS 2005 Department of Computer Science University