This is week two of reading the JITT (Just in Time Teaching) quiz results from my students.
Wow! I really like this approach to class preparation and lesson planning. After reading the JITT quizzes responses, I feel as though I have already held a mini-class with my students and I have an idea of which points from the reading are confusing for them, which are interesting to them, and which are clearly understood by them.
How does it work?
1. Kimberly (my wife and fellow instructor in this type of course) writes some quiz questions that are designed to (a) highlight the vocabulary that the program director feels are most important and (b) get students engaging with the most valuable ideas from each chapter. Three of the items are fixed-response (multiple choice or fill-in-the-blank, etc.) and one is usually an open-ended application question. We have a mis for obvious reasons: multiple choice are fast for students to do and cover a wide range of material quickly, but the open-ended questions lets us see how students problem solve and whether they understand the material at a deeper level.
2. Kimberly send me the questions and I review them, providing editing, content, and test-quality feedback. We make some revisions through discussion.
3. We post our questions online using the university's course management system (CMS) which has a quiz feature (a little cumbersome, but it works).
4. Our students are required to read the material and then answer the questions by a deadline (I have them complete the quizzes by midnight of the day before the day we meet in class), so that as instructors we then have time to analyze their responses and develop our lesson plan.
5. We download the quiz results. At first, we did this manually: we openned up every single response from every single student, and recorded the information from a web browser into an speadsheet file. This was horribly, painsakingly long (especially given the cumbersome nature of the CMS package). Of course after doing this the first week, I noticed that the CMS has a "Download Quiz Results" link. Needless to say, we tried this for week two and it was a huge timesaver.
6. We analyze the results. This is not a complicated process. Really, we are interested in seeing which questions (and hence which concepts) the students have a clear understanding of, and which concepts are problematic. Generally, I don't write any notes for questions in which all students got correct (or only one student got wrong - instead I would suggest talking to or emailing that student directly). However, in questions where there appears to be various different responses, I take notes on the most common misconceptions.
In the case of open-ended questions, students tend to respond with the most common, salient features from the text (most often the ideas that are highlighted in the end-of-chapter summary page) but few demonstrate understanding of the fullness of the concept as expressed in the text. I make notes of these deficiencies and I highlight responses from students whose answers indicate that they have grasped these finer points.
There is one final question that we analyze: the optional, open-ended feedback question. At the end of each quiz we include a feedback field for students to tell us how the reading is, any challenges that faced, and any other thoughts that they have about the reading, the quiz, or the class. At least half of the students skip this optional question, but the feedback from those who do respond is invaluable. Frequently students will explain how they had trouble with a multiple choice item ("I felt like there were two correct choices because...") or they will express concerns about a particular topic ("I'm still kind of fuzzy on the idea of..."). And about half of the responses are just postive feedback ("I really enjoyed this chapter since I learned something new that I can apply to..." or "I found this chapter much easier to understand than the last since I had already studied a book about..." or "Question 3 was a really good measure of the chapter since it pulled together all of the ideas into one practical situation.").
These notes (list of what students do not understand as well as their additional concerns and questions) serve as the guide for my class presentation.
7. We write a lesson plan. Although our class meets for a 3-hour block each week, we generally only try to take about 1 hour for our JITT presentation since we reserve most of our class period to student presentations (especially important since we teach pre-service teachers who need the practice of planning and presenting mini-lessons). So we design a presentation that covers the most difficult chapter concepts based on the JITT quizzes.
It's only week two, so I am hardly an expert at this. And I rely heavily on Kimberly when it comes to desiging a JITT presentation (aka lecture) since she has done an extensive review of the literature for one of her research projects. I really appreciate being able to work together on this experiment and I hope that Kimberly and I will be able to contribute to the JITT field by writing a paper that describes how to move from JITT quizzes to JITT lectures - a part of the JITT process that seems to lack publications.
Friday, January 18, 2008
Thursday, January 10, 2008
My English Teacher, the Anti-Christ
Before a new semester gets underway, I thought that I would share this story from last semester.
Due to a teacher shortage, I got stuck with a double-section of our upper-level writing class. Normal class sizes were maxed out to the highest that I had seen in our Center in the few years that I worked there, and here I ended up with a double-section. Although I had taught larger class sizes than this before (in China), I had never taught writing to such a large group. I thought I was going to fail miserably.
I suppose that it did no help that I am trying to build a reputation as the meanest teacher in the whole Center (fueled only by my pronouncements to my class that I am the meanest teacher in the whole Center). It is possible that some students actually believe this declaration, but as the semester wore on, it became apparent that few (if any) put an credence in this statement. However, by wonders of wonders, I may have actually convinced a single student.
In my course evaluations, I got the usual teacher feedback (helpful, prepared, organized) along with the usual course feedback (relevant material, writing is important but hard, good preparation for university, I think this class is too big). So no surprises, but I did enjoy the comments from one student:
This teacher has no Christ-like attributes. He is no caring, kind, patient. He is cold-hearted person.
Not to make light of this student's apparent pain (nor to make fun of his grammar), but I admit that I smiled - and even chuckled - when I read this. As I completed reading the evaluations, another interesting comment came up.
On the first major paper the teacher gave me zero score and I was totally shocked and upset. Can you believe it? This is horrible teaching style.
Anyone want to wager a guess that the first and second comments came from the same student? Course evaluations are supposed to be anonymous, but when a student makes revealing comments such as these, it doesn't take much detective work to figure out that these comments were made by the student whom I warned about plagiarism in his draft (and who sent me a rude email explaining that he had never been so insulted in his life and to whom I responded calming and kindly even though I was more than a little angry at his rude email and whom I invited to meet with me but who never came and who then quickly shut up when I explicitly and privately showed him the plagiarism in class), and then who did little to fix the plagiarism and as a result got a zero score just like I had warned him repeatedly.
So what do we learn from this story?
If you persist with plagiarism, your teacher is the Anti-Christ.
I think that is a good moral. Can't wait for a new semester of writing students. I'll share this story and maybe, finally, students will believe it when I tell them that I am the meanest teacher in the Center. After all, I have a student's testimony.
Due to a teacher shortage, I got stuck with a double-section of our upper-level writing class. Normal class sizes were maxed out to the highest that I had seen in our Center in the few years that I worked there, and here I ended up with a double-section. Although I had taught larger class sizes than this before (in China), I had never taught writing to such a large group. I thought I was going to fail miserably.
I suppose that it did no help that I am trying to build a reputation as the meanest teacher in the whole Center (fueled only by my pronouncements to my class that I am the meanest teacher in the whole Center). It is possible that some students actually believe this declaration, but as the semester wore on, it became apparent that few (if any) put an credence in this statement. However, by wonders of wonders, I may have actually convinced a single student.
In my course evaluations, I got the usual teacher feedback (helpful, prepared, organized) along with the usual course feedback (relevant material, writing is important but hard, good preparation for university, I think this class is too big). So no surprises, but I did enjoy the comments from one student:
This teacher has no Christ-like attributes. He is no caring, kind, patient. He is cold-hearted person.
Not to make light of this student's apparent pain (nor to make fun of his grammar), but I admit that I smiled - and even chuckled - when I read this. As I completed reading the evaluations, another interesting comment came up.
On the first major paper the teacher gave me zero score and I was totally shocked and upset. Can you believe it? This is horrible teaching style.
Anyone want to wager a guess that the first and second comments came from the same student? Course evaluations are supposed to be anonymous, but when a student makes revealing comments such as these, it doesn't take much detective work to figure out that these comments were made by the student whom I warned about plagiarism in his draft (and who sent me a rude email explaining that he had never been so insulted in his life and to whom I responded calming and kindly even though I was more than a little angry at his rude email and whom I invited to meet with me but who never came and who then quickly shut up when I explicitly and privately showed him the plagiarism in class), and then who did little to fix the plagiarism and as a result got a zero score just like I had warned him repeatedly.
So what do we learn from this story?
If you persist with plagiarism, your teacher is the Anti-Christ.
I think that is a good moral. Can't wait for a new semester of writing students. I'll share this story and maybe, finally, students will believe it when I tell them that I am the meanest teacher in the Center. After all, I have a student's testimony.
Monday, January 7, 2008
A break from taking a break
I used to be a regular blogger, but perhaps the challenge of full-time work and full-time studies has overridden my blogging discipline. Or maybe I've nothing new to blog about since I essentially work in the same place I did when I was an MA student, and I have gone back to school taking similar kinds of classes that I did when I was an MA student. Academically, I might not have anything new to add right now.
However, this new semester, I am teaching a new class: educational psychology. I am certainly not an expert in this field, but I do have a lot of experience with teaching, and I have taken classes in educational psychology, and I did get hired for the job, after all. So I guess that I'll be fine. It helps that Kimberly and I will both be teaching sections of this course, so we share ideas and plan together. I'm sure that if I get stuck with something, she'll help me out.
I'm also continuing to send off job applications. Although I do not intend to get hired this year, the process of applying has helped me to update my CV, find references, and, most recently, to write a statement of teaching philosophy. I had written a teaching philosophy a few years ago when I first started grad school (as an assignment for a course), but I misplaced it, and I figured it was time to reflect on these past few years of teaching and how I feel about it. It's hard to put all of that experience down on a couple pages of writing, but I suppose I captured the main essence of how I feel about teaching. In any case, it has helped me to self-reflect as I start a new semester with new groups of students.
However, this new semester, I am teaching a new class: educational psychology. I am certainly not an expert in this field, but I do have a lot of experience with teaching, and I have taken classes in educational psychology, and I did get hired for the job, after all. So I guess that I'll be fine. It helps that Kimberly and I will both be teaching sections of this course, so we share ideas and plan together. I'm sure that if I get stuck with something, she'll help me out.
I'm also continuing to send off job applications. Although I do not intend to get hired this year, the process of applying has helped me to update my CV, find references, and, most recently, to write a statement of teaching philosophy. I had written a teaching philosophy a few years ago when I first started grad school (as an assignment for a course), but I misplaced it, and I figured it was time to reflect on these past few years of teaching and how I feel about it. It's hard to put all of that experience down on a couple pages of writing, but I suppose I captured the main essence of how I feel about teaching. In any case, it has helped me to self-reflect as I start a new semester with new groups of students.
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
Responding to the counteragument using academic templates
"I know what to do, but I just don't know how to do it." A common frustration in any writing class.
In these last few weeks of the semester, my upper-level writing class and I writing argumentative research papers. This assignment is pushing them to exercise new skills such as developing their own organizational outline, and encouraging them to respond to critics of their own positions.
I say "we" because I am doing this along with my students. In conjunction with the L2WRG (Second Language Writing Research Group), a few other researchers and I are "responding" to a recent debate in error correction. As my class and I discuss how to respond to research, it means as much to them as it does to me.
So how does an instructor teach how to write an argumentative research paper? Good question, and I wish I knew; this university - for all the emphasis that it places on writing - offers few courses on the teaching of writing. But despite my lack of training, I have done my best to pick up writing-pedagogy professional development opportunities. One such opportunity was a Writing Matters Seminar (sponsored by the university writing initiative) with a guest speaker who recently wrote the "They Say, I Say" composition help book.
"They Say, I Say" is based on the premise that new university students need to learn the language of academic English. Rather than simply expect students to learn this language implicitly, the authors suggest that university instructors need to raise students' awareness of these phrases and forms in order to facilitate this type of "language acquisition."
Although this book is intended for native speakers of English, it is even more relevant in our ESL class. If natiev speakers struggle to know how to put academic ideas into academic words,
then it is even more imperative that ESL students be explicitly taught these phrases of academic language.
The book offers templates for phrases and their functions, but the book does not explain how to teach them. So I'm trying to figure this out.
There are a few techniques I have used to teach phrases/vocabulary.
In these last few weeks of the semester, my upper-level writing class and I writing argumentative research papers. This assignment is pushing them to exercise new skills such as developing their own organizational outline, and encouraging them to respond to critics of their own positions.
I say "we" because I am doing this along with my students. In conjunction with the L2WRG (Second Language Writing Research Group), a few other researchers and I are "responding" to a recent debate in error correction. As my class and I discuss how to respond to research, it means as much to them as it does to me.
So how does an instructor teach how to write an argumentative research paper? Good question, and I wish I knew; this university - for all the emphasis that it places on writing - offers few courses on the teaching of writing. But despite my lack of training, I have done my best to pick up writing-pedagogy professional development opportunities. One such opportunity was a Writing Matters Seminar (sponsored by the university writing initiative) with a guest speaker who recently wrote the "They Say, I Say" composition help book.
"They Say, I Say" is based on the premise that new university students need to learn the language of academic English. Rather than simply expect students to learn this language implicitly, the authors suggest that university instructors need to raise students' awareness of these phrases and forms in order to facilitate this type of "language acquisition."
Although this book is intended for native speakers of English, it is even more relevant in our ESL class. If natiev speakers struggle to know how to put academic ideas into academic words,
then it is even more imperative that ESL students be explicitly taught these phrases of academic language.
The book offers templates for phrases and their functions, but the book does not explain how to teach them. So I'm trying to figure this out.
There are a few techniques I have used to teach phrases/vocabulary.
- Allow students play vocabulary games with partners using the AWL (Academic Word List)
- Require the use of AWL words in their essays (a portion of their grade is tied to this)
- Model, show examples, and encourage practice with academic phrases in a lecture format
Monday, November 19, 2007
Vocabulary Measures
Because I plan to have some type of linguistic measurement as part of my validation study, I have been reading about types of language statistics. The most recent is a study by Batia Laufer and Paul Nation.
Laufer, B., & Nation, P. (1995). Vocabulary size and use: Lexical richness in L2 written production. Applied Linguistics, 16, 307-322.
I am not familiar with Laufer, but I most certainly have heard about Nation. He is the man behind the Academic Word List (AWL), and list of commonly used words in university writing. We use the AWL at our center to help our students improve their reading and writing of academic texts.
This study appears to be pre-AWL since Laufer and Nation make no reference to it, and instead refer to the general service list and other university word lists. I imagine that the AWL was created not long after this study, since the inklings of the AWL are emanating from this work.
The primary focus of the study is an argument in favor of a new kind of vocabulary measure: the Lexical Frequency Profile. Although I don't exactly buy the LFP bid (the explanation of its use was verbose and confusing), I did appreciate the succinct discussion of existing measures of vocabulary use. In a matter of about 2 pages, Laufer and Nation clearly explain the pros and cons to several commonly used lexical measures. Even if I didn't get much out of the rest of the paper, I enjoyed their assessment of these measures.
The question is raises for me is: what linguistic measures will I use in my study? Almost certainly I would like to have at least one lexical measure, and hopefully this study will help me to explain and justify my decision.
Laufer, B., & Nation, P. (1995). Vocabulary size and use: Lexical richness in L2 written production. Applied Linguistics, 16, 307-322.
I am not familiar with Laufer, but I most certainly have heard about Nation. He is the man behind the Academic Word List (AWL), and list of commonly used words in university writing. We use the AWL at our center to help our students improve their reading and writing of academic texts.
This study appears to be pre-AWL since Laufer and Nation make no reference to it, and instead refer to the general service list and other university word lists. I imagine that the AWL was created not long after this study, since the inklings of the AWL are emanating from this work.
The primary focus of the study is an argument in favor of a new kind of vocabulary measure: the Lexical Frequency Profile. Although I don't exactly buy the LFP bid (the explanation of its use was verbose and confusing), I did appreciate the succinct discussion of existing measures of vocabulary use. In a matter of about 2 pages, Laufer and Nation clearly explain the pros and cons to several commonly used lexical measures. Even if I didn't get much out of the rest of the paper, I enjoyed their assessment of these measures.
The question is raises for me is: what linguistic measures will I use in my study? Almost certainly I would like to have at least one lexical measure, and hopefully this study will help me to explain and justify my decision.
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Research Proposal Draft 1
I finished a draft of my dissertation research proposal yesterday and took it by the department to show it to potential committee members. I was well received and everyone agreed to look it over with the promise that I would check back with them later in the week. And that started today.
I met with the potential chair of the committee, whose first comment was, “Do you remember what advice I give to anyone who attempts to do a validity study for a dissertation?”
Of course I knew. The answer is, “Don’t do it.”
“It’s not that I think that validity studies are a bad idea; they are very important and should be done,” he said. “Just not as dissertations.”
“Why exactly is that?” I asked.
“They are complicated and intensive. It’s hard to get it done.” Which I knew. I recognize it. In fact, as I explained to him, I have already done the lit review and collected the data of for a study that might work in place of this validity one. It would be an easy route. But I’ve already done it.
The integrated skills study needs to be done. It is complicated, but it’s real. I’d rather do something that is needed than something that it easy. So, yes, in other words, I am crazy and stupid.
In our conversation, this professor and I discussed my proposal and how I can limit/focus my efforts while still maintaining the multi-faceted approach of a good validation study.
The next step is to flesh out specific research questions, a solid literature review, and a clear methods section (including all proposed analyses). If I can get that done by January, I think that I will be in a good position to still do this complicated study while aiming for a realistic graduation timeline.
I met with the potential chair of the committee, whose first comment was, “Do you remember what advice I give to anyone who attempts to do a validity study for a dissertation?”
Of course I knew. The answer is, “Don’t do it.”
“It’s not that I think that validity studies are a bad idea; they are very important and should be done,” he said. “Just not as dissertations.”
“Why exactly is that?” I asked.
“They are complicated and intensive. It’s hard to get it done.” Which I knew. I recognize it. In fact, as I explained to him, I have already done the lit review and collected the data of for a study that might work in place of this validity one. It would be an easy route. But I’ve already done it.
The integrated skills study needs to be done. It is complicated, but it’s real. I’d rather do something that is needed than something that it easy. So, yes, in other words, I am crazy and stupid.
In our conversation, this professor and I discussed my proposal and how I can limit/focus my efforts while still maintaining the multi-faceted approach of a good validation study.
The next step is to flesh out specific research questions, a solid literature review, and a clear methods section (including all proposed analyses). If I can get that done by January, I think that I will be in a good position to still do this complicated study while aiming for a realistic graduation timeline.
Saturday, November 10, 2007
Language acquisition as construction refinement
Nick Ellis, a linguist from UMich, has been on campus this week discussing his theories of second language acquisition (L2A) and I was finally able to attend a session Friday afternoon. Although I would have preferred to attend an earlier session in which he discussed the need for an Academic Phrase List (in addition to Paul Nation's Academic Word List), I found his linguistically-heavy discussion of L2A theories fairly interesting. Although I have only ever skimmed the surface of L2A theories (I took my graduate course in L2A during my first summer semester of grad school), I was still able to follow some of it while I sat near the back and worked on my laptop.
As I listened, it seemed like Ellis's theories of L2A validate my teaching approach. From what I understand, it appears that Ellis is claiming that L2A is less about learning rules than it is about noticing and refining phrases (aka constructions). This is what I have been trying to get my more advanced levels to do. They frequently ask me to give them rules about language - and I try whenever possible - but the truth is that many of their questions cannot be answered by rules. Language isn't really a collection of rules, as much as grammarians would lead us to believe. Instead, language is rules by usage, not grammar. If students want answers about complex language, a rule book will not help them.
I answer these questions with corpus research. I show students that seeing how language is used is the best way for them to build and refine their own constructions of English. The easiest way to do this is to type an example phrase into a corpus viewer (such as Mark Davies's viewer). Even better, I encourage them to pay attention to constructions as they read and listen to authentic academic material. Of course students don't like this method because it takes more work, but in truth this is how I learned academic language, and this is how all native speakers learn language: noticing and refining constructions based on reading and listening.
Yet, as I came to this conclusion, a part of me questioned whether Ellis really was supporting my theory of learning, or whether I was interpreting his lecture in order to justify my own approach. Either way, I'll share my thoughts with my students next week and see what they think.
So what was I working on during the lecture? I was trying to finish the integrated writing tasks for this semester's final exams. I had written Level 1-4 earlier in the day, but due to the second language writing research group (L2WRG) meeting I had to put Level 5 on hold. So when a group of us moved directly from L2WRG to the Ellis lecture, I opened my laptop and wrapped up. Even though there was no internet access in the basement, I had taken enough notes on the selected exam prompt topic that I was able to write the reading passage without the source text. And as I wrote, I couldn't help but realize that everything that I was writing was, in fact, a series of constructions that I had learned exactly as Ellis explained it.
As I listened, it seemed like Ellis's theories of L2A validate my teaching approach. From what I understand, it appears that Ellis is claiming that L2A is less about learning rules than it is about noticing and refining phrases (aka constructions). This is what I have been trying to get my more advanced levels to do. They frequently ask me to give them rules about language - and I try whenever possible - but the truth is that many of their questions cannot be answered by rules. Language isn't really a collection of rules, as much as grammarians would lead us to believe. Instead, language is rules by usage, not grammar. If students want answers about complex language, a rule book will not help them.
I answer these questions with corpus research. I show students that seeing how language is used is the best way for them to build and refine their own constructions of English. The easiest way to do this is to type an example phrase into a corpus viewer (such as Mark Davies's viewer). Even better, I encourage them to pay attention to constructions as they read and listen to authentic academic material. Of course students don't like this method because it takes more work, but in truth this is how I learned academic language, and this is how all native speakers learn language: noticing and refining constructions based on reading and listening.
Yet, as I came to this conclusion, a part of me questioned whether Ellis really was supporting my theory of learning, or whether I was interpreting his lecture in order to justify my own approach. Either way, I'll share my thoughts with my students next week and see what they think.
So what was I working on during the lecture? I was trying to finish the integrated writing tasks for this semester's final exams. I had written Level 1-4 earlier in the day, but due to the second language writing research group (L2WRG) meeting I had to put Level 5 on hold. So when a group of us moved directly from L2WRG to the Ellis lecture, I opened my laptop and wrapped up. Even though there was no internet access in the basement, I had taken enough notes on the selected exam prompt topic that I was able to write the reading passage without the source text. And as I wrote, I couldn't help but realize that everything that I was writing was, in fact, a series of constructions that I had learned exactly as Ellis explained it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)