Recently in Teaching Category

I think it was Stephen Turner (2007) who lamented that much sociological theory is uninformed by our contemporary understanding of neuroscience.

David Rock, in series of articles (2006, 2009) looks at leadership and management from the perspective of neuroscience. One particular section caught my eye, in which he writes about teams; the Relating to relatedness of the title.

Fruitful collaboration depends on healthy relationships, which require trust and empathy. But in the brain, the ability to feel trust and empathy about others is shaped by whether they are perceived to be part of the same social group.... Each time a person meets someone new, the brain automatically makes quick friend-or-foe distinctions and then experiences the friends and foes in ways that are colored by those distinctions. When the new person is perceived as different, the information travels along neural pathways that are associated with uncomfortable feelings (different from the neural pathways triggered by people who are perceived as similar to oneself).

Leaders who understand this phenomenon will find many ways to apply it in business. For example, teams of diverse people cannot be thrown together. They must be deliberately put together in a way that minimizes the potential for threat responses. Trust cannot be assumed or mandated, nor can empathy or even goodwill be compelled. These qualities develop only when people's brains start to recognize former strangers as friends. This requires time and repeated social interaction.

Once people make a stronger social connection, their brains begin to secrete a hormone called oxytocin in one another's presence. This chemical ... disarms the threat response and further activates the neural networks that permit us to perceive someone as "just like us." Research by Michael Kosfeld et al. in 2005 shows that a shot of oxytocin delivered by means of a nasal spray decreases threat arousal. But so may a handshake and a shared glance over something funny.

Conversely, the human threat response is aroused when people feel cut off from social interaction.... Leaders who strive for inclusion and minimize situations in which people feel rejected create an environment that supports maximum performance. This of course raises a challenge for organizations:

This, of course, has implications for teaching, especially when teams are used (as in team-based learning). We have always known that how teams are put together is important, but this article gives us a more nuanced understanding. It also reminds me how important it is for teams to have some (structured) time to get to know one-another.

References

From Andrea James

a. Five conglomerates control 80% of textbook production.
b. They sell their product to distributors/retailers, who in turn sell them to bookstores (on and off campus, including internet).
c. Four wholesalers dominate textbook distribution, especially used books.
d. These four wholesalers operate about 1/3 of college bookstores. About 1/2 are university owned and operated, and the remaining 15% are independents.
e. If a new book costs $100, wholesalers typically buy it back for $15 to $25 and resell it for $50.

I knew that the retailers mark-up was about 100% (that is, from $50 to $100), but I was surprised at how much the wholesaler makes (from $15 to $50, that's over 300%. I doubt that the situation is that much different here in New Zealand.

In writing my piece on referencing, I just Googled 'apa referencing' and here are the first page of search results.

I was surprised by the results. First, I used google.co.nz instead of google.com (I normally use the later), and secondly the University of Auckland's referencing resource Referen©ite didn't feature at all on the first page.

I see:

• www.waikato.ac.nz
• www.aut.ac.nz
• www.fmhs.auckland.ac.nz
• library.ucol.ac.nz
• library.curtin.edu.au
• library.canterbury.ac.nz
• library.manukau.ac.nz
• www.southernoceansoftware.com
• owl.english.purdue.edu
• aut.ac.nz.libguides.com (again)

But there is no sign of Referen©cite. I wonder google doesn't refer to Referen©ite on the first page (that's a rhetorical question; I know how search engines rank sites).

The Chronicle of Higher Education led me to an interesting article on learning styles by Pashler, McDaniel, Rohrer, and Bjork (2009).

The summary of the article outlines the idea of learning styles:

The term ''learning styles'' refers to the concept that individuals differ in regard to what mode of instruction or study is most effective for them. Proponents of learning-style assessment contend that optimal instruction requires diagnosing individuals' learning style and tailoring instruction accordingly. Assessments of learning style typically ask people to evaluate what sort of information presentation they prefer (e.g., words versus pictures versus speech) and/or what kind of mental activity they find most engaging or congenial (e.g., analysis versus listening), although assessment instruments are extremely diverse. The most common--but not the only--hypothesis about the instructional relevance of learning styles is the meshing hypothesis, according to which instruction is best provided in a format that matches the preferences of the learner (e.g., for a ''visual learner,'' emphasizing visual presentation of information).

The learning-styles view has acquired great influence within the education field, and is frequently encountered at levels ranging from kindergarten to graduate school. There is a thriving industry devoted to publishing learning-styles tests and guidebooks for teachers, and many organizations offer professional development workshops for teachers and educators built around the concept of learning styles.

The article, commissioned by Psychological Science in the Public Interest, goes on to question what evidence there is to support these type of practices; i.e., is there evidence that attending to learning styles has a material impact on learning?

I think my first exposure to the notion of learning styles was through Darl Kolb who gave me David Kolb's (1976) classic article to read. One take-away I had from that article was, that although we might have preferences (in our style of learning) it is generally a good thing to be able to draw on all the styles. In particular Kolb (1976, p. 30) says "When one perspective [learning style] comes to dominate others, learning effectiveness is reduced in the long run. From this we can conclude that the most effective learning systems are those that can tolerate differences in perspective". For Kolb (1976) and for Pashler et al., (2009) there is clear--if not undisputed evidence--that people have preferences as to how they learn. The question remains as to how much those preferences should be accommodated in the educational process; is learning ineffective, or less effective if learning styles are not taken into consideration?

Having considered the evidence the conclusion Pashler et al., (2009) draw is that, generally, the nature of the content should determine the style of learning adopted. For example, the Chronicle of Higher Education describes how learning about the structure of molecules is better for most students (independent of learning styles) by building ball-and-stick models. Even those students who have a preference for verbal learning will do better if taught in this kinesthetic manner (rather that catering to their preference). The Chronicle says "teachers should worry about matching their instruction to the content they are teaching. Some concepts are best taught through hands-on work, some are best taught through lectures, and some are best taught through group discussions".

The fallacy that the authors seem to uncover is the argument that "student X didn't do well because the teaching didn't accommodate their particular learning style". If the learning style matches the content (rather than the students preference) then usually the student will do better.

Returning to Kolb (David not Darl), the Chronicle of Higher Education reports that he says:

that the paper's bottom line is probably correct: There is no strong evidence that teachers should tailor their instruction to their students' particular learning styles. (Mr. Kolb has argued for many years that college students are better off if they choose a major that fits their learning style. But his advice to teachers is that they should lead their classes through a full "learning cycle," without regard to their students' particular styles.)

So whither learning styles? For me, it means that the content should determine the means of teaching.

References

For sometime, the Instructions to examiners and assessors has said the following about group projects:

2 Group Projects
a The inclusion of any group project as part of the contribution to the final coursework percentage in a course should be restricted to relevant fields at higher levels.
b Assessment should be on an individual basis, wherever possible.
c Assessment criteria should be established and project supervisory staff should be able to assess individual contributions to the project.
d Each group working on a project should be of a limited size and not exceed a membership of four.
e Where marks allocated for group projects are part of the final percentage, such marks should not normally constitute more than 20% of the total marks for the course.

The new (2010) instructions takes a very different tack, saying:

2 Group Projects
a Group projects may contribute to the final coursework percentage awarded in a course.
b Assessment should be based on a combination of a group mark for the completed work and an individual mark for contribution to the process. The individual mark may come from peer or peer-moderated self-assessment.
c Assessment criteria should be established and cover both the output of the group project and the process by which it is produced, including the contribution of individuals.
d Each group working on a project should be of a limited size and not normally exceed a membership of four.

These changes have been signalled for some time. However, I think it worthwhile to highlight a few features of the new policy. First, the prohibition on groups of over four members has been considerably softened. Secondly, the limits on the amount of marks that can be allocated to group assignments has been removed. Finally, the use of peer-review or self-review to moderate group marks has been formally recognised. Of course, the University has allowed such practices in the past; but only on a case-by-case basis. Now, these very useful pedagogical tools more 'usable' for teaching staff.

As one who has used many of these techniques in my teaching, I think this policy change is a "very good thing".

Lisa Callagher, Andrew Eberhard, and I have been wrestling with how we can do some of the mechanics of peer-review in a more systematic/automated manner so that students can get timely and accurate feedback on how their peers see their performance. I hope we can get some tools in place before I teach again next semester.

Jo Badge talks a bit about her personal learning environment, and so I thought I'd draft out mine. I'm really web-centric and spend most of time 'in' Firefox (I sometimes think about switching to Chrome, but I'm hooked on Zotero).

I found it interesting to consider what is missing here ... there is no Powerpoint. I so rarely use 'slides'; often all I have is a single slide so students coming into class know they are in the right place. Increasingly, when I need slides I'm trying/learning to do them using Beamer. Having said that, for the odd complex set of ideas I do use MindManager in presentation mode to show how I see the connections between things.View image

Since writing this, I've come across Hull, Pettifer, and Kell (2008). They present an interesting figure, which seems to show how much I can actually do in Zotero (which is most of it).

Figure 4. A typical workflow for using a digital library representing a subset of the literature. Tasks represented by white nodes are normally performed exclusively by humans, while tasks shown in blue nodes can be performed wholly or partly by machines of some kind. The main problematic tasks that make digital libraries difficult to use for both machines and humans are ''GET'' (publication) and ''GET METADATA''. These are shown in bold and discussed further in the Identity Crisis section of this paper. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000204.g004

References

Jo Badge and Jon Scott have produced a very interesting paper entitled Dealing with plagiarism in the digital age.

In their concluding remarks, they argue that there is "little solid empirical evidence to show the effectiveness of these [plagiarism detection] tools in improving student practices". However, experience here is that the use of Turn It In makes a significant difference. I recall that a few years ago I did some pretty sound analysis of levels of plagiarism in MGMT 191/192 and in MGMT 101 and there was clear evidence of changes in behaviour ... as manifested in levels of plagiarism.

I do agree with Badge and Scott that the use of electronic detection tools are only a "first step" in addressing plagiarism. We (Lisa Callagher, Lynne Mitchelle, and I) developed a very good on-line tutorial (called AHA, Academic Honesty Assistance) that was used in MGMT 191/192 and MGMT 101 for many years. I think it was the combination of Turn It In and AHA that made the difference in the levels of plagiarism. Perhaps that is what Badge and Scott are meaning, it wasn't just the use of the detection tool that made the difference; it was the combination of factors.

As a something of an aside, Badge and Scott point out there is a CiteULike group of plagiarism articles. It contains many of the 'classics' to which I often refer, especially the Good practice guide from Oxford Brookes.

I've just finished reading Cathy Davidson's blog entry on crowdsourcing grades and her reflective followup on grading.

It's hard to believe that its been over two months since my post on A vision of students today . Well I have been somewhat pre-occupied with my thesis. Anyway, today I read Revisiting 'A Vision of Students Today' by Michael Wesch

It has re-invigorated me. I'm started to finalise my teaching outlines for MGMT 716, INTBUS 202, and BUSADMIN 768, and as I do so I am keen not to fall into the trap of making those classes high-tech information dumps.

No. What I hope to do is to help the students in my class to develop better judgement in the topics I am teaching (Extending software engineering, Foundations of strategy, and Strategic Management). In a practical sense, that means I have to find ways to connect those topics to real world concerns for the students. Only then, can I (and they) hope to break out of the "getting by" game can pervade students' experiences of University.

[Of course, there are big links here to my research topics, and in particular the notion of communities of practice]

I think for MGMT 716, Extending software engineering, the current structure of course will pretty much achieve those goals. Having students help real firms apply the Cambridge 'fast start' technology road mapping model, whilst working with senior management should be a recipe for success. Of course the devil is in the detail.

For INTBUS 202, Foundations of strategy, the move to Team-based learning has the potential to succeed in those goals. But, I need to spend a week or two sorting out the detailed structure--otherwise I'm likely to meet my first goal but not the second.

Probably, the biggest challenge (for me) is BUSADMIN 768. Traditionally, I would do this as a pure case course. However, I need to spend time considering how I connect it to the students real-world concerns. This is a similar problem to that with INTBUS 202--event though the teaching methodology is different (TBL vs. case-based teaching). Perhaps I should consider using TBL in both classes.

I was wondering if my students see the world in a similar way to these students ...