If a teacher "flips" a course, obviously that teacher believes it is a useful thing to do. Rarely would a teacher go through the work to completely revamp a course without thinking it is to their students' benefit. But, what do students think?
Personally, I received an overwhelmingly positive response. Anecdotally, I had three students mention how much they liked being able to watch lectures at home, skipping ones they already knew, and reviewing areas of difficulty. Another students mentioned that he used the online lectures to review before tests, and the usage logs bear this out.
In addition, there were some great comments in the evaluations*. Some of those comments (the more instructive and exciting are listed below:
The Moodle videos that Matthew prepares for his students as a review are very helpful. Even if we miss a class we can understand them.
This teacher is really good. He do a lot of activities to practice all the topics and to involve all the students during the class.
I have had class of listening and speaking with Ms. Showman before in the last term, and I did not like so much, but I always notice your effort and interest in class. Now in Grammar and Writing I love his classes. Also it is important to say that his videos in moodle are SO helpful and great. I am learning grammar as never before. And he is so kind and patient with our questions. Your organization is amazing.
Of course, not every student connects well with a given method. Below is a criticism** of the method and, I suppose, me:
The teacher explain most of his ideas using Moodle website by uploading videos. I think it is better to explain the lecture materials inside the class, an that help us understand and ask some questions that could help us. I think the teacher try to escape from the questions that students could ask during the lecture. There is no interesting because there is no questions, ideas, and interactions during the lecture, and that because most of lecture materials that we study are online.
My reaction to this: I need to make the purpose of a flipped class even more explicit. Given that my class was questions-focused, given that I began every lesson by eliciting their questions, given that I assigned homework with the instruction that students were to write down any and all questions, I find it hard to believe that the student thinks I try to avoid questions and interactions.
That said, I know I can also make adjustments to make it clear that questions are not only welcome, but necessary to our class. I will need to be more explicit when explaining that the whole point of online lectures is to maximize time for questions and inquiries.
Onward we go!
* Evaluations are done anonymously and without course instructors present. ** Two administration aspects not related to flipped instruction were omitted.
Fayetteville, Arkansas. That's where I live now. That's where I will soon begin working. Teaching. Doing what I love to do.
At the zoo: playing, laughing, learning.
I haven't posted regularly over these past few weeks. Road trips to look for an apartment in Fayetteville, preparing to move from Texas, actually moving to Fayetteville, setting up a new home: it's been more than time consuming. I've honestly (ashamedly?) thought little about education over the past few weeks.
But perhaps that's not entirely true.
I do in fact think about education all the time. My sons', specifically. Not about where they will or won't go to school; not about whether we will or won't homeschool (though homeschooling is my present hope, if for no other reason than to ensure my sons learn Chinese from their mother). No, it's not their future, specifically, I'm thinking about, but rather their present. I think about what they're learning right now from me and from my wife.
What do I say to my children? How do I say it? What attitudes am I projecting, and what attitudes are they perceiving? What messages do my reactions send? What are they learning in my interactions with them? What are they learning as they observe me interacting with others? What are they acquiring, as if by osmosis, about good and evil, right and wrong, invaluable and valuable and worthless?
And what about our students? These same questions apply. We must not forget that while we desire students to learn the material of a given subject, be it mathematics, English, Chinese, or sciences, students inevitably learn about life through their teachers. What messages do our reactions send? What do our interactions demonstrate about our concern for them (or lack thereof), about their value, about what is good?
What messages do we want them to understand? Does our practice transmit those messages?
At the end of May I'll be in a classroom again. I'll be teaching again; formally, that is. By that time seven months will have passed since I was last in a classroom on a regular basis. I'm a bit nervous. Surely I'll be a bit rusty, and I may need to somewhat regain my "teacher legs" (legs that stand for 6+ hours a day). But there are so many things I'm looking forward to. Here are ten that I think of most often (in no particular order):
Smiling students
Unsmiling students
Working with other language professionals
Getting to know more than 100 new individuals
Hearing the accents of students from around the world
Learning about different cultures through my students
This is part three of my series examining various criteria the public, teachers, administrators, government officials and others seem to mention when answer this question: What is a good teacher?
There's no universal standard by which to define a good, let alone great, teacher. There are no universally agreed upon measures rubrics or checklists. Can we simply say we know a good teacher when I see one? We can but shouldn't
Today's topic hits a different note: Positive (or negative) student evaluations.
Are good teachers those whom the students like?
This seems like a good criterion. If students like a teacher, surely that teacher is doing a good job, right?
Maybe.
Obviously it would matter why the students like a specific teacher. Does the teacher inspire? Does the teacher excite the students about learning? Does the teacher transform what might be dull material into something students look forward to learning? Does the teacher help students exceed their own and other's expectations? Does the teacher help students feel successful and/or be successful? Do the students know this teacher cares about them?
Obviously these characteristics would be be excellent indications that students have identified a great teacher. However...
Does the teacher give little homework? Are the teacher's tests easy? Does the teacher teach a blow-off course? Does the teacher show videos and movies that entertain the students but may do little to educate them? Does the teacher
How did students evaluate the teacher? Were surveys given? Were interviews done? Were responses anonymous or not? Where responses confidential, or were students being "supervised"? Were the evaluation tools accurate? Did the tools ask the questions that got to the root of why students liked or disliked a teacher?
Can we assume that the students (as a whole) evaluate well? Were tehy reading questions carefully? Were they putting thought into their responses? Were they rushing through checking boxes just to finish? Were they vindictive after the teacher called them out or challenged them more than they'd otherwise prefer? Student may have felt they learned a lot, but can they be sure they actually did (see p. 61)? Could students confuse teaching ability with their own enthusiasm or distaste for the subject matter?
All said, I do think there is great promise in students' evaluations of teachers. But there are some major concerns along the way.
I've been completing the lessons from Think101x: The of Everyday Thinking from edX. I've also been reading through the suggested textbooks: How we know what isn't so by Thomas Gilovich and Thinking, fast and slow by Daniel Kahneman. I've just finished the coursework and readings for week 3. There is so much to process; it's really quite astounding in every regard.
However, three recommended additional video posts (TED talks) have got me thinking about the concept of happiness and how schools do or do not or could help students' happiness. Perhaps it sticks in my minds because my 7-year-old nephew remarked Sunday that he hated school.
Below are the Think101x recommended extra video posts:
TED Talk by Dan Gilbert on The surprising science of happiness: "66% of the students choose to be in the course in which they will ultimately be deeply dissatisfied... because they do no know the conditions under which synthetic happiness grows."
TED Talk by Daniel Kahneman on The riddle of experience: "We really should not think of happiness as a substitute for well-being; it is a completely different notion."
TED Talk by Dan Ariely who asks, "Are we in control of our own decisions?": "The option that was useless in the middle was useless in the sense that nobody wanted it, but it wasn't useless in the sense that it helped people figure out what they wanted."
I'm not sure whether it's the educator in me or sheer curiosity, but theses are some of the questions that began to come to mind as I watched these videos and as they connected with the ideas already in my mind from the readings and Think101x course content:
How can students understand that getting what one wants is not a determinant of happiness?
Does giving students more options and more choices actually decrease their happiness?
Would students make better food choices and be happier with them if their options were reduced?
Should we not allow people to change their minds? Should we make more decisions irreversible?
Could lessons be rewritten or redesigned or reorganized in such a way that students remember the lesson in a more positive light and are, thus, happier with their lessons?
Do we tell students to do what makes them happy or teach them to do the things that will statistically lead to greater happiness, regardless of what they believe about the future?
What implications does Ariely's discussion of organ donation have on the way we design exam questions, seek volunteers, etc.?
Are students and teachers (regardless of what they say they think) more comfortable when decisions are made for them?
How often do policy makers and curriculum designers choose more extreme positions simply due to having too many choices?
Feel free to chime with any of your thoughts. And check out Think101x!
I continue to think through two questions I first posed last week: How well do Chinese students adjust to university life in the US? What do they feel about their experiences?
Students also cited barriers between themselves and American students when they were asked to work in groups for class. They frequently reported that the first few times participating in the group was a stressful experience for them, as their American classmates often criticized their English, so some students thought that American classmates did not believe they added value to group projects, which ultimately made it difficult for them to participate actively. One student explained that it wasn’t only his classmates who treated him differently but also his professors. He said, “I see the professors joking with the American students all the time. But they never joke with me before or after class. They ask me where I am from, and when I say China they say okay, and that’s the end of the conversation.”
There are some disappointing aspects going on here.
Observation: If true...
If it is true that Chinese are being selectively ignored or marginalized by professors, that's a fairly damning critique.
If American students are unfairly criticizing Chinese students' English and are simply unwilling to work with them, that too is a sad state of affairs.
Questions: What else could be going on here?
Could there be other ways to look at this?
Though I have known many Chinese with excellent English, I have also know many Chinese who just want to "go abroad" and don't want to "waste time" improving their English, so long as they can pass the IELTS or TOEFL and be accepted by a university. Could some students' (and perhaps their families') impatience result in having English abilities that contribute to these criticisms?
Did the American students really think the Chinese students didn't add value or was is merely the Chinese students' perception?
Given the nature of collectivist society, and the fact that it's more important to look after each member of the group than it is to make sure each person contributes well or equally, could the Chinese students have been ill-prepared for the demands of individualist society group work?
“I see the professors joking with the American students all the time." Really? All the time? I also wonder who initiates these joking conversations? Do the American students initiate or do the professors? Also, given that humor often doesn't translate well across languages and cultures, is it possible that neither the professors nor the students know how to joke with each other? Rather than disliking the Chinese students, could professors be avoiding such interaction out of the embarrassment or the discomfort of not knowing how to interact with them?
Final Comments
Some of the aspects noted here remind me of why I advise most Chinese students to enroll on preparatory programs before studying in the US or UK. I don't mean language preparation only, but rather programs than include courses in mathematics, economics, sciences, etc. I believe that except for a few students who have excellent English and fairly advanced social skills, the benefits of such programs far outweigh the benefits of getting abroad quickly.
Programs such as USPP and IFY (both Kaplan China programs for which I've worked) and others engage students in fairly rigorous academic work while also helping students learn the study habits and interactional requirements of US and/or UK educational culture. And it's all done in English. I'm a strong advocate of such programs. It's also why I suggest that US universities foster more relationships with these types of programs, rather than focusing on agents alone.
How well do Chinese students adjust to university life in the US? What do they feel about their experiences? In 2012 or 2013, research was done at Indiana University with regards to Chinese students and their levels of integration into campus life. The research, done my Mollie Dollinger, was summarized in an article entitled "Survey of Chinese Students at Indiana University Reveals Challenges of Integration" on TeaLeafNation.
The article is already a bit dated, being from July 2013, but it is still quite relevant. I'd like to take a few days to make observations from the article and ask some questions.
"According to this survey, Chinese students confirmed that many have few or no American friends and are often unaware of campus life activities such as sporting events or extracurricular clubs. Instead, the surveyed Chinese students often reported spending their free time involved in Chinese Student associations or Chinese Christian events."
Observation #1
Having few or no American friends and being unaware of campus activities may be interrelated. That is, being unaware of campus activities would likely lead to fewer friends.
I'm not sure how many Chinese students realize that the onus is on them to be aware of activities and clubs and such. Unlike China, where activities are often announced and promoted by head teachers or department heads or both, where activities are often done as a class and organized by the class monitor, being completely responsible for their own social life is something for which many Chinese students are not prepared.
Observation #2
Spending most free time with Chinese student groups would likewise lead to fewer interactions with American students.
It obviously more comfortable for people to spend time with others who have the same general habits, worldviews, and ways of doing relationships. People have to be intentional.
My wife is a homemaker. She doesn't have the rich opportunities to meet people that university students are blessed to have. Yet she's meeting people. She attends a local mothers group. She meets people at the library during kids reading time. She's been invited to and attended a women's retreat. She doesn't expect that people will do things like they do in China. She spends a lot of time asking questions and learning to enjoy how American women do things. If she, a mother of two children, a woman who is not yet able to drive in the US, a woman who spends most of her time at home can meet other woman and form productive enjoyable relationships in three months, surely students on university campuses can as well.
Questions
What can the international student services (ISS) do to better keep international students informed and aware of campus events, clubs, etc.?
What can ISS or teachers do to better prepare Chinese students about how to take more responsibility for their own social lives and to generally help them understand the social scene on US campuses (and how it differs from the social scene of Chinese campuses)?
What if anything can be done to help Chinese students step out and learn to enjoy how things are done in the US, rather than focusing on Chinese student groups?
Could more extensive training in cross-cultural skills (e.g. learning to ask questions and be a learner in social situations) be of value to these Chinese students in the US?
(Below is a highly condensed version of a longer draft article)
Another comment complaints about Chinese students in the US is that they only care about grades. That is, they don't really value learning or contributing to classes or campus, unless it factors into their grades. Again variations of this complaint abound online in articles and posts from sites such as The Chronicle of Higher Education, Danwei, and China Law Blog. Again I want to look into the fairness of this complaint.
As with previous post, it is unfair to point fingers at Chinese student or any other international student group for caring too much about grades and too little about learning. I personally have always cared deeply about learning, but in my time at university plenty of US students demonstrated ambivalence toward learning. Students regularly handed in papers devoid of actual research or studiousness. Many never read professors comments, looking only at the score. Students asked, "How can I improve my score?" and I always thought to myself, "Spend more time hitting the books." Concern about grades is not limited to international students.
However, there are several factors that do, in fact, contribute to Chinese students focusing on grades, and in some cases not about the learning, at least not in the American sense of the word. These factors include an exam-focused education system, a relationship-based (more than merit-based) society, and a culture of "face".
It's no secret that the Chinese education system is exam based. People underestimate, however, the effect this can have on many students. Students' academic careers, from elementary school through university, are determined by the results of exams. By and large, these exams test students ability to regurgitate facts and plug numbers into formulas. Whether students understand or not is often irrelevant. In such an environment, grades are paramount, and most understand grades to be the sole determinant of whether learning has occurred. Such a mindset does not change simply because one has entered a US university.
Getting jobs and promotions in China is often more about who you know than about what you know or what you can do. Although few might say it, there is a glum recognition that no matter how hard one studies or how much on learns, it simply may not matter. So, why try? If you need is the document for legitimization (a degree, a transcript, etc.), but the important thing knowing the right people, why not cheat? Why not find someone to take the test for you? You'd be better off cultivating relationships than acquiring knowledge.
Face is an oft-mentioned aspect of Chinese culture (as well as of Japanese and Korean culture). For Chinese, in practice, face often comes down to not only being a winner, but also looking the part, hence the uniquely Chinese penchant for ostentatious luxury goods. Today, many schools still make students' scores public, from the the top students to the bottom. Universities select students with the top exam scores (or those whose parents have good connections). Employers seek students with the top scores, regardless of actual ability, experiences, or societal engagement. Chinese students in the US who plan to go back to China know this and act accordingly; appearances matter.
This is an incredibly condensed description, and the topic truly deserves a much more nuanced discussion. Nevertheless, I hope it has been helpful.
Why do you think US students complain about Chinese students' focus on grades?
If you believe it is a legitimate complaint, why do you think Chinese focus so much on scores, even at the expense of learning (in the US sense)?
Since I've been back in the US, there has been one television/hulu advertisement in particular that has caused me to feel progressively more uncomfortable. I've struggled to put into words exactly how or why it makes me uncomfortable, but this post is my attempt to do so. See the advertisement below:
From the outset, let me clarify that I am in no way an enemy of using technology, especially to educate. Obviously I blog. I have used youtube, but my education-focused vlog is on tudou (土豆网), a Chinese service that is inexplicable slow in the US. I have my own website, wherein I describe a myriad of other computer-based technologies I use or have used in my teaching career. I'm currently playing with Language Cloud, trying to determine its overall usefulness for language teaching in general and in different contexts.
I also use technology to learn. I took a online course from Iowa State University back in 2002, in the early years of online learning. It was self-paced, which meant I finished the January-May course during the second week of March. (That's just how I tend to work.) Later as a grad student in a field-based TESOL program, much peer collaboration was done online. An iPod was a crucial piece of technology while studying Chinese, both for purchased and self-produced mp3s, and I still use my computer and cell phone to tune in to Chinese radio. Even now I'm and trying to decide whether to enroll in one or more Coursura courses (Coaching Teachers, Student Thinking at the Core, Blended Learning) or edX courses (Intro to Computer Science, Effective Thinking Through Math, The Science of Everyday Thinking, China).
Despite my clear belief in the potential usefulness of computer technology to educate, I would describe myself as technologically cautious. Perhaps to use a phrasing with more positive connotation, I could describe my approach to technology integration as research-based. Simply put, technology is not a educational savior, and even if used well, it could harm more than help student learning and achievement, especially in the primary and secondary school years, as it is during these years that students acquire so many fundamental skills.
To get back to the original purpose of this post, I think there are three main reasons why this Surface tablet advertisement makes me uncomfortable.
#1 Fatalism
"Change is coming" remarks the teacher (an actor, I assume). He continues, saying, "All my students have the brand new Surface." He makes this seem so inevitable, as if there really is no choice. Because all the students have the tablet (What kind of school is this?), he feels he must utilize them. Wisdom is not something that young people are known for; wisdom requires age and experience. Just because student have them and like them, does that mean they make for good education? It seems unwise to make pedagogical decisions based on what students due primarily for fun, status, etc.
Daphne Koller has remarked, "Now, this is something that to the people of my generation is still a bit foreign, but if you talk to the kids of today, they actually prefer to text each other than to talk to each other on the phone or even get together for coffee"(1). It may be preferred, but is it a healthy preference? Is it an educationally, academically sound preference? These are huge assumptions that should not be made.
Change is coming, without a doubt, and both schools and teachers must adapt. But to adapt, must they inevitably adopt what may not be in the students' educational best interests? For better or worse, some parents working in high tech companies such as Apple and Google disagree with this inevitability, sending their children to school without computers (2). Again, I'm not saying the technology should not be used, but fatalism is the enemy of best practice.
#2 Overemphasis on entertainment
Granted, the teacher says nothing about students playing games or using Skype in school, but by juxtaposing the social networking and gaming aspects alongside the school aspects, the advertisement tries to tap into the prevailing societal idea that people should be continuously entertained, even at school. It feeds the currently popular notion that people shouldn't have to do things that aren't fun, so if school is not entertaining, school is bad. That whole idea is absolutely absurd.
I'm not anti-fun, though I admit that my achiever orientation does sometimes lead to anti-entertainment ideas. I try to make my lessons interesting, engaging and, yes, fun. Nevertheless education and learning take work, and work is not usually fun in and of itself, though the final sense of satisfaction may be. Almost anything truly valuable takes effort or persistence or both, neither of which are inherently fun. This advertisement makes me uncomfortable because it continues to blur the lines of reality by giving the impression that good education and deep learning can and should come easily and that students should be entertained.
#3 Bandwagon thinking
The teacher in the advertisement prefaces his comments with "Honestly, I'm a little old fashioned," immediately putting to rest the idea teachers with less technological aptitude could have equal or greater wisdom than those well versed in the latest tech fads. The worldview of the advertisement is revealed immediately: Youth and excitement rule; age and wisdom mean nothing.
Perhaps the most significant reason I am uncomfortable with this advertisement is that it continues to perpetuate the notion that computer and internet technology will and does improve education, a notion that has yet to be realized. There is a rampant belief that any tech is good tech. Since the dawn of television, technology advocates have assigned messiah-like promises to the potential of technology to transform education and facilitate learning. Education is continuing to be transformed; this is true. But is learning being facilitated? For all the spending that schools have done and are doing to upgrade computers and integrate technology, the sad fact is that achievement has not risen, and in some cases has fallen (3). Yet schools, parents, and obviously the tech companies continue to jump on the bandwagon, without evidence to support what everyone assumes (4): technology makes for better learning and better preparation.
That is not to say that the promises are empty. Online learning, mobile devices, and the like do have great potential to transform learning for the better, but at the moment it is merely that: potential. While there has been success with blended learning (also called hybrid learning)(5), these are mostly in areas such as math that have definite answers that lend themselves to adaptive learning. Perhaps as teachers become more skilled at using this technology, as Koller suggests, the true benefits of computer-assisted learning will truly be revealed. In areas such as reading skills development, however, the evidence is overwhelming on the anti-technology side (6). For now it behooves teachers, parents, students and all other stakeholders to reject the bandwagon and adopt a research-based, thoughtful, open-minded but cautious attitude toward the use of technology in the classroom.
As part of my transition into the U.S. job market, some grad school classmates (and fellow ESL colleagues) suggested I complete the Clifton StrengthsFinder assessment. Frankly, whenever I hear of assessments like this (e.g. Myers-Briggs), I’m always somewhat incredulous. I cannot help but think such assessments could not possibly be able to summarize the complexity that is a human personality. However, despite my ever-present skepticism, I’m consistently shocked by how accurate the results of these types of assessments seem to be. This time was no exception.
For those of you who are as unfamiliar with the assessment as I was, here is a brief description: “The Clifton StrengthsFinder measures the presence of 34 talent themes. Talents are people's naturally recurring patterns of thought, feeling, or behavior that can be productively applied. The more dominant a theme is in a person, the greater the theme's impact on that person's behavior and performance” (strengthtest).
After obtaining an access code, I went ahead with the assessment. When finished, I was presented with a personalized summary of my five most dominant strengths along with discussion of what the results mean. According to the the assessment, my top five talents are these:
Leaner
Achiever
Connectedness
Intellection
Input
I had not read through the 34 themes prior to taking the assessment, so these labels were a bit bewildering. In fact, when I first looked at the results, I thought numbers 1, 4 and 5 were essentially different sides of the same coin. The provided summaries were quite thorough, however, and as I’ve read through the materials and dialogued with those who understand the assessment well, I’ve started getting a better handle on what these mean and how they show up in my life. Just yesterday I replied to a post on Facebook and only afterwards noted that it was an excellent demonstration of connectedness.
I’ve tried to remember that these are “naturally recurring patterns of thought, feeling, or behavior.” These are essentially the ways that a person’s brain is unique and how that uniqueness allows different people to see the world differently, interact with the world differently and weave different colors into the tapestries of people’s lives. These are strengths to be tapped into, developed and expressed. I’m not yet sure how to use this awareness in my future teaching or other professional pursuits, but I’m on the journey.
I am also wondering what could happen if everyone could take this assessment. As a teacher, I want to help students discover their strengths, but I know I am limited in my own ability to personally uncover each student’s strengths, not to mention helping each student individually develop those strengths. I wonder what could happen if all students could take this assessment and receive greater insight into the strengths they already possess and could subsequently apply to their educational and career pursuits.
Imagine students not simply guessing about what they’re good at, but knowing. Imagine students thriving not because they try to do what everyone else does but because they tap into their own natural potentialities. Imagine students gaining confidence not due to the blind blind, ignorant praise of self-esteem language but rather due to seeing their strengths emerge and bloom. It could be beautiful.
Of course this all assumes the assessment’s accuracy.
