Reflections from the Classroom2012–13

Volume 15

Overview i Dan Bernstein

First Year Seminars: Laying the Foundations for a Career of Learning 1Robert Bayliss

Using Creative Writing to Engage Students in a General Education Course 4Stephen Johnson

Transforming a Traditional Lecture-based Course to Online and Hybrid Models 7of LearningSusan Marshall

Establishing Disciplinary Foundations with Discussion, Lecture and Writing 11Daniel Hirmas

Goldilocks and Hybridizing Statistics 14Jeffrey A. Hall

Shaping Graduate Students’ Methodologies and Professional Values through 18Dialogue, Writing and Group Projects Chad Kraus

A publication of the Center for Teaching ExcellenceEditor: Judy EddyUniversity of KansasBudig Hall1455 Jayhawk Blvd. #135Lawrence, KS 66045-7573Phone 785.864.4199 u cte@ku.edu u www.cte.ku.edu

This volume of Reflections chronicles recent developments at KU of engaged and active learning in awide range of classes. The body of work described by these skilled educators represents a pleasinglevel of maturity in the thinking of KU faculty members, having moved far beyond the forms ofteaching they experienced as students. These colleagues are creating the next generation of education-al experiences for students in their home fields, designing courses that incorporate modern tools andtechniques both for learning and for representing students’ intellectual discovery and understanding.

The work spans a range of students from first semester through masters degree studies, but in eachcase the goal is to produce nuanced and rich understanding by engaging students as active partici-pants in the development of their knowledge and skills. Rob Bayliss describes the broad programmat-ic goals of first year seminars, intended to prime the intellectual pumps of entering students. Bybringing students out of a passive mode of accepting predigested conclusions, the first year seminarsset a different expectation for both the process and the product of university education. StephenJohnson describes how assignment design enhanced a second year course in poetry, giving studentssmall but manageable challenges in critical analysis. The synthesis and integration of those frequentbits of writing helped students become confident writers at a larger scale of analysis.

Jeff Hall describes how he got useful ideas by reading the work of KU colleagues, as he worked tohelp students be better prepared for class time in a statistical methods course. Using video technologyhe was able to provide brief out-of-class tutorials that could make face-to-face class time more produc-tive. His reflection talks about the challenge of finding a way to have most students adopt the activestance of using the work as preparation for class. Susan Marshall offers a well-constructed comparisonof three forms of teaching the same cognitive psychology content. Her analysis of student learning inlecture, hybrid, and fully online versions of the same course reveals the benefits of both technology-aided preparation and face-to-face engagement in advanced thinking and problem solving.

Dan Hirmas reports on a wide ranging redesign of a course in soil science for geography majors.By having students write briefly about each reading, he helped them be better prepared to take onchallenging and counter-intuitive problems. He also used a series of small assignments to help stu-dents build up to a large final project, and as a result of successful learning he was able to bring allstudents to C level performance and above in this important foundational course. Chad Kraus alsocombined several ideas in revising a required masters-level course in architectural theory. He usedonline quizzes to help students know how well they understood readings, and he introduced group-based learning into the face-to-face time. He also added guided student review of each others’ draftsof an essay, and students produced high quality digital video projects instead of typical final papers.

All of these innovative faculty members came up with individual, coherent, and meaningful waysto help students become active and engaged learners. Some used a number of technological andonline tools, while others offered virtually digital-free classes. The tools were not the focus of theirplanning, nor were they the departure point in their thinking. These faculty members thought deeplyabout how to engage their students in the knowledge, skills, and understanding of their fields, andthen they used instructional designs that supported their teaching goals. When online resources werehelpful they were used, but only as needed. This issue presents a terrific view of the leading edge ofmature thinking about learning and teaching at KU. It bodes well for the continued growth of intellec-tual inquiry into teaching by faculty and further enhancement of deep learning by students. Theseessays suggest that it is a very good time to be a university faculty member.

Dan BernsteinCTE Director

Overview

i Reflections

Reflections 1

First Year Seminars:Laying the

Foundation for aCareer of Learning

Robert BaylissSpanish & Portuguese

It is generally agreed that aseducators we do well to pro-mote a culture of learning thatasks students to take responsi-bility for or to assume owner-ship of their own learning. Wegenerally understand thattoday’s college student hascome of age in a cultural climatewith significant epistemologicaldifferences from our own pre-millennial upbringing, and thatso far we have only scratchedthe surface of the potential of21st-century technology toenhance student learning. Butas educators at a public univer-sity in a state that regularlyfaces lawsuits over its constitu-tional duty to educate its K-12citizenry, we also experience aclassroom environment inwhich our student population isoften ill prepared to assumesuch ownership of its education;many of our students arrive atKU without the skills necessary

to learn actively. It is this criticaldisjuncture between studentlearning skills based on K-12preparation and student learn-ing needs in the 21st centurywhere the KU’s Office of FirstYear Experience and its pro-gram of First Year Seminarsseek to intervene.

“Disjuncture” seems to be anappropriate descriptor here,because students entering ouruniversity are active partici-pants in digital culture, but theyoften have not had to applythese participatory skills to theirformal education. Social mediaand the instant gratification ofcuriosity made possible bymobile devices mean that stu-dents today consume informa-tion less passively: the lexiconof the digital age—gaming, liking (as on Facebook), tweet-ing, blogging, etc.—demon-strates that even watching television in physical isolation

often incorporates highlyengaged modes of social inter-action. Another term,“googling,” suggests how thisdigital epistemology nowallows students to efficientlyfind immediate answers toobjective questions. The chal-lenge we face stems from thefact that this mode of engage-ment is not regularly associatedwith the university classroom,where students see their role asessentially passive, simplyabsorbing information present-ed to them. Whether weattribute this passivity to tradi-tional, lecture-based pedago-gies, to a poorly funded K-12system with a curriculumincreasingly driven by stan-dardized test scores, or to some-thing else, the fact remains thatour job is to produce graduateswho critically engage with howwe formulate and solve prob-lems, despite the fact that theyoften enter the university hop-ing to be told what it is thatthey’re supposed to learn andhow it is that they’re supposedto learn it.

The broader mission of theOffice of First Year Experience isto help students make a success-ful transition to KU, fromOrientation through the firstyear of enrollment; for themajority of traditional studentsthis implies a successful transi-tion from high school or junior

college to university life. In lightof the above discussion, we maysay in more specific terms thatthis mission involves the inte-gration of first-year studentsinto an academic climate ofactive learning, despite academ-ic expectations that ofteninvolve being passively educat-ed by the university. In particu-lar, the First Year Seminar program constitutes a downpayment on the broader institu-tional mission of producingactive-learning and critical-thinking graduates, by placing

new students in more directcontact with faculty and in moreintimate classroom settings thanare generally provided by thelarge, lecture-based introducto-ry courses traditionally populat-ed by freshmen.

As we reflect upon what wecan learn from the pilot semi-nars offered in Fall 2012,1 and aswe develop an expanded menuof course offerings for Fall 2013and beyond, our hope is to pro-vide an ever-increasing portionof incoming freshmen classes

with an academic experiencethat leaves them primed for acareer of active learning.

The fact that these seminarsare topics-driven according tothe strengths and intellectualinterests of the faculty whoteach them—a model chosen bythe First Year Seminar steeringcommittee after researchingsimilar programs at other insti-tutions—allows faculty todevelop and structure coursesthat best provide opportunitiesfor first-year students to experi-ence critical inquiry firsthand,

to see how active learning isdone from close proximityaccording to the specific disci-plinary parameters of the pro-fessor. While this cognitiveapprenticeship approach sup-ported a diverse array of courseofferings among the 11 pilotcourses offered, it was alsodeemed important for the FirstYear Seminar program to adhereto a set of common principlesand learning objectives thatwould in turn establish a com-mon identity and curricular

2 Reflections

The fact remains that our job is to produce graduateswho critically engage with how we formulate andsolve problems, despite the fact that they often enterthe university hoping to be told what it is that they’resupposed to learn and how it is that they’re supposedto learn it.

1Fall 2012 FYS topics were Beyond English: Is One Language Enough in Today's World?; Commerce Today: IsThis What Adam Smith Envisioned?; Drugs, Cars, Cops, and Social Justice; Innovations in Bioengineering; Fromthe Locomotive to the Smart Phone: Culture, Space, and Time in the Machine Age; Living in a Visual World;Once Upon a Time… Narrative, Culture, and Adaptation; Our Future Energy: Myths, Solutions, andSustainability; Remembering Our Past: How Memory Works and Why it Matters; The Seduction of Culture andWhat to Do About It; Why Do the Birds and Bees Do It?

function for the program. AllFYS courses will earn studentscredit toward the critical think-ing component of the KU Core,for example, and all of themhave privileged written commu-nication to the extent possiblewithin the parameters of thediscipline and course topic.

The implied goal of thesecommon FYS principles is, ineffect, active learning itself.Critical thinking implies thatstudent learning extendsbeyond the passive receipt ofinformation to the synthesis,evaluation, and assessment ofthe sources of that informationand the perspectives fromwhich it is offered; written com-munication implies developingthe ability to articulate one’scritical thought in writing.These are but two pieces of thelarger set of tools throughwhich FYS courses seek toengage first-year students in theactive pursuit of learning. Athird aspect, a capstone assign-ment, structures student workin a way that lays out a concreteend-of-semester product aboutwhich students are made awarefrom the beginning of thecourse; students are thusencouraged to consider how thelearning and understandingacquired during each class session may contribute to thislarger project and its implicitlearning objectives. Other com-monly used course enhance-ments across most FYS coursesincluded research workshopsprovided by KU Libraries (facil-itated by the FYS library liaisonJill Becker), guest speakers fromother fields or disciplines, incor-

poration of some (if not all) ofthe KU Common Book, and out-of-classroom experiences relatedto course content (includingLied Center performances, classmeetings at campus museumsand other facilities, and visits tooff-campus or “real world” sitesconnected to course content).For Fall 2013 we hope to add tothe FYS program a more holisticand inquiry-based approach toquestions of academic integrity.

What all of these elementsshare is the idea that by struc-turing student coursework so asto make it more explicitly con-nected to the broader education-al mission of the university, students will see the immediatevalue of taking responsibilityfor their own learning. As wecontinue to develop and refinethe program, we will assess theextent to which these and otherstrategies contributed to thebroader program goal of prim-ing first-year students for anacademic career that requirestheir active engagement.

To the extent that KUdemands of its students suchactive ownership of their ownlearning, the FYS program andother Office of First YearExperience initiatives hope tolay a strong foundational expe-rience for new students that willcontinue to resonate throughouttheir academic careers. Nowmore than ever, our studentsarrive with the raw ability toinvestigate, participate, and col-laborate in our contemporarydigital culture; our missionshould be to convert these socialskills into academic skills todrive critical inquiry, reflection,

and the active pursuit of knowl-edge. In a cultural climatewhere cost-benefit analyses andthe so-called “banking” mentali-ty of education (a student andhis family invest a givenamount of money and time withthe understanding that it willyield a commensurate productof market-ready career employ-ment skills) drive discussionsabout the value of higher educa-tion, such academic skills aremore necessary than ever. u

Reflections 3

Using Creative Writingto Engage Students

in a General Education Course

Stephen JohnsonEnglish

4 Reflections

All too easily instructors can blame students for lackluster perfor-mance — I have done so myself— and in part it is so easy becausewe do have those few students who can write essays we yearn for,essays with a pulse. Those student essayists always have andalways will grace our classrooms. Either they are exceptionallybright and capable or they are enthusiastic English majors, often-times both. While one, sometimes two, students out of 25 — I donot recall ever having three — are indeed English majors, the restcome from, well, everywhere else.

I redesigned my English 210:Introduction to Poetry coursefor everyone else from every-where else. This course is anoption for fulfilling the thirdand final requirement in thefirst- and second-year Englishprogram. Nearly all studentsearning their undergraduatedegrees at KU must completethis sequence of classes, so thevast majority are non-Englishmajors. I restructured my sec-tion of Introduction to Poetry toinclude a significant creativewriting component that wouldcomplement the existingresearch component.

The first- and second-yearEnglish classes are not lecturecourses; they focus rather on aprocess-oriented approach towriting generated from discus-sion, skills-building exercises,

and workshops. In myIntroduction to Poetry course,however, I had lightened up onthese process-oriented require-ments because first, I thoughtstudents might feel condescend-ed to — they had already beenthrough all this, right? — andsecond, I wanted to use classtime to cover more literature,and in my classes that meantgoing heavy on discussion.

That approach, with littleattention paid to the writingprocess, was not working asindicated by the essays thatcame out, especially early in thesemester, as typical analysispapers that formulated a thesisand then generated an answer.But the majority of the paperswere simply that, answers thatsolved a poem’s mystery, and injust 500 words —exactly what

most students believe all teach-ers of literature want. So I hadto read essays that were oftenwithout individual investmentor a creative and vital exchangebetween the reader and thepoem. In a sense, the essayswere lifeless.

New approachesIn the new rendition of thecourse, the semester is brokeninto four sections, the first ofwhich is devoted to making stu-dents more comfortable withpoetry while preparing them toincorporate creativity into theircritical thinking. The first sec-tion of the semester is meant toget the students and the poemout of the classroom and ontothe playground of curiosity andplay. Yes, play — in academia.The great secret that many

Reflections 5

students could benefit fromlearning is that academics dowhat they do in a spirit of playand joy and curiosity, at leastinitially.

Early homework assign-ments are designed to supple-ment our class discussions ofpoems. For example, in oneassignment students are askedto record uses of figurative lan-guage they hear outside theEnglish classroom and to payparticular attention to profes-sors in other areas of study.They are often surprised byhow many examples they col-lect of non-English professorsbeing “poetic.” Another assign-ment calls for students torewrite one of our poems fordiscussion, their goal being toeliminate all uses of figurativelanguage. The most literal and

therefore worst poem submittedwins. By playing around withthe poem and being creative, or,as with this rewrite of a pub-lished poem, un-creative, stu-dents explore the processbehind composition instead ofjust the product.

Process versus productI have observed that one of themajor skills we try to teach inthe first two required courses(English 101 and 102), usingwriting as a cumulative processin problem-solving, falls off dra-matically in the third course. Ioften found that papers not onlyshowed signs of being writtenthe night before, but, evenworse, they were written tomeet what they thought werethe typical expectations for justone more literary analysis forone more literature class—sim-ply to jump through that hoop.

To solve this problem Idesigned many small home-work assignments, mostlymicro-themed responses, duelong before the formal essayswere due. By the time studentswere working on papers thatwould have a significant impacton their grades, they hadalready generated a consider-able body of work. Moreover,these responses were far morelikely to reflect genuine read-ings of the poems rather thanregurgitated material from

online sources for this veryimportant reason: in these low-stakes assignments students areencouraged to ask questions,share what they do not know, orare utterly confused by, with meand the class. In fact, duringclass discussion I am sure topraise these kinds of explo-rations in ignorance. Even bet-ter, I have found that in smallgroup discussions students will-ingly tackle difficult questionstogether.

Decoding the discipline —reorienting studentsPoetry has no relevance to stu-dents’ academic interests. Poetsmight as well be aliens sittingunder alien trees and dreamingalien dreams, and that is not theworst. These aliens spend alltheir time thinking about cleverways to use rhyme and allitera-tion. In fact, it is all they care

about. My goal early on in thatfirst part of the semester is totake the alien-ness out of whatpoets do and why they do it.

As mentioned previously,early reading, writing, andthinking about poetry are meantto be playful. The series ofmicro-themed papers I use askstudents to consider how poetsplay with language. What arethey doing to be creative andhave fun with language? Whatpoems do you simply likebecause of their sound, their

The great secret many students could benefit fromlearning is that academics do what they do in a spiritof play and joy and curiosity, at least initially.

look? These kinds of naturalquestions (I say natural becausestudents answer these kinds ofquestions every day, aboutsongs, movies, commercials,signs) are followed by moreweighty thematic questions.

The thematic questions, how-ever, do not have to be accom-panied by a student’s answer;rather, they may pose questions,even ones they think unanswer-able — all the better, I tell them— to submit to class discussion.I ask them to be creative withtheir questions and not to worrybecause they are not required tohave an answer. These are low-stakes homework assignmentsfor which they may earn fullcredit with reasonable effort.

In addition to reorienting thestudents by introducing them tothe play in language, earlyassignments ask them to identi-fy themes and questions inpoems that they come across inother areas of study. The mostobvious candidates come fromhistory, women’s studies, reli-gious studies, political science,philosophy, and art, but the pos-sibilities are limitless anddepend entirely on what disci-plines motivate the students.

I cannot say the class took aninterdisciplinary approachexactly, but my goal was to re-orient the reading of poetry andstudy of literature somewhereamong other academic pursuitsso that various disciplines couldinform each other, and hopeful-ly some of the intellectualcuriosity and excitement stu-dents experience in their ownmajors will transfer to theirreading of poetry. I must say I

do take pleasure in the ironythat part of getting students tomove poetry out of an Englishclassroom is asking them to findit in their non-poetry classes.

Capstone project and resultsThe final section and primarycreative component of thesemester is devoted to closestudy and research of one ormore major works; for example,T.S. Eliot’s “The Waste Land,”or an extensive selection ofEmily Dickinson’s poems. Bythis time students have generat-ed their own questions andthemes of interest through play-ful and serious exploration,including having written sever-al poems of their own and hav-ing conducted research. Thefinal project invites them toapply individualized thematicinterests and an acquired work-ing knowledge of the poets’tools to writing their own work.

Of course students are notexpected to create great worksof literature, and I am perfectlyclear in letting them know thatprojects are not graded accord-ing to what I think is good orbad or excellent poetry.Students are expected, however,to demonstrate an understand-ing of how poets work withsense and sound, theme andpoetic devices, and they do soby writing the poem and arationale that explains theirintentions.

Furthermore, while studentsare required to work within thediscipline of literary studies byapplying research and analyticalskills to their project, they arealso encouraged to engage the

project from a point of viewoutside the discipline. Thesepoints of view included GreekLife on campus, or studentspursuing interior design, envi-ronmental studies, history, ormicrobiology, all of whomapproached their contemporarywaste-land project from theirrespective discipline or inter-ests. By the end of the semesterstudents more readily movedback and forth between theplayful and the academic,between the creative and theanalytical.

While ostensibly I designedassignments to couple creativewriting with research in orderto teach sound writing skills, Iwas able to engage more kindsof students, from all the disci-plines besides English, in waysthat might convince them thatliterature is relevant to them,too, that writers actually are ofthe same species and share simi-lar concerns. In our missionstatement, the English depart-ment recognizes itself to be atthe “core of the humanities,”and I think these new assign-ments took that mission serious-ly and invited students fromeverywhere else to enter a con-versation between their academ-ic disciplines and the study ofliterature. u

For a complete description ofJohnson’s teaching project, seecte.ku.edu/gallery/portfolios/johnson

6 Reflections

Psychology 318 is an under-graduate cognitive psychologycourse that focuses on the scien-tific study of human cognitiveprocesses. I have taught thiscourse a number of times in alecture format. In Spring 2012, Ilaunched PSYC 318 as an onlinecourse for the first time. In Fall2012, I retained the online ver-sion and developed a hybridversion of the same course,teaching two different sectionssimultaneously. This essayfocuses on the two versions ofCognitive Psychology that Itaught in Fall 2012.

There were about 30 studentsin the online course and 120 inthe hybrid course (the latter mettwice a week at the scheduledlecture time). PSYC 318 is a corepsychology course required formajors and an elective forminors. It also appeals to a widerange of students outside ofpsychology because it dealswith human cognition. I often

have a handful of students fromarchitecture, engineering, jour-nalism, and business enrolled inthe course.

When I taught this course inthe past in a lecture format, Itypically had one large section,often with over 300 students.Due to the large class size andhaving only one teaching assis-tant, I did not incorporate a lotof writing assignments. I evalu-ated student learning usingonline Blackboard quizzes andmultiple-choice exams adminis-tered during class time. I wastroubled by the lack of writingin the course and wanted to re-design it to include more writ-ing assignments. Students werealso frustrated at not being ableto express their knowledge andthoughts in multiple formats. Ibelieve that writing is an impor-tant part of a college education,not just for developing commu-nication and writing skills, butalso for working on critical

thinking skills. With this inmind, I re-designed the courseand developed new writingassignments for the initialonline course (in Spring 2012),which I incorporated into bothFall 2012 courses (online as wellas hybrid versions).

I was very pleased with theend product of the initial onlinecourse. It was well-organizedbut had the potential to becomeeven better. As I tried some ofmy new materials (e.g., weeklywritten assignments), I saw stu-dents struggle with questionsthat I thought were clear andstraight-forward. I also wit-nessed students demonstratinga depth of understanding that Iwas never aware of when teach-ing a large lecture section. Itwas eye-opening and reward-ing. Probably the biggest suc-cess to come from that firstsemester of teaching online wasthat it forced me to think aboutmy course and the material dif-

Reflections 7

DevelopingOnline and

HybridModels

of Learning

Susan MarshallPsychology

ferently. I tried to organize it ina way that would be more intu-itive to the student so that thecourse content was easily navi-gated. This wasn’t necessarilythe way I thought about thematerial or how I had taught itfor years, but rethinking thatorganization renewed myenthusiasm for some of thematerial.

The move to a hybrid ver-sion for my lecture class in theFall of 2012 was a natural one. Ihad improved the course andhad the foundation built for ahybrid version where studentswere responsible for some of thematerial outside the classroom,which freed up time duringclass meetings. I was excited toinclude more dynamic activitiesduring class instead of simplylecturing. We could now dodemonstrations so that studentscould see cognitive phenomenafirst-hand and understand whytheir minds work in certainways. We could discuss thesedemonstrations, which meantmy students were more activelyinvolved in their learning asopposed to passively listeningto me talk.

I redesigned both versions—online and hybrid—of thecourse with the following goalsin mind:• Understand basics of cogni-

tive psychology• Spark an interest in cognitive

psychology• Connect course materials to

everyday lives• Foster critical thinking and

writing skills• Be a critical consumer of infor-

mation

Online courseWhen I began to develop theonline course, I re-visited mycourse goals, and using aprocess of backward design,considered the course contentand methods of evaluation thatI needed to facilitate and mea-sure students’ achievement ofthose goals. I realized that I didnot need to be exhaustive andcover everything in cognitivepsychology. Instead, I decided

to focus on material that bestaligned with my course goals.In doing so, I chose materialthat would offer the greatestdiversity in representing cogni-tive psychology as a field andwould spark student interest.Moreover, I needed to thinkabout how to organize materialin a way that would not be toooverwhelming for students asthey were no longer going to beled through it during class time.I worked with the Center forDistance and Online Learning(CODL) and developed onlinelectures that students couldnavigate at their own pace.

Hybrid courseI used my online course as astarting point for developingthe hybrid course. I already hadall the material online, so Ibegan by deciding what materi-al I wanted to use in class that

would make for interesting dis-cussion and group learningactivities. I decided to use someof the online lectures to free upclass time for those discussionsand activities. For example, aspart of a class on memory andmnemonic devices, we had ourown memory competition dur-ing class. I had students read anarticle outside of class about theU.S. Memory Championshipsand then asked them to come to

class with a detailed mentalmap of some location in whichthey could mentally store a listof words. In class I gave themfive minutes to study and mem-orize 40 unrelated words, pre-sumably by mentally “placing”their words in the mental map. Iproceeded with my lecture, andafter 10-15 minutes I asked stu-dents to recall the 40 words thatthey studied. They wereamazed at their very high levelsof performance and saw first-hand how they could organize,store, and retrieve informationeffectively. A handful even hadperfect performance! We thentalked about the memoryprocess and how elaborationand visualization can be used toimprove recall. Since studentshad already come prepared forthis exercise, they were engagedand actively participated in theclass discussion on memory.

8 Reflections

I had the foundation built for a hybrid version wherestudents were responsible for some of the materialoutside the classroom, which freed up time duringclass meetings. I was excited to include more dynam-ic activities during class instead of simply lecturing.

Along with the lectures, inboth hybrid and online ver-sions, I provided students withlinks to Internet resources (someof which came with the text-book), such as online studymaterials, demonstrations ofcognitive phenomena, and pop-ular press reports that focusedon some of the course concepts.

Methods of assessmentMy course material is dividedinto 10 sections, and there is awritten assignment, quiz, andlecture material for each section.

The grading system for bothversions of the course is basedon two areas: Mastery of con-cepts and Effort on the course-work. Students must do well inboth categories to achieve ahigh grade. Mastery of conceptsis measured using quiz andexam performance. Effort isbased on pass/fail scoring ofweekly written assignments.

As part of the Mastery gradefor both courses, I createdonline quizzes that students hadto complete for each chapter toevaluate their familiarity withconcepts and to give studentsan opportunity to gauge theirmastery of material prior to tak-ing an exam. The quiz is avail-able to them the entire time weare covering a section of materi-al, and students can take it asmany times as they like toachieve a perfect score. The 10quizzes throughout the semes-ter are equivalent to 25% oftheir Mastery grade, so studentsare encouraged to continue tointeract with material duringeach section until they master it.There are also three regular

online exams, in addition to anoptional comprehensive finalexam that can replace a low reg-ular exam score if students sochoose. Exam performancemakes up the other 75% of theMastery grade.

The Effort portion of thecourse involves the satisfactorycompletion of weekly writtenassignments. The assignmentsare intended to foster criticalthinking and deeper analysis ofthe concepts discussed in eachsection of material. I developeddetailed instructions that guid-ed students in what was expect-ed for each assignment. Notonly did these detailed instruc-tions help students achieve myexpectations, but they made theobjective evaluation of each stu-dent’s work much easier andsomething that could be com-pleted by a TA in the largerhybrid section of the course.Assignments were graded on apass/fail basis, so studentsreceived credit if they met theobjectives outlined in theassignment each week.

Student performanceAfter teaching the online andhybrid versions simultaneously,it is interesting to look at thedifferences in performancebetween the two sections. Thehybrid class resulted in higherMastery scores compared to theonline section. The Masteryscore reflects performance onthe quizzes and exams. Themedian Mastery for the hybridclass was 84%, whereas it was80% for the online class.Differences also emergedbetween the classes when look-ing at the Effort score, which isthe number of written assign-ments completed out of 10throughout the semester. Onceagain, the hybrid class hadhigher Effort scores comparedto the online course. The medi-an for the hybrid class was nine,whereas the median for theonline class was eight.

I also examined the finalgrade distribution between thetwo types of classes (hybrid ver-sus online), as well as comparedthose grade distributions to one

Reflections 9

Fig. 1. Grade distribution across course delivery formats

50%45% Online

40%35% Lecture

30%25% Hybrid

20%15%10%

5%0%

A B C D F

from the traditional lecturecourse I have taught in the past.The data are presented in Figure1. I have taught the online ver-sion twice, so I added the twoclasses together to increase thenumber of observations (n=70for the online sections in Springand Fall 2012). I used the datafrom two large lecture classes inSpring 2010 and Spring 2011(n=528 combined). And finally, Ihad a sample of 114 for thehybrid class (the Fall 2012 sec-tion). I first compared the per-centage of students earning anA or B in the three class types.The online distribution showed64% of students at this level, thetraditional lecture had 67%, andthe hybrid class was much high-er at 81%. When looking at theother end of the distribution,the online classes had 14% ofstudents who ended the semes-ter with a D or F, the lectureversion had 7%, and the hybridclass resulted in 7% of studentsat this level.

ReflectionsClearly there are differences inperformance among the variousformats, with the hybrid versionresulting in the best overall per-formance and not much differ-ence, at least at the upper end ofthe spectrum, between onlineand traditional lecture formats.Differences do exist, however, atthe bottom of the distributionbetween online and lectureclasses, with more online stu-dents scoring poorly. The causeof these differences is unclear.The Fall 2012 online course wasoriginally supposed to be asmall lecture section taught by

another instructor who had totake a medical leave of absence.I picked up the course at the lastminute and the psychologydepartment made it an onlineclass to prevent a conflict in myschedule, to avoid cancelling it,and to continue to give studentsthe option of taking it thatsemester. Therefore, the onlinestudents may not have reallywanted or been prepared for theonline experience, whichrequires a certain amount ofself-motivation and planning.Their performance may havesuffered as a result. Indeed, theperformance of the Fall 2012class (the impromptu onlineclass) was lower (A&B=58%,D&F=19%) than the Spring 2012class (the planned online class;A&B=68%, D&F=11%), whichpulls down the combined distri-bution percentages reportedabove. I think the data from thetwo online sections must beinterpreted with caution for thisreason. As more students com-plete the online course, a betterpicture of typical performancefrom this format may emerge.

It is also possible that havingregular contact with me and/orthe TA resulted in better perfor-mance for the hybrid and lec-ture classes as compared to theonline classes, because ofreminders about due dates orinteractions that helped to fur-ther understanding of the mate-rial. In comparing the hybridand online versions, while thebasic material and requirementswere the same, the hybrid classgot more opportunities to dointeractive activities: more in-class exercises and demonstra-

tions, in-class discussions, in-class exam review sessions, andopportunities to network duringclass to form study groups forout of class interaction.

Overall, I was very pleasedwith the results from the hybridclass but somewhat disappoint-ed with the performance ofonline students, at least fromthe Fall 2012 semester. Theprocess of putting the classonline in Spring 2012 is whatmade the hybrid version possi-ble, and I think that the onlineformat definitely serves a cer-tain student population that isimportant to reach. However,the learning environment thatstudents in the hybrid courseexperienced and the resultingdepth of understanding thatthey displayed suggests thatthese two formats are unequalin terms of outcomes as well asstudent experience. u

For a complete description ofMarshall’s teaching project, seecte.ku.edu/gallery/portfolios/marshall

10 Reflections

Daniel HirmasGeography

In Summer 2011, I redesignedGeography 335/535, SoilGeography, to isolate and cor-rect misconceptions among stu-dents in the course and preventthose misconceptions frombeing propagated to upper-divi-sion courses. Because there is somuch material that is new tostudents in this course, lecturesand assignments are compart-mentalized by the various sub-disciplines as a way to sys-tematize the subject. Although Itry to emphasize connectionsamong these sub-disciplines inthe context of individual prob-lems, one of the biggest chal-lenges for students in this classis to integrate their knowledgeacross the individual learningunits. This led me to my classredesign’s guiding question:What are the best practices fordiscovering and correctingfoundational misconceptionsthat lead to misunderstandingsof more complex topics? Inaddition, how could I most

effectively engage students inthe classroom to make lectureslivelier and more productive?My two secondary goals wereprecisely to increase participa-tion during lecture in an envi-ronment where students tookownership of the concepts, andto engender integration andproblem-solving skills.

To address the primary goalof this project, I implementedtwo pre-lecture exercises: a 25-word précis, and decoding-the-discipline questions. The précisemphasized important conceptsthrough focused reading of therequired supplementary text,while the decoding questionsdirectly targeted misconceptionsthat were observed in previousiterations of the course. Bothtypes of pre-lecture exerciseswere also used to better preparestudents for lecture, pique theirinterest by discussing their pre-lecture answers in class, anddeepen in-class discussions.

Reflections 11

EstablishingDisciplinary

Foundations with Discussion,

Lecture and Writing

12 Reflections

25-word précisWhen I taught this course in theFall semesters of 2008, 2009, and2010, students did not seem tobe engaged with the materialthey were learning. In order topromote discussion and activethinking during lecture, I decid-ed to implement an assignmentthat required them to fullyengage the material before classduring the Fall 2011 semester.

Once per week before lec-ture, students wrote out a state-ment containing exactly 25words summarizing therequired reading for that day.The 25-word requirement wasdesigned to make students care-fully choose their words in sum-marizing the main point. Theultimate goal was to promotemore informed discussion andquestions by introducing stu-dents to the topic before lecture.

I gave students very specificreading/writing instructions foreach précis. Students were thenrequired to compose (or copyand paste) their 25-word précisdirectly into the textbox in theactive Blackboard assignment.Although I was unable to gradeor provide direct feedbackbefore lecture, since they wereable to submit assignments upto the start of class, I spent fiveto 10 minutes in the hour beforeclass looking over any submit-ted answers and getting a senseof how well students under-stood the concept from the read-ing. This allowed me to focusmy lecture time on any miscon-ceptions from the reading thatseemed to be common amongthe students. I was explicitabout this just-in-time teaching

strategy with the students, men-tioning what errors or miscon-ceptions I might have seen in aprécis, although never directlycalling out students by name.

Decoding-the-discipline questions (or counter-intuitive questions)In the past, I had occasionallysurveyed students at the begin-ning of class to see what theythought the answer was to aparticular problem. When moststudents answered the questionincorrectly, I had noticed that

they seemed to take ownershipof their own responses andwanted to understand why theirinitial answer was incorrect.This made them better engageduring lecture because whenstudents learned that they got aproblem wrong, especiallywhen they really trusted theirintuition, they paid closer atten-tion to the explanation, whichgenerated interest in the topicand in the need to understandand approach questions frommultiple angles.

To channel this reaction, Icreated a list of questions thatchallenge common misconcep-tions in various topics of anintroductory soil geographycourse. These questions wereanswered on our courseBlackboard site the day beforelecture. To introduce the topic, I

presented students’ collectiveresponses in class. Afterward,we spent seven to 12 minutesdiscussing the answers and thereasoning behind them.

Student understandingThe success of my implementa-tions was formally evaluated bytracking scores on the 25-wordprécis assessed with an assign-ment rubric, as well as examquestions that mimicked theconcept represented in thedecoding-the-discipline ques-tions assigned before lecture.

My goals were also informallyevaluated on the quality of thediscussions and questions dur-ing lecture, which became muchmore organic and lively after Iimplemented the changes.

The evolution of in-class dis-cussions during the semesterrevealed that student under-standing of the material haddeepened and that many initialmisconceptions had been suc-cessfully reversed. The difficultyof the decoding-the-disciplinequestions assigned near the endof the semester hinged on theintegration of several sub-disci-plinary concepts covered earlierin the course. By the end of thesemester, students seemed toquickly recall relevant soilprocesses and integrate theirunderstanding of the processeson the fly during lecture.

The evolution of in-class discussions during thesemester revealed that student understanding of thematerial had deepened and that many initial miscon-ceptions had been successfully reversed.

The quality of the discus-sions, improvement on the pré-cis answers, and also the finalproject report outcomes far out-stripped previous iterations ofthe course and, indeed, madeteaching the course more enjoy-able compared to other semes-ters. Overall, my goals for thecourse appeared to have beenachieved as students seemedmuch more knowledgeableabout and interested in soilsthan at the beginning of thesemester, they could both inte-grate their knowledge and dis-cuss intelligently specificaspects of each sub-discipline,and they demonstrated theirability to answer a researchquestion related to soils in theirfinal project.

For all three major conceptsin the course, student learningimproved on midterm questionswhen compared to pre-lecturequestions. What was striking tome was the disparity of

improvement across the majorconcepts. Clearly, the soilphysics section showed themost improvement (almost100%!) out of the three learningunits. However, this is not total-ly surprising as, conceptually,the soil physics sectionappeared to be the most coun-terintuitive to students, and,indeed, questions and discus-sions during lecture corroborat-ed this idea. I am convincedthat student learning in this sec-tion can be greatly improved byisolating misconceptions anddirectly addressing thosethrough peer-to-peer interactionand discussion during lecture.Not every concept is equallydifficult for most students; Iexpect this holds true for con-cepts in other classes I teach.Further isolating what conceptsgive students the most trouble,and why, is something I can useas an effective teaching strategyfor this and other courses. u

For a complete description ofHirmas’ teaching project, seecte.ku.edu/gallery/portfolios/hirmas

Reflections 13

Student improvement on major concepts

Soil morphology, genesis, and mineralogy

Soil physics

Soil chemistry and fertility

Pre-lecture score (%) Midterm score (%) Improvement (%)

67.6

79.8

88.9

44.6

71.6

18

99

13

63.5

14 Reflections

There is a major push at KU tohybridize course content.Blended learning (a.k.a., hybrid)combines the best parts ofinstructor expertise and face-to-face interaction with the bene-fits of online learning, includingease of access, instant feedback,and student-directed pacing.One clear challenge of hybridiz-ing is implementation. Wheredo you start? What modelshould you use? In this essay, Ioffer my own reflections on myattempt to hybridize a senior-level statistics course requiredfor the communication studiesmajor. In this essay, I contrastthe full-bore approach tohybridization with my ownmore modest attempt, and pre-sent evidence of success and mylingering concerns.

BackgroundIn my earlier Reflections essay“Putting Carts and Horses inOrder, Statistically” (Reflections

from the Classroom 2010-11, vol.13), I chronicled the redesign ofIntroduction to BehavioralResearch Methods. Since writ-ing that essay, I attended theTeaching Summit (Summer2011) where Marcia Lovett ofCarnegie Mellon presented clearevidence of the effectiveness ofusing hybrid technology toimprove student learning in astatistics course. I was inspiredand sought more informationabout the Online LearningInitiative’s modules on statis-tics. The modules are interestingand detailed. They provideexcellent examples and practiceproblems germane to commonstatistical issues, and specificstatistical modules appropriateto particular disciplines. At theSummit I also learned of thework of Susan Williams inChemical and PetroleumEngineering. Her courseredesign was transformative.Williams converted all lecture

material into five- to 15-minutevideos, complete with videocapture, voice-over problemsolving. Her students also com-pleted homework problemsthrough the online tool SaplingLearning. By transferring tradi-tional class content to onlinecontent, Williams now exclu-sively uses class time for prac-ticing complex problems, espe-cially ones that students had themost difficulty completingonline. Williams refuses to coverany material in class that isavailable online. She is insistenton this point, so that studentsadjust to her expectations forhow class time will be used.

After considering the OLItoolbox and Williams’ work, Iasked myself, could I do whatWilliams did? Could the OLI beused effectively as a site ofinformation transfer, home-work, or practice? Could I betteruse class time if the basics werecovered elsewhere?

Goldilocksand

HybridizingStatistics

Jeffrey A. HallCommunication Studies

Reflections 15

Faculty SeminarMotivated to answer these ques-tions, but self-aware enough toknow I wouldn’t make time toaddress them without support, Iparticipated in CTE’s FacultySeminar in Fall 2012 whileteaching my statistics class. Atthe Faculty Seminar, we beganto describe Williams’ approachas going full-bore. We identifiedthree key parts of going full-bore: 1. Identify the exact learningobjectives of the course and pre-requisite information needed tomeet those objectives. Througha process of backward design, Ihad boiled my learning objec-tives down to seven discrete sta-tistical and methodological con-cepts, so I had that part covered.2. Carefully distinguish betweenbasic and advanced concepts.Ideally, the basic conceptsshould be information that canbe acquired and practicedonline and outside of class. 3. Place the transfer of that basicinformation online and insistthat class time is spent applyingand practicing that information,particularly difficult or complexinformation.

Looking at steps 2 and 3, Ifound myself utterly daunted. Ihad a great deal of difficulty fig-uring out how to deliver classcontent, short of identifying andrecording that material myselfor selecting OLI content. Bothoptions presented problems.The first was time. I couldn’t seemyself spending hours andhours outside of the classroomrecording material the wayWilliams had in the course ofone semester (!). The second

problem was that the OLI statis-tical modules didn’t lend them-selves to easy integration. Muchof this was a matter of breadthand depth of coverage. Whileexploring OLI content, I discov-ered I had a Goldilocks problemof teaching statistics: it was dif-ficult to give students the justright amount of information. Forexample, issues germane tosampling vary, based onwhether you are random sam-pling from a population withknown parameters or conve-nience sampling. How do youaddress some of that informa-tion, but not all of it? This wasfundamentally a question ofhow much information shouldstudents know. Too much infor-mation runs the risk of displac-ing the topics most directlyrelated to your discipline orcourse objectives. Not adjustingaccordingly risks simply mak-ing content load larger, which isa common problem in creating ahybrid class. It was with aheavy heart that I decided todismiss the full-bore approach, atleast until I had tried somethingmore manageable.

Alternatives to the full-boreapproachThis led to the question, if notfull-bore, then what? I believethat education is a process ofgetting a larger percentage ofyour students to learn a largerpercentage of course materialevery semester you teach. Eversince embracing this maxim, Imindfully attempt to move themiddle of the class toward ahigher level of critical thinkingand knowledge acquisition.

I had already taken severalsteps to hybridize my class.Through working with the CTE,I had a very clear idea of whatparticular skills I wanted stu-dents to possess when theycompleted the course. I hadalready created 10 Blackboardquizzes for mastery of simpleskills, such as looking up criticalt values and knowing how touse APA citation. I had created aclass handbook that gave stu-dents problems that we wouldwork through during class time,and posted the SPSS files and astep-by-step PowerPoint slideshow about how to do the workwe had done in class for prac-tice and test preparation. Thesesteps had improved classmorale, student evaluations,and statistical knowledge andconfidence, as measured by anungraded pre-/post-test Iadministered every semester.

For Fall 2012, I decided torecord six 10-20 minute videoson topics I believe to be centralto the course: levels of measure-ment, experimental design, z-scores, t tests, correlations, andp values. Each video drew froman example problem availablein the student handbook but notcovered in class at anotherpoint. The videos were putonline before the lecture contentwas delivered, but I did notenforce when the studentswatched the videos; I onlymade students aware of theirexistence. I used video capturetechnology that allowed me towork through the problem onthe screen while talking about itvia audio. With the exception ofthe levels of measurement

video, the other five videoswere applied examples—themost complicated problemswe'd do in the class.

Evaluation of the videos To find out the effects of thesevideos, I asked students aboutthe videos on an end-of-classsurvey. The survey data indicat-ed that about 80% of studentshad watched all six videos(some videos were watched by97% of students). Students pri-marily used the videos for testpreparation (65-75%), and stu-dents believed that the videoswere helpful for that purpose(90-100% agreement with thatstatement). Very few studentsused the videos to prepare forclass (6-10%). I also asked whatstudents did while watching thevideos. Regarding note taking,students took new notes whilewatching the video 50-62% ofthe time, reviewed class notes32-44% of the time, andwatched without taking notes20-28% of the time.

I was curious when andwhether students attempted thepractice problems covered inthe video and available in theirhandbook. I had stated explicit-ly in text, out loud in class, andon the first moments of thevideo to try the problems beforewatching me go over them.Unfortunately, only 20-36% ofstudents did the problembefore, 50-56% tried the prob-lem during the video, and 42-56% tried the problem afterwatching the video. All in allthe feedback about the quality,pace, and clarity of the videoswas very positive.

I was curious whether any ofthese practices had an effect onclass performance. As a whole,the class performed better thanthe class I had taught the previ-ous semester when everythingwas the same except the videos:post-test performance (2.6 / 7 inSpring 2012 improved to 3.6 / 7in Fall 2012) and final examscores (70.2% Spring 2012improved to 73.3% Fall 2012).

For individual students, Iexplored whether the way theyused the videos was related totheir final grade and post-testknowledge (using OLS regres-sion to control for pre-testknowledge and demographiccharacteristics).

A very clear patternemerged. Students who hadhigher final grades and greaterpost-test knowledge used thevideos to review class notes andtried to solve the problemsbefore watching the video. Bothactivities were positive predic-tors of outcomes for each of thesix videos. There was some evi-dence that using the videos dur-ing the semester (not in prepa-ration of the exam) was nega-tively correlated with finalgrades and post-test knowledge.This suggests that students mayhave used the videos to try tocatch up for missed class.

ReflectionsThere is good evidence thatusing video capture technologyto create videos that help stu-dents review key conceptsimproves test performance andknowledge acquisition. Thesevideos were most effectivewhen students reviewed notesduring and attempted to solveproblems before watchingvideos. This shows that a less

than full-bore approach canyield measurable improvementsand might be met by studentswith appreciation and wide-spread adoption.

Yet the question remains, isthis the best use of hybrid tech-nology? I have mixed feelings.On one hand, if the goal is bet-ter performance, the evidencesuggests that videos are a high-impact form of test preparation.All in all, the effort I put intorecording and posting thevideos on Blackboard wasminor compared to theimprovements that I saw.However, the evidence wasinconclusive about whethergood students just use thevideos more effectively thanpoorer students (despite con-trolling for pre-test knowledge).

On the other hand, class timewas not really affected by thismodest attempt to hybridize.For years, I have been changingmy use of class time to spend

16 Reflections

There is good evidence that using video capture technology to create videos that help students reviewkey concepts improves test performance and knowl-edge acquisition.

more time practicing, talking tostudents, and trying to problem-solve on the spot when certainconcepts are giving studentstrouble. My use of hybrid tech-nology did very little toimprove students’ preparationfor class.

I can offer two take-awaysfrom all of this. The first isabout fit between course con-cepts and online material. Forme, it was easier and more pro-ductive to create online materialto fit my course than to try tointegrate existing material, suchas from OLI, which was animperfect fit. The second take-away is providing immediategratification and consequencesfor students. I believe studentswill use the online material onlywhen they have to. They have towhen there is a test or whenyou insist, as Williams does,that you will not cover anythingin class that is covered online. Ibelieve to get anything out ofonline information transfer, itmust have immediate conse-quences that students are moti-vated to avoid. This requires aninstructor to have confidence inthe online material, have feed-back from the online material todetermine where students arestruggling, and have a firmhand to stay the course in theface of student opposition. Trulyusing blended learning is notjust an adjustment for faculty, itis an adjustment for students. Itputs the onus of learning backon their plates.

The next step is figuring outhow to further improve the useof hybrid technology and classtime. This leads me to my final

point of reflection. If you look atthe second step of using blend-ed learning, the basic material,the information transfer, theeyes-on-pages-type learningmust come first. In my attemptat course redesign, I failed tofollow step 2. I put the most dif-ficult material online. No won-der it was used for test prepara-tion. In step 3, class time shouldbe used to practice and applythe basics, then move to thecomplex. In the future I willidentify and capture basic mate-rial from lecture and put itonline. Then, I need to ensurethat students are watching andpracticing that material, perhapsby requiring a Blackboard quizand refusing to deliver the con-tent otherwise.

My future plans for the sixvideos from Fall 2012 is to givethem a due-date (with mildsanctions) before the test, whichwill allow at least some time inclass to problem-solve with stu-dents and trouble-shoot difficul-ties. By freeing up class timeearlier in the semester and byputting lecture material online, Iwill have more time to spendmaking sure students are learn-ing, not just on the test, but inclass too. u

Reflections 17

18 Reflections

Chad KrausArchitecture

Theory and Context ofArchitecture (ARCH 630) is arequired lecture course in theMaster of Architecture degreeprogram. Typically the courseenrolls between 50-65 studentsand is comprised of seniors andgraduate students. Since it is theonly required course in the areaof theory within the architecturedepartment, it covers a lot ofground. The course examinesseveral architectural theoriesand considers the environmentas a cultural medium and prod-uct of a socio-cultural processthat expresses values and ideas.The aim of this course is tomake explicit the way architectshave understood their ownwork as socio-cultural phenom-ena and thus provide studentswith the tools necessary toshape their own methodologyand value system.

I began teaching ARCH 630in 2010 when the course struc-ture was still in question. In pre-vious manifestations, it wastaught as a small seminar in afew sections; however, this wasno longer possible due to theclass size and the decision toteach it as one section. Ideally, Iwanted to teach this class as aseminar centered on discussion.This posed the most significantchallenge in re-designing thiscourse—how to preserve quali-ties of a seminar in a larger lec-ture course. My primary goalwas to develop strategies thatallowed me to occasionallytransform a mid-size lectureclass into an intimate seminarwhich in turn would provokedialogue, increase studentengagement, and foster criticalthinking. I scaffolded theassignments to develop critical

Shaping GraduateStudents’

Methodologies andProfessional Valuesthrough Dialogue,

Writing and

Group Projects

thinking skills, which in turnwould improve students’ per-formance in the final project. Ialso focused on developingmore effective ways of assessingthe quality of critical thought.

This essay describes thechanges I made to this course toencourage and facilitate moreprofessor-student and student-student interaction beyond theoccasional question prompt, andto move beyond the imposingatmosphere of the lecture halland stimulate an intimate con-versation where students feelfree to question, defend, expandupon, and reflect on the subjectmatter. Finally, it describes myframework for assessing criticalthought.

Four changesTo increase student engagementand maximize learning, I madeseveral changes to the classstructure during the Fall 2011semester. Because writing islinked to thinking (I always tellmy students in design studiothat drawing is thinking) and isan important skill for architectsentering the profession, writingtook on greater importance inassignment redesign and classstructure.

Previously, I had relied on aseries of exams and a final pro-ject to assess learning outcomes.I retained the final project,replaced the exams withquizzes, and added an essaycomponent as well as in-classactivities to foster and assesscritical thinking. Each assign-ment/activity allowed studentsto develop the skills needed tobe successful in the next one.

1. QuizzesIn the previous iteration of thiscourse, I found that the examsdid not do a good job assessingstudents’ understanding of thereadings. Most students reliedon my class lectures instead ofactually reading the articles pro-vided. As a first step in thescaffolding process, I replacedthe exams with quizzes. Ratherthan gauging students’ compre-hensive understanding of read-ings, the quizzes assessed theirfamiliarity with the texts.Students had to complete a quizbefore every class based on thereading material and on the pre-vious lecture. With quizzes, stu-dents could also reflect on theirlevel of understanding and usethe classroom as an opportunityto raise questions and clarifytheir uncertainties.

I realized that before measur-ing or expecting demonstrationsof critical thought, I needed tofoster it. I designed the quizzesnot only to help enhance in-class discussion (which I believeis also important for developingcritical thinking skills) but alsoto serve as a baseline againstwhich I could assess where stu-dents stood and what areasneeded more work.

2. In-class activitiesTo encourage classroom engage-ment, I increased in-class activi-ties. At the beginning of eachclass, I identified three or fourstudents to be the “dailyexperts.” The daily experts wererequired to ask questions andmake comments in class and/orpost comments on Blackboard.The advantage to this arrange-

ment over the traditional modelof randomly calling on studentsis that it avoids putting them onthe spot and allows them torespond when they feel com-pelled by the content and not bymy whim. This served as aquantitative mechanism forevaluating participation. To fur-ther encourage participationand critical thinking, I wouldpause during one of the two lec-tures each week and ask stu-dents to form “buzz groups” offour to five members to workon an in-class activity. For oneactivity, each group had to con-sider both sides of a debate onmodern architecture (one pro-ponent emphasized increasingstandardization while anotheremphasized the creative indi-vidual and de-centralization)and write a letter of support forone or the other. After readingout loud several of theseresponses, the class engaged ina debate. I did not assess theletter of support as I felt thattypically this activity was suffi-cient to engage them. Instead ofjust recalling different content,this activity afforded them achance to reflect on course con-tent and, through a dialogue,foster critical thinking.

3. Essay assignmentTo assess the quality of theircritical thought, students had tocomplete an essay assignment.Students were required to syn-thesize several readings acrossthe semester and develop theirown perspective on these read-ings. Rather than summarize thecontent of the readings, thisassignment aimed at developing

Reflections 19

their writing as well as theiranalytical skills. Furthermore, itencouraged students to narrowtheir topic of interest (whichwould determine their final pro-ject) and do an extensive and in-depth analysis of that topic.Finally, the essay assignmentserved as a counterpart to thefinal project, which requiredstudents to apply the skillsdeveloped in writing the essayto a different medium—film. Itwould also absorb some of theresearch load of the final projectsince students would havealready done some preparationin writing the essay. I expectedthe quality of the films toimprove, as they would now bebased on more in-depth analysiscompared to earlier iterations ofthe assignment.

4. Final projectWorking in teams of four, thefinal project for this course was

to create an eight‐minute digitalnarrative based on a carefulreading of a work of architec-ture as well as the intentions ofits creator within a specific theo-retical framework. The projectwas divided into four parts:subject, script, short film, andreflection. Students submittedthese parts throughout thesemester. The focus was onpracticing skills of analysis,application of concepts, and theability to place the narrativewithin a robust theoretical andhistorical context. This assign-ment instilled in students thevalue of theoretical discoursesin the making of architecture ascultural artifacts and allowedthem to illustrate critical think-

ing skills while building rele-vant graphic and digital skills.

Student performanceAlthough it is difficult to quan-tify changes in student perfor-mance compared to previouscourse offerings (largely due tothe fact that many aspects of thecourse changed as well as themethods of assessment), in gen-eral I perceived significant bene-fits to learning. Specifically, thequantity as well as quality of in-class discussions improved dra-

matically, resulting in increasesin the demonstration of criticalthinking skills. It also made thecourse more fun, for me as wellas the students.

The quizzes positivelyimpacted familiarity withcourse readings as demonstrat-ed by increased student partici-pation in class discussions andmore direct references to theassigned readings.

The essay assignment provedto be a valuable exercise interms of preparation for thefinal project, as well as ademonstration of critical think-ing skills. Essay theses wereexpected to draw from coursereadings; however, in the case ofthe stronger essays—whichwere exceedingly frequent—the-sis topics tended to transcendthe specific framework of course

themes to forge new intellectualdiscourses. In many cases, stu-dents demonstrated the abilityto move beyond absorbing andre-presenting existing theoriesto synthesizing course contentwithin their own theoreticalconstructs.

The intellectual content ofthe videos tended to be uni-formly higher than in the previ-ous iteration of the assignment.Students frequently demonstrat-ed a thorough understanding ofthe theoretical lens through

which they interpreted the cho-sen work of architecture. In oneparticular case, students wereable to understand the work ofarchitect Louis Kahn throughthree distinct and surprisinglynuanced perspectives drawnfrom class discussions, all thewhile imbuing the work with avery approachable and humor-ous character. In another exam-ple, through carefully composedoriginal and borrowed footage,a minimal amount of text/nar-ration, and a well-choreo-graphed musical complement,students were able to argue con-vincingly and emotionally thatthe work of architect EeroSaarinen signaled a new trajec-tory in the ever-expandingcanon of Modernism. Theirwork attempts to pull back thecurtains of dogma to reveal a

20 Reflections

It is clear that students completed the course with amuch better understanding of theoretical constructsrelevant to future practicing architects, as well as afirmer understanding of the purpose of theory, or“what it is good for.”

more humane understanding ofModernism. While intellectualrigor increased, technical execu-tion remained constant or, insome instances, declined. Ibelieve this was due to the twoprojects competing for students’limited time resources. In thefuture, I intend to increase theextent to which the two projectsare scaffolded to build upontheir successful cooperationwhile reducing conflicts.

Taking the combined studentperformance in the essayassignment and film project,coupled with the demonstratedengagement in classroom activi-ties, it is clear that studentscompleted the course with amuch better understanding oftheoretical constructs relevant tofuture practicing architects, aswell as a firmer understandingof the purpose of theory, or“what it is good for.” In thisregard, students have frequentlymet or exceeded my goals forthe course.

ReflectionsOne of the most important ben-efits that came out of this courseredesign was that studentsbegan conversing with eachother more. It was not asinstructor-heavy as a traditionallecture course and incorporatedstudent-led discussions that arecommon in intimate seminars.The redesign allowed the courseto be more learning-orientedrather than instructor-oriented.

Increasing application anddemonstration of critical think-ing skills is essential for futuredesigners and problem solvers.Knowledge of existing theoreti-

cal concepts in architecture pro-vides students with a valuableframework for addressing avariety of complex problems. Inturn, the ability to synthesizethis knowledge will providestudents with tools to formulatea specific set of principles guid-ing their own work. This funda-mental skill is often applied inthe design studio without anyexplicit cultivation. Yet it is nec-essary to instill in future archi-tects guiding principles, convic-tions, and critical positions if wewish to advance the state of thediscipline. u

For a complete description ofKraus’ teaching project, seecte.ku.edu/gallery/portfolios/kraus

Reflections 21