1.Understanding material. 

The discussion assignments engaged students in defining concepts, organizing ideas, and responding to complex issues and questions.  The quality of the DA's indicates that on a day-to-day basis students developed a reasonable grasp of the material.  There were few instances of "insubstantial" DA's (i.e. superficial or trivial attempts to answer questions).  These assignments helped me appreciate how students' prior beliefs and "theories" of teaching and learning influenced their understanding of the new material.  Their "folk theories" often were obstacles to new learning.  I analyzed one example of this in the portfolio entry, "Assessment of Small Group Learning Activity," and showed how students' prior beliefs prevented them from using cognitive concepts to analyze and explain a teaching situation.  Another instance of this type of "folk thinking" occurred when we studied theories and research on academic motivation.  Students read and apparently understood different psychological models of motivation, but when given examples of children with poor academic motivation still tended to rely on "folk wisdom" to explain the situations (i.e., children who are poorly motivated in school must have some kind of personal or family problem that interferes with their motivation to learn in school).

These results suggest that teaching for understanding does not merely involve adding pieces of  "correct" information to students' knowledge structures, and does not end when they can reproduce information accurately.  Instead it means promoting revisions in informal theories in light of formal knowledge—effecting changes in students' basic assumptions and beliefs about the topics and issues.  I was not nearly as successful as I would have liked to be in trying to foster these revisions in belief systems.

2.Critical thinking. 

The DA's group work, and writing assignments typically involved some form of critical thinking (i.e., analysis, evaluation, integration, synthesis, and formulation of new ideas), and I evaluated the "quality" of thinking in every piece of work that I graded.  For example, on culminating essays I distinguished between responses that used relevant evidence to support ideas and those that did not (See appendix item, "Feedback On Culminating Essay #1," for a description of evaluative criteria).  The table below reports the percentages of students who wrote good, adequate and inadequate responses on each of four in-class essays.  Since the complexity and demands differ from one assignment to another, I cannot say much about individual students' progress in learning to think more critically.  The critical thinking tasks posed a formidable challenge for students.  As essay 4 indicates, many students were still having difficulty constructing effective arguments even late in the semester.

QUALITY OF REASONING

*Essay #3 was done in groups, and each group produced a sound argument.

 

Students' self-assessments provide additional information about their critical thinking. An analysis of students' ideas about their own thinking is contained in the entry "Students' Self-assessment and Assessment of Teaching."  In addition, on the summative course/instructor evaluation I asked students to assess their own ability to think critically and to give examples of some of the ways their thinking had changed.  Twenty-seven students indicated that their ability to think critically improved a lot, and 8 said it improved somewhat.  Students cited such changes as, being able to see alternative perspectives better, integrating ideas more effectively, giving a rationale or justification for ideas, questioning ideas previously taken for granted, applying ideas learned in class to teaching situations in a field placement.  An important change for some students was the realization that using appropriate evidence is an important part of argumentation.  This marks an epistemological shift in which students moved from a kind of relativist view (i.e., all opinions are equally valid) to a belief that arguments must be based upon reasons and certain kinds of evidence. 

However, recognizing the need for evidence does not insure that students can use evidence skillfully, and it was this lack of skill that was the most common "critical thinking problem" among the students.  At least half of the students in the class had trouble using appropriate evidence to construct well-reasoned positions.  This is best illustrated in one of the essays students wrote on the subject of motivation (essay #4).  They had to devise strategies to enhance children's academic motivation, and to explain, based upon theory and research, how and why the strategies were likely to work.  They readily identified motivation strategies but often could not explain why the strategies would enhance motivation.  This was another instance in which students invoked "folk theories" to explain their strategies (e.g., many students suggested that by giving children successful experiences in school, their motivation would increase because—"success breeds success").

The quality of thinking in the discussion groups was reasonably good during the semester.  Students reported high levels of productive behavior in the groups (e.g., elaborating on others' ideas, giving examples, asking for and giving evidence to support ideas, etc.).  Many students cited the groups as important settings where they could try out ideas, hear alternative views, disagree with one another, and get help.  The quality of the groups was due in part to students' preparation.  The discussion assignments insured that students came to class well prepared to talk about the questions and issues.  Another factor may be the discussion guidelines that we developed in class as the beginning of the semester.  We spent a class period identifying productive and counter-productive discussion behavior.  The characteristics students helped to generate formed a set of guidelines they used to evaluate the quality of group learning.

In summary, students did a lot of critical thinking in this class.  I am not completely satisfied with the overall level of argumentation skill students attained during the semester.  On balance, I recognize that I asked students to do something quite difficult—to use ideas they had just learned to analyze complex situations in the same way a psychologist would, and then talk about it like a psychologist would.  The self-assessments and discussion evaluations provide a more encouraging picture—one of students improving in a wide variety of thinking skills.  This suggests that if I look only at final products I may underestimate or overlook significant progress in learning to think critically.  And, overall a lot of good thinking took place on a daily basis.

 

3.Students' interest in learning more about the subject. 

Students will forget most of what they learn in any class.  Perhaps, the single greatest effect I can have on students is to promote greater commitment to and interest in learning.  The enthusiasm in this class was palpable.  At the end of the course, 30 students indicated that the class increased their interest in the topics a lot, and another 6 said their interest increased somewhat.  In general, I attribute the high interest levels to the quality of the course readings, the group learning format, and perhaps a disproportionate number of "interested" students in the class.  I selected articles and readings that I enjoyed reading, and tried to juxtapose them to present alternative, often conflicting, views of issues and problems.  Students responded with enthusiasm to the readings.  They told their friends about some of the books, and used some of the articles to support their work in other classes.  For instance, students read Among Schoolchildren by Tracy Kidder and The Learning Gap by Harold Stevenson and Jim Stigler.  Both of these present penetrating analyses of American education but in completely different ways.  Kidder's book chronicles life in one fifth grade classroom during an entire school year, and Stevenson's and Stigler's book reports 10 years of cross cultural research on Asian and American education.  Students referred to these books throughout the semester for examples, and claimed that both had considerable influence on their views of education.  I also used a few chapters from a best-selling textbook.  Students referred to it as "boring."  Textbooks may do a decent job of summarizing information, but they tend to be homogenized, predigested, and passionless.

The evaluations of group learning were extremely positive.  A large majority of students reported that they learned a lot and enjoyed working in the groups.  In fact, there were a number of converts who claimed that prior to the class they disliked group work intensely but had found group learning in the class to be valuable and enjoyable.  The small groups enhanced interest in the topics because students had an opportunity to work with open-ended issues and exercise control over their own learning rather than merely following my orders or listening to my views about topics.

Many students also claimed my enthusiasm for the subject was "contagious," anecdotal support for the notion that students find it easier to be interested in and care about the subject when their teacher does. I am especially gratified by the students' enthusiasm and interest throughout the course. It made the course an enjoyable experience for me. The rapport among students was unusually positive. These were a group of particularly supportive students who helped to generate excitement in learning.

4.Students' ability to develop ideas and communicate more effectively through writing.

Students learn to write better when they practice a lot in situations where they have clear criteria and examples of good writing, receive constructive feedback, and revise their work.  I tried to incorporate these elements into the class by: 

A.using frequent informal writing (DA's) to help students develop and organize ideas before writing final essays

B.giving essay questions in advance

C.allowing students to use a page of notes when they wrote the essays in class

D.establishing clear criteria for evaluating written work

E.using students' own work as examples to illustrate good writing

F.giving written feedback on all formal writing (essays and the writing project)

G.using structured peer review on the writing project

The quality of writing in this class was unusually good.  The DA's were typically substantive.  Performance on the authentic writing project was very good.  In general, the writing was clear, clean and well adapted to the audience.  (I discussed some of the problems with the writing projects in the portfolio entry, "Assessment of Authentic Writing Project.")  The weakest writing appeared in the culminating essays, and the most common writing/thinking problem was lack of coherence or focus.  Perhaps 30-40% of the class had some difficulty organizing their ideas, establishing effective transitions, maintaining a line of reasoning, and fitting the pieces into a coherent whole.  Or course, all writing and thinking involves structuring and restructuring ideas, and this is especially difficult when you are unfamiliar with the subject matter.

I asked students to assess their ability to write effectively, and to give examples of improvements in their writing skill during the semester.  Ten students said their writing improved a lot, 18 said it improved somewhat, and 8 said their writing improved a little.  Ten students claimed that their ability to organize and integrate ideas in writing improved during the semester.  Seven students referred to improvements in explaining and supporting arguments more effectively.  Several others noted improvements in clarity, fluency and in being more comfortable expressing ideas in writing.  These comments suggest that students made some progress that I overlooked by focusing on their final products, and that I need to devise better ways of monitoring changes in writing skills.  I am encouraged by the reference to improvement in writing coherent arguments.  This is further evidence that students become more aware during the semester of the nature and quality of argumentation, and that they were able to assess their own writing in relation to this. 

5.Students' ability to monitor and assess their own learning and thinking.

 I established this as a major course goal without having very clear ideas about how I would help students achieve it or how I would assess it.  During the semester I asked students to assess their behavior in group learning situations, and at midterm gave students a take-home assignment to assess their own learning progress and my teaching.  Both of these types of assessments produced interesting information about how students think about their own learning, thinking, and development.

Reading the discussion evaluations and self-assessments has helped me recognize that students can provide important information about their own learning and also about teaching.  They are quite capable of self-observation as long as there is a clear purpose and context for the activity, and they can talk sensibly about their learning, especially when they are asked specific questions.  I intend to explore additional ways to structure and foster self-assessment.  I am intrigued, for example, with the possibility of developing a set of "thinking guidelines" that describe various qualities of good thinking, and then having students use these to monitor their own development throughout a semester.  I may also experiment with some form of self-evaluation on assignments and essays.

Students' perceptions and views of my teaching and the course.  I believe that assessment of teaching should be connected to assessment of learning.  I have tried to involve students more directly in assessment of teaching by collecting feedback from them at several points in the course.  For example, when students evaluated discussions, they also evaluated my role in the discussion.  At midterm students assessed several aspects of my teaching as part of the self-assessment assignment.  They evaluated how the DA's, small group learning, and lectures affected their progress toward several course goals, and also suggested changes in teaching that would make the class a more effective learning experience for them.  And, at the end of the semester students completed a course/instructor evaluation (See entry, "Results of the Course/Instructor Evaluation").

Students' views on discussion assignments.  Students wrote discussion assignments for nearly every class period.  I collected these regularly and sometimes evaluated them.  All but one student claimed that doing these assignments contributed substantially to their understanding of the reading material, and their ability to organize and integrate information related to important questions and issues we addressed in the class.  Students also said that the DA's made them read and think more carefully about the material.  Many students said that they have never done as much careful reading and writing as they had in this class.  The most common complaints (voiced by a clear majority of students) were that there was too much reading in the class, and that the DA's were too time consuming.  I intend to streamline the DA's; some were too long and did not promote much real learning or thinking.  Students gave me some good advice about how to improve the DA's including:

A.having students read one another's' responses occasionally and give written responses to them

B.receiving all of the assignments at the beginning of a "unit" so they could see where the class was headed

C.more feedback from the teacher

Students' views on group learning.  Students saw the group work as an important part of the course.  They cited a variety of ways that it helped them learn.  Some said they benefited from hearing alternative interpretations and perspectives on the same topics.  Many said they learned to listen to others and respect their viewpoints.  Others said they learned to disagree without disliking their group members.  Students also referred to the facilitating effects of being challenged in the groups to explain, give examples, justify and support their ideas.  Some talked about needing the support of peers to help develop their ideas more fully.  And, many also talked about feeling free to speak their minds without being ridiculed in public.  Students thought the group work could be improved by:

A.making students rotate through different groups

B.providing more specific directions about the expected "product" of the discussion

C.comparing ideas across groups more often

D.building in some type of individual accountability occasionally

E.rotating leadership responsibility within groups

Students' viewpoints on my lectures.  In the past I lectured extensively, and received good evaluations from students.  I now lecture less frequently and more strategically.  I try to use lecture time to establish perspectives and frameworks for understanding material, for clarifying particularly abstruse concepts, and for highlighting conflicts or major issues.  There was an interesting division of opinion about lectures in the class.  Nine students said that they disliked lectures; it was difficult for them to maintain attention, and they often found themselves daydreaming.  Another segment of the class viewed lectures as a necessary "evil."  They said it's important to have lectures because they help to clarify ideas and bring out important material, but they also view them as most effective when they are brief (less than 30 minutes).  And, a third segment of the class clearly liked lectures and wanted me to lecture more often, claiming that they really helped them understand new material.  Of course, teachers always learn a great deal by preparing and giving lectures, but students do not.  I would rather have students engage in "teaching" as a way to improve their learning than to listen to the products of my thinking.

My final analysis.  Throughout this portfolio I have examined the relationships between my teaching and students' learning, thinking, and development.  In this last section I discuss what has worked well and what needs to be improved.  This analysis is very selective—I have chosen only the parts of the course most relevant to my concerns.

During the past five years I have been working toward a certain kind of ideal classroom environment.  I refer to it as a critical learning community.  In a critical community students construct their knowledge and understanding collaboratively with support and challenge from one another.  And, in a critical community, teaching is also a collaborative endeavor.  Students assume greater responsibility for one another's learning.  The professor serves as a leader—one who structures material, activities and situations so that students engage interesting ideas in complex ways.  The professor also serves as a guide—one who gives advice, constructive criticism and support.  And, the professor also participates as a student—one who continues to learn more about the subject matter and more about teaching.

I began writing a teaching statement for this portfolio in summer, 1992, which prompted close examination of how my actual teaching practices square with the aim of fostering critical community in the particular course.  This self-review led to major transformation of the course.  I developed the idea of discussion assignments as preparation for group work.  I decided to use group work much more extensively than I had in the past.  I adopted a new set of articles and books.  The methods of evaluating students' learning (culminating essays and the authentic writing project) are all new.  I took some major risks, and I was quite apprehensive as the semester began.  The fact that the course did not blow up in my face is almost enough to consider it a success from my point of view.  More gratifying still is the fact that this class developed into some semblance of a critical community.  Students worked more effectively together and learned from one another.  They challenged and supported one another.  They became interested in the issues and problems in the class, and assumed much greater control and responsibility for their learning.

Some features of the course worked especially well.  Writing was an integral part of learning and thinking in the class and not just add-on activities.  The integration of writing assignments with small group learning was very successful and fostered substantive, well-focused discussions and high levels of satisfaction in group situations.  The "discussion guidelines" provided a framework in which students challenged and supported one another's learning and did not just swap opinions.  By monitoring the group discussions, I was able to adjust to minor problems before they became major ones.  I became confident that real learning was taking place in the groups, and consequently, I increased the frequency of group work at midterm.

The writing projects represent an improvement in my use of formal writing assignments.  They were successful for three reasons.  First, students selected topics and project types that interested them; they became invested in these as their own work—and not just as required school tasks.  A second factor is the "authenticity" of the projects.  Students wrote the projects for purposes and audiences outside of the class which enhanced the quality of their writing.  Third, I believe the peer review produced better papers.  Students learned more about their projects by critiquing projects similar to their own, and by getting constructive feedback from peers.  Next time I teach the class I intend to use more peer review opportunities, and to develop better guidelines for certain types of projects (e.g., teacher interviews and classroom observations/analyses).

I also note some modest progress in my development as a teacher.  Gradually, I am overcoming the last vestiges of the traditional teaching paradigm (i.e., teacher as sole expert who delivers knowledge to students).  I am trying to be a teacher whose classroom practices are consistent with the belief that learning involves the social construction of meaning and understanding.  In this class, I was better able to share control and responsibility for teaching and learning with students instead of dominating them.  This was due, in part, to the quality of the group discussions.  I felt less need to jump in to fix or control things.  I think I am improving at leading discussions.  In the past, I have had no trouble getting students to talk in class—but I occupied center stage, and dominated the conversation.  In this class, I was better able to withhold my own views, listen to students, and to discuss with them instead of talking at them.  This is not to say that I always held back.  I realize that my contributions can enhance students' understanding and thinking—but I can also stifle their thinking by dominating them.  I am more careful about how I talk with students; less likely to pounce on naive ideas, and more likely to support incipient beliefs.  I am trying to shed my "error detection" tendencies, and become better at finding and supporting the "growing edge" of students' thinking.

I am not satisfied completely with the quantity or quality of constructive feedback I gave during the semester.  On the one hand, the written comments I gave on essays did make some difference.  Students referred to these in their self-assessments, and some tried to incorporate my suggestions in subsequent essays.  In addition to comments on individual essays, I wrote 2-3 page handouts after each essay that identified areas of strength and weakness for the class as a whole.  I may experiment with a technique used by Tori Harring-Smith, a professor at Brown, who gives audiotaped feedback on students' papers.  This reduces the amount of time it takes to give comments.  I keep looking for ways to be a more "supportive critic," and to be a more effective participant in the classroom learning conversation.