Some interesting pieces from around the web:
Some ideas on putting together a research paper from Dr. Raul Pacheco-Vega. This isn’t directed particularly towards scientists, but there are some great ideas!
A neat piece of writing that reflects on the dangers of contamination in genomics work and the importance of rigour. The subject matter is tardigrades which makes the story even more interesting!
A depressing article from the Globe and Mail highlighting the gaps in policy at Canadian universities with regards to dealing with harassment complaints.
Yet another article highlighting the problem of sexual harassment in astronomy. I predict that it won’t be long until other disciplines start to clean house.
What happens when you complain about sexual harassment as a graduate student.
At the beginning of April I went to an excellent workshop facilitated by Dr. Scott Nicholson called “Games Beyond Screens in the Classroom”. Scott is the director of the Brantford Games Network game lab and teaches and chairs the program in the Bachelor of Fine and Applied Arts in Game Design and Development. The program has been wildly successful and they are looking to hire another faculty member who focuses on digital game design and project management.
Scott took us through several games during the course of the workshop and each had elements that I could easily see incorporating into my classrooms. He made the important point that after you run a game you always have to debrief. There is no point in running an activity without exploring how it made you feel, what was experienced, how it relates to your world, how you could see incorporating it into your space, and learning from the experiences of other people. Failing to debrief after a game is a very common error.
The other take-home from the workshop is that games do not have to be fun and they do not have to be fair. You are perfectly within your rights to manipulate the game in order to achieve the learning outcomes that you’d like for your students. This was a bit of a surprise for me, but having seen it in action at the workshop, I can see how it would work.
This past Monday I shared what I had learned at the workshop with some colleagues who are members of our SCAFFOLD (Student-Centred Active Flexible Face-to-Face Online Learning Discussions) community of practice. At our next meeting in May we’ll be discussing how to bring fun into our classrooms.
Do you run any games in your classrooms in order to facilitate learning? What has worked and what has been a disaster?
There was an interesting column written by Jim Lang over at the Chronicle Vitae website this week. Any column that starts with a photo of Harrison Ford as Indiana Jones is alright in my book! The content of his post “Small Changes in Teaching: Giving Them a Say” is part of a series that Dr. Lang has been writing over the past several weeks.
In his post he explains the two ways that students often approach their learning. Some students are oriented towards performance and want to excel on activities that result in a good grade (e.g. tests, assignments, etc.). Other students are mastery-oriented learners and enjoy learning for learning’s sake. I would prefer to have mastery-oriented learners in my courses.
One way to do this is to give your students choices and allow them some control over their own learning process. I tried this as an experiment in my course during the Fall 2015 term, but this was before I’d read Jim’s column obviously. I was looking to give my students options in terms of how they would be evaluated in the course in the hopes that it would lead to better engagement in class and with the material. It was my hope that students would self-select the evaluation method that would make them more comfortable and that this would be reflected in the course grades.
For this particular class I offered two evaluation options. All students had to complete one term test, five 10 minute in-class essays, and a protist trading card during the first two months of the term. During the second half of the term, students could either take a second term test (Option #1) or they completed a group case study presentation and two take home essays (Option #2). I think that this option allowed my students the ability to play to their strengths and perhaps avoid their weaknesses. Out of a class of 60 students, 36 chose Option #1 and 24 chose Option #2. Based on the written feedback that I obtained on course evaluations the students really appreciated having a say in the criteria used to evaluate them in the course. I consider this experiment a success and will likely use it again.
After reading Jim’s post I think that I could take this approach a step further and he gives some excellent examples worth thinking about.
There’s a saying here in Canada that April showers bring May flowers. The academic year ebbs and flows in predictable cycles from one year to the next. I’ve been a professor for almost 6 years now, but despite this fact, April always sneaks up on me. I always assume that April will be a quieter month since I’ve finished with my in-class teaching, but each year April is very busy and my calendar fills up with a plethora of appointments, committee meetings, seminars, and workshops. You’d think that after 5 years of April doing this sneak attack I’d wise up, but so far it hasn’t happened. It’s like the mud puddle in the Robert Munsch book…just waiting for me to come outside so that it can mess up my carefully laid plans.
April’s one redeeming quality is the start of Blue Jays baseball.