Teaching and Learning Innovation Projects - Improving University ...

3 downloads 145 Views 215KB Size Report
Faculty Development, Andrés Bello University, Santiago, Chile. Abstract. In this paper presentation we discuss the experience of the teaching and learning.
   

Teaching  and  Learning  Innovation  Projects:    Promoting  Teacher   Development  and  Innovation  among  Teachers  and  Students     Roberto  Espejo  Leupin*  and  José  Mauricio  Gónzalez-­‐Suárez,  Center  for  Innovation  and   Faculty  Development,  Andrés  Bello  University,  Santiago,  Chile    

      Abstract     In   this   paper   presentation   we   discuss   the   experience   of   the   teaching   and   learning   innovation  projects  grants  implemented  by  the  Department  of  Innovation  and  Teacher   Development   (DITD)   of   the   Office   of   the   Vice-­‐Rector   of   Academic   Affairs   of   the   University  Andrés  Bello,  in  Chile.    These  projects  are  focused  on  improving  the  quality  of   the   teaching   and   learning   processes   between   teachers   and   students   through   the   implementation  of  creative  ideas  and  strategies.  However,  they  are  also  considered  as  a   part   of   our   faculty   development   system,   being   a   space   of   teacher-­‐development–in-­‐ practice,  which  brings  together  creativity,  reflection,  and  research.       Keywords:    teaching  centers,  faculty  development,  pedagogical  philosophy                                   *    Corresponding  author.      Email:  [email protected]      

      Introduction     A   teacher   development   system   can   take   many   forms   depending   on   the   characteristics   of   its   public   and   the   institution   where   it   is   implemented.   However,   given   a   certain   context,   many   solutions   or   designs   are   possible.   What   determines   these   different   and   possible   solutions?   We   believe   that   a   pedagogical   philosophy   is   embodied   in   every   teacher   development   system.     Actually,   we   can   be   more   or   less   aware   of   these   ideas,   but   this   philosophy  conditions  the  way  in  which  we  conceive  faculty  development.    An  important   aspect   of   working   with   faculty   is   making   this   philosophy   clear.   For   example,   the   Educational  Institutional  Project  is—to  a  certain  extent,  at  least—a  way  of  expressing  a   pedagogical   philosophy   at   an   institutional   level.   However,   this   will   be   developed,   influenced   (and   sometimes   even   modified)   by   the   views   of   the   different   social   actors   who  work  in  the  different  areas  of  the  institution.     Our   experience   at   the   Andrés   Bello   University   has   to   do   with   the   implementation   of   this   philosophy   through   our   teacher   development   system.   A   lot   has   been   written   regarding  the  characteristics  of  good  university/college  teachers.  For  example,  ten  years   ago,   Bain   focused   on   the   results   that   a   good   teacher   should   have   regarding   his/her   students.  They  “had  achieved  remarkable  success  in  helping  their  students  learn  in  ways   that  made  a  sustained,  substantial,  and  positive  influence  on  how  those  students  think,   act,   and   feel”   (Bain,   2004,   p.5).   Our   pedagogical   philosophy   tells   us   that   in   order   to   accomplish  this,  teachers  should:  a)  have  room  to  experiment  with  different  pedagogical   approaches;   b)   reflect   on   the   way   they   are   teaching;   and   c)   consider   their   pedagogical   practice   as   a   possible   field   of   research.   In   this   context,   we   believe   that   grants   that   are   given  to  teachers  in  order  to  implement  a  teaching  and  learning  innovation  project  are   potentially  spaces  for  teacher  development.  That  is  the  core  idea  of  this  paper.       Our  Faculty  Development  System   The  Educational  Institutional  Project  (EIP)  of  our  university  is  the  first  expression  of  our   pedagogical   philosophy.   It   posits   that   teachers   should   develop   a   certain   set   of   characteristics:   high   expectations   for   the   students;   up-­‐to-­‐date   knowledge   of   his/her   discipline;  assessment  and  continuous  feedback  of  students;  design,  selection,  planning   2

and   implementation   of   meaningful   and   challenging   pedagogical   strategies   that   are   adjusted   to   definite   learning   outcomes   and   that   consider   the   characteristics   of   the   students.  The  utilization  of  active-­‐learning  strategies  and  the  reflection  on  practice  are   emphasized   as   well.   As   we   can   see,   these   points   define,   at   an   institutional   level,   the   outcomes   of   a   desirable   teacher   development   program.   However,   in   order   to   implement   these  ideas,  we  need  to  translate  them  into  working  tools.     The   “translation”   of   the   Department   of   Innovation   and   Teacher   Development   (DITD)   of   Andrés   Bello   University   emphasizes   two   main   ideas:   creativity   and   experimentation.   The   word   “innovation”   has   been   utilized   and   manipulated   in   many   ways,  suffering  a  sort  of  conceptual  inflation,  to  the  point  that—in  some  of  its  uses—it   has   lost   its   real   meaning.   That   is   why   we   prefer   to   return   to   a   more   classical   term:   creativity.     There   is   an   old   question   in   the   philosophy   of   education:   is   teaching   an   art   or   a   science?   Our   answer   is:     both!   This   conviction   stems   from   the   observation   that   a   good   scientist   is,   in   fact,   a   good   artist,   or—at   least—a   person   who   has   to   deploy   an   important   amount   of   creativity   in   his/her   work.   In   the   same   way,   a   pedagogue   is   in   essence   a   creator:   observation   of   his/her   students,   creation/adaptation   of   new   methodologies,   trial   and   error,   reflection.     All   these   are   (to   mention   only   some   of   them)   important   characteristics  of  both  a  scientist  and  an  artist.  So  it  is  that  creation  and  experimentation   are  the  central  elements  of  our  “translation.”   We   believe   that   teachers   should   consider   their   courses   as   innovation/creation   opportunities  and—at  the  same  time—learn  from  those  experiences.  As  we  will  discuss   later,   this   second   element   is   fundamental   but   not   always   present   in   teachers.     Accordingly,  we  have  conceived  a  teacher  development  system  that  is  composed  of  three   elements:   (1)   a   Diploma   in   University   Teaching   (DUT,   begun   in   2014);   (2)   a   set   of   workshops  that  teachers  can  take  according  to  their  interests  (began  in  2013);  and  (3)  a   system   of   grants   for   funding   teaching   and   learning   innovation   projects   (begun   in   2014).   These   three   elements   are   independent   but   complementary.   Thus,   a   teacher   who   has   pursued  the  DUT  might  deepen  some  aspects  of  a  certain  theme  in  a  workshop,  or  –  in   the   opposite   way   –   be   attracted   to   the   Diploma   after   having   attended   a   specific   workshop.  On  the  other  hand,  being  part  of  an  innovation  project  can  also  be  an  exciting   learning  experience  on  its  own.  We  shall  discuss  this  in  the  next  section.  

3

The  Diploma  in  University  Teaching  is  non-­‐compulsory,  free,  and  open  to  all  the   teachers   of   the   university   (full-­‐   and   part-­‐time,   adjunct   faculty   included).   Its   main   purpose  is  to  promote  the  ideas  of  the  Educational  Institutional  Project.  It  consists  of  8   courses  equivalent  to  178  hours  which  are  to  be  pursued  in  one  or  two  years  according   to  the  schedule  of  each  teacher.  Most  of  the  teachers  that  participate  in  this  program  are   part-­‐time/adjunct   faculty.   Thus,   in   2014   we   had   144   enrolled   teachers,   69%   of   whom   belonged  to  the  part-­‐time/adjunct  faculty.    In  2015,  99  teachers  enrolled,  88%  belonging   to   part-­‐time/adjunct   faculty.   Another   important   aspect   is   the   faculty   of   origin   of   teachers,  as  shown  in  table  1.     2014

2015

N

N

Faculty of rehabilitation science

21

16

Faculty of medicine

22

15

Faculty of law

6

4

Faculty of business and administration

7

3

Faculty of ecology and natural resources

4

2

Faculty of engineering

15

8

Faculty of humanities and education*

10

-

Faculty of social sciences*

1

-

Faculty of architecture and design

1

5

Faculty of biological sciences

7

9

Faculty of exact sciences

27

3

Faculty of nursing

5

14

Faculty of odontology

5

5

Department of the vice-rector of academics affairs

13

0

Faculty

Faculty of humanities and social sciences*

-

5

Faculty of education*

-

10

144

99

Total Table 1. Participants in the Diploma in University Teaching * Structual change of these faculties in 2015

    As   we   can   see,   most   of   the   teachers   interested   in   the   program   come   from   faculties   related  to  science,  in  particular  medicine  and  rehabilitation  science.       Teaching  and  Learning  Innovation  Projects   We   started   implementing   these   projects   in   2014.   Before   that   date   they   existed   but   were   managed  by  another  unit  in  the  Department  of  the  Vice-­‐Rector  of  Academic  Affairs  of  the   university.   The   main   reason   for   transferring   these   funds   to   the   Department   of   Innovation   and   Teacher   Development   was   the   idea   that   this   kind   of   project   should   be   4

linked   to   the   efforts   in   faculty   development   that   were   already   being   carried   out   in   the   university.      

The  duration  of  each  project  is  one  year.  They  focus  on  improving  the  quality  of  

teaching   and   learning   processes   between   teachers   and   students   through   the   implementation   of   creative   ideas   and   strategies.   When   the   DITD   was   put   in   charge   of   these   funds,   the   question   arose   as   to   how   we   could   transform   this   opportunity   into   a   coherent   part   of   our   faculty   development   system.     From   this   question   we   came   to   consider   these   grants   as   a   “field   of   application”   of   the   elements   discussed   during   the   Diploma   in   University   Teaching,   at   least   for   the   teachers   who   had   finished   or   were   pursuing   this   program.   This   includes   the   possibility   of   using   the   project’s   setting   as   a   field  of  research  for  a  particular  topic  of  university  teaching.    As  a  matter  of  fact—and   considering   the   idea   of   creativity   and   experimentation—teachers   are   asked   to   regard   these   projects   as   a   double   opportunity:     creation/innovation   and   research.     However,   this   does   not   mean   that   having   completed   or   nearly   completing   this   diploma   is   a   condition   for   having   access   to   these   funds.     Application   for   funding   is   possible   for   all   teachers   of   our   university,   no   matter   whether   they   have   pursued   the   aforementioned   program  or  not.      

The   evaluation   of   the   proposals   is   done   through   an   anonymous   peer   review  

system   centralized   by   the   DITD   and   considers   elements   such   as   clarity,   well   written   and   coherent   objectives,   creativity,   multidisciplinary   work   and   the   impact   on   the   students.     Special   importance   is   given   to   the   active   role   of   students   in   the   development   of   the   projects.     Projects   are   presented   by   a   team   that   is   led   by   a   Project   Director,   who   is   responsible   of   its   development   and   of   the   communication   with   the   DITD.   Members   of   the  adjunct  faculty  who  present  a  proposal  need  to  have  a  sponsor  (an  associate  or  full   professor)  in  order  to  apply  for  the  grant.  All  teachers  need  the  support  of  the  dean  of   their   faculty   in   order   to   participate.   Once   the   proposals   are   selected,   a   member   of   the   DITD   is   assigned   to   accompany   the   development   of   the   project.   Teachers   are   asked   to   present  a  progress  report  in  middle  of  the  time  span  of  the  project  and  a  final  report  at   the  end  of  it.     In  table  2  we  show  the  number  of  project  proposals  received  in  the  years  2014   and  2015  divided  by  disciplinary  field.  We  note,  as  in  the  case  of  the  participants  in  the   DUT,   that   the   scientific   disciplines   seem   to   be   more   attracted   to   this   kind   of   activities.     Table  3  shows  the  number  of  projects  selected  for  funding  by  disciplinary  field.   5

 

 

  Field

2014

2015

Odontology

1

1

Biology

2

1

Engineering

3

-

Law

1

Physics

3

3

Education

2

1

Social sciences

2

Chemistry

-

Business and administration

2 1

Physical therapy

-

1

Table 2. Number of proposals presented by field

 

  Field

2014

2015

Odontology

-

1

Biology

1

-

Engineering

2

-

Law

-

-

Physics

1

2

Education

-

-

Social sciences

1

-

Chemistry

-

1

Business and administration

-

1

Physical therapy

-

-

Table 3. Number of selected proposals by field

 

   Most   of   the   projects   consist   of   applications   of   different   teaching   and   learning   methodologies   in   the   context   of   our   University.   Thus,   for   example,   four   of   the   five   projects  selected  in  2014  had  to  do  with  active  learning  strategies  (the  following  titles   are   free   translations   from   Spanish):   (a)   “Programming   and   Robotics”;   (b)   “Physics   for   Biochemistry”;   (c)   “Active   Learning   in   Biology   Teaching”;   and   (d)   “Collaborative   Learning  and  Critical  Thinking  in  Computer  Science”.  The  other  project  was  focused  on   accompanying   literature   student   in   their   final   seminar.     In   2015   all   the   selected   projects   were   implementations   of   active   learning   strategies:   (a)   “Flipped   Classroom   in   Physics   Teaching”;  (b)  “Using  Games  to  Teach  Chemistry”;  (c)  “Teaching  Physics  to  Architecture   Students”;  (d)  “Service  Learning  for  Improving    Teaching”;  and    (e)  “Using  Biomaterials   in  Odontology  Teaching”.   6

  Discussion   In   order   to   consider   this   kind   of   grant   as   a   space   for   faculty   development,   a   paradigm   shift   in   teachers   in   needed.   An   innovation   project   can   be   conceived   from   many   different   points  of  view.  On  one  hand  we  have  an  attitude  that  could  be  called  “pragmatic.”  In  this   case,   what   matters   most   are   the   results   of   the   project,   in   this   case   its   impact   on   the   teaching   and   learning   process.   On   the   other   hand   we   can   also   speak   of   a   learning-­‐ developmental   attitude,   where   the   teacher   recognizes   the   relevance   of   the   learning   experience   associated   with   the   project   itself.   We   believe   that   in   the   field   of   university   teaching   both   approaches   should   be   kept   in   mind   if   we   want   teachers   to   derive   maximum  benefit  from  the  experience  regarding  their  own  development.      

In   general,   teachers   tend   to   focus   on   the   first,   “pragmatic”   attitude.   Some   of   them  

do   reflect   on   what   the   experience   has   given   to   them   in   the   field   of   pedagogical   development,  but  in  a  rather  unstructured  and  informal  way.  Many  times  they  even  use   their   classroom   experience   as   the   basis   for   extracting   rules   of   thumb   in   the   form   of   pedagogical  recipes  that  are  not  valid  in  all  contexts.    In  order  to  promote  this  second,   metacognitive  component,  the  focus  of  these  grants  had  to  be  changed.  When  we  initially   implemented   them   in   2014,   we   followed   the   same   guidelines   that   had   been   applied   before   the   Center   for   Innovation   and   Faculty   Development   was   in   charge   of   them.   But   we   then   introduced   some   modifications   for   the   grants   of   2015.   For   example,   until   this   moment  only  contract  teachers  with  at  least  22  hours  a  week  of  work  at  the  university   could   apply.   We   changed   this   policy   opening   the   possibility   to   all   the   teachers   of   the   adjunct  faculty.      

In   order   to   relate   the   projects   to   our   whole   system   of   faculty   development,  

specifically   to   the   Diploma   in   University   Teaching,   we   included   in   2014   an   elective   seminar   on   “Innovation   and   Research   in   Higher   Education,”   in   which   the   participants   were   asked   to   create   and   present   a   project   proposal,   which   was   evaluated   by   their   colleagues.  Our  idea  was  that  good  proposals  could  eventually  apply  for  the  funds  next   year.   One   important   aspect   of   this   seminar   was   to   realize   that   -­‐   in   general   -­‐   teachers   are   not   aware   of   the   relevance   and   importance   of   research   in   the   pedagogy   of   their   own   disciplines.  Socializing  and  showing  them  this  possibility  has  proven  to  be  an  important   motivational  trigger  to  deepen  their  ideas  and  to  look  for  the  necessary  spaces  in  order   to  implement  them.       7

The   result   of   this   strategy   was   interesting:   in   2014   we   received   14   proposals,   none   of   which   was   related   to   the   rest   of   our   faculty   development   activities.   On   the   other   hand,   in   2015   we   received   10   proposals,   5   of   which   were   presented   by   teachers   who   were   pursuing   our   Diploma   in   University   Teaching.   However,   we   do   not   want   to   focus   only  on  those  teachers  already  pursuing  our  Diploma.  On  the  contrary,  keeping  project   funding   open   to   all   teachers   also   allows   us   to   use   the   application   process   as   a   sort   of   entrance  door  to  our  faculty  development  system.    This  year  we  are  planning  a  follow-­‐up   that   includes   an   important   modification   of   the   progress   and   final   reports,   in   order   to   emphasize  reflection  on  the  experience  (Brookfield,  1995)  and  the  learning  component   discussed  above.      

One   important   limitation   of   this   faculty   development   strategy   is   the   relatively  

scarce   resources   currently   available   for   implementing   project   proposals.   Thus,   if   we   consider   that   approximately   40   teachers   complete   our   Diploma   every   year,   we   could   assume   forming   teams   of   three   teachers,   and   further   suppose   that   all   proposals   fulfill   the   quality   conditions   required   by   the   grant.   In   that   case   the   number   of   projects— granted,   in   an   ideal   world—that   merit   funding   could   reach   13.   This   is   of   course   an   extreme  situation,  but  also  a  desirable  one.      

 

 

 

 

Conclusions   John   Dewey’s   idea   of   a   learning   experience   as   one   that   allows   learning   to   continue   is   relevant   here.   In   words   of   Dewey:   “the   central   problem   of   an   education   based   on   experience  is  to  select  the  kind  of  present  experiences  that  live  fruitfully  and  creatively   in   subsequent   experiences”   (Dewey,   1998,   p.16).   Following   the   pedagogical  philosophy   that   we   have   already   discussed,   the   grants   for   teachers   described   in   this   paper   can   be   transformed   into   important   learning   experiences   in   the   field   of   faculty   development— both  as  an  application  of  an  initial  set  of  pedagogical  ideas  (in  our  case  the  DUT)  and  a   point  of  departure  regarding  pedagogical  experimentation  and  research.      

However,  in  order  to  transform  a  project  into  a  pedagogical  learning  experience  

for  teachers,  several  prior  conditions  are  needed.  First,  institutional  support  is  essential.   This   means   not   only   having   the   resources   for   funding   teachers’   ideas,   but   also   the   possibility  of  being  flexible  regarding  a  result-­‐based  vision  of  projects.  In  other  words,   teachers  should  have  the  space  to  create  and  to  experience  new  things  and  this  means  

8

that   sometimes   objectives   and   indicators   will   not   be   very   clear   beforehand.   The   institution  should  take  this  into  account  in  awarding  support.        

On   the   other   hand,   as   mentioned   above,   teachers   approach   projects   thinking  

about   the   impact   that   they   will   have   on   student   learning   and   not   necessarily   on   the   faculty  development  process  itself.  It  is  important  then  to  emphasize  the  rewards  of  this   second   aspect   to   faculty   undertaking   these   projects.   To   facilitate   this,  reflection   on   the   pedagogical  aspects  of  the  developed  project  should  be  required  as  a  condition  for  the   grant.  In  the  same  way,  the  relationship  between  the  grant-­‐supported  projects  and  the   rest   of   the   faculty   development   activities   of   the   university   should   be   made   clearly   explicit.   An   important   point   to   consider   in   the   future   is   the   certification   of   the   competences  that  teachers  are  able  to  develop  during  the  implementation  of  a  project.   This  could  be  done  using  portfolios  in  order  to  assess  the  process,  which  might  indicate   the  teacher’s  changing  attitude  regarding  certain  predefined  criteria.          

 

 

References       Bain,  K.  (2004).  What  the  Best  College  Teachers  Do.  Cambridge:  Harvard  University  Press.     Brookfield,  S.  (1995).  Becoming  a  critically  reflective  teacher.  San  Francisco:  Jossey-­‐Bass.       Dewey,  J.  (1998).  Experience  and  education.  Indianapolis:  Kappa  Delta  Pi.          

9