Year-end Sale % OFF 
Abstract
A primary goal of university instruction is the students’ demonstration of improved, highly developed critical thinking (CT) skills. However, how do faculty encourage CT and its potential concomitant increase in student workload without negatively impacting student perceptions of the course? In this investigation, an advanced biology course is evaluated after structural changes (implemented in 2010) met with a poor student evaluation of the course and the instructor. This analysis first examines the steps used to transform a course to encourage CT and then explains how it can be assessed. To accomplish these goals, the instructor collaborated with an educational developer to redesign the course using a philosophy informed by SoTL. This approach, as we see it, represents a set of principles that demand transparency in the development and application of strategies whose aim is to encourage student learning. However, the SoTL approach would be insufficient to simply promote a set of strategies without some mechanism for evaluating its efficacy. Therefore, we designed a “Graded Response” (GR) multiple-choice test to measure CT development and hence to properly evaluate whether the strategies embedded in our SoTL-informed course redesign have adequately met our goals.
Highlights
The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) begins with moments of reflection on what students are learning, and why. Brookfield (1997) emphasizes the role of reflection whereby instructors should examine their performance through a lens of what he termed “critical mirrors” (Brookfield, 1997, p. 19)
He encourages inviting criticism from peers to facilitate deeper thinking about teaching and learning, a necessary part redesign: “When our peers listen to our stories and reflect back to us what they see and hear in those stories, we are often presented with a version of ourselves and our actions that comes as a surprise” (Brookfield, 1997, p.19)
The idea of “truth” or truthfulness is an extension of the underlying philosophy of the WGCTA and is fundamental to the Graded Response” (GR) test, the specific assessment we developed during this course redesign
Summary
Biggs’s (1996 & 1999) notion of “constructive alignment” in course design: only through personal reflection on the part of the instructor could the alignment objectives and assessment tasks be integrated in a manner that encourages deeper learning. The literature describes many learning environments as a by-product of the contemporary university cohort (Abualrub, Karseth, & Stensaker, 2013; Aldridge & Fraser, 2000; Aldridge, Dorman & Fraser, 2004; Blair, 2013) The absence of a SoTL approach to course design may directly contribute to the course’s failure, as the instructor has misjudged the students’ learning and vario us contexts and leaves unexamined the entire approach to the classroom This can leave students ill prepared and not properly guided through the investigative and reflective behaviours that are vital for creating a CCSF environment more likely to support CT. A key trait of this course redesign template, is to provide a method for redesigning a course, and to ensure that the entire process can be assessed through its exposure to academic scrutiny
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: Teaching & Learning Inquiry The ISSOTL Journal
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
