A recording of our session at SXSWedu - what I was up to the first week of March. All about engaging students through immersive role-playing games! https://soundcloud.com/sxswedu/engaging-students-through-immersive-role-play-sxswedu-2017
I don't quite know how to explain what I am seeing in my classes with male students, particularly football players, when I employ a type of game in a class.
I am teaching my introductory art history survey course in a hybrid manner. The students access the content of the course online; they watch videos that are ably created and narrated by two art historians which can be found on smarthistory.org. The students then comment in discussion boards about what they read. The are also required to write papers and carry on reflections on their learning in journals in Blackboard. When we do meet F2F in the classroom, rather than lecturing or quizzing them, I have an active learning scenario planned.
We just finished the module on Greek art, and the active learning technique I employed in the F2F portion of our class was a debate/game mechanism on whether or not the Elgin/Parthenon marbles should be returned to Greece. I gave out roles via email. I had one day F2F in class where students mingled in character at a "party" at the Acropolis Museum. Then we had the debate.
The students that I expected to do well, did. But six of my male student-athletes in the class, who quite frankly have been fairly lackluster so far this semester, really stood out. Their speeches and their comments and questions hit it out of the park. Five of them happened to be football players. If you have been following my blog, you will know that this is becoming something of a theme.
What is it about changing the dynamic of the class that brings about those students who ordinarily fade as much as they can into the background (often, literally, sitting in the back of the room) suddenly rise up and are the stars of the class? I saw it again with this class activity.
I also had a colleague of mine run a focus group with the five football players from my fall 2015 semester of Roman art in order to start to gathering some data about what is happening in my classes, not just with Reacting, but with the other forms of active learning that I employ. I hope to post that information sometime soon.
But this short game in the introductory class provides another piece of evidence that changing it up, what I call "activizing" the classroom, can bring new students to the fore, and have them actively participate in class. They find their voices and they find their power for learning. If we can find a way to shake it up, I find students, some of whom, I would not expect to do so, will rise to the challenge.
I posted this to Facebook last night, and I decided to add it here, to my blog. It was inspired by a win by our McDaniel "Green Terror" Football team, after a very long non-winning streak.
I believe it is largely my responsibility to engage my students. I believe that students in the middle of the pack often get the shaft. Faculty tend to gravitate to those students "like them" - the high achievers. And I love those students, too. And students with extra needs tend to get a ton of attention. And just ask SASS how often I call them to help a student.
I view myself as the Champion of the Middle. Football players tend to be in the middle. They are not the best, nor the worst, students I encounter. I had six of them last fall in Roman Art and decided I was going to make them love the course. By the middle of it, they did (and I have assessments to prove it thanks to Peggy Fosdick). I followed their horrible zero win season last fall, tweeting "My Romans," as I came to call them, before every game to support them. They even inspired me to propose a talk at an international art conference that has been accepted: "A Tale of Six Football Players (and others) and Roman Art."
I have six more players this fall and they have lost three games this year. BUT TODAY THEY WON! I simply love them and their dedication and am so happy today I could bust. This is why I teach. The BEST PART OF MY YEAR (and yes I did just go to Greece) was standing at the top of the stairs, waiting for each of them to come up. A few of them started up the stairs, and looked up when they heard me yell their name. In a few cases, their faces lit up when they saw that I was standing there. I hugged every sweaty one of them, still in pads and uniform. My heart swelled and it was The Best. It made me remember why I do what I do and how much I LOVE IT. I can't wait to go to Homecoming and cheer them on again and greet them at the stairs again, too.
Can't wait to continue to find ways to engage students in the coming days, months, and years.
I have been asked to share some thoughts with the faculty and administrators who will be starting the second CIC Online Humanities Consortium, funded by the Mellon Foundation. We just finished the concluding workshop of the first consortium yesterday. I've gathered some thoughts.
We carried out assessments of about the efficacy of online learning with the great folks at Ithaka S+R. One finding was that students say that what they liked best about their online courses was flexibility. This was their number one issue.
I will admit that this made me a bit sad. I scoured the internet for digital information and projects to enliven my course – to make it collaborative and up to date and exciting. And for that I get a “thumbs up for flexibility?!”
But I also understand this. The demographics for college students have changed even since when I started teaching more than 15 years ago. Students are busier than ever; they have jobs, or two or even three. They often have obligations to family. And they may not be the magical age of 18-22, which we sort of assume the students will be. So, sure, I can see how flexibility may be the main issue for them. But that also doesn’t mean it’s the only reason we need to offer these types of courses.
At the first Consortium's concluding workshop, we talked about how our digital/online courses introduced students to how to use media/the digital for something other than selfies and social media exposure. I believe that these type of courses help us to harness the digital world and make it work for education and student learning. These are skills that are essential for our students. And I completely reject the notion that they are “digital natives.” They are “digital consumers” like most of us, but they - like the rest of us - need to learn how to harness the power of the digital world for their future jobs and lives. From my experience, being IN an online course can help students learn these lessons.
Thus, I believe it is imperative that faculty become familiar and comfortable with digital pedagogy. This online consortium, and through it my work with Steve Kerby, who is an Instructional Technologist/Guru, has taught me a few things that I find are influencing my teaching, in all its formats:
START WITH LEARNING OBJECTIVES. Everything is about that. Not content – not topics. It’s about learning objectives.
Think about the learning objectives and "chunk" the course into modules that make sense together.
Then think backwards:
- Make sure you have the right activities for students to do/read/watch to get to those learning objectives for that “chunk” of the course?
- Make sure there is adequate time to reflect and THINK about the module. They may need time to circle back after answering a question, but then reading others’ comments on the discussion boards.
- Make sure you have adequate and appropriate assessments to see if they learned that which you hoped/intended.
I now approach every class this way: what do I want them to learn from this course, from this topic, from this reading, from this particular class meeting period. And I then build accordingly. I think it's made me a better teacher, and I'm very grateful to the CIC and my colleagues that were part of the first consortium for teaching me so much.
What are your thoughts on online teaching?