Group items tagged

This is a video posted by the Harvard Business Review. The speaker provides examples of how disrupting one's routine -- and of those around you -- can lead to new ways of doing things. I think the analogy of Miles Davis with a professor is pretty clear.

Any one of these principles could be a guiding statement for an interesting course. Do you actually have to do all 10 of them? I'd argue not, although many do go hand in hand.

It seems like this article raises as many questions as it answers. The first, of course, is whether the CIP is doing enough to provide the elements which do support deep change. But I think we also have to ask, if incentives don't produce deep change, what do they support and is that enough?

I'm intrigued by Bowen's idea of courses which offer "a playlist of 25 different types of explanations in different languages using different approaches to a single concept" to support different learning preferences. Despite the title, this idea could apply to MOOCs, tuition-based online courses, and face-to-face "blended" courses. (The assertion that the pedagogical innovation will come from MOOC-land and not established campuses is also intriguing, and troubling...)

Lots of good thoughts in this issue of AAC&U's _Diversity & Democracy_ about different ways students can work in and with off-campus communities.

Here are 6 ways faculty are using it to make their courses more engaging, flexible, and imaginative.

Great news about student resistance to active learning. Have the courage of your convictions!

"...how are we supposed to prepare students to be lifelong learners if we don't teach them how to embrace imperfection?" And by "teach them", the authors mean "model for them."

The authors describe ways in which design thinking gives students a chance to practice interdisciplinarity and engage with big questions. What if students were encouraged to bring those skills to bear on campus issues?

Afraid of making the leap into the new high-tech teaching arena? You are not alone. In fact, one of the champions of "active teaching with technology" has tempered his zeal after conversations with colleagues for whom the technology has not worked as well. This article offers a glimpse into the teaching philosophies of two professors at Kansas State University, both nationally recognized as outstanding teachers. But, if Michael Wesch seems to have reached one extreme (the high-tech one) and veered back, then Christopher Sorensen appears to have reached the other extreme (low- or even no-tech) and remains firmly entrenched. This title is not intended to provide anyone with an excuse not to try something innovative. Rather, I think there is a happy medium between the two extremes hinted at in the article (see my Weiman article post).

Michael Feldstein says that "there is a moral imperative to protect students' privacy" - but then rightly questions whether we're "protecting" privacy by taking choices away from students.

Interested in how you can get groups of students to work together? Explore some different models for student group work on the CIP website.

From a refreshing series on "teaching fails", a composition instructor describes the difficulty in scaffolding a research assignment that both provides clarity about expectations and allows for fruitful exploration. Here, the use of pedagogical and technological innovations (rubrics and screencasting) did not succeed in getting students to engage with the process--but I do think that they gave the instructor some evidence to better understand what went wrong.

Sony created a gamified augmented reality experience using a free AR platform called Metaverse. Some of the more innovative features of the experience included integration with other mobile apps, exclusive content, and guided interaction with live participants (including a wandering man in a Sasquatch costume). The platform could be used to develop place-based extension learning, student projects, or academic program promotions.

The author proposes an innovative solution to small group assignment for a collaborative project. First, students create a resume sharing their interests, skills, and views on group work. Then, students provide the instructor with a short list of their most (and least) compatible partners.