|
|
|
The following material on the Small Group Instructional Diagnosis (SGID) is in three parts:
- A Model for Consulting with Faculty
- Small Group Instructional Diagnosis
- SGID Instructions and Handouts
Note: The original documents, instructions, and response forms can be downloaded for your use.
Tom Creed, Coordinator
Learning Enhancement Service
St. John's University/College of Saint Benedict
In Opening Doors, we modeled Pat's and Chris's consultation technique after the process that I developed at the Learning Enhancement Service (LES) at Saint John's University/College of Saint Benedict for consulting with faculty about their teaching. This procedure is not unique, and is based on well-established techniques developed by several people. It's not the only model one could use, but it does provide a starting place for those interested in working with faculty in a structured way.
Most consultations involve an iterative process--gather information, discuss, implement change, gather information, etc. Consultations are adapted to the needs of the individual faculty member, but typically consist of the following components, roughly in the following sequence:
- Course Documents and Written Statements
- Initial Meeting
- Classroom Observation
- Videotaping
- Second Meeting
- Small Group Instructional Diagnosis (SGID)
- Follow-up Meetings
Course Documents and Written Statements
Faculty members submit several documents related to their teaching, including a copy of their syllabus, the text they use for the course, written assignments and graded papers, past course evaluations (if they are comfortable with this) and any other printed material that they think will help us to get to know what they do in their class. In addition, we ask faculty to write a "position" statement about their teaching, including:
- Their goals for the course. We've found it useful to have them imagine running into one of their former students five years after they took this class. What would they like this student to be like because she took this course? This description should include:
- What the student should know
- What she should be able to do
- What attitudes she should have
We've found this question useful for exploring broader issues as well ("What would you hope a student would be like because of attending the college"?) We recently sponsored a panel for new faculty, and had representatives from several areas of the campus reflect on what they hoped a student to be like because of their office (e.g.--"What would you hope a student would be like because of the career counseling she received?")
- We then ask the faculty member to reflect on a few questions about their current classroom practices:
- What are their current classroom practices?
- Why do they do what they do?
- To what extent do these practices contribute to their goals?
The syllabus, text and other documents tell quite a bit about what the faculty member is currently doing in their course, their philosophy of teaching, and their assumptions about students. For example, Albert's syllabus was a single sheet of paper--a skimpy syllabus indicates that he may be making a lot of assumptions (usually unwarranted) about his students. If assignments are simply laid out with no explanation, it implies they assume students are to do what they are told without reflecting on why they should be doing it, even if this is not the message they wish to convey.
The course evaluations do provide some information about how their teaching has been received by students in the past, as well as specific strengths and weaknesses in their teaching.
The written statement not only gives us some information about the faculty member, but also has the added value of getting them to think about what they are doing in their course and why. A common comment when I first meet with faculty is that they had to struggle with the statement, but they can already see things they are doing in their course that they should change-- before we've even talked! Of the questions we ask the faculty member to write about, I think the most important question is, "Why do you do what you do?" We should all think about this question more often than we do.
Initial Meeting
We have an initial meeting during which we discuss the faculty member's syllabus, course evaluations and statement. During this conversation, we focus on their goals and why these goals are important to them, what they are doing in class and why, and what they think is happening in class and why. We also talk about how we should proceed with the consultation process. What are their goals for it? How extensive should the consultation be? We present a "cafeteria" style menu of options, and we discuss the advantages/disadvantages of each. It is important to us that the faculty member feels in control of the process. Like Pat's situation in the video, our service is entirely voluntary, and the faculty member needs to know that this is a formative process. LES staff are barred from reporting on consultations, or even who has had a consultation. We do not write letters, even at the request of the faculty member with whom we've talked.
Classroom Observation
We visit the classroom to observe the faculty member. Among the things one learns from a visitation are:
- What kind of relationship does the faculty member have with their students?
- What are the students doing during class?
- How responsive is the faculty member to what is occurring in the classroom?
- To what extent are the activities in the classroom contributing to the faculty's goals for the course?
Videotaping
Occasionally, we videotape the class. The advantage of a videotape is that, during a later consultation, faculty can see what they did, and the points I am making about their teaching. Most of us are not only surprised (oftentimes appalled) when we actually see ourselves teaching (I recall one faculty member exclaiming, "Yikes! Do I really scratch myself like that in front of the class?"), but watching ourselves creates a "teachable moment," since we can see where improvement can occur.
Second Meeting
Following the classroom observation, we meet again to discuss what went on. If the class was videotaped, we'll watch part of it at this point (We preview the tape, and note parts we want to comment on when we watch it with the faculty member). Fairly early on, we'll ask The Question:
"What did your students learn today, and how do you know it?"
Faculty are often times befuddled by this question, as was Albert in the tape. They assume what they lectured on is what students learned. That there might be a discrepancy between the two often times has not occurred to them. This conversation sets up the opportunity for us to present the basic findings about pedagogy. Namely, that knowledge, especially the deeper, more usable type (knowing how and when to use the knowledge), is best attained by students when several conditions are met:
- students have a shared cognitive set with the instructor (they have an adequate knowledge base),
- students are engaged in the material (they are motivated),
- students construct their knowledge, using personal examples of the material to be learned (they are active learners),
- their learning affects future classroom activities (formative feedback).
We look at how their course design and classroom activities address these four points, and discuss specific classroom activities that will promote each of these components of successful pedagogy. At this point, we often use our own courses as examples of these four points, and why we do what we do, as Chris did when he was talking with Ann. I have found that faculty members profit from a specific example. To make things a little simpler, we generally break The Question down into four simpler questions based on the four points mentioned above:
- were your students prepared for class today, and how do you know it?
- were they motivated in class today, and how do you know it?
- were they actively learning in class today, and how do you know it?
- will their learning today affect what happens in class next time?
If they can't answer The Question with some certainty, or the more specific questions listed above, then they probably need to rethink what they did in class that day. This conversation sets up an opportunity for the faculty member to begin considering techniques that will promote active learning.
Small Group Instructional Diagnosis (SGID)
We usually conduct a Small Group Instructional Diagnosis (SGID). An SGID focuses on the components of the course that the class as a whole feels is important. Our particular variant of the SGID is described in more detail in the section entitled Small Group Instructional Diagnosis.
Follow-up Meetings
Have follow-up meetings with the faculty member. Follow-up is crucial, for the following reasons:
- improvement, especially with established teachers such as Albert, is a slow, evolutionary process.
- the process of change is oftentimes intimidating for the faculty member. "Losing control," as many faculty members see it, demands support and assurance from a committed, supportive group of colleagues. Until the faculty member has experienced success in active learning, the switch seems foreboding. This is especially true with people who feel vulnerable, such as Ann.
- new techniques don't always work well when faculty first try them. The switch from a teacher-centered to a student-centered class requires a great deal of effort and planning. We usually ask faculty to change a limited segment of the course the first semester. (David and Roger Johnson, in discussing cooperative learning, suggest that the faculty member try only one cooperative learning assignment the first semester.). Learning how to structure effective active learning exercises requires a switch in cognitive set, and that takes time. Without follow-up, many will revert back to less risky (but less effective) techniques.
One method for help faculty strengthen their teaching is the Small Group Instructional Diagnostic (SGID), typically conducted from about a third to about half way through the semester. After a preliminary discussion between the consultant and the instructor, the instructor prepares the class for the consultant's visit. The instructor is not present for the SGID.
The Process
The procedure focuses on the components of the course that the class as a whole feels are important. The particular variant of the SGID that we use at LES has the following five step process:
- Individual Writing
- Small Group Discussion
- Reporting Out
- Rating Key Points
- Sharing the Results
Individual Writing
Students first write individually for ten minutes, using a sheet that we hand out ("Small Group Instructional Diagnosis," the first of the handouts following this narrative). We ask them to write about (with specific examples):
- the components of the course/instruction that they like best,
- the components of the course/instruction that they like least, and how the course could be improved.
- what they (the students) could do to improve the course.
As part of their description, they should tell why they do/don't like that aspect of the course/instruction, and why the specific improvement would be valuable. We ask the class to focus on specific behaviors and their reactions to them rather than making blanket characterizations. For example, a statement such as "I don't like it when the teacher gets mad at 'stupid' questions. It makes me feel stupid, even when I'm prepared. I won't ask questions anymore." is preferred to "She's a lousy teacher." We also ask the students to rate the importance of the positive and negative components of the course that they have listed.
Small Group Discussion
We assign students to groups of 3 or 4, and we assign roles--facilitator, recorder, time keeper, and checker. Assigned groups minimizes cliques so that there is a freer exchange of views rather than friends getting together to continue a gripe session. We ask that each person in turn list their three most important positive aspects of the course. All students list their items before there is any discussion. This gets everyone's opinions on the table, and tends to prevent a dominator from controlling the group's agenda. After all have presented their lists, they are to discuss these components, and arrive at a consensus on the three most important positive components of the course. They then repeat this process for the negative aspects of the course and for the improvements that could be made in the course. The recorder records the group's final consensus on another sheet we hand out ("Group Report").
Special note should be taken of the third question. This is a variation to the SGID process we added a couple of years ago as we were discussing how to improve our consultation process. We wanted to make sure that the students spend some time discussing what they could be doing to make the class better. This is something many have not thought about, and our experience is that it works well at this point in the discussion. They have been focusing on the professor, and now seem willing to see the endeavor more as a partnership. We have heard back from faculty after an SGID that their students seem to be more cooperative, and work harder. Students usually come up at the end of the SGID and thank us for coming into the class, which also indicates to me that they found the process beneficial. They frequently comment on the fact that they had not thought about their role in the class, and found that particular component of the process to have been most valuable.
Reporting Out
Following the small group work, the groups report out during a discussion involving the entire class. We get all of the points on the board, then the class decides which items are the most important. This is usually done by way of reaching a verbal consensus. The major points are usually pretty self-evident.
Rating Key Points
We rank order the points for each of the three questions, then ask the class to rate the degree to which they agree or disagree with the group's consensus. We use the rating sheet that is included in this packet ("Final Rating"), which is on the reverse of the original sheet that they filled out. A graphical representation of this numerical rating is what we give to faculty member. We've found it to be a very important part of our procedure, since it tells where there is agreement among students, and the strength of feeling associated with each point. Most items show wide agreement among the students, but occasionally there are items that some of the class strongly agrees with, while another component of the class strongly disagrees with. For example, in Ann's SGID, there was disagreement on her personalizing of information, but wide agreement about lack of structure. The level of agreement on an item is important information for the faculty member. Another advantage of the numerical rating is that many faculty take data-based reports much more seriously.
Sharing the Results
We give the graph of the numerical results to the faculty member, then discuss the results with them. This is usually a sensitive part of the process, since the faculty member will often try to justify their actions for each of the negative points brought up by students. It is important to get the faculty member to think about the information as the perceptions of the students in their class, and not as an objective, summative evaluation of their performance as a teacher. They may well have good reasons for all of the "negative" comments. But since these are consensus statements, they needs to hear the comments and be willing to act on them, either by changing their practices or by communicating better to their students why class runs as it does.
Advantages of the SGID
This SGID technique has several advantages:
- Students feel that their voices have been heard. Our experience is that students usually feel powerless, and are more willing to work with a professor if they believe their needs are of concern to the professor. The SGID process by itself seems to have beneficial effects, even before the instructor makes changes based on the feedback from the SGID.
- It brings back into the group those with extremely divergent views. Students oftentimes feel that everyone else shares their opinions of events that have occurred in the class. When they state their concerns to their small group, they may find out that others interpret events quite differently. Because the group must agree to a statement forwarded to the professor, the anonymity of individual students is protected.
- Because an SGID provides more reflective feedback, the information is qualitatively different than that gotten in end-of-the-semester ratings.
Tools for the SGID
On the next four pages, we've reproduced the three response forms and the overhead instructions for the students that we use. These may be downloaded and adapted to your needs.
 For the first 10 minutes, you will write individually on the following topics:
- What do you like best about the course/instruction?
- What do you like least about the course/instruction, and how could the instructor improve the course?
- What could you do to make the course better for you and the instructor?
For each of these, please try to focus on specific behaviors, and describe why you like/dislike something, or why you think your suggested improvement would be beneficial.
For the next 20 minutes, you will have small group discussions of these topics.
For each of the three topics listed above, I would like you to briefly describe your points. Only after all members of the group have spoken should you discuss the points raised. You should come up with 2-3 main points for each topic, with the group reaching consensus on the points.
For the final 30 minutes, we will have a large group discussion of these topics.
We will come to consensus on the most important points for the four topics. After we have come to consensus, I will ask you to rate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each point. I will collect your individual and group write-ups, but will not show them to your instructor. I will write up a report that will go to your instructor.
Handout:
Individual Report
Instructions: For the first 10 minutes, write individually on the following topics:
What do you like best about the course/instruction?
What do you like least about the course/instruction, and how could the instructor improve the course?
What could you do to make the course better for you and the instructor?
Handout:
Group Report
What do you like best about the course/instruction?
What do you like least about the course/instruction, and how could the instructor improve the course?
What could you do to make the course better for you and the instructor?
Small Group Instructional Diagnosis:
Final rating |
| What do you like best about the course/instruction? |
| |----1----|----2----|----3----|----4----|----5----|----6----|----7----|----8----|----9----| |
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree |
| |----1----|----2----|----3----|----4----|----5----|----6----|----7----|----8----|----9----| |
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree |
| |----1----|----2----|----3----|----4----|----5----|----6----|----7----|----8----|----9----| |
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree |
| |----1----|----2----|----3----|----4----|----5----|----6----|----7----|----8----|----9----| |
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree |
|
| What do you like least about the course/instruction, and how could the instructor improve the course?
|
| |----1----|----2----|----3----|----4----|----5----|----6----|----7----|----8----|----9----| |
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree |
| |----1----|----2----|----3----|----4----|----5----|----6----|----7----|----8----|----9----| |
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree |
| |----1----|----2----|----3----|----4----|----5----|----6----|----7----|----8----|----9----| |
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree |
| |----1----|----2----|----3----|----4----|----5----|----6----|----7----|----8----|----9----| |
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree |
|
| What could you do to make the course better for you, your classmates and the instructor?
|
| |----1----|----2----|----3----|----4----|----5----|----6----|----7----|----8----|----9----| |
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree |
| |----1----|----2----|----3----|----4----|----5----|----6----|----7----|----8----|----9----| |
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree |
| |----1----|----2----|----3----|----4----|----5----|----6----|----7----|----8----|----9----| |
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree |
| |----1----|----2----|----3----|----4----|----5----|----6----|----7----|----8----|----9----| |
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree |
|
| ©Tom Creed, 1997 |
Contact:
Tom Creed
Professor of Psychology
Saint John's University/
College of Saint Benedict
Collegeville, MN 56321
Phone/FAX-- SJU: (320) 363-3133, 3202
CSB: (320) 363-5157, 5197
E-mail: tcreed@csbsju.edu
http://bingen.cs.csbsju.edu/~tcreed
|
