We found 60 results that contain "aan"

Want to improve your teaching? Participating in a peer observation process is a great way to create a space for you to reflect upon your own teaching and open up a dialogue related to best practices in teaching. It is very important to note that peer observations are NOT evaluative and are NOT tied to performance review. They are a training and development tool to facilitate reflection and personal growth.A peer observation process can:

create a culture that values best practices in teaching and facilitation; 
provide learning opportunities for employees to reflect upon their own teaching and facilitative leadership skills and learn from their peers; and 
build capacity in teacher training, observation feedback, and general pedagogy within the organization. 

The MSU Extension Peer Observation Process is based on the following premises.
Premise #1: Peer observation is helpful for teachers, especially for the one observing.

Faculty in higher education report that peer observation is useful (83%) and a majority (74%) feel it should be required (Divall, M. et al. 2019).
In peer observation, the true learner is the one who is observing (Richardson, 2000; Hendry & Oliver, 2012). Watching another teach is useful and instructive and allows teachers to discover new resources and ways of teaching, supports career-long learning in teaching, and provides a forum for teachers to discuss what good teaching is (Richardson, 2000).

Premise #2: Evaluative observation can be invalid and potentially destructive.

In evaluative observation, staff doing the observing may lack the motivation or knowledge to make good recommendations. It is also possible that that observer’s critique may damage the self-efficacy of the teacher being observed as a result of feedback that is not delivered in an appropriate way (Hendry & Oliver, 2012).
The validity of evaluative observations for measuring teacher efficacy is troublesome. Strong et al. (2011) looked at observations of teachers who were classified as “effective” or “ineffective” based on student achievement data, and then had observers with different levels of expertise watch recordings of those teachers teach and classify the teachers as “effective” or “ineffective.” Although judges were in high agreement (rater reliability), they demonstrated a low ability to identify effective teachers. Administrators and teacher educators were accurate only about one-third of the time. In other words, observers are unable to identify effective teachers from ineffective teachers.
To explore the conundrum of why evaluative observation isn’t accurate, I recommend reading Dr. Robert Coe’s blog post “Classroom observation: It’s hard than you think” (2014), published by the Centre for Evaluation & Monitoring at Durham University.

Premise 3#: Peer observation processes align to adult learning theory.

Theories of experiential learning, the teaching model used in 4-H, align to our proposed peer observation process. Experiential learning includes doing, reflecting, and applying. In the proposed peer observation process, the educators involved “do” by teaching or observing, “reflect” through post-observation reflection forms and structured conversations, and then “apply” by integrating new ideas and concepts into their own teaching.
The peer observation process aligns with social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1997) which posits that personal, behavioral, and environmental influences interact in learning. Concepts of self-efficacy, the belief that we can take actions to improve performance, is supported through the peer observation process.

Learn more about the MSU Extension Peer Observation Process.
References:
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control.  London: W.H. Freeman & Co Ltd.
Coe, R. (2014, January 9). Classroom observation: it’s harder than you think. [Blog post]. Retrieved from https://www.cem.org/blog/414/.
DiVall, M., PharmD., Barr, Judith,M.Ed, ScD., Gonyeau, M., PharmD., Matthews, S. J., Van Amburgh, J., PharmD, Qualters, D., PhD., & Trujillo, J., PharmD. (2012). Follow-up assessment of a faculty peer observation and evaluation program. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 76(4), 1-61. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.msu.edu.proxy1.cl.msu.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.proxy1.cl.msu.edu/docview/1160465084?accountid=12598
J., Van Amburgh, J., PharmD, Qualters, D., PhD., & Trujillo, J., PharmD. (2012). Follow-up assessment of a faculty peer observation and evaluation program. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 76(4), 1-61. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.msu.edu.proxy2.cl.msu.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.proxy2.cl.msu.edu/docview/1160465084?accountid=12598
Hendry, G. D., & Oliver, G. R. (2012). Seeing is believing: The benefits of peer observation. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, 9(1), 1-11. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.msu.edu.proxy2.cl.msu.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.proxy2.cl.msu.edu/docview/1037909669?accountid=12598
Richardson, M. O. (2000). Peer observation: Learning from one another. Thought & Action, 16(1), 9-20. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.msu.edu.proxy2.cl.msu.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.proxy2.cl.msu.edu/docview/62336021?accountid=12598
Strong, M., Gargani, J., & Hacifazlioğlu, Ö. (2011). Do We Know a Successful Teacher When We See One? Experiments in the Identification of Effective Teachers. Journal of Teacher Education, 62(4), 367–382. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487110390221
Weller, S. (2009). What does "peer" mean in teaching observation for the professional development of higher education lecturers? International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 21(1), 25-35. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.msu.edu.proxy2.cl.msu.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.proxy2.cl.msu.edu/docview/757171496?accountid=12598

 
 




Data


Definition




Count


The total number of students enrolled at MSU as of official count date. Students who are enrolled, registered, cancelled or withdrawn are included in the counts. 




Persistence


The percentage of first-time-in-any-college (FTIAC) undergraduate (UN) and Ag Tech (AT) students who started at MSU in the summer or fall of the previous year and returned to MSU for their first returning fall semester.




Probation


The percentage of FTIAC undergraduate (UN only, does not include Ag Tech) students who started at MSU in the fall, or in the summer and continued in the fall, who have a fall end term academic standing of probation. 




Graduation


The percentage of first-time-in-any-college (FTIAC) undergraduate (UN) and Ag Tech (AT) students who started at MSU in the summer or fall of a given year and graduated within 150 percent of normal time (three years for AT certificate-seeking students, and six years for degree seeking UN). 




Degrees Awarded


Degrees, Agricultural Technology Certificates, and Graduate Certificates conferred. This is reported annually: fiscal year (July 1 to June 30), calendar year, and academic year. Count reflects degrees or certificates conferred in the prior semester or year.




Time to Degree


Time to degree, measured in calendar years, is determined by calculating the number of calendar years between the start date of a student’s initial term and the end date of the term in which the student graduates. The TTD for graduating in four years is 3.7 calendar years, e.g. a student starts MSU in Fall 2014 and graduates in Spring 2018.




 
Institutional Research website: https://opb.msu.edu/functions/institution/index.html
 
Data Digest: https://opb.msu.edu/functions/institution/datadigest/index.html
 
Fact Sheets: https://opb.msu.edu/functions/institution/msu-internal/factsheets.html
 

In the beginning…
Much of our work toward #iteachmsu began through a graduate-student-led effort called Inside Teaching MSU in our Graduate School. Inside Teaching MSU launched to catalyze the expertise of many graduate student teaching assistants and instructors, that could be shared with colleagues across disciplines and aimed to challenge the conventional ideas of who is an educator and where learning takes place. As the adoption of this expanded definition of "educator" that was the foundation of this effort grew, three partners- the MSU Hub for Innovation in Learning and Technology, the Graduate School, and the Academic Advancement Network (AAN)- came together to build an educator "commons". The#iteachmsu Commons is a digital space where all MSU educators can share ideas and resources, connect with one another across roles and disciplines, and grow in their practice!
A Hashtag...Throughout social networks, #iteachmsu, has gained institutional traction as not only a statement or a hashtag, but as a public declaration of teaching practice and educator identity. Educators have taken up the rallying cry “I teach MSU” by sharing out reflections, celebrations, and practices online! #iteachmsu even functions as a connection builder, bringing two- now- Champions together!A Platform...
A digital site, iteach.msu.edu, designed for educators by educators at MSU. The site aims to create a single centralized resource on a campus that is often challenged by its decentralized nature. It is also home to the Thank an Educator initiative which aims to elevate and celebrate the high-impact practices and contributions of all educators through a peer-recognition program. For more information on the functions of this space as a platform, check out the Getting Started playlist!A Movement...
The #iteachmsu Commons defines “educators” at Michigan State University in the broadest possible manner. Here we deliberately use the term 'educator' to refer to individuals that support the teaching and learning mission of the university. Educators could include but are not limited to faculty, graduate teaching assistants, undergraduate learning assistants, instructional designers, and academic advisors. If you contribute to MSU’s mission of teaching and learning in any way, you are invited to contribute to and engage with this community (by logging in with your MSU netID).
We believe this shift is an important and deliberate move toward sharing and centering teaching and learning as important across higher education. This moment provides new opportunities for addressing what has always been a valuable but highly complex task for educator development.

Image from U Central Florida
 
Challenge: Students lack discipline-specific vocabulary.
Strategy: Have a grad student collect and translate a glossary of common words in the field.
 
Challenge: Students are unsure how to respond to common writing prompts, like “synthesize” or “analyze.”
Strategies: Foreground these in a class session. Provide illustrations and examples.
Be consistent in your use of prompts.
Avoid embedded metaphor, like “leave breadcrumbs during your research.”
 
Challenge: Students hesitate to speak up in class.
Strategies: Allow a few minutes to make notes or freewrite answers before speaking.
Have students discuss in pairs and small groups before speaking before the entire class.
Be aware that their hesitation may be for linguistic or cultural reasons (they may not be used to active-learning classrooms).
 
Challenge: Students are not following the lecture or presentation.
Strategies: Don’t ask, “Does everyone understand?”
Ask students to demonstrate understanding by “saying back” (paraphrasing), giving examples, connecting a concept to a previous one…
Communicate concepts in different ways: visual illustrations, examples, stories…  Put keywords on slides or blackboards. Allow students to photograph board. Share slides with them.
 
Challenge: Students still haven’t mastered subject-verb agreement, verb tense consistency or definite and indefinite articles.
Strategy: Choose your battles. Some of these grammatical structures may be radically different in a student’s home language, and almost impossible to learn perfectly as an adult.
Consider, for example: Do you speak a Romance language? Do you ever make mistakes of noun gender? You probably do, but you can still communicate. Emphasize communication and clarity in your assessments.
 
Contact: Dr. Cheryl Caesar, WRAC, caesarc@msu.edu
Dr. Joyce Meier, WRAC, meierjo@msu.edu
Dr. Patricia Walters, ELC, walter31@msu.edu

 
As the host, you can control who meeting or webinar participants are allowed to chat with. You can also disable the chat for all participants or disable private chat, so participants cannot send private messages.
 
Check out this article for additional instructions on:

Controlling Chat Access
Disabling In-Meeting Chat

https://support.zoom.us/hc/en-us/articles/115004809306-Controlling-and-Disabling-In-Meeting-Chat#h_d9a04597-0138-4fb9-86cd-81cc4c68b21f

What is Labster? 
Labster is a simulation library that provides over 150 virtual science labs. Instructors can choose specific simulations to download and install within their D2L course free of charge. Simulations consist of an interactive lab activity in which students learn and apply their understanding of important STEM topics within the context of a virtual lab. Quiz questions are interspersed throughout many of the simulations to help students link their understanding of theory to the lab activity they are performing. 
 
Who might consider using Labster? 
If you are a STEM instructor, Labster could be a useful tool to enhance teaching and learning within your science course. These virtual labs can be used as standalone units, or they can be used as supplemental activities to reinforce important concepts or lab techniques. The Labster simulation catalog includes lab experiences for 21 course packages such as Chemistry, Physics, Food Science and nutrition, Engineering, Biology, Safety, Biotechnology, and others. If you would like to try out Labster, please contact the MSU IT Service Desk at ithelp@msu.edu to get access to the Labster simulations.  
 
Why use Labster? 
Well-designed lab experiences are a key part of student learning within STEM fields. While virtual labs can never replicate real-world lab experiences, simulation-based labs can enhance student learning because they provide students important opportunities for them to put their knowledge to use and engage in important scientific practices (e.g. developing models, constructing explanations, and arguing using data and evidence). For example, simulation-based learning environments have been shown to improve student learning, motivation and, self-efficacy within medical education (Makransky et. al., 2016).  
 
How to use Labster? 
Simulations are uploaded onto D2L and students can access virtual labs directly through the simulation link within D2L. Instructors can impersonate the Demo Student within their D2L course and complete the simulation to get the same experience that their students would have when engaging in the virtual lab. To promote student exploration and engagement with the simulation (as opposed to students focusing their attention on the correctness of their answers to quiz questions), we recommend using the simulation quizzes as a low-stakes formative assessment. 
 
Where to find out more information on Labster? 
If you would like to find out more information about Labster, please see the links below: 

General information about Labster
List of available Labster simulations 
Labster resources page 
Labster help page 

Stories/Feedback 
We would love to hear from you about your experiences with Labster. How was the installation process? How are you using the Labster quizzes in your class? What are your students’ perceptions of Labster and their experiences with the simulations? If you would like to share some of your Labster stories (frustrations, joys, surprises) or need more information about Labster, contact the MSU IT Service Desk at ithelp@msu.edu. 
 
References 
Makransky, G., Bonde, M.T., Wulff, J.S. et al. Simulation based virtual learning environment in medical genetics counseling: an example of bridging the gap between theory and practice in medical education. BMC Med Educ 16, 98 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-016-0620-6 

Leadership Fellows

2018-2019: David Hernandez Escobar & Olivia Chesniak
2019-2020: Hamid Karimi
2020-2022: Chelsie Boodoo

David Hernandez Escobar (2018-2019)As one of the first College of Engineering Leadership Fellows, David worked with Assistant Dean for Graduate Student Services, Dr. Katy Colbry, to develop a needs assessment survey to identify the concerns of graduate students in the College of Engineering. The assessment collected over 100 responses, included open-answer personal reflections from graduate students and ideas on effective actions that could be taken to strengthen the graduate student community within the College of Engineering. Jacob also focused on his own leadership development by collaborating with other Fellows as a strong, cross-disciplinary team who attended professional development sessions together and discussed program communication, building buy-in, and a variety of other topics.
Olivia Chesniak (2018-2019)Olivia’s Fellowship focused on bringing together graduate student organizations focused on women in STEM with the goal of sharing resources, networking, and providing peer mentorship. Olivia’s relationship-building efforts reinforced a cosponsored event among her connections in the College of Natural Science, the College of Engineering, and the College of Agriculture and Natural Resources. During the Spring semester, Olivia worked with Lydia Weiss to develop, advertise, and facilitate discussion sessions for graduate students following the Academic Womens Forum, known as the gradAWF. The Academic Womens Forum has been a valuable and unique space for women in the university to connect with fellow faculty, staff, and administrators. However, the lack of space for graduate students was reflected in unsteady attendance. Olivia was able to work across the university to create a space for graduate student women and ensure its promotion within her College.
Hamid Karimi (2019-2020)Hamid worked with Assistant Dean Dr. Katy Colbry and engaged with stakeholders across the College to identify the need for professional development sessions regarding graduate students' knowledge of and preparedness for the job market following the completion of their degrees. Hamid also explored how to build DEI awareness within the lab setting and promote the benefits of diverse teams in STEM.
Chelsie Boodoo (2020-2022)Chelsie organized the MSU SciComm Conveyance Conference, a virtual science communications conference that brought experts and students from various disciplines together to discuss scicomm practices and the role of science in today’s society. The conference offered an incredible twenty-two sessions including workshops, lectures, networking opportunities, and social events. Sessions included Science, Equity, and Advocacy in the Nuclear Weapons Field, Science vs. Journalistic Writing, Podcast Kickstarter, Creating Effective Data Visualizations, and Building Trust in Scientists, among others. Through her program, students were able to gather valuable information on the science communication field and experts were given the opportunity to connect with peers and provide advice to the next generation. Chelsie led a team through the difficulties of hosting a virtual conference and the process of learning skills related to event planning, public relations, marketing, grant-writing, and innovative-technology use. In her second year as a Fellow, Chelsie worked on developing a Science Art Tool Kit to help graduate students in the science field to communicate about their research using the arts. Her goal was to equip scientists to utilize physical and digital art to more effectively convey data and information. Her tool kit has a wide array of practical examples and resources.

 

 
Image from insidehighered.com
 
How do MSU faculty view their strengths and weaknesses as educators?
What resources do they need to continue to grow?
In 2018, our Learning Community of Adams Academy graduates surveyed 215 faculty to find out.
 
Here are some of our results:
 
Strengths: We see ourselves as having more strengths than challenges, especially:

Teaching with enthusiasm
Fostering active learning
Female respondents: mentoring, teaching teachers, facilitating connections and creating community.

 
Challenges:

Student assessment was the most commonly cited challenge
Fostering active learning (again!)
Fostering dialogue

 
Familiarity with evidence-based teaching practices: much variation!

Broad Business College and the College of Music, no respondents familiar with the concept (or at least the term).
James Madison, the College of Law, the College of Veterinary Med. and the College of Osteopathic Med.: all respondents familiar with it.
Labor categories: a plurality of “no” responses only from tenure-track and “other”: tenured, fixed-term and academic specialists had plurality of “yes” answers.

 
Barriers to developing teaching practice:

“More time” is no. 1 response.

 
Most frequently used resources for developing teaching practice:

Brown Bag or Learn at Lunch presentations
Departmental workshops
Academic Advancement Network
MSU Learning Communities

 
Following our survey, in 2019 we developed a peer-observation protocol.
If you’re interested in trying it out, either in your own department or with one of our group, please contact Mike or Cheryl.
 
Dr. Cheryl Caesar, caesarc@msu.edu
Dr. Michael Ristich, ristich@msu.edu