1 / 22

Building a Disciplinary Commons using Course Portfolios

Explore the concept of deprivatizing teaching by creating Course Portfolios as a collaborative tool among faculty members. Learn the benefits, process, and outcomes of this pedagogical approach within a single discipline.

cindyo
Download Presentation

Building a Disciplinary Commons using Course Portfolios

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Building a Disciplinary Commons using Course Portfolios Josh TenenbergJanet Ash, Donald Chinn, Ravi Gandham, Michael Gelotte, Richard Hoagland, Laurie Murphy, Brad Richards, John Staneff, Phyllis Topham, Jeffrey Weiss Pacific Northwest Higher EducationTeaching & Learning Conference

  2. Teaching as a private activity • Privatized teaching spaces “Aside from his syllabi and fading memories, he had no real record of what happened in those award winning courses” • Institutional isolation (or worse)

  3. Outline • Deprivatizing Teaching: the Disciplinary Commons • What did we do? • What is a Course Portfolio? • How much does this cost? • What might you learn? • Why do this in a single discipline? • Why do you want to do this with others? • Do try this at home! • Where is the Scholarship?

  4. Deprivatizing Teaching Faculty meet on common ground, using scholarly practices to investigate teaching and learning in their own classrooms. The practices and artifacts produced become “common property”, available for use and adaptation by others.

  5. What did we do? • 11 Computer Science (CS) teachers meeting face-to-face, monthly for ½ day throughout the academic year • Crossing borders: CS faculty from different institutions engaged in common practices and common goals • Talking about teaching: as scholars and practitioners • Parallel construction and mutual critique of Course Portfolios • http://depts.washington.edu/comgrnd/

  6. The Disciplinary Commons:A face-to-face Yackpack

  7. What is a Course Portfolio? • An organized collection of ideas and principles that guide the design and implementation of a particular course. • Focuses on the course. • It is NOT a student portfolio. • It is NOT a teaching portfolio, although it can be part of one.

  8. What is in a Course Portfolio? • One or more of the following: • Course description: content, structure • How the course fits in the curriculum • Course learning objectives • Teaching methods • Teaching philosophy • How learning is assessed • What you include depends on why you are creating a course portfolio

  9. How much does this cost? • 128 Hours per person (average), as we did it • Doing it as a group increased the cost due to meetings and travel time • You can do this by yourself in about 80 hours direct time • Benefit of group interaction far outweighs “extra” cost • It’s probably your time, so the institutional cost is minimal (unless ….) • Benefit to your other courses is immeasurably valuable!

  10. What might you learn? • There is “commonality” of teaching contexts and practices – We are all in the same boat! • Benefit from articulating and sharing your teaching practices – Now you know why you do things the way you do them! • Realize that some of your practices do not directly relate to course objectives – A reality check! • Find new ways to enhance the your course’s effectiveness from peer insights – A sense of self-accountability and accomplishment!

  11. literature geography chemistry psychology philosophy biology art Why do this in a single discipline?

  12. Java CS CS CS CS CS CS Common Language data abstraction control structure C++ software design Why do this in a single discipline? • Able to make assumptions about understanding • More emphasis on rational for teaching choices • More thoughtful peer observations

  13. CS CS CS CS CS CS Why do this in a single discipline? non-traditional students teaching load transfer students institutional and individual differences semester quarter budgetary constraints running start students traditional students

  14. Why do this in a single discipline? The power of the portfolio approach is multiplied when there are several examples available for a single disciplinary aspect. Course Portfolio CS – 142 South Puget Sound Community College Object-Oriented Prog I Course Portfolio CSCI144 Evergreen Community College Java I Course Portfolio CIS 121 Pierce College Introduction to Computer Information Systems Course Portfolio CS-210 Bellevue Community College Fundamentals of Computer Science I Course Portfolio CS-210 Bellevue Community College Fundamentals of Computer Science I Course Portfolio CS100 Introduction to Computer Science Course Portfolio CSCI161b University of Puget Sound Introduction to Computer Science Course Portfolio CSCE144 Pacific Lutheran University Introduction to Computer Science Course Portfolio Compu 142 Shoreline Community College Intro. to Computer Programming with Java Course Portfolio CIS 201c Pierce College Intro to Java Course Portfolio TCSS 390 UW-Tacma Undergraduate Seminar in CSS

  15. Why you might want to make a Course Portfolio For “permission” to take the time to reflect on what you are doing To focus on the Big Picture • The curriculum/program • The course • The teaching and focus on an element • Testing, lectures, homework …

  16. Why you might want to make a Course Portfolio – 2 • For “permission” to research • From others • On your teaching • To Document • To Share

  17. Why you might not want to do this alone • Begin with the end in mind - sharing • A common framework elicits discipline • Encouragement and camaraderie in the face of a rather large amount of work • Building a community of resources • And besides, it couldn’t possibly be as much fun

  18. Characteristics of Scholarship • Clear Goals • Adequate Preparation • Appropriate Methods • Significant Results • Effective Presentation • Reflective Critique Scholarship Assessed: Evaluation of the Professoriate, Charles Glassick, Mary Huber, and Gene Maeroff, Jossey Bass Publishers, San Francisco, 1997

  19. Acknowledgements • Sally Fincher has been a collaborator throughout this project. She runs a Commons in the UK. • Funding has been provided by the Washington State Board of Community and Technical Colleges, the University of Washington Tacoma’s Institute of Technology, and the UWT Founder’s Endowment. • Julie Jacob of the SBCTC and Orlando Baiocchi and Larry Crum from UWT have been especially supportive.

  20. Participants and Affiliations • Josh Tenenberg University of Washington Tacoma • Janet Ash Green River Community College • Donald Chinn University of Washington Tacoma • Ravi Gandham Bellevue Community College • Michael Gelotte Bellevue Community College • Richard Hoagland South Puget Sound Community College • Laurie Murphy Pacific Lutheran University • Brad Richards University of Puget Sound • John Staneff Pierce College Fort Steilacoom • Phyllis Topham Shoreline Community College • Jeffrey Weiss Pierce College Puyallup

  21. Panel Q/A

More Related