In courses you’ve taught, how have you engaged students in active, collaborative, or innovative learning approaches? Please provide at least one example. (1-2 paragraphs)

Whether in the traditional classroom, online environment, or in our Pirate Patch system, connecting with students is key to engagement, retention, and student outcomes. Having taught in each of these environments, I see the role that this connection plays. While there are similarities, there are also big differences in how we make these connections, depending on the platform.

When designing course and learning objectives using Bloom’s Taxonomy, action-oriented words are used. This parlays nicely with key words we might use to define how we engage students. Building an environment where curiosity, enthusiasm, interest and attentiveness are at play helps to build an engaging classroom. While teaching in a traditional classroom setting, we see those actionable outcomes more easily, but just how do we do this in a Pirate Patch, blended or fully online setting? The key for each is building a rapport and using multiple learning strategies.

PIRATE PATCH/BLENDED CLASSROOM: As an instructor at Fairchild Air Force Base, teaching within Pirate Patch is a must. At any given time, I have three or more sites within classroom. Classes meet one time a week and cover up to three learning objectives. Breaking objectives into blocks allows me to cover one objective in each hour of class. For example, in week three of CA 105, I designate the first hour for listening. Within that hour I include several strategies to connect across learning styles, including lecture, video, class discussion, skills assessments, and group projects. I used the same format for the second lecture on emotional intelligence and finally on communication apprehension.

Some of the techniques I use to build collaboration include non-verbal cues. According to McCorskey and McVetta, students who are more likely to engage will sit toward the front or middle of the classroom (depending on the classroom layout). Students who are less comfortable with engagement will sit toward the outer part of the classroom (1978). Understanding this makes me aware of the likelihood of natural participation. Identifying those less comfortable will allow me to casually help build comfort and confidence.

Watching other non-verbal cues, including facial expression and body language, help me to gauge understanding and acceptance of learning objectives. This can be a challenge in a Pirate Patch setting with more than a couple of sites. I have become quite successful at “pinning” a particular site to view students in a bigger screen.

Using an “ice breaker” at the beginning of each class helps to build engagement early on. As a communications instructor, I often incorporate an impromptu topic where students have to build a quick attention getter. One of my favorites is when I ask students to “violate” a non-verbal rule and report its effect on self and others. The rule might be talking to a stranger in an elevator, walking on the wrong side of a busy sidewalk or even interrupting a conversation between two other individuals. This helps students to learn the lesson of non-verbal norms in society.

ONLINE CLASSROOM: Engaging students in an online environment would require different strategies in order to build rapport and curiosity. I love using scavenger hunts, self-assessments and reflection, as well as team projects to meet the goal of multiple learning styles. I ask group and individual questions, add video (both outside and my own), and use polls (google forms) in discussion areas, which build a collaborative environment.

Another way that I engage students is to set expectations and consistency within the classroom. In an online setting, I use announcements and emails to review and preview, I also share complimentary material. Setting early expectations shows respect for my students’ time and builds an open line of communication.

As you can already begin to see, variety is key. It starts within the first five minutes of class. As Hirschy and Wilson suggest, a balance of collaborative and cooperative learning could lead to the best student outcomes. Using a variety of auditory, visual, kinesthetic and reflective learning keeps students engaged and meets the multiple learning styles (2002).

No matter the platform, connecting lessons to student experience is imperative. The questions that we ask, the resources that we use and the activities that we do are best served if we can connect to previous experience and future use.

Hirschy, A. & Wilson, Maureen. (2002) The Sociology of the Classroom and Its Influence on Student Learning, Peabody Journal of Education, 77:3, 85-100, DOI: 10.1207/S15327930PJE7703_5

McCorskey JC and McVetta RW. (1978). Classroom Seating Arrangements: Instructional Communication Theory Versus Student Preferences. Communication Education, 27, 99111.

Please explain how you might approach leading a Special Interest Group on this topic and how it might innovate teaching and learning at Park.

I am most interested in continuing to develop strategies to engage students across platforms.

Having taught across multiple modalities (online, remote, Pirate Patch, blended, traditional classroom), I understand the importance of student engagement and the uniqueness of each teaching platform. As an Academic Director for Park University and trainer for other educational institutions, instructors report their challenges of engaging students for the best classroom interactions and student outcomes. I believe that I have instituted strategies for optimal engagement, and I know that there is even more that we can do to improve. I want to take this baseline and then further research unique ideas to build student engagement, no matter the teaching platform.

Much research exists regarding the link between feeling connected/comfortable and improved engagement.

Jorgenson, Parrell, Fudge, and Prichard outline the importance of feeling connected in their study published in the Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning when they report that “Connectedness and integration are essential elements of student satisfaction, academic success, and retention” (2018). They take this one step further as they study the needs of 256 college students as it relates to engagement and connectedness. While the student population was more traditional in age, extrapolating these results to a broader audience would still apply. Study leaders evaluated several areas, most important for our discussion was the student-to- student and student-to-instructor interactions. Personal support, trust and feedback were key components in both categories. While “advice” was connected to student interactions, feedback was more related to the connection between student and instructor (2018).

A second important factor in engagement is comfort, yet we do not want them to be so comfortable that they do not stretch themselves a bit.

J. Mark McFadden, English Instructor at the University of New Haven and contributing writer for Inside Higher Ed writes, “After much trial and error, I have come to the conclusion that engaging my students is best accomplished by making them feel a bit anxious while keeping them in relatively close proximity to their comfort zone” (2017).

Students have shared an initial discomfort in some of my online courses. Using a balance of comfort and connectedness, I assist students past this initial discomfort. If we can build confidence in how we engage students in each platform, might that barrier be removed? Might engagement go up? If we are more comfortable with each modality, might students be more comfortable? Might enrollments increase as comfort and confidence improves in each modality? Just as students might feel a bit of discomfort with online classrooms or a Pirate Patch set up, I believe that this “fear of the unknown” might also hold really good instructors back from teaching in those less traditional settings.

When we talk about fear, comfort and connectedness, we have to ensure that we have a strong plan in place on day one. Part of my research has been in the area of non-verbal cues and how they can be assessed within the classroom. While this may seem more relevant in a face-to-face situation, there are many nonverbals that occur in the online classroom. One study revealed that 55% of our communication is considered to be non-verbal while another 38% is considered to be the “way we say it”. This leaves another 7% for the verbal (Mehrabian 1972). Having a better understanding of non-verbal cues and paralinguistics in each platform may help an instructor to quickly connect with students and ensure that they have what they need to be successful.

How might I approach leading a Special Interest Group? My approach would be similar to my own classroom settings, one that offers multiple learning styles, such as being interactive and combining a bit of lecture with video and activities to help each person find those “pearls” to place in their toolbox. I would also consider some asynchronous options for instructors. One of the main reasons that we offer multiple platforms for student learning is to “reach students where they are.” As such, I believe that it is also important to reach instructors “where they are”. During my tenure as Academic Director, instructors have shared that they would love to attend trainings but are unable, due to scheduling. Offering an asynchronous option for lessons on engaging students would meet the needs of those instructors.

https://www.insidehighered.com/advice/2017/04/ 25/how-professors-can-improve-engagementstudents-classroom-essay

Jorgenson, D. A., Farrell, L. C., Fudge, J. L., & Pritchard, A. (n.d.). College Connectedness: The Student Perspective. College Connectedness: The Student Perspective, Vol. 18(No. 1), 75–95. doi: 10.14434/josotl.v18i1.22371

Mehrabian, A. (1972). Nonverbal Communication. New Brunswick: Aldine Transaction.

Faculty-Led Innovation

Spark Tank

i-Innovate