Pedagogy Changes

In this area faculty talked about the benefits to student learning, yet some felt changes to teaching methods requiring them to be more interactive or student-centered to be a fad and that more evidence is needed to prove a positive impact on learning. These instructors spoke and wrote about active learning in both case-based sessions, using an audience response system (ARS) to add interactivity, and creating flipped-classroom content for students to engage with in a self-directed way outside of the classroom.

Most effective of Pedagogy Changes

The majority of favorable comments for this topic centered on benefits of using the Audience Response Systems in class. Faculty do this to engage a large group of students to be more participatory and to gauge their comprehension of a topic, their knowledge or assumptions coming in before lecture, or in some case student opinions (which can be voiced in a quiet and anonymous way through the use of clickers). Faculty enjoy the quick ability to see if students have come to class prepared and able to grasp the material, or if there is a gap in understanding or a confusing topic where many students all select the wrong answer, which has them reflecting on how sufficiently particular topics were covered.

In terms of teaching, I think [the audience response system] has probably been the most useful and fun thing. Most useful in terms of engaging the students, for lots of reasons. It formally allows you to put questions or surveys or whatever into your lecture. But it's also a chance for every

student to respond, not just those who like to talk out loud or raise their hand. And then they can see the results, which I think is really part of the point as well.

Most Challenging Aspects of Pedagogical Changes

The main theme of challenges in this area surround limitations to do more case- based or problem-based formats due to class size, instructors at times feeling as though these formats are being forced, and that some instructors do this better than others which may not make for the uniform experience aimed for by administrative leadership. The group of ~180 students are split into multiple classrooms running the same discussion session synchronously. Instructors report that students give feedback that they are having different experiences in these various classrooms based on which instructor is teaching and how their fellow students are engaging in these interactive sessions.

Several instructors also noted that the structure for compensation is one that pays more for teaching time in the large auditorium compared to sessions taught in smaller interactive classrooms. It also takes more time to plan interactivity into a lesson plan as well. Therefore, instructors are de-incentivized to be interactive as to do so impacts their salaries. Some expressed moving to small group format or the reduction of content being taught from their disciplines in the integrated classes has them losing class time, which in turn has them losing financial support, and some even worry their jobs are threatened. Some described it as being more than just wanting to do what is best for the students, which they are all aligned on, but that it can become more of a “turf war” among the

module directors. These instructors see changing their approach as a cost of time needed to learn new approaches, with their receiving less credit for the teaching (which is much more labor-intensive to create), and in the end, that they may be paid less the more often they teach in this way.

I think, faculty anywhere that have been doing the same thing for a lot of years. And some of them don't want to change, because they have to learn something new, they have to learn how to do something differently. There's no incentive for them to do it, they're not going to get promoted, they're not going to get a higher paycheck. Unless they're curious and interested, there's no incentive. There's certainly no institutional incentive. It's just a cost, they've got how to figure out to do it again outside of their comfort zone, and I think that's the issue.

Another representative quote on how teaching is compensated and funding is a barrier trying new things:

There is no additional funding to spend time innovating. Also, the smaller the group taught, the less the funding. Thus, there is a disincentive to innovate and a significant incentive to give a non-interactive large group lecture.

Some commented that the requirement for interactivity to be included in some courses is forced and doesn’t always fit the content. Even some who already teach interactively and enjoy doing so because their content lends itself to such teaching styles understand where their colleagues who are more challenged to add interactivity into their

sessions.

A lot of the information we do and we teach in the first-year is, it's more transmissive... It's "here's data that you need to learn;" it’s not, "let's wrestle with this ethical problem," which does exist, and those classes already do interactive type teaching.

Many others reported that students do not like the more interactive classes or self- directed exercises outside of class – they prefer the old teaching styles where experts lectured and students listened and took notes.

I think it would [better] to have more flexibility in our curriculum when we did have more small groups, more interactive things, but it's so funny, I've talked to students in different pathways and almost all of them, when it comes down to it, don't like the stuff they have to do on their own and like it when it's fed to them. I've never seen that, for all the talk of millennials they're no different than anyone else.