Learning in community: student perceptions and experiences

Beginning in the 2002-03 school year all teacher evaluators in the state of Iowa were required to take part in the then newly-created Iowa Evaluator Approval Training Program (IEATP). This program was designed to train evaluators in teacher evaluation based on the Iowa Teaching Standards and Criteria. For this study novice teachers from Iowa public schools were surveyed and asked questions regarding the five attributes of teacher evaluation using a modified Teacher Evaluation Profile (TEP), originally designed by Stiggins and Duke (1988). The attributes include the following topics, each defined through a number of different traits: (a) self as a teacher, (b) evaluator, (c) evaluation processes, (d) attributes of the feedback, and (e) context in which the evaluations occurred;Data were also collected regarding the concept of potential bias in teacher evaluation based on the gender of the teacher and/or the gender of the evaluator. A comparison was made from year one of the study, before the implementation of IEATP (2001-02), to year two of the study, after the implementation of IEATP (2002-03);Descriptive statistics were used in the study as correlational methods including t-tests, pairwise comparisons, multivariate tests, within-subjects tests, and multiple analysis of variance [MANOVA]. Significant differences, following the Bonferroni correction, were observed in the study;Traits and non-traits of each of the five attributes of teacher evaluation emerged through an analysis of the data. In addition, a statistically significant gender interaction favoring female evaluators, regarding a number of traits, was also observed in the study. A comparison of changes in novice teacher perceptions from 2001-02 to 2002-03 revealed changes in perceptions in the attributes of self as a teacher and in the evaluation processes;One implication of the findings from the study of the implementation of the IEATP centers on the idea that when training evaluators on the theory behind quality instruction, there needs to be an emphasis on training them to identify specific behaviors that are a part of quality instruction. This is currently contained as a knowledge and skill expectation in training Module One, but needs additional attention in follow-up training. Also, in an attempt to increase training efficacy, there needs to real world application to the learning elements to meet the needs of adult learning theor

Becoming Responsible Learners: Community Matters

Students at Iowa State University had the opportunity to enroll in a two-year National Science Foundation (NFS) Scholarship for Service (SFS) leadership development program, in addition to their work within their majors. This interdisciplinary program included faculty and students in computer engineering, computer science, mathematics, political science, management information systems, and education. The expected learning outcomes for this interdisciplinary effort were focused on “learning in community,” specifically to develop professionals and citizens who will continue learning for life while consistently supporting and encouraging the growth of others. The purpose of this phenomenological research study was to examine students’ experiences of learning in community in the SFS program. Participants identified a definable developmental process where students’ experiences moved from resistance to the interactive and participatory nature of the class, to reluctance to step outside comfort zones, to reliance on others within the community, to assuming responsibility for self and others in the community

Learning in community: student perceptions and experiences

Beginning in the 2002-03 school year all teacher evaluators in the state of Iowa were required to take part in the then newly-created Iowa Evaluator Approval Training Program (IEATP). This program was designed to train evaluators in teacher evaluation based on the Iowa Teaching Standards and Criteria. For this study novice teachers from Iowa public schools were surveyed and asked questions regarding the five attributes of teacher evaluation using a modified Teacher Evaluation Profile (TEP), originally designed by Stiggins and Duke (1988). The attributes include the following topics, each defined through a number of different traits: (a) self as a teacher, (b) evaluator, (c) evaluation processes, (d) attributes of the feedback, and (e) context in which the evaluations occurred;Data were also collected regarding the concept of potential bias in teacher evaluation based on the gender of the teacher and/or the gender of the evaluator. A comparison was made from year one of the study, before the implementation of IEATP (2001-02), to year two of the study, after the implementation of IEATP (2002-03);Descriptive statistics were used in the study as correlational methods including t-tests, pairwise comparisons, multivariate tests, within-subjects tests, and multiple analysis of variance [MANOVA]. Significant differences, following the Bonferroni correction, were observed in the study;Traits and non-traits of each of the five attributes of teacher evaluation emerged through an analysis of the data. In addition, a statistically significant gender interaction favoring female evaluators, regarding a number of traits, was also observed in the study. A comparison of changes in novice teacher perceptions from 2001-02 to 2002-03 revealed changes in perceptions in the attributes of self as a teacher and in the evaluation processes;One implication of the findings from the study of the implementation of the IEATP centers on the idea that when training evaluators on the theory behind quality instruction, there needs to be an emphasis on training them to identify specific behaviors that are a part of quality instruction. This is currently contained as a knowledge and skill expectation in training Module One, but needs additional attention in follow-up training. Also, in an attempt to increase training efficacy, there needs to real world application to the learning elements to meet the needs of adult learning theory</p

Mindset about Intelligence and Meaningful and Mindful Effort: It's Not My Hardest Class Any More!

College students’ implicit theories (or mindsets) about intelligence can affect not only their motivations toward learning, but also their cognitive habits and behaviors while learning thus impacting academic achievement. In this paper we describe learning experiences we used with our learning community to 1) introduce students to the concept of implicit theories (mindsets) about intelligence, 2) encourage them to move toward growth mindsets rather than fixed mindsets about their abilities to learn, 3) challenge them to identify learning as more than memorization and recall, and 4) hold them accountable for doing the work of the mind (meaningful and mindful effort) required for learning. Questionnaires given at the beginning and again at the end of the semester revealed increases in students’ self-reported knowledge of mindset about intelligence and the effect it has on their abilities to learn, about the impact meaningful and mindful effort has on learning, and about the meaning of effort. More important, students also reported positive changes in behaviors as they took more responsibility for their own growth and development by practicing the work of the mind. Leaders of learning communities can use this set of learning experiences to help their students achieve even more academic success.This article is from Learning Communities Research and Practice 3 (2015): 3. Posted with permission.</p

Mindset about Intelligence and Meaningful and Mindful Effort: It\u27s Not My Hardest Class Any More!

College students’ implicit theories (or mindsets) about intelligence can affect not only their motivations toward learning, but also their cognitive habits and behaviors while learning thus impacting academic achievement. In this paper we describe learning experiences we used with our learning community to 1) introduce students to the concept of implicit theories (mindsets) about intelligence, 2) encourage them to move toward growth mindsets rather than fixed mindsets about their abilities to learn, 3) challenge them to identify learning as more than memorization and recall, and 4) hold them accountable for doing the work of the mind (meaningful and mindful effort) required for learning. Questionnaires given at the beginning and again at the end of the semester revealed increases in students’ self-reported knowledge of mindset about intelligence and the effect it has on their abilities to learn, about the impact meaningful and mindful effort has on learning, and about the meaning of effort. More important, students also reported positive changes in behaviors as they took more responsibility for their own growth and development by practicing the work of the mind. Leaders of learning communities can use this set of learning experiences to help their students achieve even more academic success