Drawing connections to experiences outside of the classroom can be an integral part of incorporating new knowledge into an existing mental structure, thereby facilitating student learning. Thus, this session discusses how instructors reflect on revealed student interests and use this information to make “on-the-spot” adjustments to their lesson plans in the span of a single class session. This study focuses on when instructors allow student interests to guide the class agenda “on-the-spot,” what “on-the-spot adjustments” look like, and how these adjustments impact student learning. Using ethnographic research to observe both the stimuli that instructors respond to and the instructional modifications they make, this study offers a typology of four actions instructors can take to incorporate student interests. These actions are not mutually exclusive and initial results suggest that instructors often use these modification techniques in combination. Through this session, participants will engage in a discussion of “on-the-spot” modifications that they may have made, share the cues that they used, and evaluate evidence they have on how this contributed to student learning. Feedback will be solicited as to how to best measure learning in response to instructor modification.

Deeper learning requires students to make connections in the context of a mental framework. Drawing connections to experiences outside of the classroom can be an integral part of incorporating new knowledge into an existing mental structure, thereby facilitating student learning (National Research Council 2000; Schiefele 1991; Smith & Tanner 2010). In line with this existing research, data gathered from ethnographic field notes conducted in the context of a professional development course providing “Survival Skills” to new Instructional Assistants (IAs), revealed that there was significant variation in student interests across course topics (Hardesty et al., 2017). In response, staff instructors leading different sections of the “Survival Skills” course made numerous modifications to their original lesson plans--modifications that differed greatly depending upon each instructor's teaching style. Critical reflection on student interests led to quick, “on-the-spot,” adjustments in the span of the same class session. This insight led to the investigation of the following questions through a pilot study. A full study will be conducted in Winter quarter, 2018:

1. When do instructors allow student interests to guide the student agenda “on the spot”?
2. What do “on the spot” adjustments look like? What forms can they take?
3. How do adjustments to incorporate revealed student interests impact student learning?

Ethnographic research provided a unique vantage point for the researchers to observe both the stimuli that led instructors to make instructional modifications as well as the type of modifications that were made from the original lesson plans. The researcher compared modifications to the instructors’ proposed learning outcomes to analyze their decision-making process.

As a takeaway, we offer a typology of four categories of actions instructors could take to incorporate student interests. First, instructors could choose not to modify their lessons plans. Second, instructors could change their examples or application in light of students’ interests. Third, instructors could change the agenda and give more time and prevalence to topics where students are highly engaged. Fourth, instructors could incorporate student feedback into their lesson plans for future class sessions. The proposed typology is represented in Figure 1 below.

The proposed typology represents the possible actions an instructor could take, keeping in mind that different actions may be appropriate for different circumstances. Thus, these categories are not mutually exclusive. Through this session, participants will engage in a discussion of “on-the-spot” modifications that they may have made, share the cues that they used,  and evaluate evidence they have on how this contributed to student learning. Feedback will be solicited as to how to best measure learning in response to instructor modification.

Figure 1. Incorporation of revealed student interests (Cannot insert, available via email request)

Initial results indicate that instructors are responsive to the incorporation of student interests to varying degrees, even when they were unplanned. Implicit cues like facial expression and enthusiasm factor into an instructor’s choice to modify as do explicit cues like student questions and an expressed desire for application. Furthermore, instructors in this study used a mix of modification techniques, often combining multiple techniques where appropriate.

Hardesty et al. (2017). Ethnographic Pilot Study of Survival Skills Class. [Manuscript in Preparation].

National Research Council (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience and school. (Expanded ed.). J.D. Bransford, A.L. Brown, & R.R. Cocking (Eds.), Washington DC: The National Academies Press.

Schiefele, U. (1991). Interest, learning and motivation. Educational Psychologist, 3(4), 299-323.

Smith, J. & Tanner, K. (2010). The problem of revealing how students think: Concept inventories and beyond. CBE – Life Sciences Education 9(1).

30-Minute Roundtable Session

Critically Reflecting in Transformative Learning