Reflections on learning in teaching with technology
I enrolled and completed the Teaching with Technology (TwT) graduate course (GRAD704). As a part of the course assignments, I want to reflect and evaluate what I had learned from this course, especially when I applied new learning with technologies to a TA class I taught.
This TwT course provided great teaching resources for teaching instructors at all levels. Technology tools for learning and teaching have become handy when situations (e.g., current global pandemic situation) do not permit in-person classes. The GRAD704 course learning environments allowed students to interact and work together collaboratively, and some of us might continue collaborating even after the class ended. One minor downside could be applying implementation plans to the TA class promptly. I wish this course took place early the week (preferably on Mondays) to apply what we learn to the teaching class that took place later the week.
While taking the TwT course, I implemented three lessons to my teaching class: flipped learning approach, collaborative learning, and effective assessment with grading rubrics; all of them were successful. Students in my class tended to enjoy the course and understanding a fair grading.
A flipped learning approach allowed students to expose to course learning materials before the class meeting time. After reviewing readings and other course materials, students were asked to complete a pre-lab quiz to evaluate student preparation. Although the flipped learning approach was not new to the class I taught (we used the pre-lab quizzes for both in-person and remote classes), the proper way to introduce the flipped learning approach was new for me. Based on my observation, students in my class tended to participate in the flipped learning approach by comping prepared for the lab when I clearly specified reasons why the flipped learning approach would benefit them.
Collaborative learning seemed to be the most successful implementation among these three implementations. Students in my class were encouraged to work together in small group discussions where they remained in the same group for the entire semester. Students were asked to work collaboratively using a shared document (e.g., google doc, google slides, etc.). In the shared documents, the course instructor (me and my undergraduate teaching assistant) could check how students worked in the group and provide feedback to student’s group assignments in real-time using suggestion options. Most students enjoyed working with their team members on the shared documents because other team members heard their opinions. However, there were a few downsides of working collaboratively on the shared documents as some students might connect to the Zoom class via a phone and were not able to switch to a shared drive while attending the zoom session. Some students might take advantage of working on the same document by not contributing to the group activity but still received a group grading credit. This behavior happened in the class I taught, but no way the instructor could know unless one of the team members reported to me.
Lastly, the practical assessment with the grading rubric approach helped me complete the grading on student assignments fairly. Similar to the flipped learning approach, using the grading rubric was not new to the class that I taught. Students would be given a grading rubric for every writing assignment they were asked to complete a week or two before it was due. As an instructor, I found the grading rubric was very helpful, especially when there were many students in the class. The grading rubric saved time used for the grading and made the grading consistent for all students. However, not every student used the grading rubric carefully; some of them never reviewed the grading rubrics before submitting their work for grading. While implementing the grading rubric approach, I presented the grading rubric to students in detail to know everyone saw the grading expectation at least once.
I enrolled and completed the Teaching with Technology (TwT) graduate course (GRAD704). As a part of the course assignments, I want to reflect and evaluate what I had learned from this course, especially when I applied new learning with technologies to a TA class I taught.
This TwT course provided great teaching resources for teaching instructors at all levels. Technology tools for learning and teaching have become handy when situations (e.g., current global pandemic situation) do not permit in-person classes. The GRAD704 course learning environments allowed students to interact and work together collaboratively, and some of us might continue collaborating even after the class ended. One minor downside could be applying implementation plans to the TA class promptly. I wish this course took place early the week (preferably on Mondays) to apply what we learn to the teaching class that took place later the week.
While taking the TwT course, I implemented three lessons to my teaching class: flipped learning approach, collaborative learning, and effective assessment with grading rubrics; all of them were successful. Students in my class tended to enjoy the course and understanding a fair grading.
A flipped learning approach allowed students to expose to course learning materials before the class meeting time. After reviewing readings and other course materials, students were asked to complete a pre-lab quiz to evaluate student preparation. Although the flipped learning approach was not new to the class I taught (we used the pre-lab quizzes for both in-person and remote classes), the proper way to introduce the flipped learning approach was new for me. Based on my observation, students in my class tended to participate in the flipped learning approach by comping prepared for the lab when I clearly specified reasons why the flipped learning approach would benefit them.
Collaborative learning seemed to be the most successful implementation among these three implementations. Students in my class were encouraged to work together in small group discussions where they remained in the same group for the entire semester. Students were asked to work collaboratively using a shared document (e.g., google doc, google slides, etc.). In the shared documents, the course instructor (me and my undergraduate teaching assistant) could check how students worked in the group and provide feedback to student’s group assignments in real-time using suggestion options. Most students enjoyed working with their team members on the shared documents because other team members heard their opinions. However, there were a few downsides of working collaboratively on the shared documents as some students might connect to the Zoom class via a phone and were not able to switch to a shared drive while attending the zoom session. Some students might take advantage of working on the same document by not contributing to the group activity but still received a group grading credit. This behavior happened in the class I taught, but no way the instructor could know unless one of the team members reported to me.
Lastly, the practical assessment with the grading rubric approach helped me complete the grading on student assignments fairly. Similar to the flipped learning approach, using the grading rubric was not new to the class that I taught. Students would be given a grading rubric for every writing assignment they were asked to complete a week or two before it was due. As an instructor, I found the grading rubric was very helpful, especially when there were many students in the class. The grading rubric saved time used for the grading and made the grading consistent for all students. However, not every student used the grading rubric carefully; some of them never reviewed the grading rubrics before submitting their work for grading. While implementing the grading rubric approach, I presented the grading rubric to students in detail to know everyone saw the grading expectation at least once.