As a history major I usually found most of my history courses pretty interesting. Certainly some were more interesting than others but I think that had more to do with the instructor than the content. Of course not every student who takes a history class course plans to major in it, which is why I love it when I hear about a history professor (or any educator for that matter) doing innovative things to engage students in one of those “core courses” many students often dread.

Here’s something I was surprised to find. A group of researchers in the UK decided to show students how to use written feedback on papers to improve their writing. They collected feedback given students on eight previous writing assignments and had writing tutors review and analyze the comments. Then they looked at the writing assignment students were to complete next, paying special attention to the stated criteria for grading, and developed a specific set of recommendations for each individual student.

In case you ever had any doubts, research (reference below) now exists that verifies that both students and teachers find cell phones ringing in class distracting. The results also document strong support from students and faculty for policies against ringing cell phones. Although there was strong support against cell phones going off in class, the strength of that support was mediated by age. The younger cohort in the study was more tolerant of cell phones than the older cohort.

Why are you interested in improving your courses and instruction?

Teaching online for the first time is a little like trying to drive a car in a foreign country. You know how to drive, just like you know how to teach, but it sure is hard to get the hang of driving on the left side of the road ... you’re not quite sure how far a kilometer is ... and darn it if those road signs aren't all in Japanese.

Helping faculty learn to survive and even thrive online is critical if we are to realize the potential of this new learning space. During a Magna online seminar awhile back, I made reference to a strategy that an institution can employ to help faculty save time online. I referred to a document created at Penn State’s World Campus as the “10 commandments” of faculty performance. Simply put, it is the articulation of what our organization expects from our online instructors in order to ensure a quality teaching and learning experience. Although this may initially sound like a “heavy handed” approach—faculty being told how to perform—I would offer another interpretation.

I’m home from another successful Teaching Professor Conference and couldn’t be more pleased with how things went. For three days, we had more than 600 enthusiastic participants soaking up everything the conference offers. Whether it was the viewing posters after the keynote Friday night, interacting with new colleagues before and after sessions, or showing up for the last scheduled concurrent session, participants were there, sharing insights, asking questions, making comments, disagreeing, offering examples, and learning from each other. By Sunday afternoon, most of us were talked out about teaching, but energized (if not a bit exhausted) by the many valuable exchanges.

I happened on the idea of giving voucher points accidentally, but over the years they've proven quite valuable in promoting active student involvement. It started when I was still teaching math in high school, and a student came up with a particularly clever method of solving a mathematics problem. As a reward, I wrote him an IOU good for one point on any of my tests. A few months later it happened again, and then later on I gave out a third voucher point. That semester, I received very positive comments about the practice on my student evaluations. Students requested that I “do voucher points more often.”

I enjoyed as an especially well-written commentary by Miriam Marty Clark in the current issue of Pedagogy. She confesses to a “growing skepticism” she has come to feel about critical thinking “and the place it holds in discussions of university education.” (p. 326)