I attended another workshop recently (11.1) hosted by our Teaching Innovation Office here at UNCG that was provocatively titled: "Teaching Like a Puma: Strategies You Can Use to Make Learning More Interesting for You and Your Students." Dr. Todd Zakrajsek led the workshop.
You are probably wondering, as I was, about the workshop's title. I'll paraphrase Zakrajsek's explanation. Imagine you are walking down the sidewalk and suddenly encounter a tree in your way. What do you do? Most likely, you would simply slide around it and continue on your way without paying much attention. Now, imagine a puma, rather than a tree, was in your way. Your mind, of course, would attend immediately to the situation. What does this mean for learning? The brain becomes accustomed, and thus numbed, to constant stimuli. Just like our brains begin to ignore the trees we encounter every day, so too are they less likely to actively attend to, and thus less likely to learn from, repetitive learning strategies. Teaching like a puma, then, means that instructors should use a diversity of teaching strategies to cover course material so that student brains do not become numb to constant stimuli.
Zakrajsek also asked us to consider the following scenario: a pro golfer will score very, very well on an easy course and will score more poorly on a difficult course. A solid, but not spectacular, golfer will likewise score well on an easy course but, in contrast to the pro, will score much, much more poorly on a difficult course. What's going on? Well, the pro golfer is going to do pretty well regardless of the course, while a solid golfer will show vast variation when switching between an easy and difficult course (see Figure 1 below).
Now, replace "golfer" with "learner," and "pro" and "solid" with "high achieving" and "low achieving," and the connection with teaching becomes clear. High achievers will typically do well regardless of course difficulty, while low achievers can do well in easy courses but tend to really, really struggle in more difficult courses. Instructors should seek to reduce this discrepancy by trying to modify courses, especially difficult ones, without sacrificing content and rigor. This should flatten out the top line in Figure 1. We can mix things up, as mentioned before, and introduce more dynamic lecturing methods. These modifications can make the courses "easier" for lower achieving students by engaging them more deeply in the material.
The last theme centered on mindset (see one of my past posts for more on this). It's worthwhile to reinforce the importance of hard work, that failure happens and is okay, and scaffolding (that is, the process of getting better at a skill). One interesting idea that Zakrajsek mentioned was to ask students to share (with a partner, with the class, etc.) something that they're good at. The next step is to ask them to relate HOW they became good at it. This naturally leads to a discussion of practice, hard work, etc. Students should be able to link this process to learning as well.
You are probably wondering, as I was, about the workshop's title. I'll paraphrase Zakrajsek's explanation. Imagine you are walking down the sidewalk and suddenly encounter a tree in your way. What do you do? Most likely, you would simply slide around it and continue on your way without paying much attention. Now, imagine a puma, rather than a tree, was in your way. Your mind, of course, would attend immediately to the situation. What does this mean for learning? The brain becomes accustomed, and thus numbed, to constant stimuli. Just like our brains begin to ignore the trees we encounter every day, so too are they less likely to actively attend to, and thus less likely to learn from, repetitive learning strategies. Teaching like a puma, then, means that instructors should use a diversity of teaching strategies to cover course material so that student brains do not become numb to constant stimuli.
Zakrajsek also asked us to consider the following scenario: a pro golfer will score very, very well on an easy course and will score more poorly on a difficult course. A solid, but not spectacular, golfer will likewise score well on an easy course but, in contrast to the pro, will score much, much more poorly on a difficult course. What's going on? Well, the pro golfer is going to do pretty well regardless of the course, while a solid golfer will show vast variation when switching between an easy and difficult course (see Figure 1 below).
 |
| Figure 1. The difference in performance on easy and difficult courses between a pro and solid golfer. A pro golfer will score well in either situation while a solid golfer will show great variation in scores between the two situations. Note that, in golf, a low score is better than a high score. |
Now, replace "golfer" with "learner," and "pro" and "solid" with "high achieving" and "low achieving," and the connection with teaching becomes clear. High achievers will typically do well regardless of course difficulty, while low achievers can do well in easy courses but tend to really, really struggle in more difficult courses. Instructors should seek to reduce this discrepancy by trying to modify courses, especially difficult ones, without sacrificing content and rigor. This should flatten out the top line in Figure 1. We can mix things up, as mentioned before, and introduce more dynamic lecturing methods. These modifications can make the courses "easier" for lower achieving students by engaging them more deeply in the material.
The last theme centered on mindset (see one of my past posts for more on this). It's worthwhile to reinforce the importance of hard work, that failure happens and is okay, and scaffolding (that is, the process of getting better at a skill). One interesting idea that Zakrajsek mentioned was to ask students to share (with a partner, with the class, etc.) something that they're good at. The next step is to ask them to relate HOW they became good at it. This naturally leads to a discussion of practice, hard work, etc. Students should be able to link this process to learning as well.
