The art of connecting: Emotionally intelligent teaching

by: Xiangyou Shen, Visiting Assistant Professor
College of Forestry, Department of Forest Ecosystems & Society

“People will forget what you said, people will forget what you did, but people will never forget how you made them feel.” – Maya Angelou

The lasting and powerful impact of emotions, as illustrated in the quote by Maya Angelou, is the first message that Dr. Shauna Tominey stressed in her illuminating teaching talk on emotionally intelligent teaching. She drew us into this fascinating topic by drawing parallels between college and early childhood classrooms, a setting she conducts much of her work. This comparison brought a number of insights to our attention. Just as in preschools, college students thrive when they have positive and supportive relationships; the brains of young adults are not fully developed yet they are expected to “make good choices and demonstrate self-control” (Aamodt, & Wong, 2011); it takes creativity and diverse, purposefully designed learning activities to keep students focused and engaged; and engaging college students on a personal level is challenging because of low instructor-student ratios commonly seen on campus and the lack of incentive for teachers to invest in developing differentiating instruction.

Diving into the topic, Dr. Tominey presented a variety of instructional practices designed to enhance emotional awareness among students and the instructor and create a supportive classroom environment. These techniques include mood meters, using students’ names in large classes, setting class expectations, and strategically reaching out to students. Throughout her presentation, Dr. Tominey skillfully demonstrated how to create emotionally supportive learning environment through engaging, interactive lecture as well as intentional group activities. The latter guided the audience to reflect on a number of critical issues, such as the role of different emotions in driving learning, the challenge in reading emotions, particularly of learners from diverse backgrounds, and the importance of assessing and addressing students’ emotional needs.

Many of the techniques introduced in this talk can be used as effective tools in face-to-face instruction. With my first teaching assignment, an online course, in mind, I paid special attention to several practices that can be used to support the teaching of Ecampus students. In particular, I found Day 1 course survey to be instrumental for both online and offline instruction. To help myself get to know my students whom I may only have the chance to meet virtually, I plan to incorporate a brief “tell me a little about yourself” survey in my welcoming email to the class at the beginning of the term. Qualtrics or Google form can be good platform choices because they allow the results to be exported as an Excel sheet that is easy to manage and edit. For example, after downloading the sheet, I can add a column called “note to myself” to record individualized information, a useful tip from my Reflective Teaching Mentor (RTM) Kathrine McAlvage, Assistant Director, Course Development and Training at Oregon State University Ecampus (RTM is a component of New2OSU program offered by OSU’s Center for Teaching and Learning). I can continue to add information to this working document throughout the term and use it as a cheat-sheet to facilitate my future interactions with the students.

Connections should be a two-way street. I will also endeavor to help my students feel connected with me by sharing about myself through either the welcoming email or a welcome video (OSU’s Faculty Media Center can be a great resource in creating multi-media content) to be posted on the course website.

A key take-home message from Dr. Tominey’s presentation centers on the importance of creating a safe, caring, and supportive classroom community. This notion is consistent with an increased body of research linking social-emotional learning to a number of positive students’ outcomes (Konishi, & Wong, 2018). Online learning can be isolating absent face-to-face interactions available in traditional on-campus classroom settings. To help foster a supportive online class community for my students, I plan to include in my course design a) an “introduce yourself to the class” exercise in Week One to help students get acquainted among themselves (information shared here can be different than what students shared with me), b) weekly group discussions wherein students are assigned to a different group each week to maximize their contact with different classmates throughout the term, c) establishing ground rules for positive, respectful, and productive online communication, and (d) being responsive to students’ feedback and modeling how to give and receive feedback throughout my communication with the students.

While I am yet to find out how well these measures are going to work in my Winter 2020 class, I feel inspired and encouraged by what I learned from Dr. Tominey’s talk. Learning can not be reduced to a mere cognitive task. It is a process intrinsically tied to feelings and emotions. By practicing emotionally intelligent teaching, we help students leverage the power of emotions to propel their learning for better academic achievement, responsible decisions, positive relationships, and improved emotional well-being.


Aamodt, S., & Wang, S. (2011). Welcome to your child’s brain: How the mind grows from conception to college. Bloomsbury Publishing: New York, N.Y., USA

Konishi, C., & Wong, T. K. Y. (2018). Relationships and School Success: From a Social-Emotional Learning Perspective. Health and Academic Achievement.

Posted in Center for Teaching and Learning | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Eating your Peas, like Active Learning, not Preferred but Better for You.

[This is the first in a series of Research Advancing Pedagogy (RAP) blogs, designed to share the latest pedagogical research from across the disciplines in a pragmatic format]

“I wish he would just lecture instead of all this active learning stuff. I just want to sit back and take notes.” – Overheard walking behind two students exiting a large lecture class.

The sentiment raised by the students in the anecdote above is not an anomaly. Many students seem to abhor interacting in a classroom. Unfortunately, just like parents nudging their children to eat more greens and less fried food, what is disliked, IS better. Active learning pedagogies are linked to better student learning outcomes (see Freeman et al., 2014; Hake 1998). A lot of the research is correlational in nature as it is difficult to do head to head comparisons of active versus passive learning. Difficult, but not impossible.

How nice would it be to compare how the same students learn the same material when taught using active learning versus passive learning? This is exactly what Deslauriers and colleagues did (2019). Students enrolled in physics classes at Harvard received instruction- chalkboard lectures, demonstrations, quizzes- from their primary instructor for 12 weeks of a 15-week semester. Then things took a twist.

What did they do? All the students then spent two class meetings with one of two different instructors (A or B). In the first class, half the students, randomly assigned, received instruction using an active learning method – students solved problems in groups before getting solutions. The other half received instruction on the same material using a passive learning method – students received the solutions of the problems. For the second class, students instructed with the active method got the passive method and vice versa (see the figure below).

What did they find? Students reported on how much they liked the classes, how much they felt they learned, and took a test to see how much they actually learned. The bottom lines:  1. Students rated the quality of instruction in the passive section higher than the active section, 2. Students FELT they learned more when taught in the passive style, and 3. Students actually learned MORE in the active class.

This study had many strengths. Researchers randomly assigned students to type of instruction and checks established there were no differences in students between conditions. Both the experimental instructors were experienced and skilled and novel to the students. The content covered in both sections were identical and experimental instructors did not see the test of learning. The statistical analyses and controls suggest strong internal validity.

[For full resolution result figures and the materials used go here]

What does this mean for us? Yes, this was one study, on one set of students who were Harvard students. Yes, this was one way to define ‘active learning”. We also do not know if the differences in feelings of having learnt and actual learning will stay the same after a period of time. Will the students come to realize that that the active learning was better in the long run? As our parents say, “You’ll thank me later”.

These qualms aside, this study is one of the first well-controlled comparisons. Instructors hear students complain about active learning and may feel pressured to give in and be passive. Active learning also takes more work to set up in the first place. This study adds to the larger body of work to demonstrate that the effort to use active learning strategies is worth it but student impressions should be addressed.  Instructors should make the reasons for using active learning clear. Acknowledging that while needing more cognitive energy (for all involved), active engagement exercises relate to better learning. Perhaps show students the data from this study (below) and provide them with an early gauge of their learning or lack thereof, give an early assessment.

Yes, there are many ways to get students to be active and not all methods may work (Bernstein, 2018). Scholars should now go beyond “if” active learning works to more systematically and critically analyze “why” and “what” works and how to better implement such strategies.

About the Author: Regan A. R. Gurung, Ph.D. is Interim Director of the Center for Teaching and Learning at Oregon State University and Director of the General Psychology program in the School of Psychological Science. Homepage

Bernstein, D. A. (2018). Does active learning work? A good question, but not the right one. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology, 4(4), 290–307.
Deslauriers, L., McCarty, L. S., Miller, K., Callaghan, K., & Kestin, G. (2019). Measuring actual learning versus feeling of learning in response to being actively engaged in the classroom. PNAS Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 116(39), 19251–19257.
Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings Of The National Academy Of Sciences Of The United States Of America, 111(23), 8410–8415.
Hake, R. R. (1998). Interactive-engagement vs. tradition methods: A six-thousand student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 66,  64-74.

Posted in Center for Teaching and Learning, Research | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Crossing The Finish Line: Some Suggestions for Ending the Term

Last days of class are perhaps just a short hop behind the first days in the big scheme of stressful days of teaching. This itself may come as a surprise. A last class needs close examination. Not enough educators pay enough attention to the last day. Many of us cannot wait to be done with grading and move on to break. Break is great but tarry a moment. Try extra hard to make sure the day is cohesive but even more so, ensure students the big picture. End strong.

I like to link to many elements of the course, and most importantly, I have a summary statement.  This is not a day where if I run out early I just stop. I have three main elements to the day.

First of course, is finishing content. Some years/semesters I leave more for the last day than others. During the term, when I go short, I can always go slower on the next component. If I go long, I can go faster on the next. At term’s end, if you have fallen behind, it is sometimes better to not stress students by cramming in all that is left. Be judicious and make the call on what material you can leave out. Your students will probably remember what you DO cover better. Remember, you the instructor writes the final exam. If you did not cover something, you may not need to test on it.

Second, a review for the exam. I think that students are more comfortable when the instructor does at least some review in class. I do not do in class reviews for all exams as it is not always the best use of class time (I opt for optional sessions or online office hours), but for the first and last exams – the ones with most student stress — taking some class time to review is key.  I like the reviews to be upbeat and fun and use some game-show format AND try and do a little group competition and work for a prize. MUCH harder to do in a 350-member class than in a 120- or 25- member class, but it still works. Always a pleasant surprise when many students know the answers.

Third, the course summary. THIS is KEY. I spend time thinking of the main ideas students should leave class with. What are the big themes? What are the skills they can use in daily life? With 10 weeks of content it is easy for the students to miss the big picture. The summary spans the entire term and is designed to be a reminder of the scope of the class and its applicability to life. A capstone experience to even an Intro class is key.

Optimally you review the course learning outcomes, the assignments that you used to assess them, and the utility of the material. For me this takes the form of going over the syllabus–yes again on the last day of class, to show students the map of the journey we have taken together.

One of the biggest benefits to orchestrating a great last day, is that you not only give your students the big picture and reasons to process the material in a deep fashion, but it also provided you with a time to reflect on the course. Before you DO ride off into the break, set aside time to assess how YOU liked the course. What worked? Which assignment generated the most student confusion? What can you do about it?

Endings are the best time to set the stage for better next beginnings.

Posted in Center for Teaching and Learning | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Submit Hybrid Funding Proposals by Dec. 3

Weatherford Hall arch at OSUThe Center for Teaching and Learning has extended the due date for proposals for the Winter term Hybrid Faculty Learning Community until Tue., Dec., 3, to provide more time for proposal preparation.

This program offers professional development funding to participants and supports redesign of Corvallis campus courses as hybrid courses that blend classroom meetings with online learning activities.

See the Call for Proposals ( and consider joining more than 200 faculty who have taught Corvallis campus hybrid courses.

Posted in Center for Teaching and Learning | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Call for Applicants: Research on active learning in undergraduate STEM courses

STEM faculty, want to participate in our research on active learning in undergraduate STEM courses? Participants will be compensated up to $600, they will learn about their own teaching, and they may be selected to attend a free one-day active learning workshop at the University of Oregon. Any travel expenses will be covered.

If you are interested, please read more below and complete the application ( before Dec 16, 2019, for full consideration. Additionally, please forward this email to any colleagues who may be interested in participating. Faculty at institutions within 250 miles of Eugene, OR or 250 miles of the Seattle-Tacoma airport are eligible to participate.

If you plan to or want to use active learning in your teaching (e.g., have students solve problems in class or use think/pair/share activities), and if you will be teaching a 1st or 2nd-year undergraduate course in a STEM discipline during the 2019-2020 and 2020-2021 academic years, we invite you to apply to be a faculty participant. For this study, we define STEM as including engineering, life sciences, physical sciences, computer and information technologies, mathematics and statistics. We are particularly interested in working with faculty who teach at 2-year colleges and minority-serving institutions.

Participation in this study is a one-year commitment. To be eligible, you must be available to attend a one-day workshop in Eugene, Oregon on both of the following dates: July 14, 2020 and July 15, 2020. Eligible participants will be randomly assigned to either a group that attends an active learning workshop on one of those two dates or to a control group. All expenses associated with attending the workshop during the study will be covered, including transportation, housing, and per diem. Additionally, participants will be asked to complete surveys about their teaching, to work with us to administer surveys to their students during the term and to allow us to observe class sessions. Participants will have an opportunity to reflect on their use of active learning, will have early access to our research findings, and will be offered up to $600 in honoraria as compensation for their efforts (split into multiple periodic payments). Participants in the control group will be invited to attend a workshop after the study ends.

The application deadline for full consideration is December 16, 2019. The link will remain open until participant recruitment is complete. Please contact the University of Oregon research team ( with questions.

To apply please visit



Dr. Jenefer Husman

Director – Oregon Education Science Lab

Department Head -Department of Education Studies

University of Oregon


Study Number:  06262018.032

Name of Funding Agency: National Science Foundation

Principal Investigator: Dr. Jenefer Husman

Contact Email:

Contact Phone: 541.346.8186

Posted in Center for Teaching and Learning | Leave a comment

Cognition and Learning

by: Gerald Presley, Assistant Professor
College of Forestry – Wood Science & Engineering

Demian Hommel presented Week 6 of the Tuesday Teaching +Tech Talks on cognition and learning. This talk highlighted some techniques to effectively engage students and keep them interested in the course material. It also provided some background on Bloom’s taxonomy and how it relates to developing effective teaching methodologies. By the end of his presentation, Demian had provided the group with a variety of examples of teaching techniques designed to fill the “curiosity gap” among students and thus get them engaged in the learning process. I consider this to be the most valuable takeaway from his talk, and plan to employ these methods more often in my own teaching practice.

Demian laid the foundation for his talk by reviewing Bloom’s taxonomy in its revised form. The revised Bloom’s taxonomy highlights the dynamism in each educational objective by including action words to replace and accompany the original learning goals presented previously (Anderson, et al. 2001). Bloom’s taxonomy is a progression of steps of increasing cognitive complexity that describes the learning process. Students begin with remembering factual information, then move to comprehending or understanding the information presented by demonstrating their ability to use it in discussion. Once these are accomplished students apply learned concepts in problem solving and then identify patterns in the information they have learned. To progress further students must show the ability to synthesize this information into new ideas of their own making and then critically assess their own and other theories.

Demian described his efforts to pull student into this progression by using in-classroom student participation. He uses in-class surveys to test student knowledge before starting a lecture and then re-assessing student knowledge after teaching. While I have not started teaching yet, I plan on incorporating it into the lecture format, perhaps asking students to answer a survey questions only to return to with an answer later in the lecture.

Demian also described how he leverages student curiosity to drive interest in his lectures. I found this to be an interesting strategy that I could effectively use in my own lectures. The most compelling of these I found is how he got students invested in the subject matter by building up a story around global overpopulation and asking students a critical question, “what is the expected upper limit of the global human population?” He then continues to lecture in the topic area without divulging the answer but by dropping in clues that will cause the students to speculate and possibly change their answers. Finally, at the very end he includes the answer to the question after all of the course material is presented.

While the actual answer to the question is not very important to the material he is delivering, it draws students in and keeps them attentive throughout the lecture. This method can be used widely in different academic fields where facts relevant to politics or students’ everyday life can be used as leverage to focus their attention.


Anderson, Lorin W., Krathwohl, David R., and Bloom, Benjamin S. A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing : a Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives / Editors, Lorin W. Anderson, David Krathwohl ; Contributors, Peter W. Airasian … [et Al.]. Complete ed. New York: Longman. Print.

Posted in Center for Teaching and Learning | Leave a comment

It’s OK to Lecture: Tips for Priming Lecture With Active Learning Structures and Techniques

The lecture method has come under serious criticism in recent times (Haave, 2019). A body of research attests to the benefits of active learning (Freeman et al., 2014; Deslauriers et al., 2019). In view of the upsurge of support for active learning, the lecture method seems somewhat anachronistic when it comes to reaching today’s students. The good news is that active learning and lecture are not mutually exclusive. In fact, they are mutually beneficial. The strengths and strategies of active learning are the missing link needed to inject life into the traditional lecture method to make it an engaging, interactive learning experience (Goodbar, 2019).

Advantages of Lecturing: Lecture is an expository teaching model that is effective for organizing and conveying large amounts of information to students at the same time. Also, there are instructional situations that call for exposition for example when teaching a new content or when presenting a complex concept that is likely to be confusing to students. However, a major argument against the lecture method is that it promotes passivity and student disengagement.

Merging Lecture with Active Learning Structures and Techniques: The literature on active learning has introduced several simple structures and techniques that university teachers can easily implement to engage students in learning. Merging engaging lecture presentations with applicable structures and techniques is the formula for turning the traditional lecture into interactive lecturing. Active learning structures and techniques can be implemented before instruction and at strategically-planned points in a class session:  the first five minutes, every 15 minutes during, and the last five minutes of a lecture.

Active Learning Structures Before Instruction: The purpose of this diagnostic practice is to assess student thinking of the learning material before they come to class, and then use the information gathered to adjust and inform the teaching and learning process (West, 2018). Just-in Time Teaching (JiTT) is a structuring technique that can be used to scaffold student learning of content before instruction. Here, students respond to open-ended questions online about new content before it is presented in class.  The university teacher reviews students’ submissions, and adjusts teaching and learning to address misconceptions just in time in the learning process.

The First Five Minutes: The first few minutes of class are very crucial to the ebb and flow of student learning for the rest of the period. It is important to use ‘engagement triggers’ to grab students’ attention and focus their minds on the content at hand. There are several structures and techniques for focusing students’ attention on learning. Instead of going over the learning points from the previous class, Major (2019) suggests that university teachers bookend the first minutes by asking students to summarize the key learning points of the last class in a memo to an imaginary classmate who was absent. Lang (2019) recommends posing challenging, puzzling questions to prompt students to think aloud and talk about the subject at hand.

Structures during lecture: We are all too familiar with the aphorism, “What I hear, I forget. What I see, I remember. What I do, I understand.” At best, students hear and remember about forty percent of the information presented in a lecture. The question is, Why not incorporate structures into a lecture to scaffold active listening, note-taking and student retention of pertinent information? One structure for scaffolding knowledge retention involves giving students guided notes that summarize the key points of a lecture, with blank spaces that they have to fill out during the lecture (McMurtrie, 2019). Also, giving students a handout with five to ten multiple choice items to answer using information from the lecture should promote active listening and retention of knowledge.

Active Learning Techniques During Lecture: Our working memory can only process a limited amount of information at a time. The information that does not make it to long-term memory is lost. The traditional lecture practice of presenting content in extended blocks of time does not foster the storage of information in long-term memory. Therefore, instead of lecturing for an extended one-hour block, break the lecture into fifteen-minute segments, and establish strategic breaks between segments. Then implement simple active learning techniques such as think-pair-share, retrieval practice and one-sentence summary during breaks to check for understanding. Interspersing lecturing with active learning techniques primes all students to have equitable access to learning success and it is effective for facilitating the transfer of learning content into long-term memory.

The Last Five Minutes: The last five minutes is the second bookend of the class period. Students are engaged in thinking about what they are about to learn during the first five minutes of class. The focus of the last five minutes is to ask students to reflect on what they have learned and the questions that they have about the topic. The minute paper and the muddiest point are effective active learning techniques for structuring this bookend.

Lecture versus active learning is a moot issue. All that the age-old lecture method needs is an injection of active learning structures and techniques to transform it into a win-win evidence-based best practice.



Deslauriers, L., McCarty, L. S., Miller, K., Callaghan, K., & Kestin, G. (2019). Measuring actual learning versus feeling of learning in response to being actively engaged in the classroom. Retrieved from

Goodbar, D. (2019, November 3). Do Students Really Learn Nothing From a Lecture? Retrieved from

Haave, N. (2019, July 1). My worst student ratings ever. Retrieved  from

Lang, J.M. (2016, January 11). Small changes in teaching: The first five minutes of class. Retrieved October 14, 2019 from

Lang, J. M. (2016, March 7). Small changes in teaching: The last five minutes of class. Retrieved from

Major, C. H. (2019, October 21). Interactive lecturing: A pedagogy that works. Retrieved from https://www.teachingprofessor

Mcmurtrie, B. (2019, October 3). Can the lecture be saved? Retrieved from

Freeman, S. et al. (2014). Active Learning Increases Student Performance in Science, Engineering, and Mathematics. PNAS, 111, 8410-8415.

West, J. (2018, October 1). Responsive planning improves learning and teaching. Retrieved from

Funmi Amobi is an instructional consultant and College Liaison in Oregon State University’s Center for Teaching and Learning. Funmi provides consultations to faculty in individual and small group settings to support teaching excellence and student success. Funmi holds a doctorate degree in secondary education with major emphasis in curriculum and instruction from Arizona State University.  As a reflective practitioner, she is a life-long student of the scholarship of teaching and learning.  To schedule a Sparkshop call Funmi @ 541 737 1338 or email:







Posted in Center for Teaching and Learning | Leave a comment

Interested in Designing a Hybrid Course?

OSU Lower Campus and Furman HallBlended learning is a prominent feature of the teaching and learning landscape at Oregon State University. Since 2012 when OSU established the hybrid course schedule type, Corvallis campus hybrid courses have enrolled more than 42,000 students. The number of hybrid course sections has grown by more than 20% every year.

The Center for Teaching and Learning has issued a Call for Proposals for the Winter 2020 Hybrid Faculty Learning Community. This program supports faculty in the redesign of Corvallis campus courses as hybrid courses that integrate classroom meetings with online learning activities.

The learning community has a hybrid format and offers professional development funding to participants. Space is limited; apply by Mon., Nov. 25, 2019.

Posted in Center for Teaching and Learning | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Lesson Planning and Reflection

Kim Vierra

by: Kimberly Vierra
OSU Cascades – Business Administration
Student Engagement Program Manager

“I have no question that students who learn, not professors who perform, is what teaching is all about: students who learn are the finest fruits of teachers who teach.” (Palmer, 2007, p.7).

Dr. Funmi Amobi led us on a journey through the challenges of effective lesson planning during our Tuesday teaching talk last week. Early in our session, she asked us to reflect on the quote above, and think about the implications of the statement in terms of planning effective lessons. For me, the quote changes the lens through which I determine what makes a particular class session a success. If I deliver a fabulous lecture, but no student is taking notes, and no student is making meaning from it for themselves, was it a success?

Keeping student learning objectives (SLOs) as the focus of each lesson plan helps to create effective experiences that drive engagement in learning. One segment of the workshop was on the Pause, Play, Repeat procedure. This procedure is an interactive instructional approach where mini-lectures are interspersed with pauses (Dutill and Wehler, 2017). I enjoyed learning about this approach to ‘chunking’ the class period into the following sections: introduce the learning objectives, teach/model, assess, clarify/teach, assess, and summarize. I tried this approach to having shorter, 15-20-minute blocks of teaching, with assessments interspersed, in my class last Friday. The result was an increase in student engagement with the material.

Dr. Funmi Amobi shared a useful lesson planning template with us as well. It is a structured guide where you start with the purpose of the lesson, and break down the learning time into the opening, the flow through the teaching/learning activities in the body of the lesson, and finally close the lesson. One of the key takeaways from the suggested introduction activities is to engage the student in a “naïve task”, in which the instructor asks students to complete a challenge for which they don’t yet have knowledge. I tried this with an introductory Kahoot quiz covering several financial concepts. It was an effective activity to start with, as it let me know where each student was in terms of their knowledge, and it allowed me to tailor the learning to their specific needs for the rest of the session.

Another interesting topic covered was the blending Bloom’s cognitive levels and dimensions of knowledge. The dimensions of knowledge are factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive. Bloom’s Taxonomy (updated by Wilson, 2001), builds on the levels of remember, understand, apply, analyze, evaluate and finally to create. These two concepts can be combined, and in so doing, help us to chart the progression of student learning at both knowledge dimensions and cognitive process levels, and align objectives directly with assessments and instructional strategies.

Most of us are familiar with the creation of SMART goals, which are specific, measurable, attainable, results-oriented and time bound. SLOs should be SMART, and by adding the combined cognitive levels and dimensions of knowledge, our SLOs can be even SMARTER.  As an example from one of my classes, one of my learning objective states, “By the end of the term, you will be able to negotiate salary and benefits according to your personal and professional values.”

This learning objective is SMART, as it is specific to what the students will be able to negotiate, it is attainable, results-oriented and time-bound. But where does this SLO fall on the wheel of combined cognitive levels and dimensions of knowledge? I would place it under conceptual knowledge, and they will be applying their knowledge. Adding this lens to the SLO means that I will ensure that we spend time in relevant learning activities and will apply relevant assessments to ensure that students can carry out and use learned negotiation techniques appropriately, given various possible situations they may find themselves in.

To come back to the initial quote, “I have no question that students who learn, not professors who perform, is what teaching is all about: students who learn are the finest fruits of teachers who teach.” (Palmer, 2007, p.7). Through effective lesson planning, we can ensure that more of our students are maximizing their learning in each of our class sessions. Thanks to Dr. Funmi Amobi for her engaging and useful session.


Dutill, J. & Wheler, M. (2017, October 23,). Pause, Play, Repeat: Using Pause Procedure in Online Microlectures. Retrieved from

Palmer, P. (2007). The courage to teach. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.

Wilson, L. O. (2016). Understanding the new version of Bloom’s taxonomy. Retrieved from

Posted in Center for Teaching and Learning, New2OSU | Leave a comment

SPS Presents: Deep dives into learning: Challenges and developments in teaching general psychology

SPS 2019 Fall Colloquium – Regan Gurung, SPS Professor & Interim Director of the Center for Teaching and Learning

What are the best ways to predict learning? How can you increase learning in large classes? In this overview of research on teaching and learning, Dr. Gurung will share some key predictors of learning, outline important needs for research on teaching and learning, and highlight some educational best practices.

This talk is organized by the School of Psychological Science, and is one in a series of exciting talks by faculty, students, affiliates, and guests of the School of Psychological Science at OSU. These colloquia offer an informal venue to discuss completed and ongoing research of broad interest.

Free & open to all OSU researchers.
Accommodations for disabilities can be made by contacting one of the
colloquium organizers listed HERE

Posted in Center for Teaching and Learning | Leave a comment