Pedagogy

Last Updated October 2019
Sam's teaching opportunities, teaching philosophy, and past professional development experiences are described on this page.

Teaching Philosophy

My teaching philosophy is oriented around using research-backed principles to implement evidence based practices in an iterative manner. I feel that becoming an effective educator is not an end, but rather an ongoing sequence of opportunities to improve oneself professionally.

In undertaking these opportunities, I have been able to acquire a guiding set of beliefs which inform the practical choices I make in constructing the classroom experience. These guiding beliefs, all backed by peer-reviewed research or professional experience, are noted in no particular order below.

Guiding Beliefs

I believe that ...

• Both teaching and learning is an iterative process. Rome wasn't built in a day. Even when the city was established, it constantly reinvented itself over time. The only thing worse than an ineffective instructor is a stagnant one.
• Frequent formal and informal reflection on my own pedagogical practices is crucial.
• Regular, engaged attendance at professional development events geared towards pedagogy is a non-negotiable when I am teaching.
• There is a time to solve problems and a time to be flexible. I have found that it is often best to be flexible.
• I can't learn something until I almost already know it. I believe the same holds true for students. I try to design curricula, individual lectures, and formative and summative assessments accordingly.
• When developing a course as full instructor of record and deciding upon topic sequencing, I try to use backwards design. That is, have a concrete idea of what I want students to do at the end of the course, and work backwards from that cumulating idea to develop course materials.
• Students learn best when there is a system of mentors on which they can rely - both ascribed mentors (e.g., course instructor, lab leaders, tutors) and informal mentors (e.g., peers in the class, roommates, friends).
• The university experience is optimized when students leverage developing relationships to overcome challenges. To that end, relationship formation (whether in the context of small groups of 3-4 with structured and instructor ascribed group roles, or self selected and student directed organizations as appropriate for the course) is to be promulgated.
• Students learn best when they can unpack a topic by themselves or through collaboration with their peers. My role is to facilitate that self-exploration.
• Facilitation of self-led or peer-led exploration includes incorporating techniques such as "think-pair-share", "popcorn selection", "jigsaw group work", and allowing a few moments of time for students to process and internalize after an instructor poses a question.
• The first few days of class are key to setting the tone for the entire course. Course-wide expectations laid out on the first day should be few (five or less), broad, and transparent.
• In the Computer Science context, investigation of wisely chosen case studies, or implementation of choice projects, is a template which can adapted for many types of learning objectives.
• A growth mindset, willingness to try, and active learning environment are strongly enhanced when evaluation criteria for summative assessments is transparently and uniform across students. To that end, providing students copies of rubrics when a summative assessment is assigned is a cornerstone of my courses. These rubrics are delivered with predefined point values attributed to each objective of the assessment.
• When developing assessments and the core deliverable(s) of the assessment is code, a proof, or an algorithm, a template for rubric construction will contain the following components either implicitly or explicitly:
  • Validity: Did the deliverable work/was functionally correct.
  • Readability: Was the syntax/notation of the deliverable clear and augmented with explanation in an appropriate registrar of English.
  • Fluidity: Was the solution executed in such that an experienced practitioner would not find the deliverable weird or unduly jarring.
  These three elements are always present in code/project/proof deliverables, so they should each have an explicit categorization in summative assessment rubrics.
• Writing well is thinking well. Students become better at writing by having exposure to writing opportunities. A writing component - even a trite one - should be explicitly included in all formal assessments.
• Having fellow professionals review my teaching by sitting in on classes I instruct and providing actionable feedback is invaluable.
• Trying out new brand new lectures by role playing them with fellow educators (or even an empty room) ahead of time is highly informative for the self-reflection process.
• Proximetics, i.e., the study of spacial location, as an aid to an active learning environment is under-emphasized in higher education. The instructor should actively work to break the three foot barrier between the front of the room and the closest student by moving throughout the lecture. The instructor certainly should not stay stagnant at a lectern.
• Fixed seating is, in general, an impediment to active, peer oriented learning. Rooms with such seating should be avoided at all costs.

Overarching Paradigms

Each of these beliefs are held with two wider frameworks in mind. Namely:

1. Identifying the assessment style for a particular objective. This is done by determining the type of assessment as one of the elements in the Cartesian product of {formal assessments, informal assessments} and {formative assessments, summative assessments}.
2. Identifying the learning level(s) of a particular objective through using Cangelosi's Learning Level Categorization Schema. This is a peer reviewed alternative to the better known Bloom's Taxonomy. Cangelosi's research is focused on the pedagogy of mathematics and closely related fields.

Both of these frameworks duplicate or extend on topics discussed in the book by James Cangelosi Teaching Mathematics [...]: an Interactive Approach. Merril, 2003.

Assessment Style

1. Formal assessments are assessments which become a part of the student's academic record or final grade in any capacity.
2. Informal assessments are assessments which do not become a part of the student's academic record or final grade in any capacity.

---

3. Formative assessments are assessments which are taken when the student is expected to still be learning the concept or objective at hand.
4. Summative assessments are assessments which are used to inform an instructor's ultimate judgment of student success.

Examples of Assessments

	Informal	Formal
Summative	(Not Applicable)	Anything written and graded. Often includes homework. Definitely includes traditional quizzes and exams, both written or oral.
Formative	"By a show of thumbs up or thumbs down, how well do you feel you understand X concept?"	Certain "Day One" 0 point course preparedness quizzes, iClicker questions linked to Canvas/Blackboard or other educational management system.

Sources of Past and Present Pedagogical Professional Development

I have primarily received pedagogical training from three programs:

• Programa Inglés Abre Puertas (PIAP) English Opens Doors Programme (EODP), a joint program of the United Nations and Chilean Ministry of Education.
• Together We Teach (TweT), "part of a [weekly] professional development program for graduate students [... in the Department of Mathematics and Statistics ...] who have a teaching role as well as a professional conference designed to promote the communication of effective teaching skills to USU's teaching community writ large."
• Teaching Engagement Program (TEP), the University of Oregon's "faculty and graduate-student professional teaching development office."