Home » Professional Development

Category Archives: Professional Development

How is Student-Centered Instruction Different than Traditional Instruction?

Tags: , ,

By in Classroom, Content Development, Course Redesign, IMPACT, Professional Development, Uncategorized on .

Student-centered learning looks at where students are when they enter the classroom and attempts to customize teaching to allow students some freedom in choosing how to learn. This kind of teaching allows instructors to free themselves from the traditional lecture and allows them to change the learning space to one that best fits the needs of the student. Students are led to what they need to know instead of listening to someone tell them and they can become actively engaged in their learning.

What has been for some, a liberating style of teaching and learning, frees instructors by allowing them to lead the adventure instead of dispensing it. It is not unusual for instructors to struggle with the transition in the beginning and many feel as if they are giving up some control, which is not inaccurate. However, giving up some control allows students to become actively engaged. Learning can reach new heights without limit. More focus is often put on the quality of students questions instead of the quality of their answers. Higher order thinking skills are engaged since students are able to keep moving towards a goal, work together, ask questions and build on what they know. According to John Dewey in his book entitled How We Think, he notes deep thinking takes time and cannot be expected to happen when prompt answers are required (Dewey,1910). Student-centered learning allows students to make those higher order connections by giving students time to explore and be actively involved in their learning.

This change in the dynamic of the classroom can often intimidate those new to the process, but I liken it to a typical lab experience often seen as a normal part of many lecture courses. That shift instructors feel when they go from lecture-based courses to a lab class is the shift they are referring to in student-centered instruction, switching from dispenser to facilitator and learners going from passive to active learning. Most of the instructor’s work happens before the lab begins with perhaps a pre-lab, setting up the equipment, making sure students stay on task by outlining lab report requirements and having students turn in documentation showing what they have done. This is student-centered learning. The instructor set up the experience and then sits back and let them experience it. There is no lecturing during a lab, yet students learn. Learning through active engagement helps students better relate what they are doing to what they already know resulting in higher levels of retention and comprehension (Angelo & Cross, 1993).

Although not a new concept, some may struggle with the shift to the student-centered approach. Taking this familiar concept and applying it to the lecture part of a course is something many might find foreign. Many others have found it worth their time in making the transformation in everything they teach because many students are more engaged and respond much better to being an active participant in their learning. Other students though who were counting on putting in seat time for another lecture series while chatting on their phone, napping or doing other things have been found to resist the expectation they engage.  Each instructor needs to decide what is best for their learners, but keep in mind there is no one right way to create a student-centered environment. Your subject material, student population, and personal comfort level should all be taken into consideration.

The IMPACT Program at Purdue University provides resources and support for instructors to redesign their course in a student-centered way. The comfort level of the faculty member is of utmost importance and nothing is imposed without the instructor initiating the desire for change.

On April 10th, IMPACT will be hosting Eric Mazur who will be talking about how he transformed his course from lecture to student-centered. Faculty, staff, and students are invited to attend.



Angelo, T. A., & Cross, K. P. (1993). Classroom assessment techniques: A handbook for college teachers.

Dewey, J. (1910). How We Think. New York: D.C. Heath & CO.

Related Links and Articles:






IMPACT FLCs: What are they all about?

Tags: ,

By in Course Redesign, IMPACT, Professional Development on .

Recently, as a presenter at the 2014 AECT International Convention: Learning, Design, and Technology, I shared information about being a support staff member for the IMPACT (Instruction Matters Purdue Academic Course Transformation) program in the presentation: Designing Instruction to Create Systematic Change: A Designer’s Perspective1. IMPACT is a Purdue Provost’s initiative facilitated through the collaborative efforts of the Center of Instructional Excellence (CIE), Information Technology at Purdue (ITaP), University Libraries, Discovery Learning Resource Center (DLRC), and Purdue Extended Campus (PEC). Using research findings on sound student-centered teaching and learning practices, over 100 faculty have redesigned their courses enhancing student learning, competence, and confidence. After 4 years, IMPACT has transformed over 90 courses changing the learning environment for over 25,000 students. Attendees were quite interested and impressed with the emerging results of Purdue University’s IMPACT program.2

One of the goals of IMPACT is to: form Faculty Learning Communities (FLC) as instruments for faculty exploration, collaboration, learning, development and contributions to the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning.3 FLCs began to emerge in higher education the late 1970’s and ‘80s as groups of faculty and professional staff explored strategies to improve instruction and student performance. In 2001 Miami University was awarded a FIPSE (Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education) grant, Developing Faculty Learning Communities to Transform Campus Culture for Learning. Working with several other partner universities, the results of this FIPSE grant showed the structure of the FLC to be one that led to successful change.

The FIPSE project identified 30 components of an FLCP (Faculty Learning Community Programs). Evidence collected shows that FLCs encourage and support faculty investigation, implementation, assessment, and adoption of new (to them) approaches such as involving appropriate technology, active learning, inclusive classrooms, and revised curricula. In addition, FLCs provide for the developmental needs of important cohorts of faculty who have been affected by change, isolation, fragmentation, and stress. Evidence shows FLCPs enhance undergraduate learning by increasing faculty interest, practice, and expertise in teaching by providing safe, supportive, multidisciplinary communities in which faculty can investigate and take risks. Another project goal was to foster scholarly teaching and SoTL (Scholarship of Teaching and Learning). This was achieved by involving FLC participants in a sequence of developmental steps, starting with investigating the literature and culminating in a refereed presentation or publication.4

My experiences as support team member of IMPACT FLCs mirror the results of this FIPSE grant. Over the past four years the actual structure of the Support Team has taken several forms. In the current structure, the Support Team works with a small group of faculty, usually two to four. The Support Team is made up of members from the various units and consists of a “Primary” support team member, who acts as the main contact for the faculty member, and one or more “Secondary” support team members. All support team members participate with faculty in the semester long FLC sessions which serve as the foundation for the faculty development phase of the program. The support team members frequently assist in guiding the small group discussions that takes place during the weekly FLC sessions. These structured FLC sessions are designed to introduce faculty to research-based teaching and learning practices. Some of the topics covered during the FLC sessions include:

  • models utilized in the redesigned courses that include: blended learning models, supplemental approaches in which face-to-face courses are supplemented with online components, flipped models, and fully online models
  • pedagogies and principles, such as, strategies for incorporating group work, team based learning, problem-based learning, informed learning, Chickering and Gamson’s Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education (1987), the principles of backward course design,
  • and, exploration of possible topics for SoTL projects, including the development of a research question.

In the actual redesign process, the support team members provide a variety of roles dependent upon their area of expertise, for example: pedagogy, technology, information literacy, research and many other areas. Most groups of faculty and support team members also meet weekly or biweekly during this semester. Typically this semester is followed by a more individualized phase of the program, again usually taking place over a semester. This is frequently when faculty actually redesign their courses. The support team members remain engaged with the faculty members during the subsequent pilot phase, and often several semesters later while the course is continuing to evolve. In some cases, support team members become involved in SoTL projects with the faculty members.

This course redesign program is a true commitment for support team members and faculty alike. Many institutions have course redesign programs; however, Purdue University’s IMPACT program is a cross-disciplinary effort that touches courses in all academic colleges and schools throughout the university. This unique collaboration of support team members from a variety of units and small groups of faculty in the FLC contributes to the positive systematic changes in the learning environments that are occurring on the Purdue University campus.


1Designing Instruction to Create Systematic Change: A Designer’s Perspective http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/idcpres/26.

2IMPACT Report 2014 http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/impactreps/4/.

3IMPACT website http://www.purdue.edu/impact/

4Miami University FIPSE Grant http://fipsedatabase.ed.gov/fipse/grantshow.cfm?grantNumber=P116B010714

Expanding our Focus: The iPad and Tablet User’s Group has been renamed the Mobile Technology User’s Group

By in Classroom, Events, Mobile, Professional Development, Tools on .

In a move hinted at during our last meeting of the Spring 2013 semester, the “iPad and Tablet User’s Group” has been renamed  the “Mobile Technology User’s Group”.  There are several different reasons for this name change I would like to explain.

First and foremost, let me state the goal for our group: we want to be a user-supported community that encourages exploration and implementation of pedagogically sound mobile-technology use at Purdue.  This represents an expansion of our previous goals that were similar in intent but related solely to tablet technology.  While we had some very interesting discussions about how to implement tablets in the classroom, we rarely discussed putting tablets in the hands of students.  Instead, tablet use was talked about in a very instructor-centric way: here’s how to annotate your presentation, here’s how to wirelessly share your screen, here’s how to remotely connect to your home desktop, etc.  These were extremely valid topics that merited exploration and discussion, but they tended to exclude student use.  This is an understandable side effect of tablet cost, as few classes or programs have the resources to offer tablets to students and students themselves have not widely purchased tablets for classroom use.

Looking at pedagogical priorities emphasized by educational programs on campus such as IMPACT, the emphasis of technology use must move beyond the hands of the instructor.  Quite a few students own tablets (one national 2013 survey suggests around 18% and Purdue’s bring-your-own-device numbers are similar), but those numbers are far surpassed by students who bring their smartphones to class (above 80% on both surveys).  Even with these numbers, smartphones are mostly ignored in classrooms on campus.  While ITaP has attempted to introduce different uses for phones in the past with the Studio Suite of products (HotSeat, Mixable, DoubleTake, etc), linking smartphone usage to add-on applications leads to its own set of limitations.  Instead of starting at the app level and determining usage, think about the standard features of almost any smartphone and imagine how features can be used to retrieve information, create content, and interact with the physical (and virtual) outside world.

Some instructors worry about the distraction of technology in the hands of their students.  While this can indeed be an issue, it is generally most apparent in traditional classrooms where students are asked to remain passive, listen to a lecture, and take notes.  Students who are not engaged with course content are the students spending their time checking reading/posting on Facebook or Instagram.  In an active classroom, with group members to collaborate with and tasks complete, that distracting device is suddenly put to use for an academic purpose.  Students who tune out the course to focus on their own issues can be quickly identified and refocused on the task by both instructors and peers.  In several semesters of interaction with a case-driven classroom of Purdue undergraduates (mostly freshmen), I was never once told by a student group of 3-5 that they were unable to perform tasks due to a lack of a tablet, phone, or laptop.

To go back to the original point, I don’t see changing our group from tablets to mobile technology as a major shift.  Instead, I see it as simply an expansion of our focus to include other types of technology that may already exist in Purdue classrooms.  This not only allows instructors opportunities to design more student-centered lessons with technology, but it does so without any responsibility for the professor or department to buy, support, maintain, and/or upgrade hardware and software.

I look forward to seeing what our users will dazzle us with this year, and if you have any interest in mobile technology integration in the higher education classroom, I hope you’ll join us.  Our first meeting of the academic year is Tuesday, September 24th from 1:30-2:30 in LWSN Hall room 1142.

Copyright Issues of Social Media and Fair Use

Tags: , ,

By in General Education, Professional Development on .

Social Media

I was introduced to the idea of social media and copyright issues at the 10th Annual Copyright Conference presented by Ball State University in April this year. Moran, Seaman and Tinti-Kane (2011) report most faculty are using social media in classes, and that 20% of faculty have required students to comment on or post to a social media site. Any assignment to post online also provides an opportunity for misuse of copyrighted photos, videos, text and other materials.

Put simply, students and faculty should not post materials for which they do not own the copyright. Social media postings, including those required for class purposes, are covered by the same copyright considerations as any other form of publication. Posting links to those copyrighted online resources is usually acceptable. Faculty may wish to inform students that copyright restrictions apply to postings to social media sites. This could be accomplished with a syllabus statement or an identified link to the appropriate campus policy on the use of copyrighted materials. An example can be viewed at http://webwriting.trincoll.edu/balancing-public-private/sample-course-policy/.

Fair Use

The conference also expanded my understanding of Fair Use of copyrighted works. There are four factors to consider when determining whether a specific use would be allowed under Fair Use: 1) Purpose, 2) Nature, 3) Amount and 4) Effect. A scenario presented by the experts described a university class that watched an entire movie. The teaching aspect tends to favor Fair Use but using the entire movie tends to oppose Fair Use. The experts revealed more details, stating this was a class for Theatre majors and the purpose of watching the movie was to evaluate the acting of a particular character. Fair Use is favored when the amount used is appropriate for the educational purpose. In this case, the experts explained, the use of the entire movie was warranted to achieve the educational goal. This was initially a big surprise to me. My limited understanding of Fair Use focused on using a small quantity of the copyrighted work. However, this scenario helped me see that determining Fair Use requires a more nuanced evaluation.

Other articles in this series on Copyright Issues include Licensing Basics and Permissions by Wei Liu Zakharov and Akesha Horton’s Creative Commons and Copyright.


  1. Moran, M., Seaman, J., & Tinti-Kane, H. (2011). Teaching, Learning, and Sharing: How Today’s Higher Education Faculty Use Social Media.
  2. Purdue University Instructional Development Center. (2013). Social Media Guidelines for Teaching and Learning. Manuscript in preparation.


Writer: Dean Brusnighan, ITaP Assistive Technology Specialist