Handelshøyskolen BI 1. juni 2007 Inspirasjonsdag for forelesere papers Innhold Program... 2 Professor Torger Reve og forsker Eskil Le Bruyn Goldeng Using digital media to facilitate learning New opportunities for distributed education... 3 Studierektor Eirill Bø Hvordan krydre undervisningen for å hjelpe studentene til å skape varig læring... 7 Høyskolelektor Gillian Warner-Søderholm To evaluate or not to evaluate (our teaching) that is the question... 9 Førsteamanuensis Leif Helland Eksperimentell økonomi som pedagogisk virkemiddel... 19 Høyskolelektor Nina Ronæs Utvikling av et godt læringsmiljø noen refleksjoner og mulige metoder... 21 Førsteamanuensis Ragnhild Wiik «Se meg, foreleser!» Resultater fra en motivasjons undersøkelse blant BI-studenter... 27 Dr Chris Rust Student assessment: lightening the load while increasing the learning... 35 Førstelektor Robert G. Hansen Bruk av video og tegnetavle i undervisningen.... 41 Høyskolelektor Gerhard Schjelderup Utfordringer forbundet med ikke-faglige aktiviteter i undervisningssituasjon... 49 Innlegg under inspirasjonsdagen for forelesere ved Handelshøyskolen BI, 1. juni 2007. Dagen arrangeres av Programområdet for Bachelorstudiene og Senter for e-læring i fellesskap. Har du spørsmål om arrangementet eller til heftet, kontakt Sigrun Gabrielsen, programområdet, sigrun.g.gabrielsen@bi.no eller Torunn Gjelsvik ved Senter for e-læring, torunn.gjelsvik@bi.no.
Inspirasjonsdag for forelesere Inspirasjonsdag for forelesere 1.juni 2007 Sted: BI Oslo, A2 Program 0900-0930 Registrering og kaffe Kulturelt innslag fra Norges Musikkhøgskole Fellesareal 0930 1000 Velkommen ved Bjørn Hennestad Fungerende prorektor og leder for studier og programmer Auditorium A2-030 1015 1100 Parallellsesjon I A) Læring og IKT: Professor Torger Reve og forsker Eskil Goldeng Using digital media to facilitate learning - New opportunities for distributed education» B) Studentaktive undervisningsformer: Studierektor Eirill Bø «Hvordan krydre undervisningen for å hjelpe studentene til å skape varig læring» C) Foreleserpraksis: Høyskolelektor Gillian Warner-Søderholm «To evaluate or not to evaluate (our teaching) - that is the question» Klasserom A2-020 Klasserom A2-035 Klasserom A2-015 1115 1200 Parallellsesjon II A) Læring og IKT: Førsteamanuensis Leif Helland «Eksperimentell økonomi som pedagogisk virkemiddel» B) Studentaktive undervisningsformer: Høyskolelektor Nina Ronæs «Utvikling av et godt læringsmiljø Noen refleksjoner og mulige metoder» C) Foreleserpraksis: Førsteamanuensis Ragnhild Wiik «Se meg, foreleser! Resultater fra motivasjonsundersøkelse blant BI-studenter» Klasserom A2-020 Klasserom A2-035 Klasserom A2-015 1200 1300 Lunsj Fellesareal 1300 1400 Keynote Dr. Chris Rust, leder ved Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development ved Oxford Brooks University «Student assessment: Lightening the load while increasing the learning» Auditorium A2-030 1415 1500 Parallellsesjon III A) Læring og IKT: Førstelektor Robert G. Hansen Bruk av video i matematikkundervisningen» B) Studentaktive undervisningsformer: Dr. Chris Rust «Oppfølging av key note» C) Foreleserpraksis: Høyskolelektor Gerhard Schjelderup Utenomfaglige aktiviteter i klasserommet Hva gjør vi?» Klasserom A2-020 Auditorium A2-030 Klasserom A2-015 2
Handelshøyskolen BI 1. juni 2007 Professor Torger Reve og forsker Eskil Le Bruyn Goldeng Using digital media to facilitate learning New opportunities for distributed education This paper describes our experiences with the digitalization of lectures in the course GRA 6829 in the spring of 2007. During this course we made several new spin-off products from our lectures that may enhance the learning experience for the students, and create a new platform for the collaboration among universities. We tried to do this by using more creativity than money. The paper is structured as follows; first we explain what we have done, second how we did it, and finally we elaborate on why we did it. What? Adding new channels to knowledge In the course Microeconomics of Competitiveness, Harvard Business School (HBS) videotape and digitalize most of their lectures and class discussions. This is professionally done, and their operating costs and initial investments are high. They inspired us to try the same thing, except for the cost part. Being technologically well equipped Scandinavians, we chose a completely different approach. Our approach was ad-hoc, and driven by opportunities in the infrastructure at BI and impulses from colleagues, and our homes. Especially the e-learning and net-studies departments at BI have been inspiring us by showing us their way of working. In addition, the IT-department has been helpful. By using amateur equipment and the general facilities of BI, the following products were spun-off the lectures given in our course GRA 6829, and distributed to the students. - Slides: All our sessions in GRA 6829 were supported by slides made in Powerpoint. These were made available to the students. Although slides might facilitate brief repetition of the session, important parts are left out. To feed students with electronic slides is not very innovative, but this is where most digitalization of lectures ends, and where we started. - Mp3-files: Sound-files were made available to the students. These could be downloaded (via PCs connected to the Internet) to the mobile-phones of the students, their ipods, or other mp3-players. Several other universities do this as well. UC Berkeley have full semesters of sessions from selected disciplines available on itunes Store. Free of charge to everyone. - Talking slides: When the sound of the lecture is captured in mp3-format, it is fairly easy to go back to Powerpoint and add the audio-playback of the lecture to the slides. Powerpoint allows to time the slides, so the bullets and pages turn up automatically as the audio-playbacked lecture proceeds. This implies that the student opens the Powerpoint-presentation (on her PC or mobile), sits back and the session is repeated in full with slides and audio. The only thing the student (eventually) misses with this solution, is to see the lecturer. - Video: We did also video-tape the sessions. Videos may be distributed in several different qualities. For our students we chose a format and bitrate that was feasible for both PC and Macs, and that were fine-grained enough to fairly visualize the slides shifting behind the lecturer. In addition, we made tests with these videos on mobile-phones, and this worked out fine. The extra cost of making these mobile-versions were practically zero. When the edited video is ready, any quality/bitrate or format can be made. We did not use the sound from the video-recording directly, but added the sound from the mp3-file since the camera stood a bit far away from the lecturer to capture the screen, lecturer and parts of the classroom in one cut. Consequently the sound from the integrated 3
Inspirasjonsdag for forelesere microphone on the videocamera was too blurred, and too disturbed by noises from the students to be used. By using the audio from the mp3-recording, with excellent quality, we were able to make a professional product. - Multimedia: The next evolutionary step was to combine slides, sound and video to a multimediashow. By using Powerpoint with an add-on, produced by Microsoft and available free on the net, we made a web-solution where the headlines of each slide functioned as chapters. In this product the students are exposed to a web-page that contains a little video screen, a larger screen with the slides, and the headline of every slide listed beneath the video. By clicking the headline of a slide, the users are taken to the point in the lecture with oral and visual (video and slide) presentation of the theme of that slide. How? Low-cost solutions with high quality and flexibility To be able to produce these solutions we needed an mp3-recorder, a videocamera, some software, and some means of distributing the digitalized lectures. We used an ipod Nano 2nd generation with a recording device, connected to a mosquito -microphone attached to the jacket of the lecturer. The ipod Nano is small enough to fit in any pocket and can record hundreds of hours of excellent sound in mp3-format. The videocamera was an amateur camera from Sony (PC-4), capturing movie on a DV-tape. The cost of this hardware was below 10.000 NOK, and the software we used for production is free, or already available at most standard BI-PCs. The material was distributed through Blackboard. The slides were produced with Powerpoint, and the sound of the mp3-files was added after the lecture with Powerpoint to produce timed slides with oral presentations in the background of the presentation. The final talking slides require Powerpoint to be accessed, but we are working on solutions where the timed slides with oral-presentations are transformed to video. By doing this, we make the product more generic, and it can be viewed on any device that handles video (e.g. (so far) advanced mobile-phones). The videos from the Sony Handycam were captured and produced using Windows Moviemaker, available on most BI-PCs. This program allowed us to edit the video from the lecture, and add the sound from the mp3-file. After this we could choose to save the edited video in any bitrate we preferred. The format of the output-file from Windows Moviemaker can eventually be converted to any format by cheap, standardized programs. The making of the multimedia-show was facilitated by Powerpoint, with the free add-on Microsoft Producer. To find all the solutions were very time-consuming. However, after solving all problems, and climbing a very steep learning-curve, the production-time of the different solutions went substantially down. To make timed audio-slides took about 1,5 the time of the lecture. The same goes for the video and the multimedia-show. Thus, to produce all these three products for one hour of lecturing, the estimated time you have to invest is 4,5 hours. After climbing the learning-curve, that is. The stand-alone mp3-file must eventually be cut in the beginning and end (in case of murmurs before and after the lecturer begins/ends). This is not very time-consuming, so the mp3-file can be made available only minutes after the session ends. The stand-alone slides are of course the easiest part, as they are finished before the presentations starts. In not too long, we will probably be able to make all these products with a fraction of today s effort. 4
Handelshøyskolen BI 1. juni 2007 Why? This new way of thinking about the educational setting taps into two efforts that are paramount to universities; collaboration for knowledge diffusion among universities, and serving the society and students with this knowledge. They have both been important since the dawn of the universities. How do our solutions improve the collaboration among universities? Traditional forms of knowledge sharing among universities have been facilitated through seminars and conferences, exchange of students, and the writing of books and papers by the academic staff at the different universities. The latter is often done in collaboration among academics that have met during their education or at conferences, and are not necessarily someone that are members of the same faculty or university. Using books and papers from other universities, and sending students on exchangeprograms, have so far been the only way of collaboration among the universities at the bachelor- and graduate-level. HBS are sharing some of their class-material from the course Microeconomics of Competitiveness in new and feasible ways, made possible by digitalization, to invited universities. HBS share slides, teaching notes and contemplations from the lecturers in their offices and videos of lectures by celebrated academics, politicians, and business(wo)men in front of a live audience. Everything is available through the Internet, and can be downloaded or viewed directly from the server at HBS. We would like to expand this idea to Norway, and feed material back to Harvard and the network of universities around the world. BI can replicate the role of Harvard for Norwegian colleges and universities, and most important of all; for our own BI-branches. By linking up with other institutions we can share our educational material. All our branches can benefit from a pool of lectures held in Nydalen. Selected material from this pool can be viewed in class, be used as preparation for the lecturer, or be distributed to the students to enhance their learning experience. In addition, we plan to share our material with the Harvard-network of universities around the world. Other universities can then benefit from our special lectures on oil and gas, maritime, fish or other specialties of Norway. This will increase the knowledge about Norway and BI, and give students elsewhere access to lectures with especially well-informed and -educated lecturers within specific areas. And, equally important, if the other universities follow our example, the other way around: The students and staff at BI can benefit from downloading e.g. a lecture on the flower-industry in Holland, or the shoe-cluster in Italy. How do our solutions improve the education of the population? Alma mater BI The alma mater ( nourishing mother ) idea has been a part of the university concept since the founding of the worlds oldest university in Bologna in 1088. In fact, the University of Bologna has this as their overall motto, written in letters as big as the name of the university itself, and above the universityname. The motto indicates that the basic idea of the university is to feed the connected students with knowledge, but the form of this feeding has hardly changed at all in 1000 years. Students at acknowledged universities are still supposed to meet up at a certain place and time to receive their nourishments from their lecturers. This is the one and only time the students can view the given lectures. The most radical change in the learning context of the students since the founding of the University of Bologna is probably that the number of students in each class has grown. 5
Inspirasjonsdag for forelesere The distribution of digitalized lectures has the potential of revolutionizing the learning environment for students. All the technological means for making good spin-off products from live-audience lectures are available and cheap, but there seem to be a certain cultural inertia and lack of ability to conceptualize the possibilities and weave it into the institutions. However, some students can already benefit from added flexibility through digitalized lectures. Students can repeat subjects anywhere they are, by carrying a full semester of slide-, audio-, or video-versions on the given lectures in a course in their pockets. The students can listen to the lectures while they are in the car, on the bus, at work, at the beach, etc. If they print out the slides, they can make notes on the slides as they play the mp3-files of the lecture. This might be more valuable to students than the live-version itself; a student can choose to listen to the session whenever and wherever she wants, and if the lecturer talks to fast or says something that inspire the student to think thoroughly through some points, the lecture can be paused, and the student can think and scribble as long as she wants. This is a very simple way of adding flexibility for students. An initial investment in an ipod and a handycam by the university is basically everything that is needed to feed all the students the class-material for full repetition, or to students on an oval backpacker Eastervacation in Thailand. The receiver-equipment they need is a device they always bring with them, their mobile phone (that has turned into a little PC by the time you finish reading this paper). Thus, adding mp3s, talking slides, video, and multimedia-show to the learning experience for the students is more a question of organizing than hardware and software costs. Sometimes the students tape sessions on their own and share them. It is beyond our doubt that to distribute digitalized lectures improves, modernizes, and strengthens the overall motto of universities the idea of the university as an alma mater. 6
Handelshøyskolen BI 1. juni 2007 Studierektor Eirill Bø Hvordan krydre undervisningen for å hjelpe studentene til å skape varig læring Eirill Bø har dessverre ikke hatt anledning til å skrive et paper til Inspirasjonsdagen 2007. Hennes innlegg bygger imidlertid på to artikler, pensum under Inspirasjonskurset for erfarne forelesere. Hun vil trekke frem moment fra disse sammen med hennes egne erfaringer fra mange år som underviser ved BI. De to artiklene vil bli distribuert under sesjonen: Twenty ways to make lectures more memorable How to create memorable lectures Velkommen til en artig diskusjon og drøfting av «krydder i undervisningen»! 7
Inspirasjonsdag for forelesere 8
Handelshøyskolen BI 1. juni 2007 Høyskolelektor Gillian Warner-Søderholm To evaluate or not to evaluate (our teaching) that is the question Paper to be presented at Inspiration Day 2007 Norwegian School of Management BI If there is no place for pleasure in teaching, surely our learning has failed us altogether (Kenneth Eble) Why should our programmes and teaching be evaluated? Who should make these evaluations? and what can this information be used for? These are essential questions facing both educators and administration in higher education today. An extensive literature of theories and empirical studies suggests that quality of educational programmes can be improved by carrying out formative and summative evaluations (Biggs, 2003; Cashin, 1988; Centra, 2003; Light & Cox, 2001; Ramsden, 2001). That good teaching is scholarly, is also well documented (Ramsden et.al., 1995; Seldin, 1997; Shulman, 1987; Trigwell, 2001). Furthermore, research shows that positive feedback is a strong motivator for educators (Biggs, 2003; Boyer,1990; Ramsden et. al. 1995). The aim of this paper is to discuss recent research into the following two dimensions of student evaluations of university teaching: I) Programme evaluation driven by the teacher who wants to improve his or her teaching and 2) evaluations carried out by administrators with or without any underlying intention of programme improvement as a quality assurance tool. Finally I hope to share some of my personal experiences of how formative evaluations have been a useful tool for me in my teaching. Some key questions and assumptions: (i) Can you remember when you were last asked to evaluate a customer service experience / a holiday / our IT service / a seminar or course you have participated in? didn t you give your opinion sincerely, hoping to help an organisation make improvements? Didn t you think your voice was worth being heard? (ii) Would we not agree that our students are capable of taking a degree programme? of thinking critically? aren t they then capable of making course evaluations? (iii) If we agree that our courses and teaching can always be better and if we can agree that positive feedback is a great motivator who is actually in a position to tell us how our programmes work? just our faculty? Our examiners? or the students who actually take part in our classes? Studies show that less than 20% of the Norwegian population take higher education. Consequently, we could assume that if our students represent the 20% community of able thinking people can t we value their opinions too? This leads us then to these key assumptions: a) As students or seminar participants or stakeholders, we have in the past filled out feedback sheets or evaluations in the hope that our feedback could make a difference. 9
Inspirasjonsdag for forelesere b) Our students may not always be objective in their feedback, but their input, so long as they have been regular attendees, is very valuable. c) Evaluation of our own classes can help us to see if we re getting it right, can motivate us and can help us to improve our teaching and so develop as educators. d) These evaluations should not be used as a control tool by administration. They should be used to promote a productive dialogue for constructive feedback to all partners: students, administration and lecturers. Which factors impact students evaluation of teachers and teaching? how could we get a higher evaluation? Recent research has looked at whether teachers would receive higher student evaluations by giving higher grades and less course work, and has also looked at what factors impact a student s evaluation of the quality of teaching. The questionnaire below was compiled by myself, by listing key dimensions discussed in recent research regarding evaluating teaching. Firstly, it was my aim to evaluate what might be myths in terms of how we could get higher evaluations by students. Secondly it was my goal to assess which areas of our teaching and experience have been shown in international studies to be deciding factors for students when assessing the quality of teaching programmes in higher education today. This questionnaire (figure 1) was used on a number of faculty and also on four different classes studying at undergraduate level with me this year, It was my aim to review international research findings of how quality of teaching is seen in general and compare these results to the results of my own survey of reactions from BI students and faculty. These results may not be representative of all student evaluations of BI s programmes, nor are they exhaustive. Instead they may illustrate current thinking in general terms. Figure 1. Questionnaire: factors which may impact student evaluations Which of the following factors can lead to higher student evaluation of teachers? Please place an X in the spaces below to indicate which of the following factors you see as either very important/ quite important / not important, when you evaluate teaching programmes in general at BI Factors 1) Giving high grades 2) Giving less work 3) Having high ability, & highly motivated students 4) Having smaller classes 5) Having a popular time e.g. middle of the day 6) Good student perceived learning outcomes 7) Having teachers who are researchers 8) Having a level & speed in the classroom which is easy 9) Teachers who vary teaching methods to attract different types of students 10) Being well prepared & inviting questions Very important Quite important Not important 10
Handelshøyskolen BI 1. juni 2007 Factors 11) Having a Likeable teacher 12) Being an experienced teacher 13) Teaching an easy or popular Subject 14) Having a good language level in the language you teach in 15) Availability for help 16) Being a teacher with a high status title Very important Quite important Not important Recent Research Findings Which points in the questionnaire above would you perceive as being very important elements of a student s appreciation of the quality of a programme? A number of research programmes in the US have shown surprising results. Centra s research (2003), covered 50,000 college courses with 8 subject area groupings. When faculty involved in this study were asked if, in their opinion, teachers would receive higher student evaluations if they were lenient in grading, 68% of lecturers believed this to be true. Furthermore,72% of faculty believed that they would receive better evaluations if the course work was easier and 60% believed that they would get better evaluations if their classes had a lighter workload. In Centra s research (2003), students on 50,000 college courses were asked which factors might impact or had impacted the grades the students give to teachers. In fact, these results did not correlate with the perceptions from faculty noted above. To what degree students felt that they had reached their learning goals rated very highly. Helpfulness of instructors was also of key importance. Smaller classes with fewer than 15 students traditionally got higher evaluations, and courses where the level of the course was seen as not too difficult but just right got higher evaluations too. Teachers in their first year generally received lower evaluations yet expected grades did not effect student evaluations. Deluchi and Pelowski s research (2002) showed that: Students who rate their instructor high in likeability also rate the instructor high on teaching effectiveness. However, high likeability ratings are not associated with perceptions of learning or learning outcomes directly (2002:1) It would come as no surprise to us as educators, that by developing mutual respect, encouraging a professional relationship and being and interested open for questions we can improve commitment and loyalty to the programme. Consequently this will add to the quality of the classroom experience and even mutual likeability, both for students and instructors. Kwan s research (1999), shows that Academic disciplines and class size were found to have the largest effects on student ratings (1991:181). My personal findings, when using the above questionnaire in figure 1 showed very little deviations to the above findings from international research. In addition, it was discovered that factors important for BI students who were interviewed were also 1) teachers who vary their teaching methods to encompass the different learning styles in the classroom would be rated higher and 2) teachers who have a good language level in the language they teach in would be rated higher. 3) having teachers with high status titles or having teachers who were researchers was not very important for bachelor students but was more important for MBA students. Recent research by Trigwell (2001), claims that in terms of scholarly research focused on judging university teaching, important factors are a) the importance of teaching which is oriented towards 11
Inspirasjonsdag for forelesere high quality student focused learning, b) teaching which can be evaluated both qualitatively and quantitatively. That is to say, evaluating areas such as planning, knowledge gaining and sharing and post-teaching reflection against how well the teacher actually manages to carry out this approach help scholars evaluate the quality of university teaching. Figure 3 depicts in picture form, a successful student-focused approach to learning (Trigwell, 2001). This figure shows a section through a set of spheres (like rings of an onion). These layers represent aspects of the teaching and learning situation. The student is at the core, thus depicting a student centered approach to teaching and learning. Figure 3. A successful student-focused approach to learning Figure 4 below concludes Trigwell s findings in his paper Judging University Teaching (2001). This diagram illustrates how an integration of qualitative and quantitative dimensions of teaching might be achieved. Figure 4. An integration of qualitative and quantitative dimensions of teaching This figure suggests that good teaching is judged by scholars to be the uppermost point on the diagram where a student focused approach is implemented. To summarise these recent research articles, we can see that teachers will not likely improve their evaluations from students by just giving higher grades and less course work. They will however improve their evaluations and probably their instruction if they respond to consistent student feedback about instructional practices. Centra (2003), reminds us that we must not forget however that given the increased emphasis on using student evaluations in tenure and promotion decisions a teacher s temptation to manipulate grades is a possibility. 12
Handelshøyskolen BI 1. juni 2007 Reflections of classroom experiences applying BI s evaluation strategy: This is how I apply BI s strategy in my formative evaluation process: Step 1: Step 2: Step 3: Step 4: Step 5: Step 6: Week 3 class evaluation meeting without the lecturer present ask the class representative to hold a brainstorming meeting during a break time, to receive feedback from the group on how they would evaluate 1) their own study efforts, 2) the quality of teaching and 3) goals/ requests they have for the rest of the semester. Meeting between lecturer & class representative to discuss above Feedback areas. Contract agreed between class representative and lecturer to show commitment of the class and the lecturer to meeting common goals. Head of year / head of programme analyses reports. All class representatives in year 2 meet to evaluate all programmes and report back to administration. Necessary actions taken Summative Evaluations: Usual procedures experienced at BI Oslo 1) Questback evaluations sent to students at the end of semester 2) Processed data sent to lecturers 2/3 months later These results are of course a great motivator when positive feedback is received. However the delay in receiving the evaluation results is de-motivating. Furthermore, due to the fact that the questionnaires are often sent to students a few weeks after the programme is over, and after they have received their grades in the oral exam, these evaluations are not seen as so useful to me. 13
Inspirasjonsdag for forelesere Example of a formative evaluation working contract: 14
Handelshøyskolen BI 1. juni 2007 Other ways of carrying out formative evaluations: It is not necessary to use formal questionnaires to evaluate courses. Other techniques for obtaining student feedback may be as good or even better. Sessions based on Gibb s Structured Group Feedback Method (See Gibbs et al. 1988; the simple method is also described in Ramsden & Dodds, 1989:18-20) work very well as classroom activities. (i) (ii) (iii) Pair work discussion questions on the white board: In pairs, discuss your expectations for a) the programme, b) yourself, c) your colleague students and c) me as your lecturer. Sum up comments from each pair, create lists under these headings on the white board. Save these comments, review them half way through the programme with the group and again at the end of the semester. Blank question cards Cards given out ten minutes before the end of a class and collected in students instructed to write down any points they feel are unclear / any areas they would like to review / any questions they have. The lecturer can then kick off the next class with a review of these points, to clarify any unclear areas and show a student focus in the lecture. End of programme open discussion what did you enjoy the most /least (Structured Group Feedback Method, Gibbs et al. 1988) How can we improve BI s evaluation strategy? Traavik & Brønn (2006) propose a number of useful strategies BI can use in order to improve the school s evaluation process, with emphasis on the individual faculty being responsible for follow-up of evaluations, rather than administration controlling evaluations: 1) Clear communication to the students about expectations and goals with teacher assessment is vital at the start of the study programme a constructive alignment policy (Biggs, 2003). 2) The assessment should be administered at a responsible time (e.g. not directly after students have received grades or just after they have taken an exam). 3) No student attending less than 50% of the lectures should be allowed to have their feedback included in the final evaluation. 4) The evaluation instrument needs to be valid and reliable and there needs to be a sufficient response rate. 5) A dialogue session between the class representative, administrator and lecturer should be part of the process. This should lead to a contract so that improving the learning environment is seen as requiring joint responsibility and commitment to improvement from all three parties. 6) Colleague mentors could be assigned, to support new lecturers. Faculty group sessions (e.g. brown bag lunches) should be encouraged within departments to develop pedagogical strategies. Conclusion Evaluation is a key method of understanding and monitoring the effects of our teaching upon our students learning. By collecting information from students about our work, we can interpret the findings and consequently, judgements can be made regarding which actions we can take to improve our classroom practices. If our faculty are able to reflect upon what helps students understand a concept 15