A while back, I wrote a post about the four levels of Empirical Education. To recap, they are as follows:
- Intuitively empirical: Intuitively empirical educators are curious about their students and try to figure out how to help them when they see them struggling. They try different things and pick up tricks in their teaching as they become more experienced in the classroom.
- Mindfully empirical: This means that the educators try to create as many opportunities as possible to evaluate how their students are doing and make little (or big) adjustments to her teaching strategies constantly as they get to know their students better. Intuitively empirical educators are empirical in the moment. Mindfully empirical educators are empirical by design.
- Metacognitively empirical: Metacognitively empirical educators have made the leap from assessing their students to assessing themselves. When a class struggles with a concept semester after semester, metacognitively empirical educators don’t just accept that the topic is hard. They ask whether their teaching strategies might be part of the problem. They challenge their own beliefs about good teaching.
- Socially empirical: When educators reach the level of being socially empirical, it means that they have begun to see that testing teaching strategies and learning to improve can be a shared endeavor. It can be a discipline, with common language and standards of evidence for effectiveness. Socially empirical educators see teaching not just as an art that is personal and ineffable but as a craft that can be taught and learned, and maybe even as a science that can be advanced through shared research and peer review.
This isn’t just a taxonomy. It’s a theory of change. Anyone who has participated in course redesign efforts likely recognizes the milestones of this progression. That’s not an accident. Course redesign, particularly when properly facilitated by experts who are themselves practitioners of Empirical Education, can move the instructors who are going through the redesign process at least partway up the ladder. In fact, it often happens spontaneously.
Let’s take the example of launching a distance learning program. In most cases, these programs are going to attract intuitively empirical educators. People who aren’t curious about the process of educating students usually don’t volunteer to teach using a method that they’ve never tried before. (And when they are forced to do so, it is often a disaster.) So distance learning programs are often lucky to get a preponderance of instructors who are already on the first rung of our ladder.
Teaching online with any degree of quality almost always forces a course redesign. Educators moving from a physical classroom to a virtual one lose some senses while gaining others. Likewise, certain strategies they have come to rely on in the classroom won’t work online and have to be translated to or replaced by strategies that will. And the educator that is new to online teaching isn’t always going to know what will work and what won’t. They are almost required to become mindfully empirical in order to figure out how to replace the bandwidth they lost in the transition.
Sometimes, the process of trying new strategies because of the redesign provokes the empirical educator to rethink some of her basic assumptions about teaching. Anyone who has helped educators get courses online for more than a couple of years has likely heard at least a couple of them say that the experience of teaching online has caused them to change the way they teach in the classroom. That’s the beginnings of metacognitively empirical education.
And this is where things start to get hard, for several reasons. First, it’s very difficult to get faculty to make the leap to metacognitively empirical education without a conversion experience that happens when they have to teach their course differently. Both experience and research tell us that many educators—and probably most humans—have deeply held beliefs about what makes for effective teaching based on their own formative experience as learners. No matter how otherwise rational and open-minded they are, they are not likely to be persuaded by research studies. They have to live the change. Outside of distance learning programs, it’s hard to programmatically create new opportunities for formative experiences.
Second, even when they do live the change and bring new ideas back to their other classes, that doesn’t mean that they have reached the point where they are mindfully or systematically examining their own teaching strategies. Doing the latter requires both another step of self-reflection and some new skills. So a key challenge for Empirical Education is to make it easier to reliably give educators the right experiences, prompts for further reflection, and tools for investigation, in the proper order. Universities aren’t currently set up to do this. But they could be.
The third challenge in climbing the ladder is moving from metacognitively empirical to socially empirical. Educators who have made the metacognitive leap tend to get excited. It can be a life-changing experience. So they often want to evangelize. But where? If their home institution isn’t already creating a fertile environment for them to share teaching strategies with their peers—which it usually isn’t—then the metacognitively empirical educators tend to go to discipline-specific conferences, where they end up swapping ideas with a small circle of people who are already converted and largely share their background and training. This is far from ideal for cross-fertilization. So another great challenge of Empirical Education is to create new opportunities for metacognitively empirical educators to find each other and learn from each other across normal silos in higher education, like discipline or school type.
Phil and I believe that colleges and universities in all segments across the sector are beginning to make the transition from a philosophical commitment to student success toward an operational commitment toward student success. What that looks like in the end, and how long it takes, is up for grabs. Empirical Education is, among other things, a theory of change that is intended to accelerate the progress of that transition while strengthening the institutions of higher learning that have served civilization so well by empowering and motivating educators to be change agents.
Mary Burgess says
Thanks Michael for this really helpful way of considering these characteristics. I agree that there is movement toward supporting this type of change within the sector, certainly what we are shooting for at BCcampus. My recent conversations with those who make decisions about how to operationalize reminds me that it is no easy task. We are trying to support the change in a bunch of ways through our work and are seeing some very hopeful advancements in our system.
John Fritz says
Interesting post, Michael. If you don’t mind, it aligns well with a 1999 article from the faculty development field that I referenced in a 2017 Educause Review article, “Moving the Heart and Head: Implication for Learning Analytics Research,” that I co-authored with John Whitmer (https://er.educause.edu/articles/2017/7/moving-the-heart-and-head-implications-for-learning-analytics-research).
For example, Douglas Robertson proposed what is now considered a classic model for how faculty beliefs about teaching influence their evolving pedagogical practice; it includes the following stages:
Egocentrism — focusing mainly on their role as teachers
Aliocentrism — focusing mainly on the role of learners
Systemocentrism — focusing on the shared role of teachers and learners in a community
If this evolution of belief and practice occurs among teachers, Robertson identified telltale signs of the transformation. First, as faculty move from one stage to the next, they bring the benefits and biases of the previous stage. Second, they typically change their beliefs and practices ONLY when confronted by the limitations of a current stage, which is brought about by “teaching failures.” Finally, their desire for certainty, stability, and confidence either keeps faculty frozen in a status quo framework or drives their evolution into the next stage in an effort to avoid a paralyzing and stagnant neutral zone consisting of “a familiar teaching routine that they have deemed inappropriate and with nothing to replace it” (p. 279).
Douglas L. Robertson, “Professors’ Perspectives on Their Teaching: A New Construct and Developmental Model,” Innovative Higher Education, Vol. 23, No. 4 (1999): 271–294. Retrieved from http://www.springerlink.com/content/g422605g4r312424/abstract.
I’ve always thought ed tech is truly transformative when it helps (causes?) faculty to reflect on their current practice, and how they might do old things in new ways. But this reflection has to be focused on a real pedagogical problem they want to solve or a new learning opportunity they want to create. Maybe students aren’t as engaged as the instructor would like, or moving to online could be more convenient for both instructors and students. In my experience, I’ve found most faculty are curious by nature and genuinely desire to connect with their students. Ed tech ought to be able to help with this reflection, but as you suggest, we have to continually assess if the resulting change in pedagogical practice is effective. If a critical mass of faculty are reflecting and redesigning their courses that lead to more effective learning, then I’d call this one of the most scalable forms of intervention any institution could pursue.
John Fritz
Assoc. VP, Instructional Technology
University of Maryland, Baltimore County (UMBC)
Michael Feldstein says
Great stuff, John. We need to connect the dots like this as much as possible.
I’m glad the post also resonates with you, Mary.