Skip to main content

CTREE 2017

Thank you to everyone who presented, discussed, chaired and attended! This was the first time I have been the chair of a conference organizing committee and while it was a lot of work, it was also a lot of fun and I'm pretty proud of the program we put together. A few highlights for me:
  • I was psyched to see multiple papers where the authors were looking at the impact of something happening in one course by focusing on outcomes at a later point in time, like performance in the follow-on intermediate course. One of my biggest problems with a lot of the SoTL (Scholarship of Teaching and Learning) literature is that in most effectiveness studies, the outcomes are within-course measures, like scores on a final exam or final course grades. While it's certainly reassuring that outcomes like these are not negatively affected by pedagogical changes like active learning, I have always felt that the more important questions involve what happens after students leave our classroom. Do they retain more? Do they understand at a deeper level? Can they transfer what they have learned to new and different situations? In my mind, these are the outcomes that active learning should be helping with. Of course, data on students is harder to get once they have left our class but it's great to see more people working to get at these longer-term effects.
  • Another reason I think it's important to follow students beyond the end of the semester we have them is because regardless of academic 'performance', I believe pedagogical choices that engage students probably also makes them more likely to become majors but there is a really small amount of research on this. Looking for some of that research is on my to-do list, prompted in part by the awesome plenary by David Wilcox at the Fed dinner on Wednesday night. Since I'm not a macro person, the Fed dinner is usually not that interesting to me but Wilcox devoted his time to discussing diversity (and the lack thereof) in the profession. I have a lot of ideas about this and hope to write more about some of them soon...
  • I was also pleasantly surprised at how much I enjoyed the first plenary which focused on personal financial education. I have to admit, I tend to downplay the connection between personal finance and economics, in part because I really don't want people to think economics is "just" about balancing a checkbook, but Annamaria Lusardi made a compelling case for teaching financial literacy that made me realize how closely connected it is to what I think of as economic literacy. If we can do a better job of teaching financial literacy to students, they will be well on their way to understanding economic literacy more generally.  
In addition to re-invigorating my passion for economics education, it was simply great to see old friends and meet new ones, as well as just put faces with all the names I had come to know from doing the program. To those who attended, I hope you found it more valuable than your next best alternative!

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

THE podcast on Implicit Bias

I keep telling myself I need to get back to blogging but, well, it's been a long pandemic... But I guess this is as good an excuse as any to post something: I am Bonni Stachowiak's guest on the latest episode of the Teaching in Higher Ed podcast, talking about implicit bias and how it can impact our teaching.  Doing the interview with Bonni (which was actually recorded a couple months ago) was a lot of fun. Listening to it now, I also realize how far I have come from the instructor I was when I started this blog over a decade ago. I've been away from the blog so long that I should probably spell this out: my current title is Associate Vice President for Faculty and Staff Diversity and I have responsibility for all professional learning and development related to diversity, equity and inclusion, as well as inclusive faculty and staff recruitment, and unit-level diversity planning. But I often say that in a lot of ways, I have no business being in this position - I've ne...

When is an exam "too hard"?

By now, you may have heard about the biology professor at Louisiana State (Baton Rouge) who was removed from teaching an intro course where "more than 90 percent of the students... were failing or had dropped the class." The majority of the comments on the Inside Higher Ed story about it are supportive of the professor, particularly given that it seems like the administration did not even talk to her about the situation before acting. I tend to fall in the "there's got to be more to the story so I'll reserve judgment" camp but the story definitely struck a nerve with me, partly because I recently spent 30 minutes "debating" with a student about whether the last midterm was "too hard" and the whole conversation was super-frustrating. To give some background: I give three midterms and a cumulative final, plus have clicker points and Aplia assignments that make up about 20% of the final grade. I do not curve individual exams but will cu...

This is about getting through, not re-inventing your course

As someone who has worked hard to build a lot of interactivity into my courses, I have never been interested in teaching fully online courses, in part because I have felt that the level of engaged interaction could never match that of a face-to-face class (not that there aren't some exceptional online courses out there; I just have a strong preference for the in-person connection). But the current situation is not really about building online courses that are 'just as good' as our face-to-face courses; it is about getting through this particular moment without compromising our students' learning too much. So if you are used to a lot of interaction in your F2F class, here are some options for adapting that interaction for a virtual environment: [NOTE: SDSU is a Zoom/mostly Blackboard campus so that's how I've written this but I am pretty sure that other systems have similar functionality] If you use clickers in class to break up what is otherwise mostly lect...