The Awards: 10

I am--once again--humbled to have been named to the Department of Psychology's Teaching Honour Roll (with Distinction) for all six of the courses I taught in Fall, 2013 and Winter, 2014.

I was also named to the brand-new Faculty of Science Instructors of Distinction Honor Roll. This award is decided upon by a secret cabal within each Department in Science. Or nominated by their peers, or something like that. You can check out my name (spelled correctly!) on the wall outside of CCIS 1-440, along with my Department of Psychology colleague Anthony Singhal and instructors from other Science Departments. Or  just check out this photo:

On the wall are also names on the new Students' Choice Honor Roll which is based on student evaluations. (The median student rating for every item on the USRIs must be at or above the 75th percentile--wow!) Congratulations to Sheree Kwong-See, Crystal MacLellan, and Anthony Singhal. No, I did not get on that honour roll, which shows that I still have work to do!

The new Lifetime Honor Roll included Prof. Charles Beck from psychology. Congratulations!

Why aren't you studying?

The Klawe Prize (Update)

OK, so you know how I say I'm not bragging about the awards I get? And if I were bragging, I'd show you a picture of my awards? Well, here's a picture of my Klawe award!

It's really hard to get a good picture of it, being all transparent and reflective. (Who wants to see my mug reflected in this beautiful award?)

It turns out that the award presented to me at the awards ceremony had two errors--and they weren't misspellings of my name (shock!). The original misspelled Kathleen W. Klawe's name (as "Kathlene"), and was apparently for "Outstanding Qualities in Graduate Mentoring" (as opposed to "Outstanding Qualities of Teaching Large Classes"). Oops.

It's taken a month to get a replacement, but it's all good now. In fact, they're letting me keep the original, incorrect award ("Use them as bookends" the nice lady at the Faculty of Science told me. LOL!) Nah. Maybe if I win another award, then I'll use them as bookends.

Why aren't you studying?

The Klawe Prize

I am honoured to be the 2014 recipient of the Kathleen W. Klawe Prize for Excellence in Teaching of Large Classes. Kathleen W. Klawe was a Professor of economics at UAlberta who taught many large classes. This teaching award was established by Prof. Klawe’s daughter, Maria Klawe, in honour of her mother, as explained in this article. (Dr Maria Klawe is a renowned academic in her own right.)

The Klawe prize is awarded in alternating years to instructors in the Faculty of Arts and the Faculty of Science. In Science, it had previously been won only by instructors in the Department of Chemistry.

Awards like this are very competitive; that is, many people apply. You have to submit a package, making the case why you think you deserve the award. I want to thank Prof. Elena Nicoladis and Kerry Ann Berrisford (Undergraduate Advisor, Science) in the Department of Psychology for putting together my application. I merely contributed my story--that is, my teaching philosophy document. (It sounds high-falutin’, but it just describes what I do, how I do it, and why.)

I’ve taught a lot of large classes in my career. How many, I don’t know. (What do you consider a “large class”? Over 100 students?) I never wanted the size of a class to be a barrier to learning. As a student, I took a lot of large classes. Some of those were good; some were great. I learned that it was possible to have a great in-class experience with an instructor who maybe took chances, pushed the limits of what they could do, and really loved what they were doing.

That’s not to say I’m a big risk taker, living on the edge; I talk (lecture) a lot. But I also do try to have hands-on experiences--even in big classes. For example, I assign self-management projects (in behaviour modification classes) and “virtual” computer-based labs (in perception, and cognitive psychology classes). Of course, these all have to be marked, so I also want to send out big thank-yous to the TAs who’ve dived in to the deep end and done a ton of marking this year (especially Jeffrey, Amelia, Yang, and Cheryl, with assistance from Cory and James).

I’m not a big spotlight hog, so it’s good that I don’t get to make an acceptance speech. I just want to say, thanks!

Why aren’t you studying?

Update: That's Associate Dean Glen Loppnow and me in the photo. I'm hoping some of his skill in teaching rubs off on me!

The Committees

What’s the one thing that the University runs on? Committees, you say? No, it’s actually money. But I’m glad you brought up the committees.

The workload of tenured/tenure-track academic faculty is expected to be 40:40:20 (teaching:research:service). That is, 40% of work time should be spent on teaching/prep work, 40% should be spent on research, and 20% should be spent on “service.” When I was first starting out, I didn’t know what that meant, either. Then someone told me it meant “volunteering,” which I thought meant, like, joining Uncles at Large or picking up litter in the river valley. Er, no.

In academic jargon, “service” means volunteering your time to participate on internal university committees (among other things). Without this volunteer work, the university would come to a standstill. Yup, even if we had so much money that we could build a Butterdome out of actual butter, everything would come to a crashing halt.

Here are some examples of committees on campus and what they do:

• Department Council: every teaching department gets together on a roughly monthly basis to discuss changes and updates to courses, the curriculum, the Calendar, programs, and admissions. In the Department of Psychology, all Academic Faculty belong to this, as do Faculty Lecturers, some administrative staff, and there are also undergraduate and graduate student representatives.
• Undergraduate Curriculum Committee: how does the Department Council make decisions about curriculum? Proposals are brought forward for a vote by this group within a department (instructors and admin staff) who look at current and future course needs, recommend the use of learning objectives in teaching, and do things like kill off popular courses (ahem).
• Department Screening Committee: if a Department is going to hire someone, this group has to go through the applications and narrow down the choices to a select few, who are then referred to a separate Hiring Committee, which will be involved in a formal interview process. You wouldn’t believe the qualifications of some of the people who apply for a position in psychology.
• Arts Council for Technology & Innovation: this group is “an advisory body to the Dean [of Arts], with broad representation, that guides the direction of how technology will support the teaching, learning, research and administrative needs of the Faculty.” Members also share information about IT needs. (ACTI is not to be confused with the Information Technology Committee (ITC), the Information Technology Enterprise Committee (ITEC), or the Information Technology Advisory Committee (ITAC), which are associated with the VP IT. LOL!)
• InSciTE/E visioning committee: This Faculty of Science committee is, well...I dunno. I don’t know what “InSciTE/E” stands for. Innovation something, science something, teaching something. This committee hasn’t met yet.

Well, anyway, all these committees have something in common. They’re all made up of volunteers, giving their time to ensure that the University continues to move forward, innovates, and deals with challenges and opportunities at many different levels--from departments, to faculties, to central administration, and even cutting across those levels.

Oh, there’s one more thing those committees I listed above have in common: I’m on all of them--even though I don't have to be (my contract does not explicitly require service, but I like to contribute anyway). Now, I gotta go and prep for an upcoming meeting.



Why aren't you studying?

Update 3/26/2014: OK, now this is getting out of hand. In the past week, I've now been placed on two more committees: Intro Psych Textbook Review Committee and SCI 100 Future Planning Committee.

The Business Trip

Earlier this year, Nelson Education Ltd. invited me to join their Digital Psychology Editorial Advisory Board (no, it’s not called the “DPEAB”). There are now about a half-dozen of us psychology types, from universities across the country who belong to this group. It works like this. Nelson gives us some money, and in return, we give them our considered opinion about technology, products, and education. (Yeah, like I need someone to pay me to give my opinion!)

I realize that students may have...certain opinions about publishers. The way I see it, publishers are not really trying to sell their textbooks to students. They’re trying to sell their textbooks to instructors. Some companies do a better job than others. And these days, being a textbook publisher is not just about dead trees anymore; it’s about applying the best ways to enhance student learning.

I’ve had a really good relationship with Nelson over the years. Need proof? A while ago, they gave half of the students in my perception class a free etextbook so I could run a study on student achievement comparing the use of an ebook with a printed textbook. (The result? No statistically significant difference in marks. The takeaway: Using an ebook probably won’t lead to lower grades.) Need more proof? Read my post on how Nelson dropped the price of the textbook I’m using in one course by $45. That’s right: Forty. Five. Dollars. (Full disclosure: I’ve been a consultant for Nelson for over 10 years, working on website content for 18 of their Canadian psychology textbooks. Also: I do not get any commission, money, or free pens from any publisher for choosing their textbook.)

Here’s more evidence that Nelson is really dedicated to helping students. Over Reading Week, they brought members of the psychology (and biology) Digital Advisory Boards to Toronto to pick our brains about some of their new digital products, and directions for future products. It was great to talk with other passionate instructors about technology, teaching, and learning. I’m pretty impressed with the ways people are innovating in education. And Nelson wants to tap into that passion and innovation; there are some exciting new products on the horizon. No, I won’t tell you about them. (It was also nice to finally meet some people from Nelson in person--previously, I had only been in email contact with them for years. Oh, and some Twitter stalking, too.)

Yeah, the hotel was nice, but it was all of 1 day. In Toronto. In February. So don’t get images of a week in Cancun or anything. What did you do on Reading Week?

Why aren’t you studying?

The New Prep 6: Wrap Up

It’s been a long haul for me these last 2.5 years, developing, prepping, and delivering my new PSYCO 282: Behavior  Modification course. (Officially, it’s not spelled “Behaviour” with a U--hey, don’t blame me!) Agreeing to teach a new course in 2010 was easy enough to do. But as the real deadline of Fall term hit, I started to wonder what I had gotten myself into. Nervouscited!

Starting in the summer, my workload increased exponentially. Not only did a have a new prep, I had also plunged into another time-intensive project--a research project on mobile learning and student engagement conducted as part of teaching intro psych. (Data analysis from that is ongoing, by the way.) It feels like I didn’t even have a summer--madly working away, even while on family vacations. (Sample experience: someone asked me if I had a good summer, and I replied, “Huh? What summer?”)

Now, after having taught the “b-mod” course once, I’ve got a list of hits and misses. First, I know that I have to develop more content. Cancelling three classes in a row is way too many. (No, that wasn’t by design.) Over the holiday break, I madly rejiggered the carefully planned structure of the course, changing what material is covered on what exam, and adding another lecture on token economies. I had also planned to add another one on behavioural contracts, but it looks like there won’t be time for that.

Second, I’ve rekindled my love/hate relationship with eClass/Moodle. Ultimately, online assignments are the way to go (thanks to Cheryl, my TA, for dragging me in that direction), but Moodle is so...so...awkwardcumbersome. Confusingstupid. And slowkillingme.

It was really eye-opening to read all the behaviours that students worked on changing as part of the self-management project. Many were expected (decreasing smoking, improving studying, increasing exercise), but there were also a lot of unique ones (stopping spitting, reducing swearing, and eating more nuts). If you were in my class and are reading this, drop a line in the comments below about how things are going.

Reading the research on behaviour modification and applied behaviour analysis was a pleasant surprise. I was concerned that I’d have to get up to speed on an elephant-ass amount of jargon. Most scientific papers are nearly impenetrable, even for someone with a Ph.D. But the papers I read were brief, understandable, and (largely) jargon-free.

Although I’ve written before about doing self-management on myself, in seeing all the hard work that students were putting into changing their behaviours, I decided to change another set of behaviours. I’m a notorious snacker (pretzels, chocolate, and sometimes pretzels+chocolate), so for two weeks I changed my environment to reduce my snacking after dinner. It seemed to work: I lost 2 pounds.

There’s one final thing. After I finished writing the last lecture for the course, I decided to, er, reinforce all of my good behaviours, so I went out and bought myself an iPad Air. Yeah, it’s a pretty substantial reinforcer, but I did some pretty substantial work. (Plus, the Arts Resource Centre wanted their loaner iPad back.)

Now, I’m going to put that iPad to use: I’ve got a lecture on token economies to write.

Coming up next: The New Prep 7: The Evaluation.

Why aren’t you studying?

The James Bond Movies

As I wrote in an earlier post, I’ve used some behaviour modification procedures on myself, as I was creating my behaviour modification course. My reward for finishing a lecture was to allow myself to watch a James Bond movie. I had to write 21 lectures, and there are 24 movies. What’s that you say? There have only been 23 movies to date? Don’t forget Never Say Never Again. (But please leave out the silly 1967 version of Casino Royale.)

I was asked about my favourite James Bond. In thinking about this, the best answer I can come up with is: yes. (Wait, what?) I think there has been an interesting match between actors and the time in which they played Bond. Sean Connery was great in establishing the character; a hard-edged portrayal of Bond in the depths of the Cold War. George Lazenby’s one-film tenure and Connery’s reluctant return for “one last film” reflected the turmoil of the 1960s, an era grappling the fallout from the Summer of Love. Roger Moore’s softer-edged, more humourous portrayal fit well in the era of détente. However, as the political climate shifted from doves to hawks, Moore’s Bond seemed increasingly out of sync with the world. I think this is where a lot of the criticism of Moore comes from--despite the fact that Moore has won several “Best Bond” polls.

By the late 1980s, the world was ready for a grittier Bond, ready to deal with a global stage in turmoil in which there was no longer any Soviet Union or East Germany. Timothy Dalton wanted to return Bond to his roots, to show him conflicted by killing and less reliant on gadgets and gags. Trained in Shakespearean theatre, Dalton is arguably the best pure actor ever to fill the role. After legal wrangling (and the pretty awful Licence to Kill) led Dalton to bow out, it was Pierce Brosnan’s turn at last. Often described as “born to play Bond,” Brosnan struck the perfect balance, easily moving from deadly seriousness to one-liners. But then, after 9/11, the ground shifted again.

It’s no secret that Brosnan was disappointed at being dropped from the Bond role, but just as the events of 9/11 required a fundamental change in the way we viewed the world, they also created the need for a new James Bond who could deal with the new threats on their own terms. Hence, Daniel Craig: rough, tough, uncompromising. I think it’ll be interesting to see who follows Craig--and what world events will shape the choice for the next James Bond.

OK, so long answer short, I don’t really have a favourite Bond actor. But I do have some favourite films. I’m not going to do a collection of movie reviews--others have done that to death. (Hmm, possible Bond movie title: Done to Death.) Instead, here are my favourite James Bond movies of each decade:

• 1960s: Goldfinger. Of course, right? It’s got gadgets, great lines, and lots of action. Also, Sean Connery.
• 1970s: The Spy Who Loved Me. Roger Moore’s best Bond. Isn’t he the most handsome man? (Yeah, man-crush.) The Lotus Esprit submarine-car. (Too bad it wasn’t really a functioning submarine. Love what you find out in the behind-the-scenes featurettes.) Exotic locations. It was also the first Bond movie I actually got to see in the theatre.
• 1980s: The Living Daylights. Not the strongest decade for Bond movies, TLD is a high point. Timothy Dalton’s Bond is grim and focused as, in real life, the Iron Curtain was falling. Too bad the next movie, Licence to Kill, went too dark and grim.
• 1990s: Goldeneye. Finally, Pierce Brosnan gets to be Bond. The title comes from the name of the estate in Jamaica where Ian Fleming wrote the Bond novels. Great stunts and action. Bond + tank = fun!
• 2000s: Casino Royale. Welcome, Daniel Craig--welcome to a ton of criticism about you playing Bond before anyone even got to see a frame of film. Also, way to blow people away, with your hard-edged, no-nonsense portrayal of 007. It’s difficult to watch the torture scene. The ending is classic: “The name’s Bond. James Bond.”
• 2010s: Skyfall. Flawed, with an outrageous villain and convoluted, ridiculous plot. It still hits the right notes that you’d want in a popcorn movie.

Other random things:

• The 2006 James Bond Ultimate Collector’s Set, containing the first 21 movies on DVD (except Never Say Never Again) is amazing. I love behind-the-scenes stuff--it’s one of the reasons I started this blog. And this DVD set is packed with behind-the-scenes extras. There are often multiple commentary tracks--Roger Moore even gives his own separate commentary on every one of his movies. I have over 50 hours of commentary loaded onto my digital audio player.
• Because I’m cheap, I borrowed each movie from the Edmonton Public Library (except Never Say Never Again, which they didn’t have). Just go online to place a hold, and a few days later, you’ll usually get the DVD. All this for $12 a year.
• 1983 was a weird year, with two competing Bond movies: Octopussy vs. Never Say Never Again. People often forget the latter. It was a remake of Thunderball, but failed to match the original’s success. Octopussy ended up earning more at the box office.
• The so-called “Bond-girl” formula (apparently good girl turns out to be bad, and apparently bad girl turns out to be good) is not true. Yes, there are many examples of “bad girls” that Bond manages to turn “good” (just by sleeping with them!), like Pussy Galore and Holly Goodhead. But, although there are “bad girls”, they don’t start out seeming good. And not all Bond movies have both good and bad girls (like Diamonds are Forever, and On Her Majesty’s Secret Service).
• It’s also surprising how seldom Bond finds himself up against the Russians/Soviets. It’s usually a ruse by SPECTRE (From Russia with Love), for example, or a rogue Russian general (The Living Daylights). Heck, Bond usually teams up with Russians--if they’re beautiful women, that is (see The Spy Who Loved Me, and Goldeneye).
• The movies are so different from Ian Fleming’s books, sometimes there’s no resemblance at all. (For example, Moonraker the novel has a villain named Hugo Drax, but otherwise is completely different from the movie.)

Why aren’t you studying?