E3 Practices: Teaching Enhancement
The eleven practices from the fellowship, and how they land in a course
The E3 fellowship groups its work into four categories holding eleven practices. This site keeps that order. Each page describes the practice as the fellowship taught it, gives you the wording to run it, and ends with how it is being built into EPI 601.
A fifth group, course design, holds the summer workshop material on backward design, learning goals, scoping, and transparent assignments. None of the eleven practices names it, and it underpins most of them.
Nothing here is a recommendation about what you should adopt. How this is organized explains the categories, and my implementation is the whole plan on one page.
-
A1 Mission, vision, and values Saying what the course is for, before the schedule
Authenticity and building trust
-
A2 Belonging story and belonging strategies Confusion reads to students as a verdict on whether they belong here
Authenticity and building trust
-
A3 Transparency about the discipline Students read unsettled questions as their own failure to understand
Authenticity and building trust
-
E1 Growth mindset and wise feedback framing Detailed criticism reads as a verdict on the person
Evidence and growth
-
E2 Formative assessment of learning and experience You find out what went wrong in January, from the course evaluations
Evidence and growth
-
V1 Active and experiential learning You talked for ninety minutes and cannot tell what landed
Value and pragmatism
-
V2 Collaborative learning and group work One student does the calculation and three watch
Value and pragmatism
-
V3 Chunking and simplifying You lose them at minute forty of a hard technical topic
Value and pragmatism
-
S1 Connecting content to student experience The examples all come from one country and one kind of question
Sustainability and flexibility
-
S2 Course policies You are adjudicating whose emergency is real
Sustainability and flexibility
-
S3 Reducing negative and increasing positive stress Difficulty reads as threat, and the wrong kind of pressure lands on the graded work
Sustainability and flexibility
-
CD Backward design and alignment The exam tests what is easy to grade, not what you said the course was for
Course design
-
CD Learning goals you can observe Your goals use verbs that no assessment could ever check
Course design
-
CD Scoping and cutting content Two topics got added because the field moved and nothing ever came out
Course design
-
CD Mapping across the semester Every week looks reasonable and the sequence does not work
Course design
-
CD Transparent assignments Half the class answered a question you did not ask
Course design
-
CD Criteria as observable differences Your rubric says ‘thorough analysis’ and grades itself differently every time
Course design