2008-09 Creative Teaching Awards
Provost Ralph Pearson conferred Creative Teaching Awards to these individuals at the Celebration of Teaching Excellence on March 31, 2009. These annual awards recognize faculty members who have developed an innovative way of teaching and assessed its impact on student learning.
Lisa Jo Vernon-Dotson, School of Education, Department of Counseling, Psychology, and Special Education
The Supportive Environments for Social/Emotional Learning and Behavior Disorders courses, offered to master level graduate students in the two different Special Education Programs, emphasize serving K-12 special education students with emotional and behavioral disorders. The innovation presented involves a multi-step, case-based approach that spans the majority of the semester. This case-based pedagogy provides a safe environment for DU graduate students to explore and apply mandated processes, ideas, and solutions under the tutelage of an experienced professional. Both direct and indirect evidence are used to demonstrate the impact on DU graduate student learning, including: 1) select components of Positive Behavior Support Plan (product of the innovation); 2) sample field report to classroom teacher (product of innovation); 3)faculty peer evaluation; and 4) select comments from students.
Lynn M. Simko, School of Nursing
We have instituted a mock code simulation experience for our BSN students. The students were given a 10-item multiple choice pre-test. The Advanced Cardiac Life Support guidelines were then reviewed in a lecture format for the students, and reading regarding cardiac resuscitation, and computer assisted instruction were completed by the students. The students were then assigned roles involved in a code situation. The mock code consisted of 9-11 students with a SimMan Human Patient Simulator by Laerdal. Each mock code was unique depending on the actions/treatment decisions made by the students. The code was video taped and played back to the participants in a debriefing session. They were then given a post-test. Scores were significantly greater on the post-test than on the pre-test overall (7.9 vs. 5.2;p<.001), for the traditional undergraduate (7.6 vs. 5.2;p<.001) and second degree students (8.6 vs. 5.5;p<.001). This was a culminating evaluation of all that was learned throughout the course.