applying research-based instructional strategies feb... · 2017-02-05 · applying research-based...

Applying Research-based Instructional Strategies

Jeffrey E. Froyd TEES Research Professor

Texas A&M University [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Rubric Resources

• VALUE Rubrics – American Association of Colleges and Universities – https://www.aacu.org/value-rubrics

• Sample Rubrics – http://course1.winona.edu/shatfield/air/rubrics.htm

• Create Rubrics for your Project-Based Learning Activities – http://rubistar.4teachers.org/index.php

• Rubric Library – http://www.fresnostate.edu/academics/oie/assessment/rubric.html

https://www.aacu.org/value-rubrics



http://course1.winona.edu/shatfield/air/rubrics.htm

http://course1.winona.edu/shatfield/air/rubrics.htm

http://rubistar.4teachers.org/index.php

http://rubistar.4teachers.org/index.php

http://www.fresnostate.edu/academics/oie/assessment/rubric.html

http://www.fresnostate.edu/academics/oie/assessment/rubric.html

Workshop Ground Rules

• Purpose: Participant Learning

– The purpose is not content coverage

• Questions

– Please ask whenever you have a question

• PowerPoint Presentation

– A copy of the presentation will be made available to Dr. Kamel at the conclusion of the workshop

– Please contact Dr. Kamel for a copy

Course Delivery Cycle

What will the students be able to do and

how will the students think when they

complete my course?

What evidence will students

and instructors have of success?

How will I conduct

class to assist

students in their

learning/success?

Are the students meeting

the learning outcomes/succeeding?

What is working/not working

in my course?

What changes will be

incorporated in the

next course offering?

• Homework • Exams • Portfolios • Presentations • Written reports • Course survey data

Reflection/

Documentation

Course Portfolio

Use Think/Pair/Share

Do Demonstration

Write Reflections

Conduct Lectures

Model thinking

Course Learning Outcomes

Prior Knowledge?

Your Expectations

Workshop Series

Workshop No. 1: Writing Effective Course Learning Outcomes

Workshop No. 2: Preparing a Formative Course Assessment Plan

Workshop No. 3: Applying Research-based Instructional Strategies

Workshop No. 4: Course Design

Workshop Learning Outcomes

• Participants will be able to

– Explain several research-based instructional strategies

– Explain the elements that contribute to the success of cooperative learning

–Design course instructional plans applying research-based instructional strategies

Instructional Strategies

• Active learning

• Cooperative learning

• Informal cooperative learning

• Formal cooperative learning

• Collaborative learning

• Peer instruction

• Just-in-time teaching

• Problem based learning

• Cooperative problem based learning

• Project based learning

• Inquiry based learning

• Challenge based learning

• Process Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning (POGIL)

• Team based learning

• Studio physics

• Jigsaw

• Case base learning

• Service learning

• Project based service learning

• Think – pair – share

• Informal cooperative learning

• Think-aloud paired problem solving

• Discovery learning

• Structured controversy

• ConcepTests

• Question driven learning

• Peer Led Team Learning (PLTL)

• Tutorials in Introductory Physics (TiIP)

• Small group learning

• Workshop physics

• Formative assessment

• Model eliciting activities

Why research-based instructional strategies?

Why RBIS?

• If the experiments [225 studies] analyzed here had been conducted as randomized controlled trials of medical interventions, they may have been stopped for benefit—meaning that enrolling patients in the control condition might be discontinued because the treatment [Active Learning] being tested was clearly more beneficial.

Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(23), 8410-8415. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1319030111

http://www.pnas.org/content/111/23/8410.short

Why ACL?

If the experiments analyzed here had been conducted as randomized controlled trials of medical interventions, they may have been stopped for benefit—meaning that enrolling patients in the control condition might be discontinued because the treatment [Active Learning] being tested was clearly more beneficial.

Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. PNAS, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. doi:10.1073/pnas.1319030111

Meta-analysis of 225 studies that reported data on examination scores or failure rates when comparing student performance in undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) courses under traditional lecturing versus active learning.

Changes in Failure Rate

Scott Freeman et al. PNAS 2014;111:8410-8415

©2014 by National Academy of Sciences

Effect Sizes by Discipline



Heterogeneity analyses for data on

examination scores, concept

inventories, or other assessments



BOOKEND LECTURE TEMPLATE

Part 1

Template: Bookend Lecture

Source:

Karl

Smith,

University

of

Minnesota


• Advance Organizer: Engage students immediately. Preview lecture. Prime relevant knowledge – Example: Reading Quiz

– Example: Application of Lecture Content

– Example: Provocative Question

– Example: Connect with Previous Lecture

– Example: …

Generate ideas for an advance organizer for a lecture

• Process

– Write down lecture topic and at least 3 advance organizer ideas

– Share with topics and ideas with a neighbor

– Poll class for ideas


• Ideas

– ?


• Process Activity: Promote student engagement with lecture content. Answer a question. – Example: Think – Pair - Share

– Example: Clicker question

– Example: Concept question

– Example: Generate applications of content

– Example: …

Generate ideas for process activities

• Process

– Write down lecture topic and at least 3 process activity ideas

– Share with topics and ideas with a neighbor

– Poll class for ideas


• Ideas

– ?


• Interactive Activities: Process Material – Think – Pair – Share

– Concept Question – Peer Instruction

– Peer practice of key element of a procedure

– …


• Summary Activity

–Have students process lecture

–Example: Minute paper

–Example: Plus / Delta

–Example: Classroom Assessment Technique

Minute Paper

• At the end of each class period, write brief answers to the following questions: – What is most valuable or

helpful idea or concept that you learned today?

– What is the “muddiest or most confusing point” about in today’s lecture?

How does using minute papers in courses work?

• Findings: “This result suggested, as we hypothesized, that the use of the one-minute paper improves student performance. Its coefficient implied that the use of the one-minute paper increased student performance by approximately .5 of a point on the postTUCE [Test of Understanding of College Economics] exam, ceteris paribus.”

• Findings: “This evidence suggests that the benefit to students from using the one-minute paper does not depend on the instructor who implements it.”

• Findings: “This evidence supported our initial hypothesis that the benefit to students from using the one-minute paper does not depend on their ability level.”

• Assertion: “When asked by college teachers to identify the single pedagogical innovation that would most improve their teaching, Light (1990, 35) always responds with the one-minute paper, an idea that ‘swamped all others.’”

Chizmar, J. F., and Ostrosky, A. L. (1998). The One-Minute Paper: Some Empirical Findings. The Journal of Economic Education, 29(1), 3–10

How does using minute papers in courses work?

• Findings: Overall results indicate that performance on subsequent essay quizzes was significantly higher by students who wrote one-minute papers than performance by students who did not write the papers.

• Findings: Of particular interest to instructors was that the increase in quiz scores when one-minute papers were not graded was significantly higher than when the one-minute papers were graded.

Almer, E. D., Jones, K., and Moeckel, C. L. (1998). The impact of one-minute papers on learning in an introductory accounting course. Issues in Accounting Education, 13(3), 485–495

Minute Paper: Resources

• Chizmar, J. F., and Ostrosky, A. L. (1998). The One-Minute Paper: Some Empirical Findings. The Journal of Economic Education, 29(1), 3–10.

• Almer, E. D., Jones, K., and Moeckel, C. L. (1998). The impact of one-minute papers on learning in an introductory accounting course. Issues in Accounting Education, 13(3), 485–495.

• Stead, D. R. (2005). A review of the one-minute paper. Active Learning in Higher Education, 6(2), 118–131. doi:10.1177/1469787405054237.


Source:

Karl

Smith,

University

of

Minnesota

Bookend Lecture: Frequently Asked Questions

• Can I cover the same content using a bookend lecture format?

– Yes. Most instructors cover more content and students learn it better.

• How will students respond?

– Most human beings tend to initially resist externally imposed changes.

• Can I use this format in large classes?

– Yes

• Can I use this format in mathematically oriented courses?

– Yes

Addressing Student Resistance

• Resistance to externally-induced change is inevitable. Anticipate and prepare.

• Acknowledge changes, accompanying anxiety, and potentially negative prior experiences

• Emphasize benefits and fun. Lots on research on benefits of student engagement and active/cooperative learning.

• Plan to solicit feedback and respond constructively

• Encourage students to visit with you about their doubts

• Plan to talk one-on-one to most visibly anxious students

• Resistance to externally-induced change is inevitable. Anticipate and prepare.

• Acknowledge changes and accompanying anxiety

• Emphasize benefits and fun. Lots on research on benefits of student engagement and active/cooperative learning.

• Plan to solicit feedback and respond constructively

• Encourage students to visit with you about their doubts

• Plan to talk one-on-one to most visibly anxious students

Felder, R. M. and R. Brent (1996). "Navigating the Bumpy Road to Student–Centered Instruction." College Teaching 44(2): 43–47. Felder, R. M. and R. Brent (1994). Cooperative learning in technical courses: Procedures, pitfalls, and payoffs, ERIC Document Reproduction Service Report ED 377038. Washington, DC. Cooper, J. L., J. MacGregor, et al. (2000). "Implementing Small-Group Instruction: Insights from Successful Practitioners." New Directions in Teaching and Learning 81: 64-76.

Addressing Student Resistance

What are questions do you have?

• Process

– Write down questions individually

– Share questions with a neighbor

– Poll class for questions


• ?


• How much time for interaction • Large class • Examples • Mathematically oriented • Application oriented • Students hesitate to participate • Is level of knowledge important? • Balancing content coverage • How does teacher initiate?

Participant Task

• Select a lecture you gave in a course recently.

• Redesign the lecture using the bookend lecture template:

• What is your advance organizer?

• What is your summary activity?

• What are your interactive activities?

• 10 minutes

Why RBIS?

Hake, R. R., (1998). Interactive-engagement vs. traditional methods: A six-thousand student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 66, 64- 74

Minute Paper

• Write brief answers to the following questions: – What is most valuable or

helpful about constructing a bookend lecture?

– What is the “muddiest or most confusing point” about constructing a bookend lecture?

The primary take away from research on active learning is that student learning success depends much less on what instructors do

than what they ask their students to do (Halpern & Hakel, 2003).

Halpern, D. F., & Hakel, M. D. (2003). Applying the science of learning to the university and beyond:

Teaching for long-term retention and transfer. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 35(4), 36-41.

PEER INSTRUCTION

Part 2

Peer Instruction (Eric Mazur)

• Method:

– Start with a Concept Question: Instructor presents students with a qualitative (usually multiple choice) question that is carefully constructed to engage student difficulties with a fundamental concept.

– Ask for Individual Answers: Students consider the problem on their own and contribute their answers in a way that the fraction of the class giving each answer can be determined and reported.

– Ask for Answers from Pairs: Students then discuss the issue with their neighbors for two minutes and vote again.

– If still problems, instructor facilitates presentation and discussion.

Why RBIS?

Crouch, C.H., and Mazur, E. (2001) Peer Instruction: Ten years of experience and results. American Journal of Physics, 69(9), 970-977

Average Force Concept Inventory normalized gain for introductory calculus-based physics, Harvard University, Fall 1990–Fall 1997, and for introductory algebra-based physics, Harvard University, Fall 1998–Fall 2000. Open bars indicate traditionally taught courses and filled bars indicate courses taught with PI [peer instruction]. Dotted lines correspond to <g> = 0.23, the typical gain for a traditionally taught course, and <g> = 0.48, the typical gain for an interactive course (Hake).

Peer Instruction (Eric Mazur)

• Resources:

– Mazur, Eric. (1997). Peer instruction: A user’s manual. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

– Crouch, Catherine H., & Mazur, Eric. (2001). Peer instruction: Ten years of experience and results. American Journal of Physics, 69(9), 970-977. doi: 10.1119/1.1374249

– http://mazur.harvard.edu/research/detailspage.php?rowid=8

– http://www.physics.umd.edu/perg/role/PIProbs/

– https://galileo.harvard.edu/login/

http://mazur.harvard.edu/research/detailspage.php?rowid=8

http://www.physics.umd.edu/perg/role/PIProbs/

https://galileo.harvard.edu/login/

Why RBIS?

Prince, M. (2004). Does Active Learning Work? A Review of the Research. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(3), 223-231

Learning Outcome (collaborative vs. individualistic)

Effect Size

Reference

Improved academic achievement 0.64

Johnson, Johnson, & Smith

(1998a)

Improved quality of interpersonal interactions 0.60

Improved self-esteem 0.44

Improved perceptions of greater social support 0.70

Improved academic achievement 0.53

Johnson, Johnson, & Smith (1998b)

Improved quality of interpersonal interactions 0.55

Improved self-esteem 0.29

Improved perceptions of greater social support 0.51

Prince, M. (2004). Does Active Learning Work? A Review of the Research. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(3), 223-231

Learning Outcome (collaborative vs. individualistic)

Effect Size

Reference

Improved academic achievement 0.51 Springer, Stanne, & Donovan

(1999)

Improved student attitudes 0.55

Improved retention in academic programs 0.46

Why RBIS?

DIFFERENTIATED OVERT LEARNING ACTIVITIES FRAMEWORK

Part 3

Designing Instructional

Strategies

Differentiated Overt Learning Activities Framework

Passive Active Constructive Interactive

Students learning before class

Students learning during class

Students learning after class

Passive

• Concept

– Receive information

• Examples

– Listening to lecture

– Taking lecture notes by copying what is on the board

Active • Cognitive Processes

– Activate their own knowledge related to desired content

– Search for new knowledge related to desired content

– Emphasizing selected passages

• Examples – Following procedure of a highly structured experiment

– Repeating sentences out loud after hearing them

– Underlining or highlighting some sentences while reading

– Copying solution of a problem from the board while the teacher is solving it

– Selecting from a list of choices as in matching tasks

– Looking and searching for specific information in a text or problem

– Playing a video game without making strategic decisions

• Students do something or manipulate instructional information overtly

Menekse, M., Stump, G. S., Krause, S., & Chi, M. T. H. (2013). Differentiated overt learning activities for effective instruction in engineering classrooms. Journal of Engineering Education, 102(3), 346-374. doi: 10.1002/jee.20021.

Constructive

• Cognitive Processes

– Generate knowledge that extends beyond the presented materials

• Contrast

– Active: Simply repeating a paragraph or underlining text

– Constructive: Self-explaining or explaining aloud to oneself a concept

• Examples

– Converting text-based information into symbolic notation, e.g., drawing a concept map, drawing and interpreting graphs

– Putting into one’s own words., e.g., taking lecture notes in one’s own words, generating self-explanations

– Comparing and contrasting different situations

– Generating examples from daily lives

– Making strategic decisions in a video game


Constructive: Examples

• Converting text-based information

into symbolic notation, e.g.,

drawing a concept map, drawing

and interpreting graphs

• Putting into one’s own words., e.g.,

taking lecture notes in one’s own

words, generating self-explanations

• Comparing and contrasting different

situations

• Generating examples from daily

lives

• Making strategic decisions in a

video game

• Asking comprehension questions

• Monitoring one’s comprehension

• Solving a problem that requires

constructing knowledge

• Justifying claims with evidence

• Designing a study

• Posing a research question

• Using analogy to describe certain

cases

• Hypothesizing and testing an idea


Interactive • Description

– Two or more learners undertaking constructive learning activities

• Cognitive Processes – Interaction of the learners further enables them to build upon

one another’s understanding – Interaction between learners affords them the benefit of

receiving feedback or prompting from each other, with each partner having some complementary knowledge or perspectives

• Examples – Studying or working in pairs or groups – Reciprocal teaching – Interacting with feedback from a teacher, an expert, or a

computer agent – Arguing or defending one’s position with evidence


Strategy A




? Students learning during class

X X Students learning after class

X

Strategy B




? Students learning during class

X X X X Students learning after class

X

Strategy C




X X Students learning during class

? ? ? ? Students learning after class

X

10 Worst Teaching Mistakes • When you ask a question

in class, immediately call for volunteers

• Call on students cold

• Turn classes into PowerPoint shows

• Fail to provide variety in instruction

• Have students work in groups with no individual accountability

• Fail to demonstrate relevance

• Give tests that are too long

• Get stuck in a rut

• Teach without clear learning objectives

• Disrespect students

Felder, R. M., & Brent, R. (2008). Random thoughts... The ten worst teaching mistakes I. Mistakes 5-10. Chemical Engineering Education, 42(4), 201-202.

Felder, R. M., & Brent, R. (2009). Random thoughts... The ten worst teaching mistakes II. Mistakes 1-4. Chemical Engineering Education, 43(1), 15-16.

JIGSAW

Part 4

Jigsaw

• Break material to be covered into 4-5 different topics

• Create groups of students assigned to each topic. Each group will work so its members become experts on the assigned topic.

• Create new groups of 4-5 which contain one member from each expert group. New groups teach each other about the 4-5 topic.

Jigsaw: How it works

Expert Group 1

Expert Group 2

Expert Group 3

Expert Group 4

Learning Group 1

Learning Group 2

Learning Group 3

Learning Group 4

Stage 1 Stage 2

Jigsaw: How it works

• Stage 1

–Each expert group learns an assigned segment and prepares to teach it to the others

• Stage 2

–Each learning group has xx experts who teach their segments to the group

Jigsaw Resources

• http://www.jigsaw.org

http://www.jigsaw.org/

What do you teach that could be jigsaw’d?

• Process

– Write down segments of course content that you teach that could be jigsaw’d

– Share segments with a neighbor


• Segments

– ?

Why ACL?

• Wright, J. C., Millar, S. B., Kosciuk, S. A., Penberthy, D. L., Williams, P. H., Wampold, B. E. (1998). A Novel Strategy for Assessing the Effects of Curriculum Reform on Student Competence. Journal of Chemical Education, 85(8), 986-992

– Study shows a very thorough assessment of differences between a well-taught lecture class and a structured active learning class through the eyes of faculty who teach subsequent courses

http://www.pkal.org/documents/Assessment_Wright_et_al.pdf

http://www.pkal.org/documents/Assessment_Wright_et_al.pdf


• Process





• ?

Next Steps

• What more would you like to address? • What in-depth questions can I answer?

– Plagiarism - x – Student motivation – Independent study / projects – instructional strategies – Developing student ability to deal with ambiguity – Large classes – Student inhomogeneity - x – How to become charismatic teachers? – Evaluation of teaching on long-term student learning – Research paper grading – Student communication skills – Teacher self management – Improve student confidence in instructor: Be a better teacher – How to form teams?

ELEMENTS OF ACTIVE/COOPERATIVE LEARNING

Part 5 (Theory)

Positive Interdependence

Individual Accountability

Group Processing

Social Skills

Face-To-Face, Promotive Interaction

How do I know if it is ACL?

ACL Elements

• Positive Interdependence - Team members must rely on each other to accomplish goals.

Activity – Positive Interdependence

• THINK – PAIR – SHARE • How might you promote positive

interdependence? • ?

Ideas – Positive Interdependence

• Task Interdependence – Give a team a common task

• Role Interdependence – Assign team members different roles and rotate

• Reward Interdependence – Offer bonus points if every member achieves a set requirement

• Resource Interdependence – Limit resources and develop complementary expertise

ACL Elements

• Individual Accountability - Members are held accountable for doing their share of the work, as well as mastering all material.

Activity – Individual Accountability

• THINK – PAIR – SHARE

• How might you promote individual accountability?

• ?

Ideas – Individual Accountability

• Individual exams

• Ask one member to explain results/learning

• Small groups, cuts down slackers

• Ask members to apply group learning to individual task, e.g., individual report memos

• Everyone signs: “I participated, I agree, and I can explain the information”

• Random checking

ACL Elements

• Face-to-Face Interaction - Some or all work should be done by members working together.

Activity – Face-to-Face Interaction


• How might you promote face-to-face interactions?

• ?

Ideas – Face-to-Face Interaction

• Avoid assignments that can be parceled out, e.g., long papers, extended programming assignments

• Ask team to generate multiple good ideas and you pick one for further work

• Ask multiple choice questions and require one answer from team

• Form heterogeneous groups to promote diverse perspectives

ACL Elements

• Group Processing - Teams periodically reflect on what they do well as a team, what they could improve, and what they might need to do differently.

Activity – Group Processing


• How might you promote group processing?

• ?

Ideas – Group Processing

• Complete plus-delta at end of team assignment

• Ask for reflections on team process during an extended project – What is working? What are challenges to be addressed?

• Ask: How is team meeting Code of Cooperation

ACL Elements

• Social Skills - Team members practice and receive instruction in listening, meetings, leadership, decision-making, conflict management, and communication.

Ideas – Social Skills

• Brief Activities – Listening

• Brief Activities – Conflict

• Brief Activities – Communication

• Provide guidance on effective meetings

• Exercises on reaching decisions

Why ACL?

Terenzini, P.T., Cabrera, A.F., Colbeck, C.L., Parente, J.M., Bjorklund, S.A. (2001). Collaborative Learning vs. Lecture/Discussion: Students' Reported Learning Gains. Journal of Engineering Education, 90:1, 123-130

Course-related gains in: ECSEL (n = 294-321)

Non-ECSEL (n=129-138)

Knowledge and understanding of the process of design in engineering

3.04 2.55

Your ability to “do” design 2.85 2.33

Your ability to apply an abstract concept or idea to a real problem or situation

2.90 2.58

Your ability to describe a problem orally 2.85 2.51

Organize information into categories, distinctions, or frameworks that will aid comprehension

3.22 1.91

Ask probing questions that clarify facts, concepts, or relationships

2.95 2.29


• Process





• ?

BLENDED LEARNING HYBRID LEARNING INVERTED CLASSROOM FLIPPED CLASSROOM …

Part 5

What is the instructional strategy?

Traditional Approach

• Before first class on topic – Students do nothing

Flipped Approach

• Before first class on topic – Students are introduced to

the topic via video, readings… nothing

• During first class on topic

– Teacher introduces topic

• During first class on topic – Students work [in teams] on

exercises to practice learning outcomes

– Feedback is provided

• After first class on topic – Students work on homework

• After first class on topic – Students work on homework

PROBLEM BASED LEARNING

PROJECT BASED LEARNING

INQUIRY BASED LEARNING

CHALLENGE BASED LEARNING

…

Part 6

Problem Based Learning Instructional Strategy

1) Student teams are presented with a complex, ill-structured problem.

2) Students work to define the problem and to identify what they know that is relevant to the problem. They also identify what they need to know and how they will learn it.

3) Students engage in learning independently and then come together as a team to share learning and to use their existing and new knowledge to formulate solutions. They assess the quality of their proposed solutions and decide what additional learning is needed to select and refine their solution.

4) The cycle is repeated until the students arrive at an acceptable solution, which they then present in written and oral forms.

Litzinger, T. A., Lattuca, L. R., Hadgraft, R. G., & Newstetter, W. C. (2011). Engineering education and the development of expertise. Journal of Engineering Education, 100(1), 123-150. doi: 10.1002/j.2168-9830.2011.tb00006.x

Problem-based Learning (PBL)

• Basic Idea:

– First: Give students a problem first. Problem should be thoughtfully designed to apply concepts and procedures being taught.

– Next: Ask students how they will solve the problem

– Vague next steps: Facilitate as they work through the problem

– Note: PBL is almost always more effective when students work in teams.

Project-based Learning

• Basic Idea:

– First: Give students a project first. Project should be thoughtfully designed to apply concepts and procedures being taught.

– Next: Ask students how they will work through the project

– Vague next steps: Facilitate as they work through the project

– Note: Project-based learning is almost always more effective when students work in teams.

Inquiry-based Learning

• Basic Idea:

– First: Give students a question first. Question should be thoughtfully designed to apply concepts and procedures being taught.

– Next: Ask students how they will address the question

– Vague next steps: Facilitate as they address the question

– Note: Inquiry-based learning is almost always more effective when students work in teams.

Challenge-based Learning

• Basic Idea:

– First: Give students a challenge first. Challenge should be thoughtfully designed to apply concepts and procedures being taught.

– Next: Ask students how they will address the challenge

– Vague next steps: Facilitate as they address the challenge

– Note: Challenge-based learning is almost always more effective when students work in teams.

Challenge-based Learning

• Findings: “Comparisons were made over a three-year period between

student performance on knowledge-based questions in courses taught

with taxonomy-based and challenge-based approaches to instruction.

When performance on all questions was compared, CBI classes scored

significantly better than control classes on 26 percent of the questions,

while control classes outperformed CBI classes on eight percent of the

questions, but there was no significant difference in overall

performance.”

• Findings: “… students in CBI classes performed significantly better than

students in control classes on the more difficult questions (35 percent

versus four percent).”

Roselli, R. J., and Brophy, S. P. (2006). Effectiveness of Challenge-Based Instruction in Biomechanics. Journal of Engineering Education, 95(4), 311–324.

Purging a methane tank

• A 100-liter tank of methane will be purged with N2. How much N2 (by volume) will be required so that the final percentage of methane will be 1%?

Starfield, A. M., Smith, K. A., & Beloch, A. L. (1990). How to Model It: Problem Solving for the Computer Age. Burgess International Group

• A 100-liter tank of methane will be purged with N2. How much N2 (by volume) will be required so that the final percentage of methane will be 1%?

– First task: Generate a quick, by-hand procedure for computing an upper bound for the amount of N2.

– Second task: Generate a quick, by-hand procedure for computing an lower bound for the amount of N2.

Purging a methane tank

Starfield, A. M., Smith, K. A., & Beloch, A. L. (1990). How to Model It: Problem Solving for the Computer Age. Burgess International Group

POGIL

• Process Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning (POGIL)

– http://www.pogil.org

http://www.pogil.org/

Physics By Inquiry

• http://www.phys.washington.edu/groups/peg/pbi.html

http://www.phys.washington.edu/groups/peg/pbi.html

http://www.phys.washington.edu/groups/peg/pbi.html

VaNTH Project

• Bioengineering

• Challenge-based Instruction

• http://www.vanth.org/

http://www.vanth.org/

Problem Based Learning • The two biggest challenges in applying

problem based learning… are:

– Developing student abilities to work as a team

– Setting the right challenge problems


• Process





• ?

TEAMS

Part 7

Questions about Teams • How do I form teams? • How do I get teams off to a good start? • How do I facilitate dysfunctional teams? • How do I assess individual performance for

team projects? • How do I monitor progress of team projects? • How might I help students with

– Conflict? – Communication? – Decision making?

• See Foundation Coalition handouts on: – Forming Student Teams

– Getting Student Teams Off to a Good Start

– Facilitating Dysfunctional Student Teams

– Team Decision Making

– Intrateam Communication Skills

– Conflict Management and Resolution

– Peer Assessment and Peer Evaluation

– Monitoring Team Effectiveness

– http://www.foundationcoalition.org

Questions about Teams

http://www.foundationcoalition.org/

How do I form teams?

• Who should form the teams?

• How big are the teams?

• Should teams be formed randomly?

• What factors should be considered in forming teams?

Software for Forming Teams Team Maker – http://www.cateme.org

Note: No method for forming teams eliminates student complaints and potential for dysfunctional teams

Forming Teams: Advice

• Instructor assigns teams

• Size: 3-5 (I like 4)

• Heterogeneity

– Grades

– Backgrounds

– Learning styles

• Carefully consider how possibly marginalized students are assigned

• Get input from students: geography, schedules …

Starting Teams • Get acquainted

– Taking time to learn about your teammates is a good investment.

• Motivate groups to build teams – Why teams?

• Establish a set of group goals – Generate teams goals for project

• Construct a code of cooperation – Team agreement on expectations

• Organize – Conducting productive meetings

– Roles

• Potential problem members – Ask teams to identify potential problems and develop strategies

Conducting Effective Meetings

• Roles

– Convener

– Recorder

– Reporter

– Facilitator

– Time Keeper

– …

• Agenda

– Item

– Objective

– Time Limit

– Process • Process designs

participation by everyone

Questions

• What are factors to consider in selecting a team leader?

• How do I deal with a dysfunctional team?

• Multiple teams during a course? Multiple teams across a semester?

• How much latitude should students be given in forming teams?

• What are factors affecting team performance?

• How to maintain enthusiasm?

• How to avoid marginalization?

Why ACL?

• Laws, P., Sokoloff, D., & Thornton, R. (1999). Promoting Active Learning Using the Results of Physics Education Research. IEEE UniServe Science News, 13, Retrieve from http://science.uniserve.edu.au/newsletter/vol13/sokoloff.html, 30 November 2009

Figure 1. Composite assessment of US student understanding of kinematics (labeled Velocity and Acceleration concepts) and dynamics, as described by Newton's Laws (labeled Force concepts), using the Force and Motion Conceptual Evaluation. Dark bars show student understanding coming into beginning university courses, striped bars are after all traditional instruction. While the percentage of students who know concepts coming in can vary with the selectivity of the university, the effect of traditional instruction is to change the minds of only 5% to 15% of students. New methods described later in this paper result in up to 90% of students understanding concepts (lighter solid bars).

http://science.uniserve.edu.au/newsletter/vol13/sokoloff.html

Why ACL?

• Springer, L., Stanne, M. E., and Donovan, S. S. (1999). Effects of small-group learning on undergraduates in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 69:1, 21-51

– Often-referenced meta-analysis of studies of small-group learning

Why ACL?

• Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., and Smith, K. A. (1998). Cooperative Learning Returns to College: What Evidence Is There That It Works? Change, July/August 1998

– Another meta-analysis of efficacy of cooperative learning by internationally-known researches on cooperative learning and teams

Why ACL?

• Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. (1998). Active Learning: Cooperation in the College Classroom (2nd ed.). Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.

– Great book on cooperative learning Contains results of an earlier meta-analysis of efficacy of cooperative learning by internationally-known researches on cooperative learning and teams

Why ACL?

• Felder, R.M., Felder, G.N., Dietz, E.J. (1998). A Longitudinal Study of Engineering Student Performance and Retention. V. Comparisons with Traditionally-Taught Students. Journal of Engineering Education, 87(4), 469-480

LEARNING: WHAT WORKS, WHAT DOESN’T

Part 8

What we know about learning

• Spaced retrieval

• Interleaved practice

• Elaboration

• Generation

• Reflection

• Calibration

• Mnemonic devices


• Spaced Retrieval

– Spaced retrieval, also known as expanded retrieval or uniform retrieval, is a learning technique, which requires users to rehearse information to be learned at different and increasing spaced intervals of time or a set uniform amount of time.

• Interleaved Practice

– Block practicing is when you focus on learning one skill at a time. You practice a skill repetitively for a period of time and then you move onto another skill and repeat the process. Interleaving practice on the other hand involves working on multiple skills in parallel. If you want to learn skills A, B and C then a block practice session would look something like this AAABBBCCC and an interleaved practice session would look like this ABCABCABC (in series) or ACBABCBAC (randomized).

• Elaboration

– Elaboration is the process of giving new material meaning, or finding additional layers of meaning, by expressing it in your own words and connecting it with what you already know.

• Generation

– Generation is an attempt to answer a question or solve a problem before being shown the answer or solution.

• Reflection

– Reflection is the act of taking a few minutes to review what has been learned in a recent class or experience and asking yourself questions. What went well? What could have gone better? What other knowledge or experiences does it remind you of? What might you need to learn for better mastery, or what strategies might you use the next time to get better results?

• Calibration

– Calibration is the act of aligning your judgments of what you know and don’t know with objective feedback so as to avoid being carried off by the illusions of mastery that catch many learners by surprise at test time.

• Mnemonic Devices

– Mnemonic devices are like mental file cabinets. They give you handy ways to store information and find it again when you need it.


• Spaced Retrieval

– Spaced retrieval, also known as expanded retrieval or uniform retrieval, is a learning

technique, which requires users to rehearse information to be learned at different and

increasing spaced intervals of time or a set uniform amount of time.

• Interleaved Practice

– Block practicing is when you focus on learning one skill at a time. You practice a skill

repetitively for a period of time and then you move onto another skill and repeat the

process. Interleaving practice on the other hand involves working on multiple skills in

parallel. If you want to learn skills A, B and C then a block practice session would look

something like this AAABBBCCC and an interleaved practice session would look like this

ABCABCABC (in series) or ACBABCBAC (randomized).

• Elaboration

– Elaboration is the process of giving new material meaning, or finding additional layers of

meaning, by expressing it in your own words and connecting it with what you already

know.

What we know about learning • Generation

– Generation is an attempt to answer a question or solve a problem before being shown the

answer or solution.

• Reflection

– Reflection is the act of taking a few minutes to review what has been learned in a recent class

or experience and asking yourself questions. What went well? What could have gone better?

What other knowledge or experiences does it remind you of? What might you need to learn

for better mastery, or what strategies might you use the next time to get better results?

• Calibration

– Calibration is the act of aligning your judgments of what you know and don’t know with

objective feedback so as to avoid being carried off by the illusions of mastery that catch many

learners by surprise at test time.

• Mnemonic Devices

– Mnemonic devices are like mental file cabinets. They give you handy ways to store

information and find it again when you need it.


• Spaced retrieval (versus massed retrieval)

– https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaced_retrieval

• Interleaved practice (versus blocked practice)

– https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-interleaving-effect-mixing-it-up-boosts-learning/#

• Elaboration

– http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0361476X88900203

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaced_retrieval

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-interleaving-effect-mixing-it-up-boosts-learning/















http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0361476X88900203

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0361476X88900203

REFERENCES

Efficacy of Small Group Learning

• Springer, L., Stanne, M. E., and Donovan, S. S. (1999). Effects of small-group learning on undergraduates in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 69(1), 21–51

• Wage, K. E., Buck, J. R., Wright, C. H. G., and Welch, T. B. (2005). The Signals and Systems Concept Inventory. IEEE Transactions on Education, 48(3), 448–461

• Buck, J. R., and Wage, K. E. (2005). Active and Cooperative Learning in Signal Processing Courses. IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, 22(2), 76–81

• Crouch, C.H., and Mazur, E. (2001). Peer Instruction: Ten years of experience and results. American Journal of Physics, 69(9), 970–977

• Wright, J.C., Millar, S.B., Kosciuk, S.A., Penberthy, D. L., Williams, P.H., and Wampold, B.E. (1998). A Novel Strategy for Assessing the Effects of Curriculum Reform on Student Competence. Journal of Chemical Education, 85(8), 986–992

• Prince, M. (2004). Does Active Learning Work? A Review of the Research. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(3), 223–231

• Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., and Smith, K. A. (1998). Cooperative Learning Returns to College: What Evidence Is There That It Works? Change, 30(4), 26–35

• Bowen, C. W. (2000). A Quantitative Literature Review of Cooperative Learning Effects on High School and College Chemistry Achievement. Journal of Chemical Education, 77(1), 116–119

• Felder, R. M., Felder, G. N., and Dietz, E. J. (1998). A Longitudinal Study of Engineering Student Performance and Retention. V. Comparisons with Traditionally-Taught Students. Journal of Engineering Education, 98(4), 469–480

• Terenzini, P. T., Cabrera, A. F., Colbeck, C. L., Parente, J. M., and Bjorklund, S. A. (2001). Collaborative Learning vs. Lecture/Discussion: Students' Reported Learning Gains. Journal of Engineering Education, 90(1), 123–130

• Bonsangue, M. (1994). An efficacy study of the calculus workshop model. CBMS Issues in Collegiate Mathematics Education, 4, Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society, 117–137

• Beichner, R. J., Saul, J. M., Abbott, D. S., Morse, J. J., Deardorff, D. L., Allain, R. J., Bonham, J. W., Dancy, M. H., and Risley, J. S. (2007). The Student-Centered Activities for Large Enrollment Undergraduate Programs (SCALE-UP) Project. Retrieved August 27, 2007, from http://www.compadre.org/Repository/document/ServeFile.cfm?ID=4517&DocID=183

• Tien, L. T., Roth, V., and Kampmeier, J. A. (2001). Implementation of a Peer-Led Team Learning Instructional Approach in an Undergraduate Organic Chemistry Course. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(7), 606–632

• Born, W. K., Revelle, W., and Pinto, L. H. (2002). Improving Biology Performance with Workshop Groups. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 11(4), 347–365

Efficacy of Active Learning

• Crouch, C.H., and Mazur, E. (2001). Peer Instruction: Ten years of experience and results. American Journal of Physics, 69(9), 970–977

• Burrowes, P. A. (2003). A Student-Centered Approach to Teaching General Biology That Really Works: Lord's Constructivist Model Put to a Test.

The American Biology Teacher, 65(7), 491–502

• Laws, P., Sokoloff, D., and Thornton, R. (1999). Promoting Active Learning Using the Results of Physics Education Research. UniServe Science News,

13, Retrieved 4 September 2006 from http://science.uniserve.edu.au/newsletter/vol13/sokoloff.html

• Redish, E. F., Saul, J. M., and Steinberg, R. N. (1997). On the effectiveness of active-engagement microcomputer-based laboratories. American

Journal of Physics, 65(1), 45–54

• Cummings, K., Marx, J., Thornton, R., and Kuhl, D. (1999). Evaluating innovations in studio physics. American Journal of Physics, 67(supplement 1

to no. 7), S38–S44

• Hoellwarth, C., Moelter, M. J., and Knight, R. D. (2005). A direct comparison of conceptual learning and problem solving ability in traditional and

studio style classrooms. American Journal of Physics, 73(5), 459–462

• Michael, J. (2006). Where’s the evidence that active learning works? Advances in Physiology Education, 30, 159–167.

• Knight, J. K., and Wood, W. B. (2005). Teaching More by Lecturing Less. Cell Biology Education, 4, 298–310

• Freeman, S., O’Connor, E., Parks, J. W., Cunningham, M., Hurley, D., Haak, D., Dirks, C., and Wenderoth, M. P., (2007). Prescribed Active Learning

Increases Performance in Introductory Biology. Cell Biology Education, 6, 132–139.

http://science.uniserve.edu.au/newsletter/vol13/sokoloff.html

applying research-based instructional strategies feb... · 2017-02-05 · applying research-based...

Documents