|
The posting below is a substantial look at how to
encourage transformational learning in your students. It is by Kelly
McGonigal, Ph.D. and is from the newsletter, Speaking of Teaching,
produced by the Center for Teaching and Learning (CTL), Stanford
University,
http://ctl.stanford.edu/Newsletter/ Spring 2005, Vol. 14, No.2.
Speaking of Teaching is compiled and edited by CTL Associate Director
Mariatte Denman at [mdenman@ stanford.edu.] Reprinted with permission.
Regards,
Rick Reis
reis@stanford.edu
I wanted to present a set of ideas that support faculty
and administrators in fostering student engagement, and to have
participants reflect on these and other ideas that they may wish to
consider in engaging their students in and out of the classroom.
The ideas I presented are research findings, course/program interventions,
and other resources that I have found powerful in fostering engagement
over the years.
Idea #1:
What Matters in College? Four Critical Years Revisited (Astin, 1997)
This classic text in the teaching and learning field examines over 25,000
students and over 190 environmental variables that affected student
cognitive and affective variables. Curriculum played little role in
student success. It was student involvement, fostered by student/student
interaction and student/faculty interaction that predicted student
success. These findings should guide course and program planning.
Alexander Astin's findings influenced many in higher education, including
the National Study of Student Engagement group. (See also Pascarella and
Terenzini, 2005, How College Affects Students: A Third Decade of Research
for a review of thousands of studies published since their 1991 volume of
the same name).
Idea #2:
National Study of Student Engagement (NSSE)
NSSE (pronounced "Nessie") assessed variables associated with student
engagement. Indiana University's George Kuh and his colleagues identified
five research based principles (including student-faculty interaction and
active/collaborative learning) that predicted higher levels of student
engagement.
NSSE data collection at CSUDH resulted in a five-year engagement plan
focusing on these two variables. Some elements of the CSUDH Engagement
plan are listed below.
-
Focusing faculty forum brown-bag sessions on engagement.
-
Implementation of first-year-faculty seminars that include
interactive teaching strategies.
-
Revitalization of freshman success seminar including
research based exercises/pedagogy.
-
Provost's Speakers Seminars, an outside speaker series (V.
Tinto, T. Angelo, S. Kagan, C. Nelson, B. Millis) and other faculty
development events tied to the theme "On Becoming an Engaged Community of
Learners."
For streaming videos of these speakers, visit CSUDH's
Center for Teaching and Learning website (http://ctl.csudh.edu/SpeakerSeries/Archive.htm).
NSSE findings on the mismatch between student time spent preparing for
class versus faculty expectations for course success suggest that student
time in class must be spent wisely, since interaction with the content may
be minimal outside of class.
Idea #3:
Science, Mathematics, Engineering and Technology (SMET) Research
Work by Eric Mazur (Physics, Harvard), Richard Hake (Physics, Indiana),
Philip Treisman (Mathematics, Berkeley), Leonard Springer (SMET,
Wisconsin-Madison) and others documented powerful effects of
group/interactive instruction on:
-
General academic achievement in SMET.
-
Higher order thinking in SMET.
-
Higher percentage of minority students succeeding in
"gatekeeper" math/science classes.
-
Retention in math-based majors and in college, and other
cognitive and affective measures.
To have long-term effects on student success, courses must
move away from excessive reliance on lecture method and move toward more
interactive instructional procedures See Interactive Lecture article by
Cooper, Robinson and Ball (2000a) at Exchanges website (http://www.exchangesjournal.org/viewpoints/1161_Cooper.html).
Idea #4:
Women's Ways of Knowing Research/Theory/Constructivist Pedagogies
William Perry suggests that most students entering college are dualistic
thinkers who prefer the lecture method to settle complicated conceptual
tasks. The mismatch between professors and students in levels of cognitive
maturity yields a low level of student success. Women's Ways authors Mary
Belenky et al. suggest that preferred methods of knowing/learning for many
students may be cooperative rather than competitive (e.g., grading on
curve), and group/active learning rather than lecture. Lev Vygotsky
indicates students learn best from other students in more proximal stages
of development.
This work suggests less grading on curve, more criterion referenced
grading, less lecture, and more cooperative, group learning.
Idea #5:
Mastery Learning/Keller Plan/Individualized Instruction
Personalized Instruction is a structured approach to teaching in which the
instructor analyses the important skills in a class and creates a learning
environment characterized by mastery learning, where students are required
to demonstrate that they have learned earlier skills before moving on to
more complicated ones. Pascarella and Terenzini (2005) report that this
system of teaching results in a 19-percentile advantage in learning
outcomes when compared to more conventional approaches. Thus, a group of
students taught conventionally who scored in the 50th percentile might be
expected to score in the 69th when taught using a mastery learning
approach. The researchers report an effect size of .41 and .68 (considered
moderate effect sizes) in two meta-analyses conducted on this approach.
The studies suggest that instructors focus on a limited number of "big
ideas," then ensure that students have learned the limited number of
related skills by frequent informal Classroom Assessment Techniques (CATs)
and criterion referenced testing, versus teaching the entire textbook
content and grading on the curve.
Idea #6:
Learning Communities
This idea frequently includes block scheduling of classes and
registration, such that students take the same two or three classes, often
thematically linked. Vincent Tinto reports that Learning Communities have
a statistically significant impact on student persistence to graduation.
Johnson, Johnson and Smith (1998) and others report that such learning
communities result in a sense of "educational citizenship" (a sense of
responsibility for others' learning), greater involvement in classroom
learning, and perception of greater academic achievement.
Pascarella and Terenzini (2005) caution that research on learning
communities is "nascent" and "mixed" when applied to learning outcomes.
The power of learning communities, particularly when combined with
cooperative/collaborative learning, is to foster the kinds of
student/student and student/faculty interaction that Astin finds the
surest predictors of college student success. This idea represents a
promising area for additional research.
Careful planning of both curriculum and pedagogy around a limited number
of central thematic constructs, and pedagogy stressing interactive
learning has great potential to encourage student achievement, persistence
to graduation, educational citizenship, and other cognitive and affective
outcomes.
Idea #7:
Research on Teacher Variables
There has been some good research on the characteristics of effective
teachers. Pascarella and Terenzini (2005) report, "The two most salient
dimensions of teacher behavior in predicting student learning were
instructor skill (particularly clarity of presentation) and course
structure/organization (such as class time structured and efficiently
organized) both of which are learnable skills." Cooper and Cuseo (1988)
asked CSU students, faculty and administrators the teaching behaviors that
characterized their most effective teachers. The number one characteristic
on all three lists was "a clear and detailed syllabus," one way in which
teachers can demonstrate clarity and organization. It is worth noting that
expressiveness/enthusiasm is also strongly correlated with student
success.
Idea #8:
Deep Learning/Critical Thinking/Significant Learning
Research and theory by such researchers as Joanne Kurfiss, Richard Paul,
Dean Fink, Spencer Kagan, Alexander Astin, Richard Hake, Eric Mazur and
Diane Halpern suggest that interactive instruction and
constructivist/feminist pedagogy are correlated with increases in
critical/higher order thinking. Research is hampered by the lack of a
clear definition of constructs (critical thinking/higher order thinking,
etc.).
Regardless of the theorist/researcher, recommendations for practice
include interactive teaching intentionally focused on practice regarding
higher order thinking, particularly involving writing. NSSE research
suggests that many students do little writing in their undergraduate
classes.
Idea #9:
Cognitive Scaffolding
Cognitive scaffolds are forms of support provided by the teacher (or
another student) to help bridge the gap between students' current
abilities and the intended instructional goal. Examples of scaffolds are
such concepts as Anticipate Student Errors, Partial Solutions and Think
Alouds (Cooper, Robinson and Ball, 2003a).
Scaffolds can be inserted in lectures and other instructional formats to
more actively engage learners. For example, after lecturing on independent
and dependent variables, an instructor may give the class a word problem
containing one of each, then say, "In educational research, the
independent variable is usually a student characteristic or school-based
experience, so it seems that the type of reading program is the
independent variable in this problem. The dependent variable is often some
student outcome, so in this problem, it seems to be the reading scores
measured at the end of the school year." Think Alouds provide students
with examples of how experts solve problems, thus modeling higher order
thinking skills, before asking students to demonstrate these skills on
tests and papers. Research suggests that students need many practice
opportunities (10-20 or more) to reach automaticity, or fluency.
Idea #10:
Cooperative/Collaborative/Group Learning
According to Ellis (2001), "Cooperative learning is one of the most
durable, if not the most durable, educational innovations of our time."
Johnson, Johnson and Stanne (2000) reported a large number of studies had
been conducted comparing cooperative approaches with other procedures.
Wilbert McKeachie, in his landmark text McKeachie's Teaching Tips (2006)
notes that "There is a wealth of evidence that peer learning and teaching
is extremely effective for a wide range of goals, content and students of
different levels and personalities." He adds, "The best answer to the
question: What is the most effective method of teaching? is that it
depends on the goal, the student, the content and the teacher. But the
next best answer may be students teaching other students."
Spencer Kagan (2006) noted that there were hundreds of specific
cooperative strategies, ranging from informal Think-Pair-Share procedures
to more formal techniques such as Group Investigation (see Cooper,
Robinson and Ball, 2003b). Many practitioners are moving to informal,
turn-to-a-neighbor methods to alleviate problems such as the
dominator/freeloader effect (wherein one or two people do most of the work
while others do little or nothing for the same group grade) associated
with more formal procedures.
Idea #11:
Classroom Assessments (CATs)/ConcepTests/Quick-Thinks
Brief, active-learning exercises can be inserted in lectures or other
instructional formats to require students to process information
individually and/or collaboratively. Examples of these procedures include
Paraphrase the Idea, Correct the Error and Reorder the Steps. Perhaps the
best-known procedure is the Minute Paper, popularized by Cross and Angelo,
where students are asked to briefly note the most important thing they
learned in the class and what question(s) remain unanswered, usually
completed at the end of a class meeting. The instructor reads these
responses (usually this takes just a few minutes), then addresses any
resulting issues at the start of the next meeting. My colleague Susan
Johnston suggests that faculty review their lecture and other notes and
insert one of these CATs at appropriate intervals (e.g., every 15-20
minutes).
Idea #12:
Cognitive Science/Learning Science Research
This area is perhaps the most exciting recent development in teaching and
learning. Diane Halpern, formerly at CSU San Bernardino (currently at
Claremont McKenna College) is a leader in this field. Perhaps the most
influential recent work in this area is the 2000 book How People Learn:
Brain, Mind, Experience, and School by John Bransford and his colleagues.
Most people can only hold about seven "bits" of memory in short term
memory, the kind we use when an operator tells us a phone number we need
immediately in order to make a call. If we add more information to this
memory, as is often the case in very dense lectures, virtually all
information is lost. We also know that even highly motivated students can
pay attention to technical material only for 10 to 20 minutes. This
finding suggests that we break lectures and other presentations into
manageable amounts of information, frequently inserting scaffolds, CATs
and other active and cooperative strategies into an otherwise passive mode
of processing/storing information.
Idea #13:
Study Groups/Networks/Scholarship of Teaching and Learning
Teachers,
like students, need peer group support. Many find teaching a stressful,
isolating experience but feel that seeking help is a sign of weakness and
may reflect poorly on them in the retention, promotion and tenure process.
One way teachers can receive support is to form brown-bag networks of
colleagues who might meet once or twice a month to discuss issues and
challenges in teaching.
A more formal procedure is to form a group focusing on the Scholarship of
Teaching and Learning (SoTL). SoTL is an attempt to bring the rigor that
faculty apply to their basic research to an examination of their teaching.
Most of the national organizations within each disciplinary area have
Teaching of (Psychology, Physics, etc.) interest groups that may include a
web site. Faculty can network with these groups online or at meetings.
Presentation and publication on the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning
are increasingly being accepted for promotion and tenure in the CSU. Such
groups can develop "scholarly teaching" (teaching informed by
research/theory such as I have described here). Publication/conference
presentation responsibilities, including SoTL work, can be shared with
colleagues to diminish the workload.
For Further Study
Marzano et al. (2001), a meta-analysis of instructional strategies, offers
many ideas worthy of exploration. There are also numerous websites
relating to the topics identified here. For example, the Carnegie
Foundation has one on SoTL. Good websites on group learning are Rich
Felder's at N.C. State and Spencer Kagan's. Evergreen State's website
includes a national resource center for learning communities. Some of
these websites have links to others addressing issues covered here, and
many of the articles and reviews to be found right here in Exchanges offer
valuable information on these same concepts.
The foregoing list of ideas and resources is not inclusive. Service
learning, technology, general education issues, student success courses,
student diversity, and other topics aren't treated, although, for example,
many studies have shown that cooperative learning and other interventions
described above foster appreciation of diversity and other student success
outcomes. On the next page, please note your experience with these and
other issues and how successful you have been in engaging students.
NOTE: Symposium participants at the "Baker's Dozen" presentation
were provided with a reflective exercise handout to note their experience
with these and other issues in engaging students.
Selected References
Astin, A. (1997). What matters in college? Four critical years revisited.
San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Bransford, J. & Brown, A., & Cocking, R. (Eds.). (2000). How people learn:
Brain, mind, experience and school (Expanded ed.). Washington, D.C.:
National Academy Press (National Research Council).
Cooper, J. L., & Cuseo, J. (1988). Behavioral indicators of effective
college teaching: Three perspectives. Paper presented at the meeting of
the Western Psychological Association, San Francisco.
Cooper, J., Robinson, P. & Ball, D. (2003a). The interactive lecture:
Reconciling group and active learning strategies with traditional
instructional formats. Exchanges, the Online Journal of Teaching and
Learning in the CSU. Retrieved from
http://www.exchangesjournal.org/viewpoints/1161_Cooper.html on
December 4, 2006.
Cooper, J., Robinson, P. & Ball, D., (Eds.). (2003b). Small group learning
in higher education: Lessons from the past, visions of the future.
Oklahoma City: New Forums Press.
A compilation of thirty articles first published in the Cooperative
Learning and College Teaching newsletter, plus eight new chapters written
for this volume. Authors include Alexander Astin, David and Roger Johnson,
Barbara Millis, Karl Smith, Vincent Tinto, Spencer Kagan, Susan Prescott
Johnston and other leaders in the higher education community. Contains
both applied and research/theory work.
Cross, P. & Angelo, T. (1993). Classroom assessment techniques: A handbook
for college teachers. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Classic in the field describes a variety of (largely) informal assessment
techniques that make classrooms more engaging and give teachers timely
feedback regarding their performance. See also 1998 updated volume edited
by Angelo: Classroom assessment and research: An update on uses,
approaches, and research findings: New Directions for Teaching and
Learning, No. 75, also from Jossey-Bass.
Ellis, A. (2005). Research on educational innovations (4th ed.).
Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. (1998). Active learning:
Cooperation in the college classroom (2nd ed.). Edina, MN: Interaction
Book Co.
Johnson, D., Johnson, R. & Stanne, M. (2000). Cooperative learning
methods: A meta-analysis. Retrieved from
http://www.co-operation.org/pages/cl-methods.html December 5, 2006.
Kagan, S. (1994). Cooperative learning resources for teachers. San
Clemente, CA: Resources for Teachers.
Marzano, R., Pickering, D., Norford, J., & Paynter, D. (2001). Handbook
for classroom instruction that works. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Book provides a meta-analysis of many studies of instructional strategies,
identifying the most effective ones, then gives very practical examples of
how the strategies can be used in the classroom. Focus is on K-12 work but
implications for college teaching are obvious.
McKeachie, W.J., & Svinicki, M. (2006). McKeachie's teaching tips:
Strategies, research, and theory for college and university teachers (12th
ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
For decades, this has been the classic in the field of college teaching.
All teachers should have this blend of research, theory and practice from
Bill McKeachie, the towering figure in the field.
Pascarella, E. & Terenzini, P. (2005) How college affects
students: A third decade of research (Vol. 2). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
NOTE: Anyone can SUBSCRIBE to the Tomorrows-Professor Mailing List
by going to:
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/tomorrows-professor
|