TEACHING STRATEGIES FOR ACTIVE LEARNING
Active Teaching Strategies
[pic]
Baker College
Effective Teaching and Learning Department
© 2005 Baker College
Contact Information
|Effective Teaching and Learning Department |
|Sheri Beattie |Alison Rhoads |
|Director |Training Coordinator |
|Effective Teaching and Learning |Effective Teaching and Learning |
|Baker College |Baker College |
|1050 West Bristol Rd. |1050 West Bristol Rd. |
|Flint, MI 48507 |Flint, MI 48507 |
|Phone: (810) 766-4305 |Phone: (810) 766-4294 |
|Fax: (810) 766-4279 |Fax: (810) 766-4279 |
|sheri@baker.edu |alison.rhoads@baker.edu |
|Contact for training in the following areas: |
|Blackboard |
|PowerPoint for Instructors |
|Teaching Methods |
| |
|See the Effective Teaching and Learning Web site for more information: |
| |
| |
|CIS Computer Trainers |
|Angela Staten |Debra Miller |
|Technology Support & Training Analyst |Technology Support & Training Analyst |
|Baker College |Baker College |
|1050 West Bristol Rd. |1050 West Bristol Rd. |
|Flint, MI 48507 |Flint, MI 48507 |
|Phone: (810) 766-4308 |Phone: (810) 766-4068 |
|Fax: (810) 766-4279 |Fax: (810) 766-4279 |
|angela.staten@baker.edu |deb.miller@baker.edu |
|Contact for training in the following areas: |
|AS400/Carina |
|WebCal |
|Websites |
|Microsoft Office Suite |
|Access |
|Excel |
|Outlook |
|PowerPoint (for staff) |
|Publisher |
|Word |
|See the Computer Training Web site for more information: |
| |
| |
Table of Contents
Student Centered Teaching 2
Lesson Planning 4
Active Teaching Strategies 6
Instructional Delivery for Active Learning 8
Activation 11
Presentation of Information 13
Application 15
Reflection 16
Learner Guidance and Support 18
References 20
Student Centered Teaching
Student centered teaching represents a fundamental shift from the teacher being the center of attention in the classroom to the student as the center of learning. Student centered teaching follows seven principles (Weimer, 2002):
Principle 1: Teachers Do Learning Tasks Less
Students do more of:
• Organizing the content
• Generating the examples
• Asking the questions
• Answering the questions
• Summarizing the discussion
• Solving problems
• Constructing diagrams
Principle 2: Teachers Do Less Telling; Students Do More Discovering
Stop telling students everything and hold them accountable for knowing or asking.
Principle 3: Teachers Do More Design Work
Effective assignments and activities:
• Increase student skills
• Motivate student involvement and participation
• Work that is related to the discipline/real world
• Develop content knowledge, learning skills, and awareness
Principle 4: Faculty Do More Modeling
Demonstrate for students how an expert approaches a learning task.
Principle 5: Faculty Do More to Get Students Learning from and with Each Other
Use collaborative and cooperative groups for learning.
Principle 6: Faculty Work to Create Climates for Learning
Create an environment of student accountability.
Principle 7: Faculty Do More with Feedback
Provide formative feedback separate from evaluation and grading.
The application of these principles can support a shift in the classroom from superficial surface learning to transformative deep learning. Surface learning focuses on the identification, memorization, and recall of facts and surface levels information. Deep learning, in contrast, emphasizes developing the cognitive constructs that link learning with existing knowledge, focuses on the understanding of complex processes of why and how, develops knowledge that is generalizable to other contexts and situations. Surface learning is frequently short term, knowledge gained for the test or class. Deep learning yields long lasting mental constructs.
Another way to look at the contrast between surface and deep learning is Bloom’s Taxonomy (Bloom, 1953). Bloom and his associates define six hierarchical levels for learning outcomes:
Knowledge (Remember): Observation and recall of information (dates, events, places)
Outcome Verbs: list, define, tell, describe, identify, show, label, collect, name
Comprehension (Understand): Understanding information (meanings, predict consequences, order, group, infer causes)
Outcome Verbs: summarize, describe, interpret, contrast, predict, associate, or distinguish
Application (Apply): Use information (solve problems using required skills or knowledge)
Outcome Verbs: apply, demonstrate, calculate, illustrate, solve, or experiment
Analysis (Analyze): Seeing patterns and organization (recognition of hidden meanings)
Outcome Verbs: analyze, explain, classify, select, or infer
Synthesis (Create): Use old ideas to create new ones (relate knowledge from several areas)
Outcome Verbs: combine, integrate, plan, create, design, or generalize
Evaluation (Evaluate): Assess values of ideas (make choices based on supported arguments)
Outcome Verbs: assess, decide, rank, grade, test, recommend, select, explain, or judge
Surface level learning occurs when students do not progress past the first or second level of Bloom’s Taxonomy. Classical teaching of lectures and tests generally does not support the development of student skills past these levels. A student can not learn to apply knowledge without having the opportunity to practice that application.
The Oxford Center for Staff Development (1995) identifies four critical ingredients for deep learning to occur:
Motivational Context: Students should be motivated to learn because they recognize the value in the learning not simply to pass an exam.
Active Learning: Students are actively engaged in learning and the learning experience rather than passive observers.
Interaction with Others: Students have opportunities to explore the learning content through discourse with peers and the teacher.
A Well-Structured Knowledge Base: New learning must be integrated both with itself and connected to what the student already knows and believes.
Lesson Planning
The implementation of student centered instruction and deep learning begins with a standard outline for in-class and out-of-class activities:
In-Class Activities
Class sessions can be structured around 25 minute blocks.
Each class should begin with:
▪ An entry task that explores previous knowledge and correction, assessment, and re-teaching of entry task or in place of an entry task, homework can be reviewed and used to assess student understanding. (15 minutes)
Each class should end with:
▪ Final discussion to summarize entire session and integrate the component parts (5 minutes)
▪ Advanced organizer/preview for next class and readings (5 minutes)
This leaves 3 blocks in a 2 hour class and 7 blocks in a 4 hour class. Depending on course outcomes and content, the instructor will select a combination of blocks of presentation of new material, guided practice, or independent practice as a structure for the class session
Presentation of new material:
▪ Present new material (15 minutes)
▪ Assess student understanding (10 minutes)
Guided practice (group or whole class works together):
▪ Guided practice (20 minutes)
▪ Closure to allow students to reflect on and communicate what they learned (5 minutes)
Independent practice (student works individually):
▪ Independent practice (20 minutes)
▪ Closure to allow students to reflect on and communicate what they learned (5 minutes)
Tests, exams, field trips, student presentations, and other special events deviate from this outline, but this model provides a general structure for the traditional class session. Some class activities might require more than 25 minutes. These can be broken into smaller chunks to maintain instructional variety and insure that students are using reflective practice as they go along rather than just a single reflection at the end of an activity.
Out-of-Class Activities
For every 1 hour of in-class time, students should expect to spend 2-3 hours outside of class on activities such as:
▪ Reading and research
▪ Additional independent or group practice
▪ Reflection and writing
The goal of student centered teaching rests on two methodological pillars: active teaching strategies and cooperative and collaborative learning. This lesson plan outline provides a structure for planning the learning experience, but these instructional methodologies put the meat on the bones of this structure.
Active Teaching Strategies
In its most general sense, a teaching strategy is an instructor’s plan for what he/she will say and do to enable and empower the student to learn. Classical teaching strategies view learning as merely the transmission of information from the teacher to the student. The instructor is the primary source of knowledge, and lecture is the primary form of transferring this knowledge.
Traditional teaching strategies have several limitations. First, lecture is a passive form of teaching. It is rarely as engaging or interesting to the student as it is to the instructor. Lecture can only be effective for low level learning outcomes such as the observation and recall of information. Lecture also focuses on the inputs to learning, which is to say the book or the instructor’s notes, but not on the outcome, which is student learning. To quote Immanuel Kant, “Lecture is the process by which the faculties’ notes become the students’ notes without passing through the heads of either.”
Classical, instructor centered learning does not make sense when one considers what learning is. To quote Bruce Lee, “Learning is definitely not mere imitation, nor is it the ability to accumulate and regurgitate fixed knowledge. Learning is a constant process of discovery, a process without end.” Learning must take place with the student, and thus the student should be the focus of the process, not the instructor.
Classical teaching is also limited because it assumes that all learners are the same and that a single lecture and presentation of information meets the needs of every student. In fact, learners vary widely in terms of personal learning styles, backgrounds, and preexisting knowledge, which makes any single teaching strategy inappropriate for some of the students in your class. Learning is a unique experience for each individual and using a variety of teaching strategies allows you to reach more students.
Classical teaching techniques are limited by an interesting paradox (Stolovitch and Keeps, 2003). There are two types of knowledge, declarative knowledge (knowledge about things…who, what where, when) and procedural knowledge (knowledge about how to do things). Experts have a great deal of procedural knowledge that forms the basis for their expertise. However, when asked to share or teach, experts will almost always attempt to share this procedural knowledge by explaining it in declarative terms. Unfortunately, research has shown that it is very difficult to translate declarative knowledge into procedural knowledge. Procedural knowledge can be best gained by doing.
Two documentaries (Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, 1997) vividly demonstrate the failings of traditional teaching methods to yield long term learning. “Can We Believe Our Eyes?” from the Minds of Our Own series ( ) shows high school and college students unable to light a light bulb using a battery, piece of wire, and bulb. “A Private Universe” ( ) begins with graduates, alumni, and faculty at Harvard and MIT graduation ceremonies unable to correctly explain the cause of the seasons. Clearly, the problems are not simply poor schools or poor students, but a fundamental flaw in the education model.
Active learning requires that students are engaged and active in the learning process. The instructor serves a coach or facilitator, guiding students through activities, but letting the students take control of the learning event itself. In this model, learning becomes a process of discovery like research. To quote Sophocles, “One must learn by doing the thing, for though you think you know it, you have no certainty until you try.”
One way to look at the differences between traditional and active teaching strategies is to compare two strategies for how children learn vocabulary (from Miller and Gildea, quoted in Brown and Duguid, 2000, p. 133):
• Abstract and dictionary definitions: 100-200 words per year
• Everyday conversation: 5,000 words per year
Another example of the difference in learning achievement associated with active learning strategies is a research project from Sinclair Community College (Rowell, 2003). Introductory sociology courses were divided into a control and experimental groups and given a pre and post testing of a series of questions related to data analysis in the social sciences. The courses were taught the same except that the experimental group sections actually performed data analysis. The control sections saw no change from the pre to post test, while the experimental group performance improved from 44.6% of students on the pre-test were able to answer 5 or more questions right out of 9 to 70%.
Hake (2002) surveyed 62 introductory physics courses including 6542 student. Hake’s survey used a pre and post test to assess student learning from these courses. He also collected data on teaching methods used to be able to compare the outcomes of different teaching methodologies. Hake’s findings support that active teaching methods (described as “interactive engagement methods” in his study) generally produce greater student learning and develop stronger problem solving skills than traditional methods.
Active teaching strategies are particularly important to serve the needs of students who traditionally have been academically poor performers. Boylan and Saxon (1999) cite several sources to support their observation that “if traditional teaching methods had worked for these students, they would not be taking remedial courses.” (p. 3). In particular, Boylan and Saxon report that several studies have documented that most poor performing college students have a learning styles preference either for visual or hands-on approaches rather than auditory.
Boylan (2002) cite several other studies that support the value of active learning:
▪ Most effective teaching technique (McKeachie, 2002)
▪ Increases motivation of adult learners (Wlodkowski and Ginsberg, 1995)
▪ Increases student involvement in their own learning (Stahl, Simpson, and Hayes, 1992)
▪ Develops higher level thinking skills (Grubb, 1999)
▪ Increases student and peer evaluations of faculty (Young and Shaw, 1999)
Instructional Delivery for Active Learning
Active learning is most effective when implemented within an instructional delivery framework based on a strong theoretical model of how learning occurs in the classroom. Kolb’s Model of Experiential Learning, derived from Lewin’s model of Action Research, provides one of the foundations for this model:
[pic]
Kolb’s Model of Experiential Learning (Kolb, 1984)
This model of learning follows these steps:
1. Action- The learner performs some type of activity related to the lesson or subject.
2. Reflection- The learner reflects about what they did and what happened as a result of their activity. This can be in one of several forms: free writing, journaling, or small or large group discussions.
3. Knowledge/theory- The learner uses the results of the reflection to develop knowledge and theories, which helps further the learning process because the learner is conceptualizing their own theories, not accepting the theory of the instructor.
4. Planning- Based on the learner’s theories, they plan what to do next and anticipate the results of further activity. This process moves the learner into the higher levels of thinking than merely recall/recite facts or information.
Merrill’s Instructional Phases provide a complementary perspective to Kolb and Lewin by using some of the same underlying instructional ideas and expanding on them in a problem-solving focused manner. A graphical representation of Merrill’s model is below.
[pic]
Merrill’s Instructional Phases (Merrill, In Press)
Merrill’s model utilizes the following steps:
1. Problem-Identify a real-world problem to provide the context for the other phases, ensuring that the issue is at the “problem or task level, not just the operation or action level.” (Molenda, 2002).
2. Activation-Stimulate the student’s prior experience and learning about the situation to build a foundation upon which to base their new knowledge and information.
3. Demonstration-Demonstrate or model the new skill for the learners.
4. Application-Allow the learner to apply the new skills to the problem or situation presented.
5. Integration-Support the learner’s integration of learning into real world activities.
The Kolb and Merrill models can be combined to create a model that shows learning as a cycle of application that leads to reflection, through observation, which leads to experimentation that produces additional application of the material.
[pic]
Instructional Delivery for Active Learning Framework
The Instructional Delivery for Active Learning Framework includes the following five components:
1. Activation: Motivate the learner, stimulate recall of prior learning, and identify the purpose for the learning event
2. Presentation: Provide informational content to support the learning event
3. Application: Allow for an opportunity for the learner to practice and enact the learning that is taking place.
4. Reflection: Allow the learner to articulate concepts and build mental models for later use.
5. Learner guidance and support: Provide feedback and assessment from the practice that the learner can use to improve future performance.
The focus of teaching is helping the student obtain the knowledge that a student cannot learn on her or his own. This is different for each individual because of different learning styles and prior knowledge. The components listed above provide a suggested structure for developing and delivering learner-centered instruction that makes learning a unique experience for each student.
The components of this instructional delivery model address the four requirements for deep learning:
Motivational Context: Activation includes activities to trigger student motivation.
Learner Activity: Application provides a structure for learners to interact with the learning.
Interaction with Others: Learner Support and Reflection provide opportunities for discourse and exchange.
Well-Structured Knowledge Base: Activation, Presentation, and Reflection provide opportunities for organizing the learning and relating it to previous experience.
Below is a more thorough look at each stage of the process along with implementation strategies.
Activation
Activation is the process of preparing the student to learn. It is the first thing that should happen at the beginning of any learning activity or event, or in our case, a class session of some kind. The Activation component shown here addresses the first three of Gagné’s “Nine Events of Instruction” (Gagné, 1985), which are to:
• Gain attention
• Inform learner of objectives
• Stimulate recall of prior learning
A primary objective of this component is to increase student motivation to learn. As you know, you are not responsible for creating the motivation to learn and there are many theories available about the impact of the instructor on student motivation. For our purposes, we will assume that the student has some motivation to learn.
This leads to a discussion of the four conditions that must be met for a student to become motivated (Keller, 1983):
1) Attention: I am interested
2) Relevance: I can use this
3) Confidence: I have a belief I can do it
4) Satisfaction: I will obtain rewards and/or sense of achievement
To address the needs of adult learners, the instructor should:
• Let learners know why something is important to learn
• Show learners how to direct themselves through information
• Relate the topic to learner’s experiences and use examples that the students are familiar with, if possible
• Understand that people will not learn until ready and motivated to do so and that the attitude and enthusiasm of the instructor can impact this motivation, in both positive and negative ways
• Help students overcome inhibitions, behaviors, and beliefs about learning
Imagine two stone carvers. The first explains that she is carving a block of stone. The second explains that she is building a cathedral. Which is more motivated? The same principle operates with students. The student who sees (or is shown) the bigger picture will be more motivated.
“People learn in response to need. When people cannot see the need for what is being taught, they ignore it, reject it, or fail to assimilate it any meaningful way. Conversely, when they have a need, then, if the resources are available, people learn effectively and quickly.” (Brown and Duguid, 2000, p.136).
During the activation phase, the instructor should introduce the learning outcomes and objectives of the activity, describe what the student is to learn, explain how it relates to other material, demonstrate why this is useful to know. These activities are critical to stimulate the necessary motivation for learning to occur. Learning outcomes are critical, as all of other components of a learning activity or event must derive from the outcome(s).
The last aspect of the activation phase is the process of activating or stimulating the student’s existing knowledge on the topic. This may be knowledge from previous courses, personal or professional experience, the previous class session, or from assigned readings. The key is to allow the student to determine their own level of existing knowledge so they can use the learning event as an opportunity to add to their knowledge base.
Several activities can be used as part of the activation stage (see the Activity List for a complete description of each of these activities):
• Three Step Interview
• One Minute Paper
• Background Knowledge Probe
• Write/Pair/Share
• Class Discussion
• Concept or Mind Map
• Questions
• Expository Advanced Organizer
• Comparative Advanced Organizer
Presentation of Information
The presentation of information is the most familiar component of instruction. It is often thought of as the “sage on the stage” model of instruction. Active teaching strategies does not exclude lecture as a significant form for presenting information but rather repositions lecture with a specific function in the learning process. The learner needs to know certain information to achieve the learning outcome, and that knowledge is established through the presentation of information. This stage addresses two of Gagné’s “Nine Events of Instruction” (Gagné, 1985):
• Present the content
• Provide the learning guide
A key component of the content to be presented should be the modeling of how an expert approaches a problem or task related to the outcome. The modeling serves as an important guide for the student as they apply their knowledge in the Application component. Expert modeling is a narrative description that describes how the expert approaches the problem, selects and implements a solution, and assesses the outcome. Some of the issues that should be addressed include (Jonassen and Hernandez-Serrano, 2002):
• What are the goals?
• What are the constraints?
• What features are most important?
• What activities are involved in solution?
• What are the steps in the reasoning?
• What solutions were not chosen?
• Was the outcome fulfilled?
• Were expectations violated?
• What were the lessons learned?
The presentation of content can take many forms including but not limited to:
• Lecture
• Textbook/readings
• Content Centered Active Learning Strategies
Lecture
Effective lecture is where an instructor adds value to the other forms of presentation and provides one or more of the following functions (McKeachie et. al, 1994):
• Provides extra information not covered in readings
• Models and/or demonstrates how an expert does something
• Highlights key points and concepts
• Develops different delivery techniques to meet different learning styles
• Enhances student curiosity and motivation
• Repeats and reinforces critical elements
• Stops after 15 minutes and changes the activity
Lecture should not only be a one-way communication flow from the instructor to the students. It should be integrated with other activities that create accountability for paying attention, enable practice and review, and reinforce the presentation. Apple and Krumsieg (2000), provide some of the following strategies to accomplish this task:
• Give a quiz given at the end of class on the material covered
• Provide a set of critical questions to be processed during the lecture
• Form cooperative lecture teams that are given five minutes to discuss the lecture after every 15 minutes
• Identify a problem which students are to solve based on the material (self-assessment)
• Allow for inquiry time when students can ask questions to illustrate what they know and don’t know.
Textbook/Readings
If lecture is limited to only 15 minutes, how do students get the information they need to know? Reading of the textbook and other reading assignments becomes essential, but too often students either do not do the reading or they do not know how to process the reading. To overcome this problem, students must be held accountable for reading prior to class. The strategies for accomplishing this often parallel those of the lecture. You can:
• Give a quiz given at the start of class on the reading
• Provide a set of critical questions to be processed during the reading
• Form cooperative lecture teams that are given five minutes to discuss the reading at the start of class
• Identify a problem which students are to solve based on the reading (self-assessment)
• Allow for inquiry time at the start of class when students can ask questions to illustrate what they know and don’t know
• Request that students keep a reading journal or log that they bring to class to show they have done the reading
Content Centered Active Learning Strategies
Active learning strategies can be either problem or content based. Problem based strategies focus on applying the concepts being learned to solve a problem or in an application. Content based strategies use an activity for the teaching of the concepts. A variety of cooperative learning or facilitated classroom techniques can be used to stimulate and generate learning in an active fashion that integrates student participation into the presentation. Several activities can be used as part of the presentation of information (see the Activity List for a complete description of each of these activities):
• Jigsaw
• Guided-discovery Learning/Student Research
• Article Abstract
Application
The Application phase allows the students to apply and practice what they are learning. The application should be directly related to the learning outcome. This component addresses one of the most important of Gagné’s “Nine Events of Instruction” (Gagné, 1985):
• Elicit performance (practice)
The application phase can take many forms including, but not limited to, having students work either individually or in groups to write a paper, develop a presentation, work on a project, or perform one or more of the following activities (see the Activity List for a complete description of each of these activities):
• Pass a Problem
• Three Step Interview
• One Minute Paper
• Roundtable
• Class Discussion
• Role Play
• Failure Analysis
• Concept or Mind Map
• Academic Controversies
• Directed Paraphrasing
• Categorizing Grid
• Defining Features Matrix
• Pro and Con Grid
• Analytic Memo
• Contemporary Issues Journal
• Problem Based Learning
• Frame Sentence
• Data Analysis
• Futuring
The activity must match the targeted learning outcome to be effective. An outcome requiring students to demonstrate knowledge will use a different type of activity than an outcome based on students applying that knowledge, and analysis using that knowledge would require yet another type of activity.
Reflection
In order for students to retain what they learn, they must create an explicit mental model by thinking about what they are doing and why they are doing it. This occurs through the process of reflection. This component addresses one of the most important of Gagné’s “Nine Events of Instruction” (Gagné, 1985):
• Enhance retention and transfer
Reflection can be achieved using small group or class discussion, student journals, or a combination of several other methods. Reflection can be open-ended where the student is simply instructed to discuss or write about what they have learned or their experiences. Alternatively, the discussion can be question-driven, where students are given specific questions to address that are ultimately intended to support the learning outcome.
Questions and Discussion to Generate Reflection
The instructor serves as the primary facilitator of discussion and has these responsibilities (adopted from Socratic Teaching (Foundation for Critical Thinking, 2003)):
• Keep discussion focused
• Stimulate the discussion with probing questions
• Summarize periodically what has and what has not been dealt with and/or resolved
• Draw as many students as possible into the discussion
These are some examples of some examples of discussion starters:
• Personal Experience: Ask the students to provide their personal experience using questions such as:
o Based on your experience, what do you feel are the issues?
o Describe an organization/situation/experience that you have had that relates to this.
o How have you been affected by this?
o What do you do/think differently as a result?
• Student Role Play: Assign roles to students such as to develop their own discussion questions, summarize a section of the discussion, present on a particular topic or reading, or provide peer evaluation and feedback.
• Self-Reflection: Ask the students how they have changed individually as a result of the learning event.
Student teams will work at different rates and will not always complete an activity at the same time. Depending on the circumstances, there can be a large variance in the range of time required by teams to complete an activity. The correct use of Critical Thinking Questions can lessen these differences and make it easier for faculty to manage the situation. Directed questions are placed first because they build an information foundation and are the type of question students should be able to answer quickly, preventing teams from going off on errant tangents. The divergent question is placed at the end as an “equalizer” for faster teams who reach this question well ahead of the others. A divergent question can take up a great deal of time (especially with some added facilitation and intervention on the part of the faculty member) allowing other teams time to catch up. Note that all teams may not get as far into their work on the divergent question. It is important, though to reward or acknowledge the efforts of the faster team(s) for their additional work, especially if it is of high quality.
Activities to Generate Reflection
Another approach to facilitate reflection is to make the application a group project. As students work in a group, they have to explain their thinking to their fellow team members. Different size groups yield different effects. For reflection, a group of three creates an inherently unbalanced situation that usually sparks active discussion. Groups of four work well as they enable subdivision into pairs for paired activities.
Several activities can be used as part of the reflection process (see the Activity List for a complete description of each of these activities):
• Three Step Interview
• One Minute Paper
• Write/Pair/Share
• Activity Matrix
• Class Discussion
• Concept or Mind Map
• Questions
• Metacognition
• After Action Review
• Double Entry Journal
• Focused Freewriting
• Open-Ended Journals
• Semi-Structured Journals
• Guided Journals
• Laboratory Notebook
• Contemporary Issues Journal
• Exam Preparation Journal
Learner Guidance and Support
The application component will create a product that serves an assessment role. This will allow both the instructor and the student to assess whether or not the student has achieved the learning outcomes for the module. It also serves a prompt for the student for what aspects of the learning they have not mastered.
Learner guidance and support include activities that assist the learner in overcoming roadblocks and in learning from their experiences. This component addresses the final two of Gagné’s “Nine Events of Instruction” (Gagné, 1985):
• Provide feedback
• Assess final performance
Feedback works best the instructor can observe students as they work and provide just in time assistance as needed. This is another reason why it is important to not dominate the class with lecture. Feedback can include constructive suggestions on how to improve performance, provide encouragement, and/or provide scaffolding to assist the learner.
Scaffolding includes hints, tips, and suggestions to assist the student without doing the thinking for the student. In some instances, the instructor and the student might use cooperative problem solving to solve a problem as a team. This support increases the student’s confidence and models expert behavior.
A related form of learner support is sequencing. The instructor can provide several activities in increasing order of difficulty and/or decreasing scaffolding allows students to build confidence and skill. For example, an initial problem can be demonstrated by the instructor, a second solved by the class as a whole, and a third in small groups before a student works on a fourth problem individually.
Feedback should more appropriately be thought as “feedforward” (Goldsmith, 2004), because the purpose is to improve future student performance. This forward looking context is important for establishing a positive environment oriented towards learning and progress. Some general suggestions for providing feedback include (Bean, 1996):
• Focus first on the higher-order issues such as ideas and organization of a paper before worrying about lower-level concerns such as sentence structure and format.
• Take every opportunity to make compliments and point out student successes.
• Provide an end comment that both praises the good points and makes specific suggestions for future improvement.
Feedback can also be provided using peers. This increases student learning and shifts some of the load away from the instructor. Several activities can be used to provide learner guidance and support stage (see the Activity List for a complete description of each of these activities):
• Three Step Interview
• One Minute Paper
• Background Knowledge Probe
• Write/Pair/Share
• Visible Quiz
• Concept Review
• Class Discussion
• Questions
• Directed Paraphrasing
• Pairs Check
• Quiz Show
Assessment should be embedded into the application component, but it is also a critical dimension of learner support and guidance. Assessment is a measurement of how well the goal of an output is being met. The instructor formally and/or informally evaluates students’ achievement of the learning objectives and identifies areas that need more work. Learners need frequent and clear assessment related feedback, especially in the early stages of a class. This feedback helps them feel connected to the class and more confident in their abilities.
References
Anderson, L.W. and Krathwohl (Eds.). (2001). A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. New York: Longman.
Angelo, T. A. and Cross, K. P. (1993) Classroom Assessment Techniques: A Handbook for College Teachers. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Apple, D., Duncan-Hewitt, W., Krumsieg, K. and Mount, D. (2000). Handbook on Cooperative Learning. Corvallis, OR: Pacific Crest.
Apple, D. K. and Krumsieg, K. (2001). Curriculum Design Handbook. Lisle, IL: Pacific Crest.
Bacon, D., Stewart, K., and Silver, W. (1999). Lessons from the Best and Worst Student Team Experiences: How a Teacher Can Make the Difference. Journal of Management Education, 23(5), 467-488.
Bean, J. C. (1996). Engaging Ideas. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bloom, B.S., Engelhart, M.D., Furst, E.J., Hill, W.H., and Krathwohl, D.R. (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals. Handbook 1: Cognitive Domain. New York, David McKary.
Boylan, H. R. and Saxon, D. P. (1999). Outcomes of Remediation. Prepared for The League for Innovation in the Community College. Retrieved from the World Wide Web: .
Boylan, H. R. (2002). What Works: Research-Based Best Practices in Developmental Education. Boone, NC: Continuous Quality Improvement Network with the National Center for Developmental Education.
Brown, J. S. and Duguid, P. (2000). The Social Life of Information. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Press.
Change Management Monitor. (2004). Scenarios and Futuring. Retrieved January 20, 2004 from the World Wide Web: .
Department of the Army. (1993). A Leaders Guide To After Action Review (TC 25-20).
Dick, W., Carey, L., and Carey, J. (2000). The Systematic Design of Instruction (3rd edition). Glenview, IL: Addison Wesley Publishing
Duch, B. (2001). Writing Problems for Deeper Understanding. In B. Duch, S. Groh, and D. Allen (Eds.). The Power of Problem-Based Learning (pp. 47-58). Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Endres, C. (2003). Generic Question Stems. Retrieved December 30, 2003 from the World Wide Web: .
Felder, R. and Brent, R. (2004). Navigating the Bumpy Road to Student-Centered Instruction Retrieved January 21, 2003 from the World Wide Web: .
Field-Tested Learning Assessment Guide. (2004). Concept Mapping. Retrieved January 20, 2004 from the World Wide Web: .
Friere, P. (1970). The Pedagogoy of the Oppressed. New York, NY: Continuum.
Foundation for Critical Thinking. (2003) Socratic Teaching. Retrieved March 11, 2003 from the World Wide Web: .
Gagne, R. (1985). The Conditions of Learning and Theory of Instruction (4th Ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Gagne, R., Briggs, L., and Wager, W. (1992). Principles of Instructional Design (4th edition). New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Goldsmith, M. (2004). Leave It at the Stream. Fast Company, May 2004, 103.
Grubb, N. and Associates. (1999). Honored but invisible: An inside look at community college teaching. New York: Routledge.
Hake, R. (2002). Lessons from the physics education reform effort. Conservation Ecology 5(2): 28. Online: .
Hale, S. (2004). Concept Mapping. Retrieved January 20, 2004 from the World Wide Web: .
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. (1997) Can We Believe Our Eyes? Retrieved January 8, 2004 from the World Wide Web: .
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. (1997) A Private Universe. Retrieved January 8, 2004 from the World Wide Web: .
Johnson, D. and Johnson, F. (1994). Joining Together: Group Theory and Group Skills. 5th Edition. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Johnson, D. and Johnson, R. (1994). Structuring Academic Controversy. In S. Sharan (Ed.). Handbook of Cooperative Learning Methods (pp. 66-81). West Port, CT: Praeger.
Jonassen, D. (2000). Toward a Design Theory of Problem Solving. Educational Technology and Research and Development, 48(4), 63-85.
Jonassen, D. and Hernandez-Serrano, J. (2002). Case-based Reasoning and Instructional Design: Using Stories to Support Pproblem Solving. Educational Technology and Research and Development, 50(2), 65-77.
Kagan, S. and Kagan, M. (1994). The Structural Approach: Six Keys to Cooperative Learning. In S. Sharan (Ed.). Handbook of Cooperative Learning Methods (pp. 115-136). West Port, CT: Praeger.
Keller, J. M., (1983). Development and Use of the ARCS Model of Motivational Design (Report No. IR 014 039). Enschede, Netherlands: Twente Univ. of Technology. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 313 001).
King, A. (1995). Guided peer questioning: A cooperative learning approach to critical thinking. Cooperative learning and college teaching, 5(2), pp. 15-19.
Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Kruse, K., Keil, J. (2000). Technology-based Training. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer.
Lanzig, J. (1997). The Concept Mapping Homepage. Retrieved January 20, 2004 from the World Wide Web: .
Lave, J. and Wegner, E. (1991). Situated Learning, Legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Mager, R. (1997). Preparing Instructional Objectives: A Critical Tool in the Development of Effective Instruction (3rd edition). Atlanta, GA: Center for Effective Performance.
McKeachie, W.J. (2002). Teaching tips: Strategies, research, and theory for college and university professors. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
McKeachie, W., Chism, N., Mengies R., Svinicki, M. and Weinstein, C. (1994). Teaching Tips: Strategies, Research and Theory for College and University Teachers (9th ed.). Lexington, Massachusetts: Heath and Company.
Merrill, D. M. (1997). Instructional Strategies that Teach. CBT Solutions, November/December, 1-11.
Merrill, M. D. (In press). First Principles of Instruction. Educational Technology and Research and Development.
Millis, B. and Cottell, P. 1998. Cooperative Learning for Higher Education Faculty. Westport, Connecticut: Oryx Press.
Millis, B. and Cottell, P. 2003. Cooperative Learning for Higher Education Faculty. The Art and Craft of Teaching, 23rd Annual Lilly Conference on College Teaching, Oxford, Ohio, November 20-23.
Nadkarni, S. (2003). Instructional Methods and Mental Models of Students: An Empirical Investigation. Academy of Learning and Education, 2(4), 335-351.
Oxford Center for Staff Development. (1995). Going Deep. The National Teaching and Learning Forum, 5(1), 4.
Reiser, R. (2001). A History of Instructional Design and Technology: Part II: A History of Instructional Design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(2), 57-67.
Rowell, Katherine. (2003). Integrating Data Analysis Early into the Curriculum. The Art and Craft of Teaching, 23rd Annual Lilly Conference on College Teaching, Oxford, Ohio, November 20-23.
Springer, L., Stanne, M.E., and Donovan, S. 1999. Effects of small-group learning on undergraduates in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 69(1) 21-52.
Stahl, N., Simpson, M., and Hayes, C. (1992). Ten recommendations from research for teaching high-risk students. Journal of Developmental Education, 16(1), 2-10.
Stolovitch, Harold and Keeps, Erica. (2003). Telling Ain’t Training. Alexandria, VA: American Society for Training and Development.
Twigg, C. (2004). Using Asynchronous Learning in Redesign: Reaching and Retaining the At-Risk Student. Journal of the Asynchronous Learning Network, 8(1), 7-15.
University of North Carolina. (2003). Developing Lesson Plans. Retrieved January 19, 2004 from the World Wide Web: plans.html.
University of St. Thomas. (2004). Concept- or Mind-Mapping for Learning. Retrieved January 20, 2004 from the World Wide Web: .
Weimer, M. (2002). Learner-Centered Teaching. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Wlodkowski, R. and Ginsberg, M.B. (1995). Diversity and motivation: Culturally responsive teaching. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Young, S. and Shaw, D.G. (1999) Profiles of effective college and university teachers. Journal of Higher Education, 70(6), 670-686.
-----------------------
PLANNING
KNOWLEDGE/
THEORY
REFLECTION
ACTION
PROBLEM
INTEGRATION
ACTIVATION
APPLICATION
DEMONSTRATION
ACTIVATION
PRESENTATION
REFLECTION
APPLICATION
OBSERVATION
EXPERIMENTATION
INTEGRATION
LEARNER GUIDANCE
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related download
- 30 more strategies for teaching esol students 30
- high impact teaching strategies
- effective science teaching strategies
- an inventory of teaching strategies
- this list of teaching strategies and activities was
- strategies for effective teaching
- instructional strategies alberta
- instructional strategies list washoe county school
- instructional strategies for culturally and linguistically
- lesson plan outline tusculum university
Related searches
- teaching strategies for health education
- teaching strategies for adult learners
- teaching strategies for reading
- best teaching strategies for math
- teaching strategies for phonemic awareness
- teaching strategies for diverse learners
- esl teaching strategies for kids
- teaching strategies for esl teachers
- teaching strategies for research
- teaching strategies for online learning
- active teaching strategies for nursing
- teaching strategies for active learning