Evidence-Based Teaching (Session 6, October 6, 2011): INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES

Instructional Strategy / Key Features / Management / Potential Pitfalls / Advantages / Materials, Preparation, …
LECTURES
(Nilson, p.113 – 125) /
  • Intro: set in course context + transition from prior topic + grabber to open (surprise, familiarity, curiosity, suspense)
  • Body: new material focused on major points; vary organization of material from point to point
  • Organizational Outline: skeletal outline [advance organizer] for notes
Visuals
Vivid examples
Restatements of important points
  • Conclusion: recap by Ss; short quiz aids retention
  • Use of S responses during lecture (higher-order Qs!) increases engagement & retention
/
  • May provide lecture in digital/print format as homework in advance of session on the topic, with/instead of reading(s), so class time is more active.
  • Employ enthusiastic, engaging delivery style.
  • Use 2-3 min. pause every 15 min. for pair processing:
Pair – compare
Pair – compare – ask
Recall + (pair – compare)
Reflection/ reaction
Solve a problem
Multiple choice for S response
S pairs create multiple choice quiz item on lecture
(Listen – recall – ask) + (pair – compare) + answer
Pair/group graphic (mind map, etc)
Quick case study response
Pair/group, discuss
Pair/group, review
Correct error (based on lecture content)
Complete sentence starter
Compare/contrast
Support a statement
Reorder steps
Draw conclusion
Paraphrase
7th inning stretch!
  • Integrate note-taking practices:
Review prior notes
Legibility + abbreviations
Annotate for emphasis, importance
Organize
Draw/visually represent concepts
Review soon, 1 wk, 1 month / Lecture format creates challenges to promote deep learning, changed attitudes, critical thinking, transfer.
Steep “forgetting curve.”
Attention span limits: 1st 15 min. followed by falling engagement. / Effective way to convey facts. Use to:
  • Model something Ss will then try
  • Provide background
  • Adapt complex info for specific Ss
  • Present info in a new structure/organization
  • Integrate own pt of view with content
  • Present most current research
  • Pique desire for further learning
/
  1. Determine S learning outcomes
  2. One lecture, one major topic
  3. Avoid too much, too fast
  4. Pause for note taking
  5. Chunk: 10-15 min. interspersed w/ S activity (2 – 15 min)
  6. Plan how to recap overall lecture at end (2 – 5 min)
  7. Instructor’s lecture notes: sketchy
  8. Prepare for student responses (hands, cards, clickers…)
  9. Teach note-taking skills (outlines, Cornell notes, diagrams, parsimony) + Provide skeletal lecture outline for S note-taking

Instructional Strategy / Key Features / Management / Potential Pitfalls / Advantages / Materials, Preparation, …
QUESTIONING for DISCUSSIONS
(Nilson, p. 137 – 144) /
  • Socratic method: questioning prompts taking positions, defending them, adjusting… Instructor as devil’s advocate
  • Working backwards from learner outcomes, ending with Qs that assess key performances
  • Qs based on Bloom’s Taxonomy
  • Typologies (categories, momentum, high-mileage
/
  • Management of Socratic method:
Need to keep the discussion on topic
Avoid intimidating Ss
Spread discussion among many Ss
  • Management of Outcome-based Qs:
Begin discussion with an end-of-class question (establishes the target)
Facilitate note taking in response to planned Qs
  • Management of Bloom-based Qs:
Begin at lower cognitive levels, but not simplistic
Plan Qs that assess Ss’ levels of mastery, correct misconceptions
  • McKeachie’s Categories:
Comparative (key distinctions)
Evaluative (effectiveness)
Connective, causal effect (non-obvious connections & causality; effective for cross-disciplinary)
Critical (analytical look at validity)
  • Brookfield & Preskill’s “Momentum” Qs:
Seeking more evidence (defend a position)
Clarifying Qs (rephrase, elaborate)
Cause & effect: hypothesis formation
Hypothetical (what if?)
Open Qs: no preferred answer!
Linking/extension Qs: connects Ss  Ss.
Summary/synthesis
  • Gale & Andrews’s “High-Mileage” Types
Brainstorming: idea generation (4.3 responses/Q)
Focal Qs: choose a position & support it; basis of debates (4.9 responses/Q)
Playground Qs: very exploratory, interpretive (5.1 responses/Q) / Unstructured Socratic method can be a manage- ment challenge; does not facilitate note taking.
Bloom-based Qs are situation-specific: complex cases require complex interplay among levels of Q; same type of Q may represent different cognitive levels in different contexts
Brainstorming Qs require with-holding judgment
NOT effective:
  • Fuzzy Qs: unfocused, unclear
  • “Chameleon” & “shotgun” Qs
  • Programmed-answer Qs
  • Dead-end Qs: Y/N response
/
  • Promotes rich discussion
  • Integrates use of specialized vocabulary with discipline-based thinking
  • Stimulates critical/ other higher levels of thinking
  • Useful for assessing learning
  • Best discussion-promoting Qs have multiple reasonable answers
NOT good for discussion but possibly for recitation:
  • Analytical convergent: only one correct answer
  • “Quiz show”: factual recall only (though good for review of factual content)
/ Planning Qs to match outcomes:
  1. 1-2 Qs to assess attainment of each outcome performance
  2. For each: 2-3 Qs to lead Ss up to that key Q.
Planning for any type of questioning requires pre-thinking to be able to guide discussion, make best use of assessment opportunities
Have Ss generate Qs on topics in preparation for a test review; use Ss’ Qs on the test.
Instructional Strategy / Key Features / Management / Potential Pitfalls / Advantages / Materials, Preparation, …
LEARNING IN GROUPS
(Nilson, p. 155 – 165) /
  • Instructor is “the guide on the side” rather than “the sage on the stage”
  • Individual accountability + positive group interdependence
  • Role assignment within group
Different collaborative strategies:
  • Think-pair-share
  • Pairs check
  • TAPPS (talking aloud paired problem solving)
  • STAD (student teams achievement divisions): group masters content so any individual can demonstrate success. Creates incentive to perform for the team’s score.
  • Jigsaw (base/home groups + expert grps)
  • Structured controversy
  • Group investigation
  • Numbered heads together (number members of each group; any number can be called on to respond to Qs for the group)
  • Talking chips: method to ensure all are heard.
  • Send a problem (Q on one side, alterna-tive answers on back)
  • Group testing: Individuals take most of a test (receive individual grade), then team collaborates on remainder of test, all members get grade for that section.
/
  • Management for positive interdependence & individual accountability:
Group product that all members must validate [+ individual accountability for assigned contributions]
Group assessment components [caution required here!]
Learning resources allocated to require interaction among group members for learning success
Random assignment of certain roles [may in fact be purposeful on instructor ‘s part but appear random to Ss]
Group members must evaluate each others’ contributions
Allow for ability to change group membership in response to non-performance
Facilitate group “contracting” for expectations and potential sanctions
  • Group composition, size, duration:
Heterogeneous – may be defined on a variety of characteristics
Self-determined long-term groups predisposes to negative outcomes
Group size varies by task; 2 – 5 generally allows best interactions and productivity
Group duration varies by task; better communication is facilitated by group consistency over a number of weeks / Requires that Ss develop individual knowledge and skills as a foundation for meaningful group work.
Group processes of any complexity need to be carefully specified, modeled & monitored.
Might not benefit highly able/ advance learners.
Learning must be enhanced by group participation – the group needs to be “value-added” in the learning.
Grade group work using criterion-referenced tools, not norm-referenced. /
  • Equips and empowers learners to be self-directed, demonstrates confidence in them as such.
  • Potential positive effects in learning, positive interpersonal relationships (including inter-racial), & psychological health. Able to enhance critical thinking.
  • Beneficial for lecture breaks, discussion starters, experiential learning, case debriefing, problem-based learning, lab work, review sessions.
/ Requires high levels of preparation for more than simple pair-share tasks.
Requires explicit attention to social work skills and relationship building.
Build in accountability for group communication (peer editing, feedback, contributions to group processing) using course website – requires monitoring & commenting to ensure accountability is real.
Require S self-assessment of contributions to group project as well as intra-group assessment.
Set and maintain deadlines.
Monitor how group processing impacts others in the learning space (noise level, materials, activity).

Nilson, L.B. (2010). Teaching at its best: A research-based resource for college instructors. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. (Notes by L. Adamson)