Class Session 5: Teaching Methodologies, Part II: Active Learning: Why and How

Janet Rankin provides feedback on the importance of measurable learning outcomes in educational settings, emphasizing the need for specificity and realism. She discusses the challenges of using words like 'appreciate' and 'discuss' in learning outcomes, advocating for clear venues for student discussions. Rankin also highlights the difference between memorization and true understanding, encouraging the use of alternate realities in teaching to promote genuine comprehension. She introduces the concept of active learning and its benefits, such as increased student engagement and deeper understanding, and mentions the use of technology like Back Channel to enhance classroom interaction.

The script addresses common issues such as student disengagement and the timing of lectures, suggesting active learning as a solution to keep students alert and involved. It discusses strategies like pair activities and lightning rounds to maintain student interest. The role of guiding readings and just-in-time teaching is also explored, with the aim of directing student focus and ensuring they are prepared for class discussions. The script humorously illustrates the ineffectiveness of traditional lecturing by comparing it to teaching juggling with an equation instead of showing the actual skill.

A mock debate is set up among students regarding the implementation of active learning in a hypothetical STEM department. Group one argues in favor of active learning, citing its ability to enhance student engagement, develop life skills, and improve retention of information. Group two opposes the idea, questioning the necessity of change, the financial implications, and the potential resistance from faculty and stakeholders. Group three, the deciders, listen to both sides and prepare to make a decision on the proposal.

The debate continues with group one advocating for active learning, emphasizing its effectiveness in improving student learning outcomes and retention. They argue that traditional lecturing methods may not be as effective in engaging all students. Group two counters by questioning the need for change, highlighting the potential financial burden, and the challenges of retraining professors. They also express concerns about stakeholder acceptance and the feasibility of implementing active learning in large classes.

The deciders ask questions of both groups to clarify their positions and understand the practical application of active learning in large classes. They question the effectiveness of active learning for all students and the potential impact on the curriculum. The debate touches on the importance of student engagement, the potential for peer learning, and the challenges of measuring the success of active learning initiatives.

After deliberation, the deciders propose a compromise, suggesting the allocation of funds for a pilot program to test the effectiveness of active learning. They express concerns about the aggressive timeline and the high costs associated with the full implementation of the proposal. The decision reflects a willingness to explore active learning's benefits while acknowledging the need for measured and evidence-based changes to educational practices.

Janet Rankin debriefs the active learning exercise, highlighting its value in deepening understanding and encouraging students to engage with different viewpoints. She emphasizes the importance of formative assessments and the role of active learning techniques in providing both students and teachers with valuable feedback on learning progress. The discussion also touches on the cultural aspects of active learning and how it is perceived and implemented in different educational systems.

The script delves into various active learning techniques, such as the beach ball technique for sharing experiences, and the use of wait time and music to encourage reflection. It discusses the importance of questioning and the use of technology like clickers and plickers for soliciting feedback and addressing misconceptions. The need for timing and the potential biases introduced by technological requirements are also considered.

The script focuses on the persistence of misconceptions in traditional lecture settings and the role of active learning in addressing them. It describes the use of plickers for gauging student understanding and the importance of creating focused questions with effective distractors. The session includes a live demonstration using plickers to correct misconceptions about active learning and to illustrate the immediate feedback and engagement provided by these techniques.

Janet introduces the lightning round as an active learning exercise, where students engage in rapid-fire discussions about a question related to global temperature change. The exercise promotes peer-to-peer learning, ensures participation, and allows students to explore diverse perspectives. The summary highlights the benefits of this method, such as reduced intimidation, increased engagement, and the opportunity for students to refine their understanding through discussion.

The script presents the think, pair, share method, combining it with a clicker question about sound waves and block thickness. Students discuss their initial choices and vote again after the discussion, providing insights into their thought processes. Janet emphasizes the importance of understanding students' misconceptions and adjusting teaching methods accordingly. The technique is praised for its effectiveness in revealing and addressing faulty mental models.

Janet concludes the session by assigning students to consider which active learning techniques they might adopt in their own teaching. She encourages them to think about the adaptation of these techniques and to anticipate potential issues. The session wraps up with the offer of additional resources, including slides and a list of techniques from the University of South Florida, and the collection of plickers.