Our last Nutshell
noted that students, in general, begin college operating under the concept
that becoming educated involves mainly surface learning, which they
will ideally engage at the level of application. Application provides
a satisfying connection to learning, because it reinforces the relationship
of education to professional practice. Most students believe that they
are in college primarily to become qualified to enter a profession,
but their concept of "qualified" is in its earliest beginnings,
and their ideas about the process of cognitive development over time
bear little resemblance to the actual developmental stages (NN v.8 n.
1-6 http://www.isu.edu/ctl/nutshells/index.html).
When we receive comments such as “Just give us the facts,”
or “Why should I have to learn this? I’ll never use this stuff,”
we need to see such comments for what they are—honest expressions
of the student's operational model about education.
All of us develop neural networks that contain self-generated conceptual models. It seems correct to use these so long as they satisfactorily
explain our experiences. When experiences are
limited, erroneous concepts are rarely challenged. When stabilized by repeated affirmations of peers
with similar experience, these can be so difficult to replace that they persist
over a lifetime. An impressive illustration of the strength of such models can be found in a short documentary film, “A
Private Universe." (This is available at http://www.learner.org/resources/series28.html,
but possibly difficult to view from the ISU campus as result of interruptions
caused by server software—try ISU first, but, if frustrated,
go to an internet coffee shop.) In the film, interviewers at Harvard’s
graduation ceremony asked graduates to explain simple physical phenomena,
such as seasons. Those interviewed responded with fantastic explanations,
typical of those offered by grade-school children. The interviews reveal
that flawed, self-generated models, including those formed by
the minds of the brightest, can resist even a Harvard education (NTLF v. 15 n. 4 pp. 8-11 through http://www.ntlf.com/restricted/).
The "Private Universe" study reveals the challenge faced in
helping students replace their self-generated concepts about thinking
and learning with those that are truly effective. The usual instructional
method, the lecture, is not powerful enough to efficiently replace many self-generated
concepts. However, interactive learning methods are more effective, particularly for students at risk. One of the most definitive
proofs of the power of interaction comes from the work of Richard Hake
(Figure 1).
Hake used standardized tests created by content experts to document
that students who engage in learning difficult and conceptually counter-intuitive
material make twice the learning gains through interactive methods that they make through
traditional lecture-lab. Figure 1 gives us some consolation about the risk of trying such methods: the worst interactive engagement exercises produce results
comparable with the best gains from traditional lectures.
Figure
1 (reproduced by permission—from Hake, 2002 and derived from Hake,
1998a and 1998b). The figure shows clearly the greater gains in learning
physics obtained by using interactive engagement methods for instruction
over traditional lecture instruction. Hake uses several gain terms.
In all, the angle brackets indicate the average obtained from use of
paired pre- or post- tests in the course: (A) %<Gain> is the absolute
(or actual) gain, which is equal to [%<post-test> – %<pre-test>];
(B) %<Gain>max is the maximum possible gain and is equal to [100 - <pre-test>];
(C) The average normalized gain <g> = [average absolute gain]
/ [average maximum possible gain>] The double brackets as in <<g>>48IE
indicate the average normalized gain for 48 interactive classes and
the <<g>>14T indicate the average normalized gain for 14
traditional (dominantly lecture) classes.
Because we cannot change the minds of students most in need of change
through lecture, we might better succeed by using our time to design
interactive learning experiences than in perfecting better lectures.
Interactive experiences help students to confront and to perceive the
limits of their self-generated models, and then to replace flawed concepts
themselves.
So, what about all this makes the first day of class so important? The importance arises
because any class is initially an unknown to students, and the brain
reacts to surprise by starting to form new models that have the strength to grow and to displace flawed models. The concept of learning that many will
bring to our classes carries expectations that they can learn effectively by watching us work at the
board, taking good notes, and memorizing the facts we and textbooks provide. Their concept may even extend to associating a high quality education with scoring well on short-answer examinations.
The first class offers superb opportunity for the surprise needed to replace such models.
We need to address both the affective and cognitive domains at this time. The
importance of the affective domain is frequently discounted, but it is inextricably linked with all content processed by the cognitive domain. Attention
to affective feelings of students is important--affective first impressions
in a class will ultimately influence mastery of content in that class (NTLF v.14, n.1, pp. 9-11 at http://www.ntlf.com/restricted/). Should anyone doubt the power of the affective domain
and the initial class meeting, reflect for a moment on the work of Ambady and
Rosenthal (1993). Their “thin
slices” studies determined that, after watching thirty seconds
of silent, content-free video, students arrived at ratings for teachers
that were highly consistent (r = 0.76) with end-of-semester ratings.
If we can successfully convey positive, informative messages about our expectations on the first day, students can more willingly move beyond surface learning as the course progresses.
In addition to
disclosure of process, the disclosure of content at the start of a course
prompts students to confront preconceptions about
what they will learn and the levels of challenge they must rise to. Good content/challenge disclosure can be provided by a well-written
knowledge survey (http://www.isu.edu/ctl/facultydev/KnowS_files/KnowS.htm),
which offers students opportunity to reflectively and repeatedly engage course content
in detail. Knowledge surveys, like all instruments, can be used ineptly, but when employed skillfully, they furnish much of the structure that is so essential
for permitting under-prepared students to begin to succeed.
One opportunity
for a first class lies in introducing students to the practice of expanding
their own thinking with the aid of one another. For example, in a science
class, an instructor might ask all students to complete the sentence:
“Science is....,” followed by comparing results within small
groups, then summarizing key ideas from the entire class. Inviting students
to explore their present knowledge, right or wrong, and then to revise
and extend that knowledge, conveys that the class is a supportive place
where students and teachers act and think together, rather than a place
where students simply sit, listen, and perhaps worry about failure.
It is usually easy
to construct an initial interactive experience that will engage students
in confronting their ideas about some relevant content through groups
or at least pairs. Initial engagement of material with a group helps
remove fear of failure through the message that students have support
from one another as well as from us. It provides an opportunity for
us to discuss and for students to experience the benefits of learning
in groups. An interactive experience launches engagement by using more
of the brain than would be used if they simply hear lecture. Given the
importance of first encounters, we want students to engage as much of
their brains as possible, so that they more effectively set in place
the relevant neural structure that they can build on.
Obviously,
this newsletter focused on actions we professors can take. The expectation
of student responsibility is the other side of the coin. When students
do not attend class, they cannot benefit from interaction. Delivering
the message that attendance is necessary for success is an instructor
responsibility, but not the sole responsibility of instructors. Efforts
to increase student success demand this be addressed as an institutional
expectation.
REFERENCES
Ambady N. and Rosenthal R. 1993. Half a minute: predicting teacher evaluations from thin slices of nonverbal behavior and physical attractiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, v. 64, pp. 431-441).
Hake, R.R. 1998a. “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. Online at http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~sdi/ajpv3i.pdf.
Hake, R.R. 1998b. “Interactive-Engagement Methods in Introductory
Mechanics Courses.” Online at http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~sdi/IEM-2b.pdf.
Hake, R.R. 2002. “Assessment of Student Learning in Introductory
Science Courses.” 2002 PKAL Roundtable on the Future: Assessment
in the Service of Student Learning, Duke University, March 1-3; updated
on 6/01/02 online at
http://66.7.6.52/template2.cfm?c_id=354.
The Center for Teaching
and Learning will begin a special series of Friday noon - 1:00 workshops
on the theme "Teaching for Student Success" in
Museum Building
432.
Watch for further announcements.
Click here to see New Faculty Orientation Schedule August 15 & 16,
2006!
If
you have new faculty in your units, please avoid causing conflicts for
them by scheduling meetings, etc. on these dates.
