Articles by Maryellen Weimer

08:31:2010

To Improve Students’ Problem Solving Skills Add Group Work to the Equation

Problem solving is “what you do when you don’t know what to do.”

What a simple, straightforward definition for something often defined in much more complex ways. But problem solving doesn’t always mean the same thing. It might be the solution to a specific problem, like those that appear on math quizzes, or it might be a collection of possibilities that respond to a complex open-ended problem. But however it’s defined, problem solving is one of those skills all teachers aspire to have their students develop.

Understanding how problem-solving abilities develop is not easy, and measuring their development is even more complex. As a result, much of the research involves analysis of learners solving “knowledge-lean, closed problems that do not require any specific content knowledge to solve and that have a specific path to the answer.” (p. 866)

What this means is that “while we know a great deal about the problem-solving process in an abstract environment, we do not in fact have much insight into how students solve many types of scientific problems.” (p. 866) Not having this knowledge makes it pretty difficult to address problems that students may have as they work to solve more complex problems, like those included in an introductory chemistry course, for example.

But technology can help with the understanding of how students solve these more complex problems. The research reported in this article uses a software system that allows teachers to “track students’ movement through a problem and model their progress as they perform multiple problems.” (p. 867) The software uses case-based problems, for example, a chemistry case in which the student must identify an unknown compound based on physical and chemical tests that the student requests. There are “literally thousands” (p. 867) of possible paths that a student can take through this problem, according to the article, and the software can aggregate similar performances. Previous research has documented that the problem-solving ability of a typical student will not improve after he or she has completed about five problems using this software.

Given what other research has documented about the effectiveness of working collaboratively in groups on problems, this research team wanted to explore a “tantalizing” (p. 869) possibility: that collaborative groups might be effective in promoting the further development of problem-solving abilities. If groups were effective, would that benefit be retained when students went back to solving problems on their own? To answer those questions and another on how the nature of the group might affect the group’s effectiveness, researchers had students “stabilize” by working five problems individually; they then did five more problems collaboratively in pairs, and finally they did another five problems on their own.

Results? “Even individuals who had been given time to stabilize on a strategy adopted different strategies after solving problems in collaborative groups.” Better yet, after working with a partner, “a higher percentage of students adopted more successful strategies.” (p. 869) Based on data manipulation made possible with the software program, researchers conclude that most students improved by about 10 percent.

But that wasn’t all. Researchers grouped students according to their scores on a Group Assessment of Logical Thinking test. This instrument places students in one of three groups (based on Piaget’s theories of intellectual development) according to their level of thinking. About 50 percent of first-year college students are in the highest level. The collaborative pairs used in this research combined students from the same level for some of the pairs and students from different levels in other pairs. When a student in the lowest level was partnered with a student in the middle or high level, the lowest-level student had gains equal to those in all the other groups, “indicating that if they are paired with a student who can explain the problem and discuss it with them, they can improve their problem-solving performance significantly.” (p. 870) Interestingly, when students from the middle level were paired with those from the lower level, the middle-level students also became more proficient problem solvers.

Conclusion? “Using over 100,000 performances by 713 students on a problem, we have shown that we can improve student problem solving by having students work collaboratively in groups. These improvements are retained after grouping and provide further evidence of the positive effects of having students work in groups.” (p. 871)

Reference: Cooper, M. M., Cox Jr., C. T., Nammouz, M., Case, E., and Stevens, R. (2008). An assessment of the effect of collaborative groups on students’ problem-solving strategies and abilities. Journal of Chemical Education, 85 (6), 866-872.

Excerpted from Do Problem-Solving Abilities Develop in Groups?, The Teaching Professor, Volume 23, Number 4.

08:26:2010

Encouraging Substantive Discussion of Course Content by Getting Personal

“Why are teachers afraid of sentences that begin with ‘I feel’ or that draw on personal experience?” Margaret Mott asks, repeating a question she read in an essay early in her career.

Most faculty don’t encourage students to use personal experience because it is seen as too subjective and without much intellectual substance. Mott has students in her political theory course write three personal essays. Her motivation derives partly from the need to “displace the preponderance of passivity I find in their essays.” (p. 207) Not only does the academy object to the personal, but students themselves have been trained to stay out of their writing. “High school students know from experience that the more they talk about themselves, the more will be taken away.” (p. 207)

Mott’s carefully designed writing assignments creatively weave the first-person voice and personal experience into explorations of the political theorists being read in the course. Here’s her second five-page essay assignment:

“Begin by describing a situation in which you felt at odds with a professional (a doctor, a lawyer, a therapist, a teacher, a social worker). Show us (don’t tell us) how your experience of the event differed from that of the professional. Let the details of the story convey all the confusions of this experience. Stop and breathe. In the subsequent section, use one or two passages from Montaigne to analyze this experience, to unpack the confusion, and to lay out the terms of power. Finally, what did you learn about yourself as a result of this essay? (p. 209)

“The beauty of this method is that it allows a layering of experience, first descriptive, and then analytical, so that the writer becomes both participant and judge. First the writer explores the fullness of experience and then she reflects back on it using theory.” (p. 209) All three of Mott’s essay assignments are designed so that students cannot write about just their feelings or personal experiences. The personal writing becomes a vehicle for substantive discussion of course content. The article contains excerpts from student essays, and these show how effectively this approach enables students to confront personal experience with political theories that can explain more deeply or challenge what they may have come to believe about those experiences.

This article is not particularly easy reading, as Mott describes the writing assignments in terms of very specific discipline-based content. What the article does show clearly is how powerful carefully designed writing explorations like these can be. They allow students to take what they know and what they have experienced and hold that knowledge against a light that significantly illuminates their understanding.

Reference: Mott, M. (2008). Passing our lives through the fire of thought: The personal essay in the political theory classroom. PS, Political Science and Politics, 41 (1), 207-211.

Excerpted from Use Personal Essay Assignments to Encourage Substantive Discussion of Course Content, The Teaching Professor, vol. 23, no. 3.

08:20:2010

Preparing Teaching Philosophy Statements

Although they are a fairly recent innovation, most faculty are familiar with teaching philosophy statements. Many have prepared them for job interviews, for promotion and tenure dossiers, for teaching awards, or for personal benefit.

Teaching philosophy statements are narrative descriptions of “one’s conception of teaching, including the rationale for one’s teaching methods. It is seen as a place to voice holistic views of the teaching process, including one’s thoughts about the definitions and interaction between learning and teaching, perceptions of the teacher’s and student’s roles, and the goals and values of education.” (p. 100)

Preparing a teaching philosophy statement can effectively promote the ongoing growth and development of teachers. Authors Beatty, Leigh, and Dean (reference below) explain why. “The process of reflection required to create and periodically revise a statement is as important as, and sometimes more important than, the actual content of the end-product statement.” (p. 100) Some of that growth benefit is lost when teaching philosophy statements are prepared for a venue in which the teacher is being judged. Then there is motivation to prepare a “correct” or “impressive” statement as opposed to one truly reflective of what the teacher believes. However, that is not the concern of these authors.

They are concerned that “philosophy” is often left out of these statements or is described with widely used buzzwords that faculty assume everyone defines the same way. Even though a teaching philosophy statement is a very personal expression reflecting a teacher’s identity, these statements do share common origins. “The building blocks for these personal statements are drawn from the lexicon of basic educational philosophies, which are shared among the community of teachers.” (p. 105)

In the first of two articles by these authors, five philosophies of education are succinctly and clearly highlighted: idealism, realism, pragmatism, existentialism, and critical theory. The review shows with concrete examples how these various philosophies result in very different beliefs and approaches to education. In the second article, the authors propose a card-sorting activity that faculty can use to start seeing how their beliefs about education connect with these fundamental philosophies of education. A set of cards for the exercise can be obtained online—a Web address is included in the article. The exercise can be completed by an individual or a small group, or in a workshop setting.

The authors note there is a benefit of doing the activity with others, because the process of verbalizing beliefs and hearing others do the same often makes those beliefs and their implications more clearly understood. And there is another benefit: “When each faculty member makes his or her teaching philosophy statement available for public discussion, it becomes possible to examine common ground and differences in philosophy across faculty in a department or college or across institutions.” (p. 112) These exchanges do need to occur in a climate of open inquiry. The objective is not to prefer one philosophy over another or attempt to convert those holding one set of views to another. “Because one’s teaching philosophy is such a core element of one’s identity as a teacher, direct criticism of one’s teaching philosophy is akin to a direct assault on the self and will shut down any kind of learning dialogue.” (p. 112)

With a philosophy in hand, the next step is to look at the alignment between these expressed beliefs and the teaching practices that occur in the classroom. The authors suggest that the course syllabus is the best place to look for this alignment. “Choices about assignments and projects, testing, and classroom dynamics should ideally be consistent with elements of one’s teaching philosophy. Philosophical views come into play as teachers cope with cases of academic dishonesty, imploding student teams, critical classroom incidents, and negative feedback on their teaching.” (p. 111)

Both of these articles show how preparing and regularly revising teaching philosophy statements provide important growth opportunities for teachers. They describe a process that can make preparing such a statement a challenging and rewarding intellectual endeavor, a process that puts the philosophy back into teaching philosophy statements. Both articles are another great illustration of really outstanding pedagogical scholarship done within the boundaries of a discipline but with relevance to every discipline. They are two of the most thought-provoking, informative, and useful articles I have read on teaching philosophy statements.

References:
Beatty, J. E., Leigh, J. S. A., and Dean, K. L. (2009). Philosophy rediscovered: Exploring the connections between teaching philosophies, educational philosophies, and philosophy. Journal of Management Education, 33 (1), 99-114.

Beatty, J. E., Leigh, J. S. A., and Dean, K. L. (2009). Finding our roots: An exercise for creating a personal teaching philosophy statement. Journal of Management Education, 33 (1), 115-130.

Reprinted from The Teaching Professor, June-July 2009.

08:13:2010

Guidelines for Effective Classroom Observations

A second edition of Nancy Chism’s Peer Review of Teaching is, in my opinion, the definitive resource on peer review. Besides providing excellent summaries of relevant research and translating those findings into concrete guidelines, the book is packed with resources including checklists, review questions, and instruments relevant to the assessment of multiple aspects of teaching from course materials to classroom instruction (be it in a lab, studio, clinical setting, or online) to advising to course and teaching portfolios.

Here’s a condensed version of the seven “overall guidelines” she offers for classroom observation by peers.

1. “It cannot be assumed that peer reviewers are skilled classroom observers.” (p. 99) Faculty need to be trained for the task. If they are, the reliability of their observations increases.

2. “A single classroom observation by one rater is not a reliable indicator of teaching quality.” (p. 99) How many observations are needed? Some researchers recommend three; others, two different reviewers each doing two observations; still others, three or four reviewers observing between eight and 10 of the instructor’s classes.

3. Pre-observation information is needed to provide context for what is to be observed. Observers need details about the course, the instructor, and the students.

4. When in class, the observation needs to be focused. Checklists are a great way of helping the observer look at specific aspects of the instruction. Questions and other more general guidelines can be used. Multiple exams are included in the book.

5. “The observer should try to be as unobtrusive as possible.” (p. 99) This means the peer is an observer, not a participant in the class. Once the observer starts participating, the focus is no longer exclusively on observing the teaching and students’ responses to it. Moreover, those observer contributions affect responses of both the teacher and the students.

6. Observing for a substantial amount of time is necessary. If the class is an hour long, peers should observe for the entire hour. It takes time for the instructor and the class to relax and move into teaching behaviors that are typical.

7. Notes, forms, or letters should be completed promptly after the observation. The information gleaned from being in the class remains fresh for a limited amount of time. Details become increasingly difficult to remember when time lapses between observation and preparation of the feedback.

Reference: Chism, N.V.N. (2007). Peer Review of Teaching: A Sourcebook. 2nd Ed. Bolton, Mass.: Anker. Note: Anker Publishing now belongs to Jossey-Bass.

Excerpted from Classroom Observation: Guidelines, The Teaching Professor, May 2008.

07:30:2010

What it Means to be a Self-Regulated Learner

“Self-regulation is not a mental ability or an academic performance skill; rather it is the self-directive process by which learners transform their mental abilities into academic skills.” (p. 65) That definition is offered by Barry Zimmerman, one of the foremost researchers on self-regulated learning. It appears in a succinct five-page article that offers a very readable overview of research in this area.

Three research findings are highlighted. First, “self-regulation of learning involves more than detailed knowledge of a skill; it involves the self-awareness, self-motivation, and behavioral skill to implement that knowledge appropriately.” (p. 66)

The point here is that large differences have been observed between the way novices and experts view their learning. Novices rely on feedback from others; they compare their performances with those of others. They fail to set goals or monitor their learning. They frequently attribute failure to deficiencies that can’t be remedied. “I’m just not smart enough.” Expert learners manage their learning at every stage. They recognize when they have failed but then focus on how they can fix what went wrong.

Second, self-regulation is not a trait that some students have and others do not. Rather, “it involves the selective use of specific processes that must be personally adapted to each learning task.” (p. 66) It’s about setting goals, selecting strategies to attain those goals, monitoring progress, restructuring if the goals are not being met, using time efficiently, self-evaluating the methods selected, and adapting future methods based on what was learned this time through.

Finally, there is a relationship between self-regulation and “perceived efficacy and intrinsic interest.” (p. 66) Learners have to believe they can learn, whatever the task before them, and they need to be motivated. “With such diverse skills as chess, sports, and music, the quantity of an individual’s studying and practicing is a strong predictor of his or her level of expertise.” (p. 66) One notable finding from research: the actual process of self-regulating can be a source of motivation, even for those tasks that may not be motivating themselves.

The article identifies three times when self-regulation aids the learning process. First, before the learning task is tackled, the learner should analyze the task, set goals, and develop a plan of approach. Obviously, beliefs about the self as a learner influence decisions made at this stage.

Second, learners need to self-regulate as they do the learning (or perform the task). They need to deploy specific learning strategies or methods and then observe how well those strategies and methods are working.

Finally, they need to self-reflect after completion of the learning task. This involves self-evaluation and “causal attribution,” which refers to beliefs about what caused the outcome. If a student has done poorly on a math exam and attributes the score to an inability to learn math, that attribution damages motivation, whereas attributing the score to misuse of particular equations means there’s a chance the student can fix the problem. Reflection after the fact also includes whether the learner is satisfied with the performance—that too impacts subsequent motivation.

Despite the power of self-regulation to motivate learners and to increase their success, “few teachers effectively prepare students to learn on their own. Students are seldom given a choice regarding academic tasks to pursue, methods for carrying out complex assignments, or study partners. Few teachers encourage students to establish specific goals for their academic work or estimate their competence on new tasks.” (p. 69) Zimmerman goes on to point out that most teachers don’t give students opportunities to self-assess their work and most do not explore student beliefs about themselves as learners.

Reference: Zimmerman, B.J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory Into Practice, 41 (2), 64-70.

Reprinted from The Teaching Professor, May 2009.

07:20:2010

Student Learning: Six Causes of Resistance

A lot of students just don’t seem all that interested in learning. Most faculty work hard to help students find that missing motivation. They try a wide range of active learning strategies, and those approaches are successful with a lot of students but not all students.

Stephen Brookfield writes about students who are beyond being passive about learning—they just plain resist it. He suggests that teachers can’t respond successfully unless they are knowledgeable about the sources of resistance to learning. Here’s a sample of possibilities that appear in his book The Skillful Teacher.

Poor self-image as learners—If students don’t think they can learn, they often resist efforts that seek to make them learn. These are students who, at the first hint of trouble, abandon even fledgling efforts. Any negative feedback just confirms what they already believe: they aren’t smart enough; they will never be able to figure it out. “Developing a strong self-image as a learner—regarding oneself as someone able to acquire new skills, knowledge, behaviors, and insights—is a crucial psychological underpinning to learning.” (p. 217)
Fear of the unknown—Some students resist learning because they are afraid. Students like doing what they already know. They hold on to beliefs that have served them well, especially those passed on from parents. “People committed to eternal verities can withstand years of dissonant experiences and mountains of contradictory evidence that call these [beliefs] into question.” (p. 218) For many students, the comfort and security of where they are causes them to resist going to new places, especially places where beliefs might be held more tentatively.
Disjunction between learning and teaching styles—Most teachers have experienced this: bright, capable students who resist what’s happening in class. Once a student in my class said, with some passion, “I hate discussion!” “Why?” “I can’t figure out how to take notes off a discussion. What are you supposed to write down?” He was an engineering major and talked often about how clear and organized the content was in his engineering courses. Content is configured differently across disciplines. Sometimes students resist when their preferred approach to learning is at odds with how the information is organized or is being presented.
Apparent irrelevance of the learning activity—Students resist learning when they don’t see how or what an activity contributes to their efforts to learn. If it looks like busywork or a waste of time, students resist. Brookfield points out that this is particularly true when learners are paying for their education themselves.

Inappropriate level of required learning—Students get frustrated and angry when they can’t understand the content. They object to unfamiliar language and the fast-paced delivery of complicated material. The frustration quickly becomes resistance. Brookfield also uses the example of teachers who transfer too much of the responsibility for learning to students too quickly. Students resist. The teacher is asking them to do what he or she is being paid to do.
Students’ dislike of teachers—It’s not a particularly pleasant thought, but sometimes students resist because they just plain don’t like the teacher. Maybe objections to the teacher are justified or maybe they aren’t, but sometimes teachers themselves cause resistance.

Brookfield’s list is actually quite a bit longer, but these examples illustrate a variety of sources of resistance to learning. He points out that teachers should not expect to be able to “overcome,” or completely dissipate, resistance. They should work to contain or mitigate its effects.

To do this, he recommends that teachers start by trying to sort out the causes of resistance and decide if the resistance is justified. If the instruction is being aimed at a level way above the level of most students in the class, the resistance is justified and the teacher can do something about fixing the problem.

He offers a number of other useful suggestions. For example, teachers need to build a case for learning. They should explain clearly and often why something is important, why it’s relevant, and why it’s something students need to know. For learners without confidence who are afraid of new knowledge, it helps to create learning situations in which they can taste some success early on.

Finally, teachers will deal more constructively with resistance to learning once they come to accept that it is normal and that students, in fact, have the right to resist. Students cannot be forced to learn anything. All teachers can do is to make the case for learning and work to create conditions that are conducive to it.

Reference:
Brookfield, S. D. The Skillful Teacher: On Technique, Trust, and Responsiveness in the Classroom, Second Edition. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2006. Brookfield’s discussion of resistance to learning appears in Chapter 12.

Reprinted from Six Causes of Resistance to Learning, The Teaching Professor, March 2009.

07:15:2010

Student Performance and Satisfaction: Online vs. Face to Face

Many faculty have questions about the relative merits of online courses versus the traditional face-to-face classroom experiences. Researchers also have an interest in the question, and a variety of studies have been conducted with the usual mixed results but overall accumulating evidence that online courses can provide rich learning experiences. But for many faculty, it is still an open and individual question. Many would like to have the opportunity Kathleen Dolan describes.

Dolan simultaneously taught sections of an introduction to American government class face to face and online. She did so for two consecutive semesters and decided this unique opportunity gave her the chance to collect data that would allow her to determine if the mode of instruction influenced student performance and satisfaction. She structured the courses as similarly as possible. Both courses covered the same content. Students in each took three exams and completed the same Web-based writing assignment. They used the same textbook as well.

Despite these similarities, there were some differences between the two courses. Students in the face-to-face course took their own lecture notes. Dolan made a lecture outline available to them, but in the online course, given the script nature of the lectures, students had access to a more complete set of notes. Furthermore, students in the online course were required to participate in an online discussion exchange. They responded to questions and comments made by other students. The number of students in the face-to-face class was significantly larger than the number in the online course, and discussion there was limited to the 10 to 12 students who regularly responded to the teacher’s questions. But beyond the instructor’s inability to control for note taking, discussion, and class size, a survey on which demographic details such as gender, GPA, reason for taking the course, and previous coursework in the area were collected revealed that the only difference between these groups of students was that those enrolled in the online course were a bit older and further along in school.

The average grade for students in the face-to-face course was 77/100 and for those in the online course it was 81/100, or the difference between a C and a B-. Obviously the variables Dolan couldn’t control and the age difference between the groups may account for the different levels in performance. However, Dolan did a regression analysis and the differences in performance levels were maintained. As for satisfaction with the course, as measured by a 14-item evaluation instrument, “there are very few real differences between their evaluations.” (p. 390) On some items the online scores are higher and on other items they are higher in the face-to-face course.

This article is noteworthy as an example of how faculty can do research using their own classes and instructional situations. It does an excellent job of delineating what variables can and cannot be controlled when faculty go about comparing different “treatments” and their influence on learning outcomes. Often teachers cannot control important variables, like class size in this case. That does result in findings that are less definitive, but the value here is not so much adding to what is known about the effects of online versus face-to-face instruction, but what an individual faculty member can learn about his or her own practice. Dolan discovered answers to one set of questions, but her research, like most, raised equally intriguing questions. Now Dolan wonders whether online courses are better in some content areas than in others. Should beginning students be discouraged from taking online courses? Do the convenience and cost savings of online courses substitute for the “real” learning that can take place face to face?

Reference: Dolan, K. (2008). Comparing modes of instruction: The relative efficacy of on-line and in-person teaching for student learning. PS: Political Science and Politics, 41 (2), 387–391.

Reprinted from The Teaching Professor, April 2009.

07:09:2010

Learning from Experience

In an editorial published in the Journal of Geoscience Education, a geography faculty member offers a testimonial in favor of learner-centered teaching. “Through my 15 years of teaching Earth System Science, I have explored various ways of teaching it and have become convinced that the Learner-Centered Environment, that builds upon constructivist theory principles and fosters teaching practices that recognize the active roles students must play in their learning, is particularly suitable for Earth system science education.” (p. 208)

The editorial proceeds with descriptions of her approaches to both teaching and assessment. She concludes, “[B]ased on my personal experience, I am convinced that Earth system science instructors need to move away from designing courses driven mostly by content, delivered through lectures and punctuated by objective tests towards courses centered on specific learning outcomes, based on the principles of learning, and guided by what students bring to the class-room [sic].” (p. 209)

Convincing testimony, if you also believe in learner-centered approaches; probably unconvincing if you don’t. Either way, statements based on personal experience raise interesting questions. What can teachers learn from experience? Most of us, after looking at our own teaching, would say a lot.

This geography professor believes in what she has learned. But she didn’t start out already having had a conversion experience. Her change of heart started with an activity, a kind of Earth Summit in which students presented on an environmental topic relevant to a particular country. “I noticed how ALL my students became much more engaged in the class, performing extensive research on topics of relevance to their selected country, and displaying originality in their research approach and presentations.” (p. 208) That success led to more “participatory” approaches and finally to conclusions about the common elements shared by all these approaches.

She is also honest about what the approach involves. “The learner-centered way of teaching is demanding and time consuming. It requires more planning than a conventional way of delivering material and the design and delivery need particular attention.” (p. 209) Would you opt for something harder and more work if you didn’t have pretty good evidence that justified the extra effort?

I’d say that chances are good that what the professor learned from experience has some validity. But there’s another part to the question of what can be learned from experience. What can teachers learn from each other’s experiences? Personal experience has fallen out of favor in most pedagogical periodicals. For a long time faculty reported on instructional innovations with the passion of the newly converted. “This is the greatest thing that has happened to my teaching in decades.” “It worked so well and my students liked it so much.” That’s not scholarship, not reflective, not analytical, and hence not very credible.

But I still think there should be a place in the pedagogical literature for thoughtful accounts of experiences that articulate what a teacher has learned. Those accounts can be tested against our own experiences and those of others. They can be benchmarked against educational theory and research. Accounts in which fellow teachers reflect thoughtfully and critically about a set of classroom experiences resonate with faculty. They can make teachers think and question, and sometimes even motivate teachers to take action.

Reference: Gautier, C. (2006). A personal experience of designing earth system science instruction based on learner-centered environment paradigm. Journal of Geoscience Education, 54 (3), 208-209.

Excerpted from Experience: Learning From It, The Teaching Professor, June/July 2009.

07:02:2010

Tips for Improving Student Thinking and Learning

Here’s a list of some practical suggestions taken from a neat, “miniature guide for those who teach on how to improve student learning.” (reference below) The guide was prepared by Richard Paul and Linda Elder, both well-known experts on critical thinking.

“Focus on fundamental and powerful concepts with high generalizability. Don’t cover more than 50 basic concepts in any one course.” Instead of presenting more new material, spend the time thoroughly analyzing these fundamental concepts.
Keep these basic concepts in the “foreground.” When a new concept is presented, weave it into those that students already understand. Show how the whole relates to this new part and how the part relates to the whole.
“Speak less so that they [students] think more.”

“Don’t be a mother robin—chewing up the text for the students and putting it into their beaks through lecture.” The goal instead is to teach students how to read the text for themselves.
Model good critical thinking for students. Think out loud for students; puzzle your way through problems. “Try to think aloud at the level of a good student, not as a speedy professional.” Students will not think they can emulate the thought process if the problems are too advanced and you work through them too quickly.

This miniature guide is part of a “Thinker’s Guide” series that covers 12 topics, including active and cooperative learning, ethical reasoning, how to study and learn, and critical thinking. Some of these guides are written for students as well as faculty. For information about this guide series as well as other resources on critical thinking, visit this website: http://www.criticalthinking.org/.

Reprinted from Improve Thinking: Improve Learning, The Teaching Professor, April 2006.

07:01:2010

Group Work: Should Your Top Students Work Together?

One of the common objections to group work is that bright, capable students are held back when they share group activities and grades with students of lesser ability. This is of concern to teachers and students. Often very good students strongly oppose group work. They worry that an ineffective group with weak or nonproductive members will compromise their grades. Many openly express the belief that they can do the activity, project, paper, or presentation better on their own and would prefer doing it that way.

When bright, capable students with these concerns and beliefs are put into groups, they often compromise the group’s effort by doing all (or most, or the most important parts) of the work themselves, and then they complain about having had to do all the work.

These issues raise interesting questions about forming groups: Should ability be a criterion used in forming groups? Should all the best students work together? Typically faculty form groups of students at different ability levels. But does this compromise what the best students can learn from the group experience?

Ballantine and Larres (reference below) looked at the role of ability across several different group learning outcomes with fourth-year accounting students. They formed groups that combined students who had achieved more than 60 percent in a previous course with students who had achieved less than 60 percent in the same course. With respect to the development of skills (such as leadership, verbal communication, ability to get along with others, negotiation, and persuasion), “the responses … provide some level of assurance that students, irrespective of their ability, have enhanced their skills development because of engaging in group-work in a cooperative learning environment.” (p. 175)

In other words, both able and less able students in the same group reported that their skills had developed. The researchers elaborate: “Both ‘more able’ and ‘less able’ students reported positive outcomes from the group assessment experience. There was only one difference in response, namely that the less able students felt that the group experience had contributed more to their academic improvement than their more able colleagues.” (p. 178)

This study explored other issues as well, but the findings with respect to the impact of ability are notable for a couple of other reasons. First, the project these groups completed was large (spanning 11 weeks). Second, what the group produced was graded and everyone in the group received the same grade. There was no peer assessment or individual grade, and still group members reported skill development.

Reference: Ballantine, J. and Larres, P. M. (2007). Final year accounting undergraduates’ attitudes to group assessment and the role of learning logs. Accounting Education, 16 (2), 163-183.

Excerpted from Individual Ability and Group Work, The Teaching Professor, March 2009.