Is that all there is to it? Steven Reiss doesn’t think so, and he has done lots of research that supports his view. But first he goes after the intrinsic-extrinsic dualism, which he says fails on three counts: construct validity, measurement reliability, and experimental control. Starting with construct validity, Reiss writes, “The distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation is invalid … because motives cannot be divided into just two categories. … Human motives are too diverse to fall into just two categories.” (p. 152) He then explains the measurement problems and experimental control issues. The research that demonstrates an undermining effect (that extrinsic motivation diminishes intrinsic motivation) is almost entirely based on single-trial studies conducted in lab settings. “Consequently, this literature says little about real-world, long-term rewards such as grades and pay.” (p. 154) If the empirical arguments are of interest, they are more fully explained in the article.

Reiss proposes a multifaceted theory of motivation. In his research he identified 16 distinct universal reinforcements that he developed into an assessment tool called the Reiss Motivation Profile. “Everybody is motivated by the 16 universal reinforcements, but not in the same way. Individuals show reliable individual differences in how they prioritize these 16 reinforcements.” (pp. 154-155) These 16 reinforcements are listed in the article and they include the following motivations (among others): eating, the desire for food; curiosity, the desire for understanding; independence, the desire for self-reliance; social contact, the desire for peer companionship; and vengeance, the desire to confront those who offend.

To show the inadequacy of the intrinsic-extrinsic dualism, Reiss suggests giving students a list of motives like those on the profile and then asking students to rank their importance. “Doing this tends to show the extraordinary individuality of how people prioritize motives.” (p. 155) Some students rank money and status very high; others list the desire for social justice as much more motivating than money. Reiss asks whether “the information contained [on the various student lists] could possibly be captured by dualism, which only has two categories or kinds of motives. Dualism does not state what moves us; it does not show how we differ as individuals.” (p. 155)

Reiss says that researchers have moved beyond the dualistic study of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. They see motivation as multifaceted, and he challenges teachers to move forward in their thinking as well. Students in our classrooms do and don’t do things in response to a variety of motives. It’s more complicated than we tend to think, but this new understanding of motivation better explains how it works and can be harnessed in the interest of learning.

Reference: Reiss, S. (2012). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Teaching of Psychology, 39 (2), 152-156.

Reprinted from Motivation: Intrinsic, Extrinsic, or MoreThe Teaching Professor, 26.5 (2012): 3-4.

The Learning Question – If you want students to be more focused on learning, then you need to start asking them questions about their learning: “What are you learning …?” It’s a question to ask as you chat with individual students before class or see them on campus. “What have you been learning in biology this week?” I jokingly interject that “nothing” is not an acceptable response. It’s a question to ask after every class activity. “What did you learn for the test that you’ll still remember when I see you next semester?” and “What did you learn about test preparation that you need to remember?”

The Exam Review Session – Teachers don’t need to review the material; students do! So, plan a review session in which students are doing the reviewing. Have them work individually or in groups to answer the ultimate review session question: “What’s going to be on the exam?” Assign students to prepare the study guides on the reading material or task them with generating possible test questions that are then completed by others in the class. In other words, students should be working way harder than the teacher during the review session.

Before and After Class Previews and Reviews – Same point as above: teachers already know how to preview and review. It’s the students who need to practice and develop the skill. Here are a few ideas for facilitating that kind of learning: 1) Ask students to review notes with another person at the beginning or end of class and identify three important points. 2) Assign three students to tweet a summary of the day’s lesson. 3) Give students bonus points, brownie points, or a high five from the class if they offer a minute review of essential content from a class session last week and suggest one connection between that content and what was presented today.

Assignment Options – Take an assignment and redesign it so that it includes several (not too many) options¬; perhaps different topic choices or different format possibilities. Let students choose how they will complete the assignment but not without justifying their choice in terms of how it relates to them as learners. Or, let students determine the relative weight of two assignments with specified ranges. Quizzes may count 10, 15, or 20 percent of the amount of the final grade determined by quiz and exam scores. Maybe you could have participation count for a variable amount. When students make these choices, they should confront and explain the reason why. Why would you want quizzes to count more or less?

Setting the Assessment Criteria – “What makes you want to read and participate in an online discussion?” Responses to a prompt like that can be transformed into criteria that can be used to assess an online exchange (the whole exchange not just individual contributions to it). It may be that the teacher will need to add some missing components, but even using some of the student criteria changes the dynamic. Practice generating assessment criteria (say for essay answers, presentations in class, or contributions to group work) develops a new level of awareness that helps student prepare and participate in those activities.

In the August 8, 2012 post I identified five features that I believe make teaching learner-centered: It is teaching that: 1) engages students in the hard, messy work of learning; 2) includes explicit skill instruction; 3) encourages students to reflect on what and how they are learning; 4) motivates students by giving them some control over learning processes; and 5) encourages students and teachers to learn from and with each other.

These activities are first steps that move teaching and learning in these directions and are part of a longer list that appears in the recently released second edition of my Learner-Centered Teaching book (pp. 234-235) available from Jossey-Bass.

Review sessions—Some faculty don’t have in-class review sessions because that means one less period for covering content. The question is whether students benefit more from being exposed to additional material or from having a chance to organize, summarize, distill, and integrate the content they must now learn for the exam. Should students do this summarizing and integrating on their own as they study? Perhaps. Will they learn to do it better if they their efforts are guided by an expert who understands how the content domain is organized? Probably.

Typically in the review session, the teacher goes over important or challenging content. Students are supposed to ask questions and they do, but generally they focus their questions on trying to ferret out what’s going to be on the exam. There are better alternatives. The teacher who already knows (and loves) the content doesn’t need to review it. Students need to review. The period should be structured so that students are doing the work, with the teacher providing guidance. They can be working individually or in groups, but they should be solving problems, answering old exam questions, writing possible test questions, or extrapolating key concepts from assigned readings. Groups could be given different topics, concepts, problem sets, etc., and tasked with preparing review materials/study guides for the rest of the class. They could bring these materials to the review session and present and/or distribute them.

In addition to revisiting the content and seeing more clearly how individual topics relate, review sessions can also be used to help students figure out what’s going to be on the test. That’s a question they shouldn’t need to be asking the teacher. The answer is a function of being about to determine what’s most important and how the content is going to be applied. And that’s a skill students need to develop.

Exams—Regular exams don’t promote deep learning because the questions don’t challenge students to think. Many students memorize well; they forget with the same efficiency.

Questions that challenge students to think are much harder to write, and for that reason you don’t find a lot of them in question banks that accompany textbooks. The problem is not with the multiple-choice format per se. SAT and ACT questions are multiple-choice and many of those are quite challenging. If exams are returned to students, then new questions must be generated for each new class. It is smarter to let students have access to their exams (when they’re returned and subsequently in the prof’s office), but not to let them keep their exams. That way, questions can be recycled and across the years a collection can be developed, revised, and reused.

Exam circumstances rarely change. Students work alone without access to resources and under surveillance so that they don’t cheat or they cheat less. This newsletter does, with some regularity, highlight different kinds of exam experiences—like having the students take the exam individually and then take the same exam with a group. Their grade may be some combination of their individual score and the group score. Or let students prepare a crib sheet (of a specified size) that they are allowed to use during the exam. Preparing a crib sheet forces students to make decisions about what’s going to be on the exam.

Debrief sessions—Typically teachers go over the most missed questions, but that approach may not be the best way to maximize the learning potential that is still present after the exam. Teachers don’t need to correct the answers—students do. Whether in groups or individually students can be given the chance to find the correct answers and fix their mistakes. Maybe that happens during the debrief session, or maybe students do the work at home, completing it before the next class session. Maybe their grade isn’t recorded until they’ve corrected their errors, and maybe it’s a few points higher if they get all their mistakes taken care of.

Debrief sessions can also be designed so that they address some of the decisions students have made about preparing for the exam. Class attendance makes a difference. You can say that, but you should show some evidence. Take the five highest exam scores and list the number of times that group of students missed class. Take the five lowest scores and list the number of class sessions that group missed. Let the facts speak for themselves. Many students aren’t taking enough notes in class. You can say that, or you can demonstrate it. Pick a question that many people missed. Identify the date that material was covered and have everybody look at their notes. Do they have what they need there to answer the question? Were they absent and got notes from somebody else? Do they understand those notes? Quick discussions of topics like these can be concluded with students writing themselves a memo addressing “things I learned taking this exam that I want to remember for the next one.” Collect those memos and return them shortly before the next exam.

Exams motivate students and learning results. They review their notes, read the text, and talk with each other. The question is how much and how well do they learn? How seriously they study determines part of the answer to that question. But it is also answered by the design of the exam experience including what happens before, during, and after the event. Exam experiences can be designed so that more of their potential to promote learning is realized.

Reprinted from The Teaching Professor, 26.4 (2012): 3.

Promote study groups – First, include a list of reasons why students should join study groups in the syllabus or on the course website. Maybe there’s a short podcast available in which you talk about the usefulness of study groups. Better yet, if you’ve got some students who studied together in a previous course, ask them to make some comments about their experiences. Second, talk regularly in class about study groups. You can repeat all the benefits, suggest activities that involve good group study strategies, or propose some things they could study together (like problems they could solve, questions they could discuss). You also can solicit feedback from study groups in class or mention content you discussed with a group during office hours.

Make study groups an option – Encourage students to organize their own groups, but offer to help with the process. Nudge them with reminders, such as “Send me an email if you’re interested in being part of a study group.” Have study groups “register” their members, and then report on meeting times and activities. Suggest study activities for the group (ideas like those offered in the next item). Invite the group to meet with you during office hours or to send questions electronically. Offer registered study groups that report regular meetings a bonus point incentive depending on the average of their individual test grades. Let all students know that joining a study group is an option throughout the course.

Demonstrate the value of a study group – Too often when students study together, it’s pretty much a waste of time. If they’re reviewing for a test, they talk about how it can’t possibly be that hard and thereby relieve themselves of the need to study. Or they “go over” their notes, reading what they’ve written but never with any discussion. Group studying is too often accompanied by eating, texting, and regular side conversations.

In order for students to get the most value from their study sessions, you’ll need to help them come up with a different set of strategies. You can do so by holding a review session and asking students to form potential study groups (it’s up to them if they want to meet as a group more often). Give the groups tasks like these: 1) For three minutes everybody reviews their notes and lists five things they think will be on the test and then for five minutes they share lists and create a group list of the items most often mentioned. During the exam debrief, students revisit their list of things they expected to see on the exam. Were those things on the exam? 2) Everybody takes three minutes and writes a question about some content they don’t understand or wish they understood better. The group devotes a specified amount of time to each question, looking for relevant content in their notes and the text. 3) The group has 20 minutes to make one crib sheet that everyone in that group can use during the exam.

Offer proof that study groups improve performance – Compare the scores, points, or grades of those working in study groups with those who aren’t. These are data which should be collected across several sections of the course.

Define study groups broadly – Students tend to think of study groups for exam preparation, but that isn’t the only kind of student collaboration that promotes learning. If there are regularly assigned readings for the course, students can get together to discuss the reading. Again you might let them do this first in class with a good set of prompts so they see how dialogue can enrich and deepen their understanding of the assigned material. Readings are easily discussed in virtual environments, which means the group doesn’t have to find a time when everybody can meet. If various writing assignments are required in the course, students can form peer editing groups. Rubrics, checklists, and prompts can help them get beyond superficial feedback (“you might need a comma here”) to the kind of helpful critique that improves the writing.

Readers, what strategies have you used to encourage effective study groups?

Understand critical thinking as a multidimensional construct – In their discussion of critical thinking in psychology, these authors propose that critical thinking includes skills, dispositions, and metacognition. Critical thinking skills in psychology include argument analysis and evaluation, methodological reason, statistical reasoning, causal reasoning, and skills for focusing and clarifying questions. Dispositions refer to “the willingness to engage in effortful thinking and the tendency to be open- and fair-minded in evaluating claims, yet remain skeptical of unsubstantiated claims.” (p. 6) Metacognition means being aware of one’s thinking and in control of it.

A recent article in The Teaching Professor highlighted the variation in definitions for critical thinking. These authors point out that critical thinking is either thought of generically or as being discipline-specific. They cite research that critical thinking is probably a combination of both. As a multidimensional construct, it contains some general reasoning skills and some skills that are specific to the discipline. The point is that if you want to assess learning outcomes associated with critical thinking, you cannot do that well without understanding how critical thinking is defined in your discipline.

Select important goals, objectives, and outcomes for assessment – What critical thinking skills and knowledge should students be able to demonstrate as a result of being in a course or program? Some faculty have learning goals so general that they are all but impossible to assess. They need further specification. If the assessment is to be scientific, then the goals, objectives, and outcomes must translated into specific hypotheses—ones that can be tested.

Align assessment with instructional focus – “Measures for assessing the impact of instruction must be sensitive to the changes instruction is intended to produce.” (p. 7) If the measures are sensitive, then classroom assessment can be used to look at the techniques being used, compare their effectiveness with other techniques, and conclude which are better.

Take an authentic task-oriented approach to assessment – Taking an authentic task-oriented approach means using a performance to assess how well students are completing a task. In psychology, tasks requiring critical thinking include evaluating the quality of information from the Internet, analyzing and evaluating research literature, using psychological theory to analyze and evaluate behavior, and writing research and case reports, among others. Many of those tasks can be used to evaluate critical thinking in a variety of fields.

Use the best and most appropriate measures – Because critical thinking has multiple dimensions, multiple measures should be used to assess it. The authors point out that standardized tests of critical thinking (the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal and the Cornell Critical Thinking Test are the two examples referenced in this discussion) are “probably better measures of general CT skill.” (p. 9) In many cases, no standardized tests or measures assess the specific type of critical thinking or aspect of critical thinking being developed in a particular course. In situations like this, new instruments may need to be developed.

Conduct assessments that are sensitive to changes over time – “Simply testing seniors once in their capstone courses is not sufficient to infer changes over time because the levels of skill and knowledge of students entering the program are unknown.” (p. 9)

Assess frequently, embedding assessment and feedback into instruction – Students can be assessed too much, especially if the same instrument is being used. They become sensitized to those instruments. The authors recommend a formative approach that embeds assessment in instruction. In this case, the assessment provides the instructor useful feedback and helps students focus on their development of critical thinking. It offers them feedback that can be used to improve their critical thinking skills.

Interpret assessment results cautiously and apply the results appropriately – The quality of the data collected must be considered before decisions to change a course or a program are made. Not considering the quality of the data and not carefully interpreting the results can result in changes that do not improve learning outcomes.

Reference: Bensley, D. A. and Murtagh, M. P. (2012). Guidelines for a scientific approach to critical thinking assessment. Teaching of Psychology, 39 (1), 5-16.

Reprinted from Assessing Critical Thinking Skills, The Teaching Professor, 26.3 (2012): 4.

We know in our heart of hearts this assignment (it could also be a classroom activity, a collection of readings, or almost any aspect of instruction) doesn’t work. Maybe we’re telling ourselves it’s not our fault. Students can’t write. They didn’t learn how to write in their composition courses. Other teachers aren’t making them write enough. They don’t want to learn to write. They hate to write.

To be sure, students aren’t blameless. Often they don’t expend much effort on written assignments. But blaming students shouldn’t become the default mode that keeps directing us away from those aspects of instruction that aren’t working.

Often teachers avoid facing what doesn’t work with one of my least favorite sayings, “It is what it is.” In other words, nothing in the world can be done about the problem beyond passively accepting it. Given the kind of students we teach or given what we’ve come to believe about ourselves as teachers, we muddle along and hope for the best. We shouldn’t be asked to face what can’t be fixed — or so it seems some have convinced themselves.

But we can face what isn’t working and I’d like to suggest how. First, there’s got to be a willingness to find out why it isn’t working and that question needs to be approached with an open mind. This means not looking for the reason while already suspecting you know what it is. It also means being willing to pursue the answer wherever it leads, even if that ends up being your front porch. Finding out why some aspect of instruction isn’t working is easier when others are involved. You may want to solicit feedback from students. You may benefit from input provided by colleagues—those who can offer wise pedagogical counsel. Finally, this task must be approached with a firm belief that the vast majority of things that aren’t working in our courses can be fixed. The “vast majority” doesn’t mean all and “fixed” means made better (generally significantly better), but not perfect.

Here’s a great example illustrating how this can work and why it helps to involve others. In the paper referenced below, Paul Van Auken, an assistant professor at the University of Wisconsin Oshkosh, starts out admitting to being disappointed with the quality of student work done in a semester long research project he assigned in an introductory sociology course. Students weren’t very engaged in the project and couldn’t seem to write a final paper that synthesized their learning in the course. He made one change that improved student engagement but not the quality of their papers. He decided to find out why—why weren’t students able to pull it all together in their final paper?

Several months after the course was over he asked a colleague to convene a focus group of students who received low C’s to low B’s in the course. His colleague facilitated and recorded a 90-minute discussion during which these students talked about their learning and experiences in the course. Much to Van Auken’s surprise, the recording revealed that students had way more understanding of the issues and concepts of the course than they conveyed in their papers and this was two months after the course had ended. A colleague wondered if maybe his assignment didn’t allow students to demonstrate their knowledge. Could he try giving students more options for sharing what they’d learned? He could and he did. Students still had to write a final paper but they also had to create a nonpaper artifact that demonstrated their learning. The results? A teacher satisfied and excited about student learning in the course.

What isn’t working must be faced and can be fixed!

Reference: Van Auken, P. (2013). Maybe it’s both of us: Engagement and learning. Teaching Sociology, 4 (2), 207-215. [There’s more about this excellent article in the May issue of the Teaching Professor newsletter.]

They are critical of much of the evidence being used to support both positive and negative characteristics associated with Millennial learners. “Over the last decade, as the literature on the Millennial student has proliferated, it has proven that opinions beget opinions. A scrutiny of the references of a majority of publications and presentations indicates that the ideas being espoused are fundamentally opinions based on observation and perception as well as on student personal satisfaction and preference surveys rather than on evidence-based research methodologies.” (pp. 215-216) They point out that many of the surveys documenting a set of Millennial student characteristics have been done at one or two institutions with populations not always representative of the larger student population. The Millennial cohort includes students from various races, religions, ethnicities, and socioeconomic backgrounds.

Among the Millennial student characteristics challenged by these authors is their need for the digital delivery of content. The authors cite multiple studies documenting “that a spectrum for both the desire and ability to use digital learning tools exists.” (p. 216) Based on their review of this literature, they conclude, “More careful evaluation of the purpose of technology in learning with regard to actual student needs, desires, and professional applications should be undertaken before additional time, money and resources are invested in more extensive technologies.” (p. 216)

Millennial students are thought to be multitaskers. They may be, but only a small percentage perform multiple tasks with no loss in efficiency. One study cited identifies a population of “supertaskers” who were able to multitask, but they were only a bit more than 2 percent of the population studied. The other 97 percent were less efficient at one or both of the tasks they attempted to perform simultaneously.

Some characteristics associated with Millennial learners are verified by empirical research. Critical thinking skills are a good example. “Millennials have grown up with astonishing exposure to unvetted Internet resources exemplified by Wikipedia and YouTube. The predilection for Millennial students is to make big gains quickly and with minimal effort, which has conditioned them to select the first or most easily available information source.” (p. 218) That has eroded their critical thinking skills. More worrisome is the fact that students don’t appear to be developing high levels of thinking skills in college. These authors reference a 2006 survey of 400 employers nationwide. Only 24 percent of that group felt that college students had “excellent” preparation for the workplace. Sixty-five percent said their preparation was adequate. Specifically on critical thinking and problem-solving skills, only 28 percent of the employers felt students had “excellent” preparation, and 63 percent said preparation on those skills was “adequate.”

The admonition to respond thoughtfully and critically to sweeping generalizations made about any generational cohort of students is appropriate. Generalizations about Millennial students can become stereotypes that reinforce erroneous assumptions about individuals and groups of them in courses. As these authors note, “Educators should encourage curricular change that will positively impact the learning process in a way that will be meaningful not just for a single generation but will have fundamental application for a broad spectrum of learners.” (p. 223)

Reference: DiLullo, C., McGee, P., and Kriebel, R. M. (2011). Demystifying the millennial student: A reassessment in measures of character and engagement in professional education. Anatomical Sciences Education, (July/August), 214-226.

Reprinted from Millennial Students: They Aren’t All the Same, The Teaching Professor, 26.3(2012): 8.

As I note in The Teaching Professor, this article is a great resource. It contains references to other studies documenting the use of texting and cell phones in college classes, and it features an excellent discussion of the physiological reasons why the human brain is not good at multitasking, despite the fact 47% of the students in this survey believe they can text and follow a lecture at the same time.

However, the real value of this research is that the findings and the authors raise tough questions about texting. Does it make sense to ban texting if students ignore the ban and teachers back away from enforcing it? Can a ban be enforced? How about in a large course, can it be enforced then? Should it be enforced? The researchers note that at one time most faculty objected when students brought food and drink into class and now that’s accepted in many classrooms. What are the costs of enforcing a “no texting” policy? Public altercations with students that erode the climate for learning in the classroom? But texting itself erodes the learning atmosphere of classroom, doesn’t it?

What about taking the “if-you-can’t-beat-them-join-them” approach? The researchers cite a number of references in which faculty describe ways and means of using texting to enhance the learning experience. I worry that texting for legitimate reasons serves to validate its use for any reason.

Does texting show a lack of respect? Perhaps, but are students doing it because they want to disrespect the teacher? Or are they texting simply because they do it everywhere else and don’t see the classroom as being any different. I regularly see faculty texting during my workshops. Am I being disrespected?

Here’s a student comment (cited in the article) that raises the toughest question of all: “For me, I only text when I am bored, so if the teacher sees that maybe they can change their teaching style.” (p. 36) The researchers write, “Given the research on multitasking and brain function, the real question is not whether texting in class lowers academic performance, but why does a class not produce enough cognitive load that texting would disrupt it?” (p. 36) In other words, why isn’t the content in our courses interesting and challenging enough that students realize if they text, they will miss something important?

No, I’m not naïve—too old for that. I know that a divine visitation could be occurring in class and some students would still be texting. Moreover, not everything we teach, not even the stuff that that students really need to know, titillates with excitement. Sometimes we have to pay attention when it’s boring. And most of the time our attention cannot be divided for learning to occur. Somehow students must confront the fact that they can’t be texting, listening to the teacher, and taking good notes. They’re going to do one well and the others poorly, just like the rest of us when we try to multitask. Late last year I tried to listen to a webinar on Medicare while cleaning my desk and writing notes for a blog post. I later had to spend hours trying to rectify the mistakes I made when I signed up for Medicare.

The questions about texting are tough because they don’t have easy answers. I don’t think there’s one simple policy that solves the problem and constructively resolves the issues. But I don’t think that excuses us from confronting the questions.

Reference: Clayson, D. E. and Haley, D. A. (2013). An introduction to multitasking and texting: Prevalence and impact on grades and GPA in marketing. Journal of Marketing Education, 35 (1), 26-40.

1. Is the strength of an institution’s “culture of teaching” or policy support for teaching and learning reflected in faculty members’ pedagogical practices?
2. Are “cultures of teaching” more prevalent at institutions with “learner centered” policies?
3. Do the relationships between institutional policies, faculty cultures, and teaching practices differ across institutional types?

Those questions were addressed in a recent study. Definitions of key terms help in understanding the findings. A “teaching culture” involves a “shared commitment to teaching excellence and meaningful assessment of teaching.” (p. 809) The larger goal of this inquiry was to determine whether institutional policies can be used to create cultures for teaching on a campus and then whether those cultures might encourage faculty to use effective pedagogical practices. To that end, they considered 18 different policies supportive of teaching and learning experiences for first-year students. For example, are senior faculty (associate and full professors) required to teach first-year seminars? Do senior faculty teach other first-year courses? Beyond student ratings, does the institution assess the effectiveness of first-year courses? Are learning community opportunities offered to first-year students?

As for effective pedagogical practices, researchers considered two in the study: whether teachers provided first-year students with opportunities to learn about people with different background characteristics or different attitudes and values, and the extent of informal interaction faculty had with students outside of class. Study results are based on data collected from 5,612 faculty members (at all ranks) at 45 different institutions.

The researchers conclude the following about findings related to the first question: “Scant evidence suggests that institutional policies in support of teaching and learning are directly related to faculty members’ teaching practices.” (p. 819) Were “cultures for teaching” more prevalent at institutions with learning-centered polices? “There appears no clear pattern indicating a relationship between institutional policy and faculty perceptions.” (p. 819) Rather familiar institutional characteristics, such as the Carnegie classification of institutional type and institutional size, explained more than 80 percent of the variance in institutional cultures of teaching and learning. As for whether relationships between policies, cultures, and teaching practices differed across institutional types, the answer was yes, particularly between doctoral-granting universities and other types of institutions in the sample.

Here’s the overall conclusion: “Perhaps the most salient and consistent finding from this analysis is that institutional-level policies have no more than a trivial relationship, either directly or indirectly through their influence on faculty culture, with the teaching practices employed by an institution’s faculty. Instead, traditional institutional descriptors, including size, selectivity, and control—but especially Carnegie classification, are consistent predictors of both faculty practices and culture.” (p. 822)

It is important to note that this research looked at a sample of policies supportive of teaching and learning, and it considered two (out of many) characteristics of effective teaching. Even so, the results give some indication of how difficult it is to change institutional cultures. Policy changes supportive of teaching and learning face the strong headwinds of tradition and faculty autonomy.

Reference: Cox, B. E., McIntosh, K. L., Reason, R. D., and Terenzini, P. T. (2011). A culture of teaching: Policy, perception, and practice in higher education. Research in Higher Education, 52 (8), 808-829.

Reprinted from The Teaching Professor, 26.3(2012): 2.

I don’t know that I have ever seen or read anything that highlights differences when the discussion is of technical material. Please, point us to useful references if you know some. In the meantime, here’s a first pass at ways these discussions might be stimulated and focused.

Why and How Questions. If there’s a right answer or correct procedure, the “correctness” really isn’t up for discussion but “Why?” questions can lead the student to those deeper levels of understanding. “Why is that the right answer?” “Why does that process work and others do not?” When content has a right answer, students tend to memorize it and think they’ve got all they need to know. True understanding rests on not only knowing the answer but being able to explain why it’s correct.

The “How?” question provides teachers with valuable feedback. It can be used to uncover student thought processes. “Tell me how you got that answer?” “How did you go about solving the problem and why did you use that approach?” As the student recounts the steps taken, the point at which an error occurred is revealed as is the depth of understanding. This feedback helps the teacher respond to the student’s level of understanding.

But students should also be learning to ask themselves the “Why?” and “How?” questions. If the teacher always asks, students often won’t see the value of confronting themselves with the pathway they’ve taken to an answer. Teachers aren’t always going to be present when answers need to be corrected or defended.

Discussion of Errors. If there’s one (or several) “right” ways of doing something, there are plenty of “wrong” or less correct ways as well. The objective is to get students to talk about and learn from their mistakes, which isn’t all that easy. Students don’t want to make mistakes and they especially don’t want their mistakes to be discussed in public venues. Teachers may need to start the discussion with mistakes and errors made by anonymous students, or even mistakes they’ve made themselves. These discussions need to demonstrate that getting it wrong can result in learning—sometimes even more learning than when you get it right.

Discussion of Application. The discussion here is about what can be done with the solution, process, or procedure just learned. Does it apply to other problems? Can you use the procedure in other situations? Many students don’t regularly think about application. This is why they may know how to solve a problem, but when presented with a similar problem that looks a little different from the case covered in class or the homework problem, they don’t think they can figure out the answer.

Discussion of Connections. Much research establishes that learners connect new knowledge to what they already know. The point of discussing connections is to solidify them and help students appropriately integrate old and new knowledge. If that integration doesn’t occur, students can know certain facts but still hold misconceptions—as has been demonstrated by that infamous video of graduating seniors who’d taken all the appropriate courses but still incorrectly explained what causes the seasons.

But the discussion of connections needs to go in a different direction as well. Too often students take from courses a grab bag of facts, ideas, and information “covered” in the class. They still have no idea that all this information fits together nor can then put it together. Getting students to see that the coherence and beauty of that larger picture starts with discussions of how what they’ve just learned fits with the rest of what they’ve learned in this course and connects with content from other courses.

Readers, are there other approaches you take to the discussion of technical material? Please help all of us enlarge our understanding of content that might at first appear difficult to discuss.

There isn’t much empirical evidence—that’s what a group of researchers discovered in their review of the literature. They decided to undertake an analysis of introductory biology courses to see whether or not evidence supportive of the criticism existed. Here are the three research questions they aimed to answer: 1) “What is the mean cognitive level faculty routinely target in introductory undergraduate biology, as evidenced on course syllabi and assessments?” 2) “Did faculty align their course goals and assessments to determine the degree to which students achieved the stated goals?” and 3) “What factors—class size, institution type, or articulating objectives on the course syllabus—predict the cognitive level of assessment items used on exams?” (p. 436)

They collected sample syllabi from 50 faculty who taught 77 different introductory biology courses, about half of which were general biology courses. They taught at a wide range of different public and private institutions. The teaching experience of the faculty cohort ranged from three to 36 years, and the size of the classes they taught ranged from 14 students to almost 500 students, with a mean class size of 192.

They looked at goals stated on the syllabi and categorized them using the Bloom taxonomy. They also analyzed what they called “high-stakes course assessments,” meaning quizzes and exams that accounted for 60–80 percent of the course grade. “These data provide evidence of what faculty consider important in the course. Goals stated in syllabi reflect faculty priorities about what they expect students to know and be able to do; assessments reflect how faculty evaluate students’ achievement of those learning goals.” (p. 436)

The findings are breathtaking—at least they took away this editor’s breath. “Of the 9,713 assessment items submitted to this study by 50 faculty teaching introductory biology, 93% were rated Bloom’s level 1 or 2—knowledge and comprehension. Of the remaining items, 6.7% rated level 3 with less than 1% rated level 4 or above.” (p. 437) And the news about course goals wasn’t much better. Of the 250 that were pulled from course syllabi, 69 percent were at levels 1 and 2 on the Bloom taxonomy. The level of assessments was not affected by class size or by institutional type. Students’ knowledge and understanding of facts were what was being assessed in virtually all these courses.

Some may be tempted to argue that students must begin to understand a discipline by acquiring these basic facts—that it is knowledge of these facts that enables students to do higher-level thinking tasks. “Evidence to supports such claims … is lacking.” (p. 439) These researchers argue that high-level thinking skills must be developed right along with a knowledge base, and they contend that those kinds of thinking skills only develop when there is opportunity to practice them.

“We do not have a prescription for the ‘right’ cognitive level of goals and assessments in an introductory course.” (p. 439) However, their findings would certainly indicate that in terms of fostering higher-order thinking skills, the current balance is not “right.” “We believe that students should begin practicing the skills of connecting, transferring, and modeling scientific concepts at the start, not the end, of their degree programs.”

This analysis focused on introductory biology courses. Every discipline offers introductory course work, and the norm is to packed those courses with content. Does that content focus too much on the factual details? That’s a question every discipline ought to be exploring, and this study provides a great model of how that analysis can be undertaken.

Reference: Momsen, J. L., Long, T. L., Wyse, S. A., and Ebert-May, D. (2010). Just the facts? Introductory undergraduate biology course focus on low-level cognitive skills. Cell Biology Education—Life Sciences Education, 9 (Winter), 435-440.

Reprinted from Too Much Focus on Facts? The Teaching Professor, 26.3(2012): 6.

Consider what needs to be decided after each student comment:

• Is the point being made clear and coherent? If not, what follow-up question needs to be asked?
• Is the answer or comment relevant? Does it answer the question? Is it on the topic currently under discussion? What needs to be done, if it’s not?
• Should you respond? Invite someone else to respond? Not respond and solicit more comments? If you respond, what and how much should you say?
• Can the student’s comment be linked to what another student said, to something you’ve said, to something in the text? Who should make that link?
• Would a follow-up question deepen the answer, sharpen its focus, encourage others to comment? If so, what is that question?

As the discussion unfolds, here’s some of what needs to be monitored and kept in mind:

• Who’s speaking and how often?
• Who gets called on when there are a lot of volunteers? What about when there aren’t any volunteers?
• What’s the level of attentiveness within the class collectively and individually? Who’s clearly not paying attention? What are they doing and does that need to be addressed?
• Is the discussion losing steam? If so, how might it be re-energized?
• Is the exchange becoming heated? Are emotions running too high? Does the atmosphere feel tense and threatening? If so, what should be done about it?
• Is it time for a summary? Do the main points need to be sorted out of the morass?
• Where did the discussion start, where is it now and where does it still need to go?
• Has there been enough discussion of this particular point or on this topic in general?

That’s a lot to keep track of at the same time you’re processing content. You might need to summon information to answer a question, come up with an example, or point out other relevant material. When we facilitate discussion, most of the focus is on the content. All of these discussion details are at the periphery of our awareness.

How then do we develop our discussion leadership skills? Let me suggest three ways, each involving one thing: awareness. First, we need to be aware of what discussion involves. Now that I think about it, I don’t think I ever made a list like the one above —and that’s just a portion of what facilitators must consider to keep the discussion flowing. Next, we need to observe how we facilitate a discussion (or several of them). The idea is to stand alongside and observe, to pay attention to things like the details listed above. Yes, the content still needs our attention, but at the same time we need to become aware of how we “do” discussion. Finally, we need to reflect on discussion after the fact. We need to recall the details and use them to develop an accurate account of what happened during a particular discussion that then becomes part of our larger understanding of how we lead and guide discussion.

Building discussion skills begins with awareness—awareness of what’s involved, awareness of our skills, and awareness of what actually happens during discussion. The individual strategies used in discussion aren’t all that difficult. There are lots of things you can do when a student makes a point that isn’t relevant. There are many ways to respond when a comment isn’t very good. If you consider the options, become aware of how you usually respond, then you can try something different the next time. What’s complicated as the dickens is how many individual responses are needed to ensure a productive discussion and how all of those things must be selected and delivered without the benefit of time to carefully think about any of them.

To that end, they designed an introductory behavioral/social science statistics course using what they describe as a “workbook curriculum.” Students read a short chapter (five single-spaced pages) introducing a topic. After reading, students answered questions, completed a problem, and summarized the results of their computation. Then they submitted this homework assignment online before class and got feedback on their work, also before class. These homework assignments counted for 17 percent of their course grade.

In class, the instructor began by answering questions about the homework and followed that with a brief lecture during which information in the reading was reviewed. Typically this consumed 15 to 20 minutes of the 75-minute period. Then students completed a “workbook” activity. “As students worked through each subsection, they answered increasingly complex conceptual and/or computational questions” (p. 6). They could access answers while they worked. The instructor was also available to answer questions. Students were encouraged but not required to work with a partner. The instructor ended the period with another short lecture summarizing the content presented in the workbook activity. Workbook answers were not graded. Grades were based on the homework assignments, four exams, and a final. Basically, every day in class was structured this way.

To study the effects of students’ exposure to this kind of active learning experience, the faculty researchers looked at student attitudes toward statistics. They measured these with an already developed instrument, Survey of Attitudes Towards Statistics (SATS), which contains 36 items and six subscales, including these three examples: one measuring student feelings toward statistics (the affect subscale), another measuring student beliefs about their ability to understand statistics (the cognitive competence subscale), and one measuring student beliefs about the usefulness of statistics in their lives (the value subscale). The 59 students who experienced the workbook curriculum completed this survey before and at the end of the course. The researchers also looked at the effects of this course design on exam scores and final course grades.

The attitudes and performance of students in the experimental group were compared with the attitudes and performance of 235 students in 20 other sections of courses similar to this one. All were general education courses that fulfilled quantitative requirements. All enrolled 30 or fewer students and required a prerequisite course in algebra.

The results confirmed the value of extensive active learning experiences in a course. “Our sections reported liking statistics significantly more than the comparison group (i.e., more positive affect scores). Our students also reported significantly higher statistical cognitive competence (i.e., confidence in their ability to understand and perform statistical procedures) than the comparison group. While students in our sections thought statistics was harder than the comparison group they also liked statistics more than the comparison group.” (p. 9)

“We suspect that most statistics instructors would want their students to report they like and understand statistics; however, we also suspect that most instructors are more concerned with their students’ actual ability to perform and understand statistics.” (p. 9) And their results did show that those more positive attitudes were positively associated with performance on the course’s comprehensive final.

The instructors also felt their teaching benefited from the approach. They were able to interact with individual students more often. They found themselves using student names more often, answering questions more frequently, and offering more feedback to individual students. They did find some student questions challenging. “Instructors must be comfortable ‘thinking on their feet.’ For our part, we found the unpredictability of students’ questions to be invigorating. We had become bored with teaching statistics but when we changed to the workbook approach, we were again excited about teaching the course.” (p. 13)

Reference: Carlson, K. A. and Winquist, J. R. (2011). Evaluating an active learning approach to teaching introductory statistics: A classroom workbook approach. Journal of Statistics Education, 19 (1), 1-22.

Reprinted from The Teaching Professor, 26.3(2012): 3.

I ran into just such an article recently. It’s old, published in 1986, but it was the first article I remember reading where the content of the discipline (in this case sociology) was used to explain certain instructional dynamics. Actually, there’s a whole genre of pedagogical scholarship that does this, not just in sociology but also in many disciplines.

In this article, Billson compares the classroom to a small group. She applies the principles of small group dynamics as they are studied and understood in sociology to what happens in the classroom. And she does so for this reason: “Deeper awareness of small group processes can enhance the teaching effectiveness of college faculty through improving their ability to raise student participation levels, increase individual and group motivation, stimulate enthusiasm, and facilitate communication in the classroom.” (p. 143) I’d say those outcomes are still of interest to most of us.

So what principles of small group dynamics might help us better understand what’s happening in our classrooms? Billson identifies and discusses 15—four are highlighted here.

Principle 1: Every participant in a group is responsible for the outcome of the group interaction. Billson acknowledges that the major responsibility does belong to the professor, but she maintains that students share a “significant responsibility” as well. (p. 144) She recommends discussing that responsibility with students and explores the possibility of letting students plan certain segments of the course or maybe offer input as to the weight of the course’s various assignments.

Principle 4: When people feel psychologically safe in a group, their participation levels will increase. This isn’t a particularly new or novel idea, but it’s something professors often take for granted. Most of us do feel safe in the classroom. We’ve been going to college classes for years. For students, classrooms don’t feel as comfortable. They can be made to feel safer when students are known by names, when their first attempts to contribute garner positive feedback, and when the professor avoids sarcasm and ridicule.

Principle 8: The leader of any group serves as a model for that group. “The way in which professors play their role, including how they present expectations of students, carry out responsibilities, and handle privileges implicit in the professorial role, has a profound effect on how students enact their role.” (p. 147)

Principle 13: A group will set its own norms of behavior and will expect conformity to them. These norms may extend to the professor. The same policies and procedures can be used and yet classes respond to them differently. In some classes, students argue at length about exam answers. In other classes, they want assignment deadlines extended. In many classes, a designated few become the only students who participate. Professors need to be aware of these norms and if they work against course goals, they should be discussed openly with students.

Although “small group” isn’t a label that feels like it fits classes with more than 100 students, even large classes exhibit many features typical of groups. Applying these principles can result in classroom climates where learning is a more likely outcome. I’d say Billson was way ahead of her time in identifying what helps to make classrooms learner-centered.

Reference: Billson, J. (1986). The college classroom as a small group: Some implications for teaching and learning. Teaching Sociology, 14 (July), 143-151.

Reprinted from What Classes and Small Groups Have in Common The Teaching Professor, 26.3(2012): 6.

“What works” is incongruent with the nature of science. Her point applies more broadly. The phrase implies that “what works” is readily applicable to all contexts. It also conveys the sense that once you know “what works,” there is no need for further investigation. You’ve got the answer. There is no equivalent phrase or sentiment used in scientific investigations of the natural world. “Why should our evidence-based investigations and view about the issues in teaching and learning of biology be any different?” (p. 330)

“What works” ignores individual students and their brains as key variables. If the solution works, then it works for all students, or at least most of them. Lots of research now documents that “what works” for students depends on a host of demographic variables, including gender, language background, levels of family education, and ethnic identity. And then there is the individuality of student brains, which Tanner describes as “individual both in terms of architecture and information previously stored within.” (p. 330) “What if the right way to teach is not any singular way, but rather the use of a variety of teaching techniques intertwined to benefit a range of learners and their experiences in a heterogeneous classroom? What if the closest we get to ‘what works’ is to teach using all of the available techniques and not just one?” (p. 330)

“What works” assumes uniformity in instructor experience and skill. Also lurking within the “what works” assumption is the premise that it “works” for all instructors. Interestingly, when a technique is tried and it doesn’t work, blame is usually affixed to the technique, not the instructor. For example, “group work” is labeled a bad technique rather than being recognized as a technique that was used ineffectively. The success of instructional strategies, especially complex ones, depends on the experience and skill of the instructor. Any given technique may work, but not all instructors may be able to make it work, given their teaching skill and experience.

“What works” requires defining what is meant by “works.” This problem with the phrase has two parts. The first is that the definition for “what works” is largely left to the user. Typically “what works” means the strategy or technique promotes learning as measured by test scores and course grades. Tanner points out that grades may improve, but the technique may have had no effect on student motivation or interest in the discipline.

The second definitional problem with the “what works” phrase and accompanying thinking is evidence that supports the effectiveness of a particular solution is based on short-term measures, again mostly grades. “‘What works’ for short-term performance in a course … may or may not be the same as ‘what works’ for deep conceptual change and long-term retention, yet we have little to no evidence beyond a single semester time frame.” (p. 332)

Building a common language about the substance of the “what” in “what works” is not trivial. There is no common lexicon for instructional strategies. We toss strategy names about, assuming we all define them similarly, but in execution, even simple strategies such as think-pair-share look very different. If that’s true for comparatively straightforward techniques, imagine the variation involved in complex strategies such as problem-based learning or in whole approaches such as learner-centered teaching.

In sum, Tanner explains that “at some level ‘what works’ arises from a desire to give scientists [and the rest of us] a shortcut to effective teaching, but there may not be any shortcuts.” And what should we be saying and thinking in lieu of this phrase? “We can perhaps refocus on what has been shown again and again to be the path to effective teaching and learning: the development of reflective instructors who are analytical about their practice and who make iterative instructional decisions based on evidence from students sitting right in front of them.” (p. 329)

Reference: Tanner, K. D. (2011). Reconsidering “what works.” Cell Biology Education, 10 (Winter), 329-333.

Reprinted from The Teaching Professor, 26.2(2012): 6.

Yes, students can learn from activities that involve them in providing instructional feedback, especially if it’s focused on their learning experiences in class. Most students have little insight into themselves as learners. So, if the assessment activity gets them thinking about how they learn and what teaching policies, practices, and behavior expedite their efforts to learn, it can be a beneficial activity for them as well as for the teacher.

The trick is coming up with feedback activities that garner these benefits and I just found a great example. Professor La Lopa, who teaches hospitality and tourism management at Purdue University, has students in his 200-level Human Resource Management course write a reflective paper on quality teaching and its assessment. (I can hear some of you wondering about the appropriateness of the assignment. His article, referenced below, explains the context which more than justified it for me.) What’s most creative about the assignment are some of the prompts students respond to in the paper. Here’s a condensed and slightly edited version of some of them.

• How would you describe your ideal professor? Include a description of the classroom setting (number of students, physical space, etc). Paint as clear a picture for me as possible so I can envision your ideal college professor and class.
• Now describe the typical teacher you have actually experienced in your courses here. What is the typical classroom setting like?
• If you could put one question on a course evaluation what would it be and why would you ask it?
• If you were the president of your college or university, what method would you use to evaluate the [teaching] performance of college professors?

The article is worth reading for the quotes excerpted from the student papers alone. Their observations demonstrate just how well an assignment like this gets students thinking about good teaching, its assessment, and its relationship to learning.

There are lots of potential spin-offs from an activity framed around these questions. The most frequently mentioned characteristics of the “ideal” professor could be shared and discussed. Why these characteristics? Are these characteristics that support efforts to learn? How? Why? How about the teacher writing a short description of the “ideal” student followed by another short description of the “typical” student? I wonder if the one question teachers would add to the course evaluation would be anything like the question students would add. Maybe the best way to evaluate professors is by how well their students learn. Is that a good idea? Why? Why not?

There’s lots of research documenting that students don’t believe that their feedback is taken seriously by institutions or instructors, which in part explains the poor quality of the feedback they provide. And there’s lots of research documenting that if faculty talk with students about assessment feedback it improves end-of-course ratings. It’s a visible sign that teachers care and are willing to work with students, even if we don’t make all the changes they propose. Good feedback activities like the one described here have one final benefit: they can be learning experiences for students.

Please share the ways you collect, respond to, and use feedback from students. We’re especially interested in those ways that also encourage students to encounter themselves as learners.

Reference: La Lopa, J. (2011). Student reflection on quality teaching and how to assess it in higher education. Journal of Culinary Science & Technology, 9 (4), 282-292.

As a book for new psychology teachers points out, “The way you handle excuses conveys a message to your students about your teaching philosophy, and most particularly about whether you view students as partners or adversaries, the degree to which you trust them, and how you care about them.” (p. 137)

The trick is separating the legitimate, bona fide excuses from the contrived, just plain made-up ones, and there are lots of gradations in between. Sometimes a teacher needs the wisdom of Solomon.

Some faculty opt for the hard line . . . no excuses accepted, none, under any terms. That was my policy early on. Then one semester a responsible, dedicated student lost his father in a car accident. He missed an exam to attend the funeral. In a situation like that, the hard-line policy fails pitifully.

On the other hand, it does seem absolutely true that the more excuses you accept, the more you are asked to consider. You can err on the side of gullibility. And learning that an excuse placates for missed deadlines, scheduled presentations, and far-in-advance exam dates should not be the lesson reinforced by experiences in college.

And so the teacher must adjudicate with firmness and with finesse. I’d like to report that it gets easier with age. It doesn’t. Some students are very good at making up stories, and some with legitimate excuses don’t present them very persuasively. The net result is that sometimes even concerned and caring teachers make mistakes. If they can be rectified, fine; if not, life does go on.

As for a general rule of thumb, the book reference below recommends “taking a firm, consistent, rational and caring approach to excuses that incorporates a ‘trust, but verify’ policy. Treat every excuse as genuine, but in fairness to the entire class, required that it be accompanied by supporting documentation.” (p. 137)

Reference: Lucas, S. G. and Bernstein, D. A. Teaching Psychology: A Step by Step Guide. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 2005.

Reprinted from The Teaching Professor, 20.1 (2006): 4-5.

Most of these questions are being answered in stages by research inquiries that address smaller issues related to these larger questions. For example, Carolyn Hart has completed an integrative review of the research literature in the hopes of identifying those factors that positively affect a student’s persistence in an online course. Do we know what differentiates students who complete online courses from those who drop out?

Her review is based on 20 studies published since 1999. She found that researchers used a wide range of definitions for persistence. She opted for this straightforward description: persistence is “the ability to complete an online course despite obstacles or adverse circumstances.” (p. 30) The opposite of persistence is attrition, which she defined as “withdrawal from an online course.” (p. 30) Based on her review, she identified the following factors as being related to student persistence in online courses.

Satisfaction with online learning – Not surprising, students who are satisfied with online courses and programs persist. In one study, students who had graduated from an online program reported satisfaction levels above 90%, those enrolled in a program reported 70% satisfaction levels, and those just beginning indicated a 58% satisfaction level. Those percentages compared with 20% satisfaction levels reported by those who withdrew from courses. (p. 34)

A sense of belonging to a learning community – Students who are comfortable establishing relationships in an online environment tend to persist at higher rates. These are students who can successfully participate in online discussions and work with others they do not know or have not met. The feeling of “camaraderie” among students within the class contributes to persistence.
Motivation – Highly motivated students complete online courses. “Personal resolve and determination to succeed strongly contributes to persistence.” (p. 34)

Peer and family support – Those learning in online environments more often successfully complete courses if they have peer and family support. The emotional support provided by peers, family, and sometimes even faculty, is especially important when students are trying to complete online courses at the same time they are coping with hardships or juggling competing demands.

Time management skills – “Students with good study habits, [who have] the ability to stay on task with assignments and readings, and [who] are able to successfully manage time are more apt to persist when compared to non-persisters.” (p. 31)

Increased communication with the instructor – “Qualitative findings indicate that in addition to promptness, the quality of feedback, and the willingness of faculty to meet student needs are viewed as important to student persistence.” (p. 33-4)

Some of these factors for success in the online classroom are not unexpected. It makes sense that students are more likely to complete a course when they are happy with how the course is going and self-motivated enough to see it through. Others factors implicate how online courses should be taught and to some degree who should teach them. Online courses need to be designed so that students have opportunities to connect and work with each other. They should be taught by teachers who understand the importance of communication with students and who willingly interact with them throughout the course.

The research findings also give an indication of who should be taking online courses. If the student is one of those not particularly well prepared for college-level work and not an especially motivated beginning student, online courses early in the college experience may not be advised.

Online courses can be designed so that they work well for many students and with most content. And most teachers can learn how to teach online. But those courses, like any kind of instruction, don’t work well automatically, which means the questions of who takes, who teaches, and what content is most appropriate should influence our decision-making.

Reference: Hart, C. (2012). Factors associated with student persistence in an online program of study: A review of the literature. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 11 (1), 19-42.

Sadler, author of the article referenced below and an expert on how assessment can be used to improve learning, contends that “regardless of levels of motivation to learn, students cannot convert feedback statements into actions for improvement without sufficient working knowledge of some fundamental concepts.” (p. 537) Because they evaluate student work so regularly, teachers bring to the task a working knowledge of these concepts. Unfortunately, they provide feedback assuming students have the same knowledge, which Sadler contends they do not.

Before describing the necessary conceptual knowledge, Sadler spends time exploring the components of teacher feedback. Their feedback begins when teachers specify the nature of the task students are to complete—this “feedforward” includes descriptions of the assignment and the criteria that will be used to assess it. The criteria may be detailed, as they frequently are when rubrics are used.

The feedback on completed work contains the teacher’s overall assessment of the work. Usually this includes the grade and the rationale for the grade. Most teachers also provide advice as to how the work could be improved.

Whether it’s giving students instructions on how to complete an assignment or feedback on how well they completed it, Sadler says this feedback before and after the fact shares an important characteristic. “As one-way messages from the teacher to the student, they are essentially about telling, or disclosure. Yet despite the teachers’ best efforts to make the disclosure full, objective and precise, many students do not understand it appropriately because … they are not equipped to decode the statements properly.” (p. 539) Most teachers understand that how they deliver the feedback is very important, and so they spend time thinking about the best way to phrase the messages. Sadler counters, “Complementary attention should be directed to what students make of the feedback, rather than just its composition.” (p. 539)

In order for students to be able to act on feedback provided by the teacher, Sadler contends that they must develop appraisal expertise and that relies on knowledge of concepts in three areas: task compliance, quality, and criteria. Task compliance refers to whether the student does what the assignment requests. Haven’t we all read student answers, sometimes even good ones, that don’t address the question? It doesn’t make sense that a student would go to the effort to construct an answer that purposefully doesn’t answer the question. When confronted, students are often surprised and don’t seem to understand what the problem is. That means they did not understand the question or the task they have been asked to complete.

Quality refers to the ability to make holistic judgments that differentiate excellent work from work that is not. Sadler points out that quality is often difficult to define in the abstract but easy to see in examples. Teachers grade so much student work, the quality judgments are made easily. But when a student compares his answer with that of a fellow student who received more points, the student frequently objects that his answer is just as good. He made the same points but didn’t get as much credit. The issues here involve quality and the student’s inability to see what distinguished the colleague’s answer from his own.

Some criteria teachers use in assessing student work are simple and straightforward. Either the spelling is correct or it is not. But most criteria are considerably more abstract, according to Sadler. He uses “coherence” as an example. “How well do students understand this concept? Can they recognize low and high levels of it in particular works? Do they effectively recognize this property but use different terminology for it (such as ‘linked together’)? Can they sense and work towards building coherence into their own productions while construction is under way?” (p. 545)

Reference: Sadler, D. R. (2010). Beyond feedback: Developing student capability in complex appraisal. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35 (5), 535-550.

Excerpted from The Teaching Professor, 26.2(2012): 4.

Standing opposite the experience of faculty members like this one is an accumulation of research that strongly supports students learning from and with each other in groups. There’s research and analyses of group learning now reported in virtually every discipline. Here are five things students can learn in groups, all well-established by a wide range of empirical analyses.

1. They can learn content, as in master the material. Whether they are working on problems, answering questions about the reading, or discussing case studies, when students work together on content, they can master the basics. The reason they learn is pretty straightforward, when students work with content in a group they are figuring things out for themselves rather than having the teacher tell them what they need to know.
2. They can learn content at those deeper levels we equate with understanding. I just highlighted an article for the April issue of The Teaching Professor newsletter which reported that the explanations students wrote to justify a chosen answer were stronger after just seven minutes of discussion with two or three students. When students are trying to explain things to each other, to argue for an answer, or to justify a conclusion, that interaction clarifies their own thinking and often it clarifies the thinking of other students.
3. They can learn how groups function productively. In order for groups to function productively, students must fulfill individual responsibilities. Productive group members come prepared, they contribute to the group interaction, they support each other, and they deliver good work on time. In order for individuals to function productively in groups, they have the right to expect the group to value their individual contributions, to address behaviors that compromise group productivity, and to divide the work equitably among members.
4. They can learn why groups make better decisions than individuals. Students can see how different perspectives, constructive deliberation, questioning, and critical analysis can result in better solutions and performance. If students take an exam individually and then do the same exam as a group, the group exam score is almost always higher because students share what they know, debate the answers, and through that process can often find their way to the right answer.
5. They can learn how to work with others. Group work helps students learn how to work with people outside their circle of friends, including those who have different backgrounds and experiences. They can even learn how to work with those who disagree with them, and others they might not “like” or want as friends.

Now, it is absolutely true that students don’t learn any of these things just by being put together in groups. Student attitudes about group work are often negative and that’s because they’ve been in lots of groups where they didn’t learn anything other than the fact they don’t like working in groups. Much of the group work used in college classrooms is not well designed or well managed. But when group work is carefully constructed and when teachers help students deal with those group dynamic issues that compromise group effectiveness, students can learn the content and the skills listed above.

It would also be nice to be able to end this post with a reference of a comprehensive review of research on group work. I don’t think that piece exists. Research that documents that students can learn these five things is so scattered across the disciplinary landscape that finding it all and then devising some way to quantitatively compare the results is all but impossible. But just because the findings aren’t organized or integrated does not diminish what has been documented time and again in study after study. Students can learn from and with each other in groups.