Active Learning: It Works! (Part II)
Editor’s Note: In this two-part piece, Tami Meredith, faculty member in Computer Science, describes what happens when instructors inject active learning into their classroom practices. This is Part II. (Read Part I of Active Learning: It Works!)
In consultation with the Tereigh Ewert at the CLT, we decided that active learning could possibly be of value. Instead of me lecturing, I would use readings, condensed lectures, and activities to teach the material. I redesigned the course to incorporate some active learning in each class, though the amount varied depending on the specific topic. I then taught the course again, using my “new and improved” active approach. At the end of the term, I eagerly awaited my SRI scores to see if the changes had made much of a difference. –– To my surprise, they did so to an incredible degree, raising my overall score to 4.46. Somehow, active learning made a difference of 1.49! Now, to be fair, I did put in a lot of effort to ensure that all components of my teaching were being effective, and teaching the course for a second time may have made me appear more confident, but the single largest difference was the use of active learning. I have taught similar material in the past and have taught for almost 14 years, so I’m skeptical of arguments that my teaching ability and confidence suddenly increased. I truly believe that abandoning the “tried and true” lecturing approach was responsible for the sudden and significant improvement in student satisfaction.
To be more concrete, I will use my software usability lecture as an example. With the original lecture, I motivate the material with examples of bad applications, then present a set of heuristics (Neilsen, 1994) that will help developers to avoid the most common mistakes. I present a couple of screen shots of applications and explain how I would apply the heuristics to improve the applications, after which the students perform a graded assignment, outside of class, in which they analyse an application of their own choosing.
How did things change? To start with, in the class preceding the active version of my usability lecture, I assign two readings that explain the heuristics. One is a conference paper (Neilsen, 1994) that explains them in detail and the other is a simplified summary of the conference paper. I expect the students to read the simplified version and I provide the conference article for advanced students or for those who wish more detail.
In the active class on usability, I begin by asking students to work in informal groups and to identify the best and worst applications that they have ever used. I wander around the room, contributing to the various discussions, and troubleshoot as needed. It is a relaxing and enjoyable process in which I make a deeper connection with my students and get to know many of them. Next, we have a class discussion on what we liked and disliked. I present my likes and dislikes first, as exemplars and to “prime” the discussion. I’m very tolerant during the discussion and don’t mind if students start speaking out of turn or getting excited. My focus is on engagement, participation, and critical thought. There are no “wrong” answers. I will prompt, encourage, recognize excellence and, if needed, gently steer the discussion or correct obvious errors.
I then review the heuristics in case I have students who didn’t understand or read the assigned material. I go quickly, presenting in 10 minutes what I used to present in 50 or more minutes. After the review, I show a screen shot of an application and instruct them to analyse the image using the heuristics, working in groups with those around them. After a few minutes, we discuss their analysis as a class, with me augmenting and guiding the discussion. This process of analysis and discussion is repeated using a variety of screen shots until I run out of time.
I have given my students a “Start, Stop, and Continue” survey (Hoon, Oliver, Szpakowska, & Newton, 2014) in which they are asked to identify one specific thing I should start doing in class, one thing I should stop doing, and one thing I should continue doing. Giving in-class exercises has never been a “stop” suggestion and is frequently a “continue” suggestion. The practice receives positive feedback and is clearly liked by my students.
Technology use is encouraged in my classroom. I teach computer science and all my students have laptops. I prompt them to look up things on Google, to access my PowerPoint slides for reference (as they are always on Brightspace), and to use other resources as much as they desire. Any form of working with the material is encouraged, even if I do expose myself to inappropriate activities (e.g., using Facebook) during a class. I believe that trust and support will help more students than will being disciplinary and controlling. During exams, I let them bring in a “cheat sheet” (i.e., one A4 or letter-sized page, hand-written, double-sided of notes). I use this technique so that students spend their time learning to apply the heuristics (which are always on their cheat sheet) and not in memorizing the heuristics. Everything I do is intended to influence students to actively use the heuristics, to apply them, and to understand their value.
I have changed how students perceive my teaching. I have adopted techniques that are shown to work, and I have given up on my traditional views in the understanding that all I need to do is open the door and push a little; my flock of learners will eagerly trot into the field of knowledge if they know it is safe, fun, and enjoyable. I might have rowdy, rambunctious, and sometimes out of control classes, but I have students of which I am proud to say have learned.
References
Hoon, A., Oliver, E., Szpakowska, K., and Newton, P. (2015). Use of the ‘Stop, Start, Continue’ method is associated with the production of constructive qualitative feedback by students in higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 40(5), 755-767.
Neilson, J. (1994). Enhancing the exploratory power of usability heuristics. Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer-Human Interaction. Boston, MA, pp 24-28.