1

Active Learning: Participation, Group Work and Still Lots of Content to Cover

Resource Collection prepared by Maryellen Weimer, Ph.D.

grg@psu.edu blog: www.facultyfocus.com

Active Learning: The Evidence

Benassi, V. A., Overson, C. E., & Hakala, C. M. (Editors). (2014). Applying science of learning in education: Infusing psychological science into the curriculum. Retrieved from the Society for the Teaching of Psychology website: http://teachpsych.org/ebooks/asle2014/index.php --an amazing free resource with chapter summarizing much of the current research on learning with many chapters written by those doing the research and writing about it with accessible language and suggestions for implementing what the research has established

Eberlein, T., Kampmeier, J., Minderhout, V., Moog, R. S., Platt, T., Varma-Nelson, P., and White, H. B. “Pedagogies of Engagement in Science.” Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 2008, 36 (4), 262-273.

--clear descriptions of three group learning models; problem based learning, process-oriented guided inquiry and peer-led team learning. References relevant research and resources.

Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okorafor, N., Jordt, H., and Wenderoth, M. P., (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), 111 (23), 8410-8415.

Allen, D., (2014). Recent research in science teaching and learning. Cell Biology Education—Life Sciences Education, 13 (Winter), 584-5.

Weiman, C. E., (2014. Large-scale comparison of science teaching methods sends clear message. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), 111 (23), 8319-8320.

--Freeman et.al. conducted a 225 study meta-analysis that compared classes using active learning approaches with classes taught by lecture. Exam grades improved by 6% in classes with active learning and students were 1.5 times more likely to fail in courses taught by lecture. Weiman offers a commentary on the meta-analysis. Allen provides a concise summary of this research in an open access journal.

Halpern, D. F, and Hakel, M. D. “Applying the Science of Learning to the University and Beyond: Teaching for Long-Term Retention and Transfer.” Change, July/August 2008, 36-41.

--identifies 10 research-based learning principles that enhance long-term retention and transfer

Michael, J. “Where’s the Evidence that Active Learning Works?” Advances in Physiology Education, 2006, 30, 159-167.

--an excellent review of the research with special emphasis on evidence supporting active learning in the sciences

Prince, M. “Does Active Learning Work? A Review of the Research.” Journal of Engineering Education, July 2004, 223-231.

--a comprehensive and compelling analysis of the impact of active learning experiences

Classroom Interaction (participation and discussion)

General Resources

Brookfield, S. and Preskill, S .Discussion as a Way of Teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2005. -- A soup to nuts resource for all aspects of discussion teaching, but particularly useful in preparing and managing face-to-face and online discussion.

2

Christensen, C R., Garvin, D. A. and Sweet, A. Educating for Judgment: The Artistry of Discussion Leadership. CITY: Harvard University Press, 1992.

--An edited anthology, full of good chapters, especially those by Christensen who is recognized as a leading authority on discussion.

Sauter, P. “Designing Discussion Activities to Achieve Desired Learning Outcomes: Choices Using Mode of

Delivery and Structure.” Journal of Marketing Education, 2007, 29 (2), 122-131. --A great piece on designing discussion activities. Compares face-to-face and online discussions, and

structured and unstructured discussion. Lots of good references. Tanner, K. D. “Talking to Learn: Why Biology Student Should Be Talking in Classrooms and How to Make it

Happen.” Cell Biology Education—Life Sciences Education, 2009,8, 89-94. --If you need to be persuaded of the value of student interaction, this article makes a convincing case for it.

It also lists the barriers that prevent many faculty from using interaction and offers an array of strategies for overcoming them. Never mind that it’s written about biology students, the contents are relevant in every discipline.

Participation and Discussion  Auster, C. J. and MacRone, M. “The Classroom as a Negotiated Social Setting: An Empirical Student of the

Effects of Faculty Members’ Behaviors on Students’ Participation.” Teaching Sociology, 1994, 22, 289-300.

--In a study that compared classes with the most and least participation, there was significantly more participation when faculty asked analytical rather than factual questions and when they called on students by name, provided positive reinforcement and asked for student’s opinions even when they didn’t volunteer.

Craven, III, J. A. and Hogan, T. “Assessing Student Participation in the Classroom.” Science Scope, 2001, 25 (1), 36-40. --Contains a rubric that can be used to assess participation.

Howard, J. R. and Henney, A. C. “Student Participation in Mixed Age Classrooms.” Journal of Higher Education, 1998, 69 (4), 384-405. --Over half the students in this study did not participate in any of the 10 session of each class observed.

Jones, R. C.“The “Why” of Class Participation, A Question Worth Asking.” College Teaching, 2008, 56 (1), 59-63. --Offers a good overview of the intentions behind the use of participation and suggests new ways of

thinking about its use.

Keeling, E. L., Polacek, K. M., and Ingram, E. L. “A Statistical Analysis of Student Questions in a Cell Biology Laboratory.” Cell Biology Education—Life Sciences Education, 2009, 8 (Summer), 131-139.

--Assigned students to write questions prior to labs. Analysis of the questions revealed students did not write many higher order questions and that this practice of writing questions did not dramatically improve the quality of the questions. Researchers conclude that in order to write better questions, students need direct instruction of the types and quality of questions.

Krohn, K. R., Foster, L. N., McCleary, D. F., Aspiranti, K. B., Nalls, M. L., Quillivan, C. C., Taylor, C. M., and Williams, R. L. “Reliability of Students’ Self-Recorded Participation in Class Discussion.” Teaching of Psychology, 2011, 38(1), 43-45.

--Empirically investigated a method of having students record and describe their discussion contributions which showed that student did not over-report their participation.

3

Marbach-Ad, G. and Sokolove, P. G. “Can Undergraduate Biology Students Learn to Ask Higher Level Questions?” Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 2000, 37 (8), 854-870.-The results of this study answer the question yes. In a large biology course taught using a variety of active learning strategies that emphasized questioning, the quality of student questions improved significantly compared with a course taught using a lecture approach.

Mello, J. A.“The Good, The Bad, and the Controversial: The Practicalities and Pitfalls of the Grading of Class Participation.”Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 2010, 14(1), 77-97. --An excellent article that explores the pros and cons of grading participation, issues that make it challenging to grade and offers some alternative strategies.

Nunn, C. E. “Discussion in the College Classroom: Triangulating Observational and Survey Results.” Journal of Higher Education, 1996, 67 (3), 243-266.

--Half the students surveyed in this study said they participated infrequently or never in their classes.

Penny, L. and Murphy, E. “Rubrics for Designing and Evaluating Online Asynchronous Discussions.” British Journal of Educational Technology, 2009, 40 (5), 804-820.

--Analyzed 50 rubrics which identified 153 performance criteria for online discussions. Organized these criteria into four major categories: cognitive, mechanical, procedural/managerial and interactive. Lots of items included in the article.

Weaver, R. R. and Qi, J. “Classroom Organization and Participation.” Journal of Higher Education, 2005, 76 (5), 570-600.

--“The more students perceive the professor as an authority of knowledge, the less likely it is they will participate in class.” (p. 586)

Weimer, M. Learner-Centered Teaching: Five Key Changes to Practice. 2nded. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass,

2013. --I describe the process I use to let students set the participation policy in the class (pp. 101-104) and how I

use self- and peer assessment in grading participation (pp. 189-191). Weimer, M. Discussion Details. Teaching Professor Blog Post, April 10, 2013. Find it at: www.facultyfocus.com --Identifies the various decisions a teacher must make when deciding how to respond to a student comment

and the details that need to be kept track of as the discussion unfolds. Welty, W. M. “Discussion Method Teaching: How to Make it Work.” Change, July-August 1989, pp. 40-49. --A classic; full of great advice on preparing for and facilitating classroom interaction. Group Work Forming Groups Blowers, P. “Using Student Skill Self-Assessment to Get Balanced Groups for Group Projects.” College Teaching,

2003, 51 (3), 106-110. Chapman, K. J., Meuter, M., Toy, D., and Wright, L. “Can’t We Pick our Own Groups? The Influence of Group

Selection Method on Group Dyanmics and Outcomes.” Journal of Management Education, 2006, 30 (4), 357-569.

Connerley, M. L., and Mael, F. A. “The Importance and Invasiveness of Student Team Selection Criteria.” Journal

of Management Education, 2001, 25 (5), 471-494. Mahenthiran, S., and Rouse, P. J. “The Impact of Group Selection on Student Performance and Satisfaction.”

International Journal of Educational Management, 2000, 14 (6), 255.264.

4

Thompson, M. E. “Building Groups on Students’ Knowledge and Experience.” Teaching Sociology, 1993, 21 (1), 95-99.

Zeff, L. E., Highby, M. A., and Bossman, Jr., L. J. “Permanent or Temporary Classroom Groups: A Field Study.”

Journal of Management Education, 2006, 30 (4), 528-541.

Designing Group Activities and Assignments Bacon, D. R., Stewart, K. W., and Silver, W. S. “Lessons from the Best and Worst Student Team Experiences:

How a Teacher Can Make the Difference.” Journal of Management Education, 1999, 23 (5), 467-488. McCorkle, D. E., Reardon, J., Alexander, J. F., Kling, N. D., Harris, R. C. and Iyler, R. V. “Undergraduate

Marketing Students, Group Projects, and Teamwork: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly?” Journal of Marketing Education, 1999, 21 (2), 106-117.

Yamane, D. “Collaboration and Its Discontents: Steps toward Overcoming Barriers to Successful Group Projects.”

Teaching Sociology, 1996, 24 (4), 378-383. Interesting Group Activities and Assignments DiClementi, J. D. and Handelsman, M. M. “Empowering Students: Class-Generated Rules.” Teaching of

Psychology, 2005, 32 (1), 18-21.

Hudd, S. S. “Syllabus Under Construction: Involving Students in the Creation of Class Assignments.” Teaching Sociology, 2003, 31 (2), 195-202.

Kapitanoff, S. H. “Collaborative Testing: Cognitive and Interpersonal Processes Related to Enhanced Test

Performance.” Active Learning in Higher Education, 2009, 10 (1), 56-70. Pandey, C., and Kapitanoff, S. “The Influence of Anxiety and Quality of Interaction on Collaborative Test

Performance.” Active Learning in Higher Education, 2011, 12 (3), 163-174. Rao, S. P., Collins, H. L., and DiCarlo, S. E. “Collaborative Testing Enhances Student Learning.” Advances in

Physiology Education, 2002, 26 (1), 37-41. Van Auken, P. “Maybe It’s Both of Us: Engagement and Learning.” Teaching Sociology, 2011, 41 (2), 207-215. Yamane, D. “Course Preparation Assignments: A Strategy for Creating Discussion-Based Courses. Teaching

Sociology, 2006, 34 (July), 236-248. Zimbardo, P. G., Butler, L. D., and Wolfe, V. A. “Cooperative College Examinations: More Gain, Less Pain When

Students Share Information and Grades.” Journal of Experimental Education, 2003, 71 (2), 101-125. Group Dysfunction: Causes and Cures

Aggarwal, P., and O’Brien, C. L. “Social Loafing on Group Projects: Structural Antecedents and Effect on Student Satisfaction,” Journal of Marketing Education, 2008, 30 (3), 255-264.

Aaron, J. R., McDowell, W. C., and Herdman, A. O. (2014). The effects of a team charter on student team

behaviors. Journal of Education for Business, 89 (2), 90-97. Barr, T. F., Dixon, A. L., and Gassenheimer, J. B. “Exploring the ‘Lone Wolf’ Phenomenon in Student Teams.”

Journal of Marketing Education, 2005, 27 (1), 81-90.

5

Hall, D., and Buzwell, S. “The Problem of Free-Riding in Group Projets: Looking Beyond Social Loafing as

Reason for Non-Contribution.” Active Learning in Higher Education, 2012, 14 (1), 37-49. Jassawalla, A., Sashittal, H., and Malshe, A. “Students’ Perceptions of Social Loafing: Its Antecedents and

Consequences in Undergraduate Business Classroom Teams.” Academy of Management & Learning, 2009, 8 (1), 42-54.

Lerner, L. D. “Making Student Groups Work.” Journal of Management Education, 1995, 19 (1), 123-125. Marks, M. B., and O’Connor, A. H. “Understanding Students’ Attitudes About Group Work: What Does This

Suggest for Instructors of Business?” Journal of Education for Business, 2013, 88 (3), 147-158. Assessing Learning in Groups Anson, R., and Goodman, J. A. “A Peer Assessment System to Improve Student Team Experiences.” Journal of

Education for Business, 2014, 89 (2), 27-34. Baker, D. F. “Peer Assessment in Small Groups: A Comparison of Methods.” Journal of Management Education,

2008, 32 (2), 183-209.

Brooks, C. M., and Ammons, J. L. “Free Riding in Group Projects and the Effects of Timing, Frequency, and Specificity of Criteria in Peer Assessments.” Journal of Education for Business, 2003, (May/June), 268-272.

Ohland, M. W., Loughry, M. L., Oweher, D. J., Bullard, L. G. Felder, R. M., Finelli, C. J., Layton, R. A., Pomeranz, H. R., and Schmucker, D. G. “The Comprehensive Assessment of Team Member Effectiveness: Development of a Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scale for Self- and Peer Evaluation.” Academy of Management Learning & Education, 2012, 11 (4), 609-630.