Active learning: Instructional activities that engage students in doing something besides listening to a lecture and taking notes.  Students may be working in small groups or writing, reading, and reflecting individually.  The activities may take place in or out of class, but the term usually refers specifically to in-class activities.

·        In-Class Teams.  Get class to form teams of 2-4 and choose team recorders.  Give teams 30 seconds-5 minutes or more to

            — Recall prior material

            — Answer or generate a question

            — Start a problem solution

            — Work out the next step in a derivation

            — Think of an example or application

            — Figure out why a given result may be wrong

            — Brainstorm a question (goal is quantity, not quality)

            — Summarize a lecture

Collect some or all answers.  This activity works for all class levels and sizes.

·        Think-Pair-Share.  Students think of answers individually, then form pairs to produce joint answers, and then share answers with class.  (Optional) Pairs may discuss answers with other pairs before general sharing.

·        Cooperative Note-Taking Pairs.[1] Students form pairs to work together during the class period.  After a short lecture segment, one partner summarizes his or her notes to the other.  The other partner adds information or corrects.  The goal is for everyone to improve his or her notes.

·        Guided Reciprocal Peer Questioning.[2] Students work in groups of three or four and are provided with a set of generic question stems:

How does … relate to what I’ve learned before?                      What if…?            

What conclusions can I draw about …?                                     Explain why …?   

What are the strengths and weaknesses of …?                            How are … and … similar?

What is the main idea of …?                                                       Why is … important?         

What is a new example of …?                                                     How would I use … to …?

What is the best … and why?                                                       How does … affect …?

—    Each student individually prepares two or three thought-provoking questions on the content presented in the lecture or reading.  The generic question stems are designed to encourage higher level thinking skills. 

—    Questions are discussed in small groups at the beginning of class, and the whole class then discusses questions that were especially interesting or controversial in the group discussions.

R.M. Felder & R. Brent, North Carolina State University, 2002.                                         

·        TAPPS[3] (Thinking Aloud Pair Problem-Solving) Apply to key problem, example, derivation, passage in text.  Time-consuming, but powerful.

—  Students form pairs (dyads, learning cells), one problem-solver, one listener.

—  Instructor defines activity (problem solver explains passage or works through

derivation or solution).

—  Problem solver (or explainer) talks though first part of solution (derivation, passage of text).  Listener (or questioner) questions, prompts to keep talking, gives clues when necessary.

—  After about 10 minutes, collect partial solutions from several listeners, reach

agreement.  Reverse roles in pairs and continue.

·        Writing assignments[4]^{, [5]} provide opportunities for students to reflect on their learning both in and out of class and are a powerful way of making sense of new material.  They can be particularly valuable if you are doing something new in a course (covering new material, using a new instructional method).

—    Tell students why you are using the writing assignments and what benefits they can expect.

—    In class

-         ask students to write what they know about a topic before you lecture on it to help them subsequently connect new ideas to what they already know.

-         stop after about 10-15 minutes of lecture and ask students to summarize the main ideas.

-         have students generate a list of practical applications of new material or questions they have about it.

—    In the lab

-         have students summarize their results and reflect on what they might mean.

-         ask students to connect lab activities with material presented in lecture.

—    Outside of class

-         get students to summarize readings and write questions about the material (See Guided Reciprocal Peer Questioning on previous page).

-         have students reflect on how their cooperative group activities are working.

—    If you have many writing assignments in a course, consider having students keep them together in a learning log. Include the learning log as a requirement of the course and assign it a small percentage of credit in your evaluation scheme.  Use a form at the front of the learning log and have students peer check for the presence of all required entries, signing to indicate completeness of the log.

R.M. Felder & R. Brent, North Carolina State University, 2002.                                         

·        Problem-Based Learning (PBL) Exercises[6]

Present problem or scenario.  Ask groups to

—    write problem definition statement

—    build hypotheses to initiate solution process

—    list what is known, what is needed to know, and what to do (update periodically)

—    generate possible solutions and identify best one

—    complete best solution and defend it

·        Minute paper[7]: Stop the lecture with two minutes to go and ask students to anonymously write

1.      the main point(s)

2.      the muddiest (least clear) point(s).

Collect the papers.  Look through the responses to check for understanding.  Begin the next lecture by addressing common questions from the minute papers.  

Variation: Provide students the option of including their names so that you can address individual questions via email.

Implementing Active Learning in Class

·        Explain what you’re doing and why up front.

·        For pair or group activities, have the students form into groups of 2-4 where they are sitting.

·        Assign crucial roles.  Most often groups need a recorder to capture their ideas, but occasionally different roles might be appropriate (e.g. timekeeper, monitor).

·        Explain the task.  The explanation can usually be done orally.  For more complicated exercises, make a transparency noting the steps to be taken or write them on the board.

·        Call randomly on individuals to report (while working and after work is complete).  This technique is an effective way to get individual accountability in the activity.

·        For longer exercises, circulate around the classroom listening in, giving hints, and checking for understanding.

·        Remember the value of variety.  Don’t get into a pattern with in-class exercises of always doing the same thing (lecture 10 minutes, 2-minute exercise,…).  Mix it up by using different structures (individual reflection, groups, think-pair-share,…) to keep the class interesting.

R.M. Felder & R. Brent, North Carolina State University, 2002.                                         

Cooperative Learning

Students work in groups on structured learning tasks under conditions that meet five criteria:

1.      Positive interdependence.  Team members must rely on one another to accomplish goal.

2.      Individual accountability.  Members held accountable for (a) doing their share of the work and (b) mastering all material.

3.      Face-to-face interaction.  Some or all work done by members working together.

4.      Appropriate use of interpersonal skills.  Team members practice and receive instruction in leadership, decision-making, communication, and conflict management.

5.      Regular self-assessment of group functioning.  Teams periodically reflect on what they are doing well as a team, what they could improve, and what (if anything) they will do differently in the future.

Cooperative learning is not

·        students sitting around a table studying together

·        group projects with one or two students doing all the work

Formal CL Structures

·        Team Homework

—  Assignments done and handed in by teams.

—  Only names of participants on final products.

—  One grade per team (may adjust for individual contributions).

—  For problem sets, each member should outline solutions individually, complete

solutions together.

—  Option: Individual outlines turned in along with group solution.

·        Team Projects

—  Projects (design, presentation) done by teams.

—  Specialized training provided for individuals (Jigsaw).

—    One grade per team adjusted for individual contributions.

·        Jigsaw

Students work in teams on projects (laboratory exercises, design projects, test review) that have several subtasks, each requiring specialized knowledge.

Þ    Form home teams.  Students in each team number off (1, 2, 3...).  All 1’s are experts on Subtask 1, 2’s on Subtask 2, etc.

Þ    Form expert groups—all 1’s together, all 2’s together.  Expert groups each receive handouts and training on their specialties.

Þ    Complete assignments in home teams.  Each team member takes the lead in making sure his/her area of expertise is covered. 

In-Class Jigsaw Activity

Þ    Form teams, designate experts. Give experts reading assignments or supplementary handouts prior to the class period in which the activity will occur.

Þ    Expert groups meet, receive additional training and checklists, share ideas and responses to questions with the group.  Home teams reconvene, complete activity. 

Þ    Teams report out.  Ideally, team members report on work in an area of expertise other than theirs (promotes individual accountability and positive interdependence)

Jigsaw Projects (Design, Research, Laboratory, Term Paper)

Þ    Assign areas of expertise (literature review, theory, experimental design, data analysis, specific articles) and/or team roles (coordinator, recorder, checker, graphic designer, programmer, statistician, modeler, group work facilitator) to each home team member

Þ    Give specialized training, resources, and checklists to all experts with the same role

Þ    To get individual accountability

– give quizzes or exams to individual students covering every aspect of the project

– call on students to report orally on parts of the project outside their area of expertise

– have students individually assess the quality of each team member’s contribution

Examination review jigsaw

Þ    Divide material for an examination into three or four sections.  Assign each expert group one of the sections.

Þ    Have expert groups go back through their notes and readings for their section of material and identify the important concepts or generate questions that might be on the exam. Go over questions with them, offer suggestions.

Þ    In home groups, the students share the work of each expert, quiz one another.

·        Composition (peer editing).  Students work in pairs to complete individual writing assignments (summary of article, research paper, position or reflection paper). 

—  Student A describes to Student B what he or she is planning to write. After asking probing and clarifying questions, Student B outlines Student A’s composition and gives it to Student A.  Then the procedure is reversed.

—  Each student researches the topic.

—  The two students together write the first paragraph of each composition. Then each student writes his or her composition individually.

—  When completed, the students proofread each other’s compositions and make suggestions for revision.

—  After individual revision, students read both compositions and sign them to indicate there are no errors.

·        Structured Controversy

—  Identify a topic that has two well-documented positions (pro and con).  Organize students into groups of four and assign pairs opposing positions.  Give each pair reading material that supports their position.

—  Groups have goals to (1) reach consensus on the issue, (2) master all the material relevant to each side as measured by a test, and (3) write a group report.

—  After researching and preparing their positions, each pair presents its case to the other. 

—  Pairs reverse perspectives and forcefully present the other opposite positions.

¾    The group members drop their advocacy and reach consensus on the issue.  They write a group report including supporting evidence and their rationale, take a test on both positions, and process how well the group functioned.

·        Pairs Testing.  Students take one or two of the course tests in pairs rather than individually.  Make the tests harder. 

·        Individual Test Followed by Pair Test (or vice versa)

—  A test is given individually for a grade.

—  The same test is given to pairs whose task is to correctly answer each question with one answer that both can agree upon and explain.  The process can be repeated with two pairs synthesizing agreed upon answers.

—  If  the pair scores 90% or better on the pair test, each receives a bonus of 5 or 10 points to be added to the individual test score.

Benefits of Cooperative Learning (references follow)

Improved

·        student-faculty interaction

·        student-student interaction

·        information retention, grades

·        higher-level thinking skills

·        attitudes toward subject, motivation to learn it

·        teamwork, interpersonal skills

·        communication skills

·        understanding of professional environment

·        self-esteem, lower level of anxiety (due to less emphasis on competition)

·        race, gender relations (if CL is implemented carefully)

·        class attendance

Plus far fewer (and better) papers to grade!

Meta-analysis^* of 39 studies of small-group learning in college science, mathematics, engineering, and technology courses(1998):

·        positive effect (d=0.51) on achievement (sufficient to move student from 50^th  percentile to 70^th percentile on a standardized test).  (d = standardized mean difference)

·        positive effect (d=0.46) on persistence (sufficient to reduce attrition from SMET courses and programs by 22%)

·        positive effect (d=0.55) on student attitudes (far exceeds the average effect on affective outcome measures of d=0.28 for classroom-based educational interventions)

^* “Measuring the Success of Small-Group Learning in College-level SMET Teaching: A Meta-Analysis” by Leonard Springer, Mary Elizabeth Stanne, and Samuel Donovan. <http://www.wcer.wisc.edu/CL1/resource/scismet.htm>

References on Cooperative Learning

To find practical suggestions for CL structures and troubleshooting:

1.       Felder, R. M., & Brent, R. (2001). Effective strategies for cooperative learning.  Journal of Cooperation and Collaboration in College Teaching, 10(2), 69-75.  View and download at http://www.ncsu.edu/effective_teaching/Papers/CLStrategies(JCCCT).pdf

2.       Felder, R. M., & Brent, R. (1996). Navigating the bumpy road to student-centered instruction. College Teaching, 44(2), 43-47.  View and download at http://www.ncsu.edu/effective_teaching/Papers/Resist.html

3.       Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R.T., & Smith, K. A. (1998). Active learning: Cooperation in the college classroom (2^nd ed.). Edina. MN: Interaction Book Co.

4.       King, A. (1993). From sage on the stage to guide on the side. College Teaching, 41(1), 30-35.

5.       Lochhead, J., & Whimbey, A. (1987). Teaching analytical reasoning through thinking aloud pair problem solving.  In J. E. Stice (Ed.), Developing critical thinking and problem-solving abilities: New directions for teaching and learning, No. 30. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

6.       Millis, B. J. & Cottell, Jr., P. G. (1998). Cooperative learning for higher education faculty. Phoenix, AZ: Oryx Press.

7.       Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. (1996). Academic controversy: Enriching college instruction through intellectual conflict. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report V. 25 No. 3.  Washington, DC: The George Washington University Graduate School of Education and Human Development.

To get an overview of CL:

8.       Felder, R. M., & Brent, R. (1994). Cooperative learning in technical courses: Procedures, pitfalls, and payoffs. Report to the National Science Foundation. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 377 038)   View and download at http://www.ncsu.edu/effective_teaching/Papers/Coopreport.html

9.       Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. (1998). Maximizing instruction through cooperative learning. ASEE Prism, 7(6), 24-29.

To explore the research base for CL:

10.      Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Stanne, M. B. (2000). Cooperative Learning Methods: A meta-analysis. University of Minnesota, Minneapolis: Cooperative Learning Center. View and download at http://www.clcrc.com/pages/cl-methods.html

11.      Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. (1991).  Cooperative learning: Increasing college faculty instructional productivity (ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 4). Washington, DC: George Washington University.

12.      Springer, L., Stanne, M. E., & Donovan, S. (1997). Effects of small-group learning on undergraduates in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology: A meta-analysis. Madison, WI: National Institute for Science Education.  View and download at http://www.wcer.wisc.edu/nise/CL1/CL/resource/R2.htm  

13.      Terenzini, P.T., Cabrera, A.F., Colbeck, C.L., Parente, J.M., & Bjorklund, S.A. (2001). Collaborative learning vs. lecture/discussion: Students' reported learning gains. J. Engr. Education, 90(1), 123-130.

For more information on CL:

14.   Visit the Collaborative Learning Website sponsored by the National Institute for Science Education to read about recent research on cooperative learning in higher education science, math, engineering, and technology courses and to get lots of practical suggestions for making CL work. http://www.wcer.wisc.edu/nise/cl1

15.   For an excellent resource for articles and links, go to Online Collaborative Learning in Higher Education http://musgrave.cqu.edu.au/clp/

16.   To obtain the Engineering Team Training Workbook developed at Arizona State University, contact Christa Lawcock, Custom Academic Publishing Company at 1-800-364-0010, ext. 4969.  To download it over the internet, go the following web site: http://www.eas.asu.edu/~asufc/teaminginfo/teams.html

If you have questions about downloading the files or the Workbook itself, send them to:  Don.Butler@asu.edu

17.   To order The Journal of Cooperation & Collaboration in College Teaching, visit the web site of New Forums Press:  http://www.newforums.com

To read about a longitudinal study of cooperative learning in engineering education:

18.   R.M. Felder, G.N. Felder, E.J. Dietz, "A Longitudinal Study of Engineering Student Performance and Retention. V. Comparisons with Traditionally-Taught Students," J. Engr. Education, 87(4), 469-480 (1998).  View and download at http://www.ncsu.edu/effective_teaching/Papers/long5.html

19.   R.M. Felder, "A Longitudinal Study of Engineering Student Performance and Retention. IV. Instructional Methods and Student Responses to Them," J. Engr. Education, 84(4), 361-367 (1995). View and download at http://www.ncsu.edu/effective_teaching/Papers/long4.html  

20.   R.M. Felder, G.N. Felder, M. Mauney, C.E. Hamrin, Jr., and E.J. Dietz, "A Longitudinal Study of Engineering Student Performance and Retention. III. Gender Differences in Student Performance and Attitudes," J. Engr. Education, 84(2), 151-174 (1995).

21.   R.M. Felder, P.H. Mohr, E.J. Dietz, and L. Baker-Ward, "A Longitudinal Study of Engineering Student Performance and Retention. II. Differences Between Students from Rural and Urban Backgrounds," J. Engr. Education, 83(3), 209-217 (1994).

22.   R.M. Felder, K.D. Forrest, L. Baker-Ward, E.J. Dietz, and P.H. Mohr, "A Longitudinal Study of Engineering Student Performance and Retention. I. Success and Failure in the Introductory Course," J. Engr. Education, 82(1), 15-21 (1993).