Let’s start with an example. In a recent issue of College Teaching, Forrest Cooper describes how he modified the well-known and widely used “Think-Pair-Share” strategy. It continues to be an effective way to get students talking with each other about course content. But Cooper’s goal
In the 2017 Hans O. Mauksch Address presented at the American Sociology Association annual meeting, Melinda Messineo argues that we aren’t using as much of the science of learning as we could to help students learn. “In many ways, our efforts in the classroom are
There’s no question that students learn an enormous amount when they assume the role of teacher. That’s why student presentations hold such great potential to enhance student ownership of the content. The problem is that while the student presenters learn much, in most cases the
You’ve explained something. You can’t tell from their bland expressions if they understand or not. “Do you have any questions?” The silence is long; finally a hand goes up and one of your better students admits, “I’m totally confused.” “How about the rest of you?”
Would you prefer to go to a party with 50 exciting, brand-new people that you’ve never met before, or would you prefer to have dinner with an old, dear friend? You’ve probably guessed already that extroverts would prefer the party and introverts would prefer dinner
The use of clickers, especially in large classes, has made participation a reality for a lot more students. It’s a safe way to offer an answer and an equally constructive way to find out whether yours is the correct answer. Research on clickers and learning
Faculty have access to more information about college teaching than ever before. Researchers have studied a host of instructional approaches and published results in myriad journals. Educators have shared summaries of and links to such studies informally on websites and through Twitter feeds. This is
In recent years, the phrase active learning has become commonplace across the academic disciplines of higher education. Indeed, most faculty members are familiar with definitions that go something like this: Active learning involves tasks that require students not only to do something, but also to
Michael Prince, PhD and Maryellen Weimer, PhD
November 2, 2017
Fear of student resistance prevents many college teachers from adopting active learning strategies. That’s unfortunate, because these strategies have been shown to significantly increase student learning, improve retention in academic programs, and provide especially strong benefits to traditionally underrepresented student groups. Addressing two key questions
Let's start with an example. In a recent issue of College Teaching, Forrest Cooper describes how he modified the well-known and widely used “Think-Pair-Share” strategy. It continues to be an effective way to get students talking with each other about course content. But Cooper's goal was to make the strategy even more learner-centered.
In his modified version students come to class with two questions based on their assigned reading. The “think” part at this stage involves generating questions other than those that can be answered with simple recall. Class opens with students “pairing” and then asking and answering each other's questions. Next, the students count off and form groups of about five but not with their partner in the group. The group answers every member's questions and then selects the two “best” questions that they will ask the instructor. Cooper answers the first couple of questions directly but then he starts using the questions to open class discussion. He reports that since students have been selecting the questions, their investment in the activity has increased. He also thinks that having students work on the questions in groups has improved the quality of their questions overall.
This use of “Think-Pair-Share” holds students accountable for doing the reading and it then uses the assigned reading as a foundation for what will be covered in class. This modified version of the strategy gets even more student interaction and it's designed to develop question-asking skills.
Faculty regularly modify strategies, making them work with course content and responsive to the learning needs of students. Most teachers make modifications almost automatically, guided by an intuitive sense of what will and won't work given the content, the students, and the teacher. And that's fine, but what if the process were a bit more systematic and thoughtful?
It could start with why the strategy was selected in the first place. Why is it being used? What were the intended goals? To what extent are those goals being accomplished—from the teacher's perspective and from the students' perspectives? Next, the strategy can be dissected, taken apart at the seams. What routinely happens when students “Think-Pair-Share?” If that's not all it could or should be, what could be changed? What about giving students a scenario to discuss, or three solutions to the problem or two potential exam questions to answer? Maybe the sharing needs to be broader? How might it work if three students were involved?
Even small design details can make a difference. How often should a strategy like this be used? When should it be used? Should you ease students into the content at the beginning of the period or give them a break in the middle? Could it occur online? What happens if students always share with the same person, or always do it with a different person?
It's easy for teaching strategies to fall into comfortable ruts. We know how we use them. It's a part of class prep we don't have to worry about. We do it as we've done it before. That works for a while, but then it doesn't work as well as it once did. That should signal that it's time to modify the strategy, to fiddle with parts—fix, repair, or replace. And suddenly an old faithful like “Think-Pair-Share” offers students a whole new learning experience.
Reference:
Cooper, F. (2018). A modification of “Think-Pair-Share” to make it more learner-centered by using student-generated questions. College Teaching, 66 (1), 34.