In many courses, students struggle to master the technical language of the discipline. The meaning of new terms is usually not obvious or intuitive. Moreover, the words describe concepts and processes that are also unfamiliar to students. Not surprisingly, the jargon of the discipline can
We know a lot about study strategies—how they can be used to improve exam performance and promote a deeper understanding of the material. We also know that many students are attempting to learn course content without particularly strong study skills. They procrastinate and have short
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?”
I continue to be concerned that we don’t design learning experiences as developmentally as we should. What happens to students across a course (and the collection of courses that make up a degree program) ought to advance their knowledge and skills. Generally, we do a
“Efficient and effective learning starts with a proper mindset,” Stephen Chew writes in his short, readable, and very useful chapter, “Helping Students to Get the Most Out of Studying.” Chew continues, pointing out what most of us know firsthand, students harbor some fairly serious
“Good job”
“Vague”
“Grammar”
Do they look familiar? Students are used to getting the bulk of their feedback as these sorts of “margin comments” running down the side of their papers. Unfortunately, such comments are of almost no value to the student, because he or she does
The recent decades have seen growing faculty interest in learning. Increasingly, teaching is being understood in terms of how well it promotes and facilitates learning. Faculty are more familiar than ever with the evidence that favors active learning over lecture. And although many still lecture,
The past several decades have seen an interest in learning surge. It’s always been part of our educational endeavors, but the recent focus on it has been intense—that is, for teachers. Our interest is not shared by most of our students. They are still pretty
We’re at that time of the academic year when the daily details begin to pile up. Teach a class, grade assignments, schedule advisees, and prep for tomorrow. It may not feel like a grind just yet, but it does require lots of focused energy, which
Now here’s an argument I haven’t heard before: Improving your instruction makes it easier for students to learn. If it’s easier for them to learn, they won’t work as hard in the course, and that means they could learn less. It’s called offsetting behavior and
Magna Publications © 2023 All rights reserved
In many courses, students struggle to master the technical language of the discipline. The meaning of new terms is usually not obvious or intuitive. Moreover, the words describe concepts and processes that are also unfamiliar to students. Not surprisingly, the jargon of the discipline can get in the way of learning, especially for students who do not have large vocabularies or a love of language.
This problem motivated researchers to examine whether there might be a better way to introduce students to new content. They shared their findings in Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education; however, the implications are relevant for most every discipline. I’ve summarized the key points here and encourage you to read the article in its entirety if you think the authors’ approach might benefit your students.
McDonnell, L., Barker, M. K., & Wieman, C. (2016). Concepts first, jargon second improves student articulation of understanding. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 44(1), 12–19. https://doi.org/10.1002/bmb.20922 [Open access]
There’s research documenting that the number of new terms in some science textbooks outnumbers words learned in an introductory foreign language course. The work is also theoretically aligned with cognitive load theories, which posit that the brain has a discrete amount of cognitive processing power. If a student is using their mental resources to figure out pronunciations and meanings, they’ll have fewer resources available to focus on understanding the concept or process. This can be exacerbated when an instructor moves quickly through unfamiliar disciplinary language.
A first-year introductory cell biology course taught in two lecture sections with a cohort of 42 students in each section participated in the study.
Students in the experimental group completed a reading assignment before class in which everyday language replaced disciplinary jargon. The control group read the same material without the technical language being replaced. The 42-student cohorts, one for the control group, the other for the experimental treatment, were selected because they indicated that they’d read all the assigned pre-reading material. At the beginning of class, students in the experimental group were introduced to the jargon terms. Afterward, the same instructor lectured on content covered in the reading in both sections. Student performance was measured on an in-class post-test that included both multiple-choice and free-response questions.
The researchers did not measure student familiarity with the jargon used during the study. It may be that some students already knew the terms, having taken biology courses in high school. Such prior knowledge could have influenced their test question answers.
This research underscores the validity of small changes: “We did not increase class time, reduce course material, or increase student workload” (p. 18). The results, furthermore, should encourage those teaching introductory courses to consider these questions: Is there too much technical language in courses for nonmajors? Is learning the language of a discipline more or less important than understanding what the field studies and how knowledge in the field advances? Finally, the results should motivate faculty to consider describing important concepts and processes in common, everyday language. The findings do not excuse students from learning technical language. Rather, they explore what happens to learning when students are encouraged to understand first and attach a label after they know what it names.
