INTERACTIVE LEARNING IN THE LECTURE-CLASS SETTING Alan Slavin Department of Physics and

1. INTERACTIVE LEARNING IN THE LECTURE-CLASS SETTING Alan Slavin Department of Physics and Jonathan Swallow (deceased) Instructional Development Centre TRENT UNIVERSITY Funding: Trent University’s Instructional Development Centre Plug: http://www.mcmaster.ca/learning/posped for publication of articles on innovative teaching. EOSET Dec. 2, 2003 Queen's University

2. Outline 1. Why change the standard lecture/ assignments/lab approach to university physics teaching? 2. Approach being used at Trent in PHYS 100 ~90 students in 2003-04 (and some upper-year courses) • Peer Instruction • Just-in-time teaching via WebCT 3. Results 4. Discussion

3. PROBLEMS WITH CONVENTIONAL APPROACH • Research over the last 20 years has shown that the traditional lecture/assignments/lab approach is not very successful in facilitating learning • These are well summarized by Lillian McDermott, Conf. on the Introductory Physics Course, 1997. • The main points are • Students must be actively involved in the process of constructing their mental models of how the world works if they are to have more than a superficial understanding. • The ability to solve standard end-of-chapter numerical problems is insufficient to develop a deep understanding. Qualitative and verbal facility with the concepts are required as well. • Most students do not develop analytical reasoning through traditional instruction.

4. The best evidence of this is a study correlated by R.R. Hake [American J. of Physics 66 (1998) 64-74], which compares the performance of 6542 students in introductory physics courses in their conceptual understanding on a standard mechanics test (Force Concept Inventory). Students who were taught using “interactive-engagement” approaches improved twice as much on this test as did students taught by a conventional lecture approach. The interactive engagment approach used for the last several years in the introductory course at Trent University has two components, called “Peer Instruction” and “Just-in-time teaching (JITT)” by their popularizers.

5. Peer Instruction (Eric Mazur Prentice Hall 1997) ! There are no formal lectures. Students are given, as a reading assignments for each class, what was previously covered in the lecture. ! Start class with a ~5min. review of main points (a) to remind what was read, and (b) to emphasize what are the main points ! Rest of class time is used for: (a) usual apparatus demonstrations: connection between theory and the physical world (b) small group discussion: qualitative conceptual problems, or simple analytical problems requiring strong conceptual understanding. All students are involved! For these, use overhead to present a short, multiple-choice question , designed to develop understanding. -Initially the possible answers are not presented. -Students try individually to answer the question, then try to convince their neighbours in ~ 5-minute discussion. -In this time, I address individual concerns 1-on-1.

6. -After ~ 5 minutes, I provide the choices and class votes for the answer. • The vote: • Students display cards with choice A ... F • Instant feedback on comprehension, to me. • Then I give the correct reasoning (modelling the discipline), addressing both right and wrong answers. Instant feedback to students. • Often generates questions from students who voted for the incorrect answer. A group decision gives confidence to ask questions, if still unclear. • Possible version for arts/social sciences, where no right/wrong answer: 2 or 3 groups report back to class, and then the instructor gives his/her view.

8. The Pre-Class Readings Are from legible notes distributed in advance. Other instructors often use a standard textbook. Writing clear notes is much work and should be avoided if possible. Amount of work for the instructor Once the materials are developed, about the same as a normal lecture approach: ~ 0.5 hrs before class. Results Good, based on other studies and student response in my courses. E.g. Mazur showed an increase of 6.7% on a final exam which was the same as one hw used before going to Peer Instruction. Problem with the approach Often as little as 25% of the class do the reading prior to class. This reduces the level of discussion and learning in the class considerably. Solved by Just-in-Time Teaching.

9. Just-In-Time Teaching (Trent Version) (Novak, Patterson, Garvin, Christian, Prentice Hall 1999) !Students are assigned three questions on each reading, to be answered prior to class, using WebCT (a web-based Class Tools program that provides a framework for presenting course materials and computer multiple-choice grading). !The reading tests are posted at the start of term, and close 9 AM on the day of the class. !Two questions are multiple-choice and are graded by WebCT. They can be answered by a careful reading of the material and do NOT require a conceptual understanding; eg, definitions. The mark (5%) increases class reading to ~ 70%. !The third question is “What part of this reading requires clarification? Why?” The text reply is not graded.

10. !The instructor reviews the results just prior to the class, and goes to class prepared (just in time) to address difficulties in understanding using appropriate “Peer Instruction” questions. !Students claim that their difficulties with understanding the notes are almost always addressed in the class.

11. Results of In-class Survey of Students on JITT(by Jonathan Swallow) The survey 1. What has changed for you as a result of pre-class quizzes? 2. How large is this change? 3. What do you like/dislike about the pre-class quiz? 4. How should the quizzes be changed? 40 students out of a class of 59 answered the survey. Positive outcomes !82% said that they read the notes more before class, or came to class better prepared. • 40% of respondents said both of the above • 40% (of the 82%) said the change was significant !18% other responses (7 students) • 3 said nothing re amount of their reading or class preparation • 3 said they don't read the materials (just search for the answers) • 1 always did the readings, and resented the quizzes because others did not do the readings 4 students asked that the quizzes have more questions, to cover more of the reading.

12. Example over 14 classes. Class = 59 students Negative aspects ~29% had logistical difficulties (finding a computer, getting web access, waiting for WebCT responses) - 15% said it increased their workload (only 1 said this was a significant change) What students liked The most frequent response (~1/3 of students) regarded the question which asks what part of the reading needs clarifying. They liked giving feedback, and felt that class time was more focussed on their needs. What students did not like The most frequent complaint: (~1/3 of students) said they had difficulty remembering to answer the quizzes!

13. Summary • Research shows that interactive-engagement teaching improves student performance on standardized tests. • There are effective ways of making a large class highly interactive. • Web-based (graded) pre-class quizzes on reading material significantly increases the number of students who do the readings. • Students like giving pre-class feedback to the instructor. • This pre-class feedback enables class material to be adjusted slightly for effective “Just-In-Time” Teaching. • The Peer Instruction approach forms the basis for all my upper-year teaching as well, but I am not yet using pre-class quizzes.