Experiences in Collaborative Learning at the University of Rochester – It’s all in the Shoes

1. Experiences in Collaborative Learning at the University of Rochester – It’s all in the Shoes Steve Manly Department of Physics and Astronomy University of Rochester http://www.pas.rochester.edu/

2. thrilled honored touched excited Sexiest astrophysicist alive

3. PI question How is innovative teaching like buying/wearing new shoes? • Discomfort with the current styles • Gotta get the fit right • The cost is prohibitive • No matter what you do, it’ll start to stink when you get comfortable with it

4. Get the right fit: shoes aren’t good if they don’t fit. Get the right fit: students get upset if the basic fit isn’t right. Teaching is not a “one size fits all” profession. • Gerry Wheeler’s (truth)(clarity) uncertainty principle • flexibility for institutionalization

5. What is a “workshop” at UR? Institutionalized study group Small group size (5-12) No stacking - mix of abilities Meet 2 hours once a week Work together through problem set designed by professor Trained peer leader (undergraduate) who facilitates Comfortable, non-evaluative atmosphere – some profs give points for attendance, others don’t Separate lectures/demo, labs, problem sets, help room, use PRS

6. A UR workshop is not… Lecture Homework Recitation A couple of references to some of the UR work: E.Page, S.Manly, V. Roth, Student perception regarding the helpfulness of different types of physics problems in a student-assisted learning environment at the University of Rochester, submitted to Am. J. Phys. (still in review, email steven.manly@rochester.edu for a copy) L. Tien, J. Kampmeier, and V. Roth, Implementation of a Peer-Led Team Learning instructional approach in an undergraduate chemistry course, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 606-632 (2002).

7. We are not the first people down this path … Fairly similar to Heller et al.’s Cooperative Group problem-solving strategy: P. Heller, R. Keith, and S. Anderson, Teaching problem solving through cooperative grouping. Part 1: group versus individual problem solving, Am. J. Phys., 60, 627-636 (1992). P. Heller and M. Hallabaugh, Teaching problem solving through cooperative grouping. Part 2: designing problems and structuring groups, Am. J. Phys., 60, 637-644 (1992). Contains some elements similar to Laws’ Workshop Physics and Sokoloff and Thorton’s Interactive Lecture Demonstrations: P. Laws, Workshop Physics Activity Guide Modules, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 2002. P. Laws and P. Schaffer, Tutorials in Introductory Physics, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 2002. D. Sokoloff and R. Thornton, Using Interactive Lecture Demonstrations to create an active learning environment, Phys. Teach. 35, 340-347 (1997). Also very similar to Univ. Colorado’s Learning Assistant Model (Otero, Pollock, Finkelstein, Iona) and the CER Peer-Led Team Learning (PLTL) model:

8. M1 M2 The structure of the workshop problems Mix of styles/types: Conceptual and analytical, simple and complex, context-rich and straightforward Structured for group exploration of the process of solving problems and analyzing cases Take advantage of group setting Some hands-on and get-out-of-your-seat exercises

9. What is a leader? Facilitator, not a lecturer Knowledgeable peer, not necessarily a major in the given field Undergraduate and graduate (vertical integration!) Depth of knowledge Peer Buy-in to model Social graces

10. Leader Training Faculty & Learning Specialist Partnership 1.5 hour leader training meeting once a week with faculty member and a learning specialist Quality control of the educational model and the content • Explore how students learn, how teams work, how best to facilitate the learning • Review content for week’s workshops • Communicate issues (good and bad) concerning rooms, students, course Undergraduates get 2 hours credit and pay Graduate students have requirement to teach for at least one year as part of degree (and get paid)

11. What do the students do in workshop for 2 hours/week? • Work on the week’s problems together as a group or in small subgroups • Come to closure together on how to approach the problems (may be multiple approaches to discuss!) • Work through shared and individual questions and misconceptions. • Step back together and explore the process of solving/thinking through the problems … metacognition (thinking about thinking) • Hopefully … have fun in a relaxed, non-evaluational environment ENGAGE

12. Where is it done? Biology Chemistry Biochemistry Computer Science Electrical Engineering Economics Physics Mathematics ~25-30 faculty Intro courses and some core major courses

13. Workshop Taskforce Electrical engineering Chemistry Economics Cross-departmental, interdisciplinary group Seek to solve common problems Brainstorming sessions common Seed group for other activities Gang up on deans and chairs in fight for rooms appropriate to collaborative learning, leader training resources, and seed money for new courses/faculty interested in trying model Computer science Warner School of Education Biology Biochemistry Writing program Physics Mathematics

14. In 2005 ~120 workshop sections in ~10 courses ~1500 undergraduate students in a workshop course A significant number of undergraduate students have a workshop leader experience before graduation. Many repeat.

15. Does it work? By what measure …? Student learning, retention, exam performance … Improves faculty-student communication Great experience for the leaders Experience in group dynamics/team building Happier students … students perceive it to be an attempt to help them … hopefully they are actively engaged in learning

16. The initial attempt … • 1999 P114 (non-physics and engineering science majors) • 41 students randomly assigned to workshops • 110 assigned to “typical” recitations (All but two students volunteered for workshops) B- or better  Students attending >5 workshops  93% Students attending recitations  63% • Similar results in the following years – not split classes, but grade success correlates strongly with attendance • Admittedly, could do much more careful assessment work. Just confirming our expectation based on what the PER and CER communities have established and getting a little local data for convincing others in dept/univ that it works.

17. Students chime in: selected comments from course evaluations What are major strengths of this course? “Workshops” (58 times) “Workshops good” or “useful” (46 times) “The workshops and workshop leaders. If it weren’t for workshop I wouldn’t know anything.” “Workshops are an awesome teaching tool” “The lectures do not seem to allow for information absorption. I do all my learning in workshop.” My personal favorite! “This class is horrid. The workshops are good though.”

18. System “institutionalized” in physics at UR • Talk to the incoming faculty members, explain model and system and share assessment numbers • Make workshop problems available to newbie profs • Undergrad secretary now handles room scheduling issues that arise frequently with model (appropriate rooms in short supply and two-hour slots don’t fit registrar’s classroom schedule well) • During initial semester, have incoming faculty member do joint leader training with someone who has used the model (the pedagogical half, not content part) • Set up system so that financing is not an issue (in our case, grad students lead 4 sections with time freed up from reduced homework grading)

19. Happy surprises • System is in the student culture – taking courses using workshops, desire to lead workshops • Serious experimentation with adopting some core components of the model in advanced courses and non-science major courses. • Workshops helped create a culture of faculty acceptance that it’s “okay and even good” to try new things. • Perhaps half of 26 faculty in physics have adopted some aspects of the workshop model in classes.

20. A few of the struggles … Photo by Sume on Flickr • Workshop problem design • Some graduate TA’s want to lecture instead of facilitate the workshops • Typical college classrooms not suitable for workshops • 2-hour timeslots don’t fit college class scheduling • Professors asking TA’s to cover four workshops AND grade all the problem sets – led to perception that system was busting the bank • Why do we need to spend so much effort training the TA’s? What is the value of the “pedagogical/learning about learning” component? – Hard sell for typical faculty member • You teach students to “cheat” • Non-uniformities in how different departments run/fund workshops • Not enough support for the learning specialist resource • Flexibility can lead to poor quality implementation

21. Institutionalization Development Assessment Go hand-in-hand, but often work against each other … keep in mind what you are trying to accomplish. For example, sometimes assessment and quality control demand aspects of model be frozen, which hurts ability to develop model further or institutionalize.

22. When trying something new, think about institutionalization from the start • Where possible minimize the new money and minimize changes to the current system • Make as professor independent as possible • Minimize newbie professor’s effort • Acquire some assessment data to convince locals it is worth doing – think hard about assessment vs. flexibility and quality vs. flexibility • Flexibility – educational innovation, like shoes, is not “one size fits all”

23. Physics education research is not just for physics anymore … (if it ever was). “Allies for innovation” can be found outside of the physics dept. Electrical engineering Chemistry Economics Computer science Warner School of Education Biology Biochemistry Photo by Wokka on Flickr Writing program Physics Mathematics

24. Thank you!