With increased emphasis on providing active and collaborative learning opportunities in higher education, administrators, instructors, and academic staff have drawn much attention to the benefits of using small group experiences as an integral course design strategy.  Group work can enhance depth of learning and student engagement, and students also experience the added benefit of improving their communication, leadership, and team work skills. However, group work can pose challenges for students as they strive to enhance their own understanding of the subject matter, while negotiating the complexities of working collaboratively with others.

Hillyard et al. (2010) recently assessed students’ perceptions of learning in small groups, within an interdisciplinary arts and science program in the US. Their findings encouragingly suggest that all students (n=208) had engaged in at least one small group learning experience, and that the majority had participated in a substantive group experience, varying in duration from 2 weeks to an entire semester.

Students generally agreed that group work provided them with a chance to experience diverse opinions and ideas, to deepen their understanding of the course material, and to enhance their leadership and communication skills.  However, findings also suggested that students felt that group experiences rarely involved equal participation between group members, and that in the majority of cases, a few members did most of the work.   The authors also found that the students’ perceptions of the overall effectiveness of group work and the ability of group experiences to enhance learning were most strongly correlated with the academic preparation of peers, and the instructor’s ability to explain why they were using small groups.   Perhaps the most interesting study finding was that, “If students had bad experiences in group experiences in institutions prior to enrolling in the program, their attitudes remained negative, regardless of their experiences in the program” (p.17).

The findings of this study draw important attention to establishing a shared learning environment, where both the instructors and students:

• clearly discuss the course learning objectives related to activities and assessment strategies that involve group work (i.e. why they are doing what they doing);
• establish a safe environment for students to critically reflect upon their past group experiences, and to identify and assess the characteristics of positive/effective groups,  and of successful group members;
• provide intentional opportunities for students to develop the skills and resources necessary to successfully negotiate group processes and to equitably delegate tasks among group members (e.g. developing group contracts, establishing a shared vision and clear goals/objectives, scheduling regular group meetings,  providing formative feedback,  and participating in a critical analysis of group processes).

There is little doubt that group work can enhance student learning and contribute to the development of transferrable teamwork, leadership and communication skills.  We must consistently strive to instill the importance of collaboration in higher education, by providing intentional opportunities for students to develop the skills and resources necessary to succeed in group environments.

Reference:

Hillyard, C., Gillespie, D., and Littig, P.  University students’ attitudes about learning in small groups after frequent participation.  Active Learning in Higher Education 11(1):9-20.

It started with a simple question posted on the POD (Professional and Organizational Development Network in Higher Education) listserve by Dr. Rebecca Clemente, North Central College, Illinois,  “If you could give one book on college teaching to new tenure track faculty what would you recommend?…”

The resulting list of references provided an intriguing overview of  many highly recommended reads in higher education.    I am consistently asked to provide recommendations to faculty and graduate students on “essential” books on teaching in higher education.  Of course, my response depends heavily upon context, but I think the below list, which summarizes the listserve’s response to Dr. Clemente’s original post (to the best of my abilities), provides a great starting point.

May each of our bibliographies of essential reads in higher education continue to grow with our passion for excellence in teaching and student learning!

Summary of Recommendations Provided on the POD ListServe

Angelo, T.A. and Cross, K.P. 1993. Classroom Assessment Techniques: a Handbook for College Teachers, 2^nd Edition.  Jossey-Bass

Bain, K. 2004. What the Best College Teachers Do. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.

Barkley, E. 2009. Student Engagement Techniques: A Handbook for College Faculty. Wiley.

Bean, J.C. 1996. Engaging Ideas: The Professor’s Guide to Integrating Writing, Critical Thinking, and Active Learning in the Classroom. Jossey-Bass.

Biggs, J. 2003. Teaching for Quality Learning at University. The Society for Research into Higher Education, Buckingham and Open University Press.

Boice, R. 2000. Advice for New Faculty Members. Allyn & Bacon.

Brinkley, A., Dessanto, B., Flamn, M., Fleming, C., Forcey, C.B. Jr., and Rothschild, E.  1999.  The Chicago Handbook for Teachers: a Practical Guide to the College Classroom. University of Chicago Press.

Brookfield, S.  2006. The Skillful Teacher. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.

Davis, B. 2010.  Tools for Teaching, 2^nd edition. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.

Dunlosky, J. and Metcalfe, J. 2009.  Metacognition. Sage, Los Angeles.

Entwistle, N. 2009.  Teaching for Understanding at University: Deep Approaches and Distinctive Ways of Thinking. Palgrave MacMillian.

Fink, D. 2003.  Creating Significant Learning Experiences: An Integrated Approach to Designing College Courses. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.

Finkel, D.L. 2000.  Teaching with your Mouth Shut. Boyton/Cook.

Filene, P.  2005.  The Joy of Teaching: A Practical Guide for New College Instructors. The University of North Carolina Press.

Gareis, S. and Grant, L. 2008.  Teacher-made Assessments. Eye on Education, Larchmont, NY.

Hooks, B. 1994.  Teaching to Transgress: Education as the Practice of Freedom. Routledge.

Huston, T. 2009.  Teaching What You Don’t Know. Harvard University Press.

Jones, T.B. 2005.  The Missing Professor. Stylus, Sterling, VA.

King, P.M. and Kitchener, K.S. 1994. Developing Reflective Judgment. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.

Lang, J.M. 2008.  On Course: A Week-by-Week Guide to Your First Semester of College Teaching. Harvard University Press.

Leamnson, R. 1999.  Thinking about Teaching and Learning – Developing habits of learning with First year College and University Students. Stylus, Sterling, VA.

Lindley, D. 1993.  This Rough Magic the Life of Teaching.  Bergin and Garvey Paperback.

McKeachie, W. 2010.  McKeachie’s Teaching Tips:  Strategies Research and Theory for College and University Teachers, 13^th Edition. Wadsworth.

Millis, B. (Ed.) 2010. Cooperative learning in higher education: across the disciplines, across the academy. Stylus Press, Sterling, VA.

Nuhfer, E.B. et al., 2006. A Handbook for Student Management Teams. California State University of the Channel Islands.

Parini, J. 2004.  The Art of Teaching. Oxford University Press.

Stevens, D. and Levi, A. 2005. Introduction to Rubrics. Stylus, Sterling, VA.

Walvoord, B.E. and Anderson, V.J. 2009. Effective Grading: a Tool for Learning and Assessment in College, 2^nd Edition. Jossey-Bass.

Weimer, M. 2002. Learner Centered Teaching: Five Key Changes to Practice. Jossey-Bass: A Wiley Company, San Francisco.

Willingham, D. 2009. Why Don’t Students Like School: A Cognitive Scientist Answers Questions About How the Mind Works and What It Means for the Classroom . Jossey-Bass.

Zander, R.S. and Zander, B. 2000.  The Art of Possibility: Transforming Professional and Personal Life. Harvard Business School Press.

Zull, J. 2002. The Art of Changing the Brain: Enriching the Practice of Teaching by Exploring the Biology of Learning. Stylus Publishing.

Students approaches to learning have generally been grouped into three categories:

• surface learners who rely heavily on rote learning and memorization;
• deep learners who strive to understand meaning, question premises, challenge assumptions, and further consider the implications and applications of the material; and,
• strategic learners who take a systematic, organized and goal-oriented approach to study (Entwistle and McCune, 2004; Marton and Saljo, 1976).

Parpala et al (2010) recently published an intriguing study in the British Journal of Educational Psychology.  They assessed how 2500 undergraduate students in 10 different faculties  at the University of Helsinki in Finland, approached learning, using a modified version of the Experiences of Teaching and Learning Questionnaire.  Four groups of students were identified.

• The first group scored highly on items measuring organized study and were classified as Organized Students.  Although systematic in their approach, these learners scored quite low on items measuring a deep approach to learning.
• The second group scored highest on items measuring a deep approach and an intention to understand – or the deep approach learners.
• The third group took a surface approach,  scoring highest on the surface approach items and lowest on the items measuring a deep approach, organized study and an intention to understand.
• The fourth group scored the second highest on items measuring a deep approach, and second lowest on items measuring organized study and were classified as the unorganized students applying a deep approach.  Although both critical and analytical in their approach to learning, these students  were not at all systematic.

When the researchers took a closer look at the disciplinary differences between these four clusters they found that Organized Students were most commonly found in the Law, Pharmacy, Veterinary Medicine,  Science,  and Agriculture/Forestry.  Within these disciplines,  course requirements and weekly timetables can be quite demanding, and “…the students need to be organized and strategic in their studying in order to get through all of the obligatory courses” (p. 279).  Those applying a Deep Approach were most common in the Behavioral Sciences and Social Sciences, where the disciplinary expectations have historically placed emphasis on individual inquiry, critical thinking, and an evaluation of society from a variety of contexts. It was only in the faculty of Science and Pharmacy where the number of  Surface Approach learners exceeded 20%, which is supportive of previous research that suggests that, “students in the sciences and applied sciences are more inclined to adopt a surface approach to learning” (p.270). Finally, the Unorganized/Deep Approach learners were most common in Theology, BioScience and the Arts, where although the curriculum encourages critical thinking and students generally show an intrinsic interest in their discipline, they appear somewhat uncertain about their future and what to expect from their discipline.

These results clearly suggest that disciplinary variations in curriculum can greatly impact how students approach learning.   Clearly more research is needed to further assess how we can best promote student learning and engagement in higher education, but one of the first steps we can take is to learn from the disciplines that have been shown to best support a deep approach to learning .

Reference:

Entwistle, N. and McCune, V. 2004.  The conceptual bases of study strategy and inventories.  Educational Psychology Review 16:325-345.

Marton, F. and Saljo, R. 1976. Approaches to Learning. In Marton et al. (eds) The Experience of Learning (pg. 36-55).

Parpala, A. 2010.  Students’ approaches to learning and their experiences of the teaching-learning environment in different disciplines.  British Journal of Educational Psychology 80:269-282.

In a 2008 article published in Active Learning in Higher Education Kember et al. (9(3):249-263)  found that one of the most important means of motivating student learning was to establish relevance.  The authors interviewed students from 9 undergraduate programmes at 3 different universities in Hong Kong, to charaterize the teaching and learning environments that best motivated student learning.

Establishing relevance was the most prominent and often cited student response. Relevance is a key component to instrinsically motivating student learning.  By establishing both personal and real-world relevance, students are provided with an important opportunity to relate the course subject matter to the world around them, and to assimilate it in accordance with their previously held assumptions and beliefs.  Relevance is a key factor in providing a learning context in which students construct their own understanding of the course material.

Students pointed to four methods for establishing relevance:

1. Discussing how theory can be applied in practice

2. Making a link to local cases

3. Relating subject matter to ‘everyday’ applications

4. Discussing and finding applications in current newsworthy issues and events.

Likewise, Wieman (2007) recommended that students be provided with intentional and explicit opportuntities to discuss, “…for each topic covered, why this topic is worth learning, how it operates in the real world, why it makes sense, and how it connects to things the student already knows.”

Intuitively, I think that we would all agree with these findings, but how many professors actually take the time to reinforce, through their daily teaching practices, the importance of providing students with opportunities to establish both personal and real-world relevance.  Based on my personal learning experiences,  many instructors told me why the material was relevant, but few actually provided the time and resources necessary to assimilate this degree of understanding on my own.  By actively solving relevant problems, exploring current case studies, and discussing local and newsworthy events through peer interaction, debate and dialogue, relevance can bring theory to life, and provide the motivation necessary to inspire deep and sustained learning in higher education.

References:

Kember, D., Ho, A. and Hong, C. 2008. The importance of establishing relevance in motivating student learning.  Active Learning in Higher Education 9:249-263.

Wieman, 2007. Why not try a scientific approach to science education. Change. Sept/Oct: 9-15.

Eric Mazur’s Confessions of a Converted Lecturer is a MUST SEE for everyone with an interest in improving higher education.  Spoken with simple, humble elegance, this Harvard physics Professor offers some poignant advice on how to shift the classroom focus from teaching to student learning.   Mazur has transformed his classroom teaching practices to encourage continuous engagement and peer interaction, such that students are provided with opportunities to assimilate information and construct their own meaning.  “Education is no longer about information, it is about teaching students how to USE information.”

In a recent article published in the journal Active Learning in Higher Education (2009, 10: 172-184) Bantram and Bailey explored the responses of students to this very question at a university in the UK. Four predominant themes were noted (in relative order of importance):

1. Teaching Skills: Students felt that an effective teacher explained ideas and concepts well; motivated and sustained student interest; used active-learning techniques; and acted as a facilitator to encourage and guide learning.
2. Personal Qualities: Students valued personal qualities such as, “…being kind, helpful, patient, enthusiastic and having a sense of humor.”
3. Relationships with Students: Students appreciated instructors who were friendly, approachable, and took the time to “get to know” them.
4. Teacher Knowledge: Subject-matter expertise and knowledge emerged as the lowest ranked theme.

They summarized that, “…students appear to define good teaching largely on the basis of a range of skills and attributes that emphasize empathy and aspects of interpersonal relationships.” These findings support Chickering and Gamson’s (1987) classic Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education, where an effective teacher is described to:

1. Encourage contact between students and faculty;
2. Develop reciprocity and cooperation among students;
3. Encourage active learning;
4. Give prompt feedback;
5. Emphasize time on task;
6. Communicate high expectations; and,
7. Respect diverse talents and ways of learning.

The reality is that effective teaching goes much beyond developing subject matter expertise. From my experiences in higher education great teachers share two common characteristics: an extraordinary sense of humility; and, a strong commitment to continual improvement, based upon a fundamental motivation to inspire student success.

In a 2009 article published in Peer Review, Ken Bain and James Zimmerman explored how great instructors inspired a deep approach to learning. In comparison to surface learners, deep learners are said to take a superior approach to learning by relying less on memorization, and more on questioning premises, challenging assumptions and considering the implications and applications of the course subject matter (Marton and Saljo, 1976). It is within this learning realm that students more thoughtfully construct an understanding of course material, and perhaps most importantly, where they are more likely to carry their learning experiences forward.

Bain and Zimmerman summarize that, “Human beings are most likely to learn deeply when they are trying to solve problems or answer great questions that they have come to regard as important, intriguing and beautiful.” Students thrive in learning environments which provide them with an opportunity to explore and reflect upon how the course material has both personal and “real-world” relevance, and fundamentally challenges how they see the world around them. It is under these learning conditions that we, as instructors and fellow learners become wonderfully consumed by an inspired sense of curiosity and inquiry that is driven almost solely by the students.

The authors continue by stating, “…the best teachers–and this may be their most profound ability–find ways to link their own disciplinary concerns and interests with those of the students. [They have] the ability to frame questions in ways that would both capture the students’ imagination and challenge some of their most cherished paradigms.” Great instructors engage in a poetic dance between student and instructor, between comfort and challenge, and between the known and unknown – it is a complex dance that may take years to perfect. Yet, the reward is an educational system based on the very premise of providing students with the opportunity to develop the skills necessary to approach the world’s most complex challenges. If I could change one thing in higher education it would be to change our solution-driven quest for learning, to one that encourages instructors to ask and seek great questions that challenge the very basis on which both the instructors’ and learners’ understanding depends. Ask great questions and inspire a whole new generation of great problem-solvers.

Bain, K. and Zimmerman, J. 2009. Understanding Great Teaching. Peer Review 11(2):9-12.

Marton, F. and Saljo, R. 1976. Approaches to Learning. In Marton et al. (eds) The Experience of Learning (pg. 36-55).

In a 2009 article published in Science (2009:323) Smith et al., found that when undergraduate students at the University of Colorado-Boulder were posed with a multiple-choice question during lecture, and then were given an opportunity to actively engaged in small-group peer discussion regarding their individual responses, they increased their conceptual understanding of the course material, and were more likely to answer a similar multiple-choice question correctly. Furthermore, the improvements in learning occurred even if none of the learners in the discussion group actually knew the correct answer to the initial question! So, why does peer discussion work? The authors speculate that, “…justifying an explanation to a fellow student and skeptically examining the explanation of a peer provide valuable opportunities for a student to develop the communicative and metacognitive skills that are crucial components of disciplinary expertise” (pg. 124). This study provides further support for the use of peer discussion as a simple and effective teaching strategy to encourage active learning in the university classroom.

Reference:

Smith, M.K. et al. 2009. Why peer discussion improves student performance on in-class concept questions. Science 323: 122-124.