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
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 upperyear courses)
• Peer Instruction
• Just-in-time teaching via WebCT
3. Results
4. Discussion
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.
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.
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-
-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.
Sample class question
Rank the following identical bulbs in order of brightness.
The brightness of each of these bulbs depends only on the
magnitude of the electric current through it.
I
A
B
D
V
C
(a) A>B>C>D
(b) A>B>C=D
(d) D>C>A=B
(e) C>A=B>D
(c)A=B>D>C
Common misperceptions clarified:
- cannot be answered unless numerical values are given for
V, R
- current is “used up”, so C<A=B. (vs. charge is conserved)
- the current is less the further the lamp is from the source,
so D is the weakest and A<B)
- the current reaches A and B before C, so C<A or B
- to compare C with A and B, it is necessary to include the
voltage drops as well as the currents
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.
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.
!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.
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.
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!
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.