Tag: research

Anatomy of a 400-seat Active Learning Classroom

(This is adapted from a poster I presented at the 2018 Society for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education (STLHE) Conference, Université de Sherbrooke, June 20-22, 2018.)

(Photo courtesy of Ashlyne O’Neil. Thanks @ashlyneivy!)

Designing a Large, Active Classroom

As class size increases, instructors face an increasingly difficult challenge. There is clear evidence that more students are more successful in classes with active learning.[1] Yet the work required to facilitate active learning – logistics, providing feedback, supporting and interacting with individual students – increases with class size. And despite the importance of the design of learning spaces,[2] large classrooms often impede student-student and student-instructor interactions.

At UBC’s Okanagan campus, I was invited to advise the architects and campus planners on the design a new 400-seat classroom.

Design Principle:
Eliminate everything that hinders
student-student collaboration and
student-instructor interaction.

My poster uses a giant 6-page “book” (you can see it drooping slightly in the center of the poster in the picture above) to highlight different features and characteristics of the design:

Student flow: Main entrances to the classroom are at the middle of the room. Students flow in and downhill toward the front. Sitting at the back takes deliberate effort. Students can discretely enter and exit without disrupting the class or the instructor.
Main entrances to the classroom are at the middle of the room. Students flow in and downhill toward the front. Sitting at the back takes deliberate effort. Students can discretely enter and exit without disrupting the class or the instructor.
Accessible seating: Fully 20% of seating – roughly 90 locations – are accessible to students using wheelchairs. They can sit in groups with their peers at prime locations, instead of being isolated or confined to designated seats.
Fully 20% of seating – roughly 90 locations – are accessible to students using wheelchairs. They can sit in groups with their peers at prime locations, instead of being isolated or confined to designated seats.
Network of aisles: A network of aisles throughout the classroom allows instructors and teaching assistants to get face-to-face or within arm’s reach of every student. Wireless presentation system allows instructors to teach from any location and project any student’s device.
A network of aisles throughout the classroom allows instructors and teaching assistants to get face-to-face or within arm’s reach of every student. Wireless presentation system allows instructors to teach from any location and project any student’s device.
Group work with whiteboards: Students on narrower front desks swivel around to work with their peers on wider desks. With 150 whiteboards scattered throughout the room, groups can be collaborating within seconds of their instructor saying, “Grab a whiteboard and…”
Students on narrower front desks swivel around to work with their peers on wider desks. With 150 whiteboards scattered throughout the room, groups can be collaborating within seconds of their instructor saying, Grab a whiteboard and…
Lighting: Separate front, middle, back lights create smaller classrooms for 250 and 100 students.
Separate front, middle, back lights create smaller classrooms for 250 and 100 students.
Prep room: Prep room is accessible from outside the classroom so instructors can prepare before and after class. Includes sink, glassware drying rack, storage cabinets, lockable flammable solvent cabinet, fume hood, chemical resistant countertops, first aid kit, demo cart.
Prep room is accessible from outside the classroom so instructors can prepare before and after class. Includes sink, glassware drying rack, storage cabinets, lockable flammable solvent cabinet, fume hood, chemical resistant countertops, first aid kit, demo cart.

Design Features Promote Collaboration and Interaction

Design Features Promote Collaboration and Interaction

  • The classroom is gently tiered so students farther back can see the front. There are 2 desks on each tier. The front desk is wide enough to hold a notebook and laptop. The rear desk is nearly twice as wide, allowing the front student to swivel around and work with their peers in the rear desk.
  • Swivel chairs on wheels allow students to easily move and work with others around them.
  • The front desk on each tier has a modesty screen. There are deliberately NOT modesty screens on the rear desks, allowing students on the front desk to swivel around to the rear desk without smashing their knees or having to sit awkwardly.
  • There are power outlets for every student under the desktop, leaving the work surface unbroken and smooth for notebooks, laptops, and whiteboards.
  • When the instructor or teaching assistant stands in the aisle in front of the front desk, they can speak face-to-face with the 1st row of students, and are within arm’s reach of the 2nd row. From the aisle on the back of this set of four rows of desks, the instructor or teaching assistant is face-to-face with students in the 4th row and within arm’s reach of the 3rd row.

Optimizing Visibility of the Screen

A slightly curved screen at the front of the classroom is large enough to display two standard inputs. A third projector can display a single image across the screen. The screen is about 7 or 8 feet above the floor, so the instructor at the front does not cast a shadow on the screen or look directly into the projectors (housed in a 2nd floor projection room at the back of the classroom.) The size and curvature of the screen ensure all but the very front-left and front-right seats have views of the screen within UBC’s guidelines.

Does the Design Enhance Learning?

We are studying the impact of the design by comparing data collected before and after course instructors teach their courses in the 400-seat classroom, including

  • distributions of final grades and grades on in-class activities like peer instruction (“clicker”) questions and group work sheet
  • drop, fail, withdrawal (DFW) rates
  • locations of the course instructor and teaching assistants at 2-minute intervals throughout the class period
  • what the instructor is doing (lecturing, writing, posing questions,…)  and what the students are doing (listening, discussing peer instruction questions, asking questions,…) using  the Classroom Observation Protocol for Undergraduate STEM (COPUS)3,4
COPUS captures what the instructor and what the students are doing during the class. There is a clear difference here between a traditional, lecture-based course and a course that uses active learning. (Graphic by CWSEI CC BY NC)

Acknowledgements

My thanks to Dora Anderson, Heather Berringer, Deborah Buszard, Rob Einarson, W. Stephen McNeil, Carol Phillips, Jodi Scott, and Todd Zimmerman for the opportunity to help design to this learning space.

Blueprint and visualizations by Moriyama & Teshima Architects. Used with permission.

References

1 Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(23), 8410-8415. doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319030111
2 Beichner, R., Saul, J., Abbott, D., Morse, J., Deardorff, D., Allain, R., … & Risley, J. (2007). The Student-Centered Activities for Large Enrollment Undergraduate Programs (SCALE-UP) project, a peer reviewed chapter of Research-Based Reform of University Physics. College Park, MD: Am Assoc of Physics Teachers.
3 Stains, M., Harshman, J., Barker, M. K., Chasteen, S. V., Cole, R., DeChenne-Peters, S. E., … & Levis-Fitzgerald, M. (2018). Anatomy of STEM teaching in North American universities. Science, 359(6383), 1468-1470. doi.org/10.1126/science.aap8892
4 Smith, M. K., Jones, F. H., Gilbert, S. L., & Wieman, C. E. (2013). The Classroom Observation Protocol for Undergraduate STEM (COPUS): a new instrument to characterize university STEM classroom practices. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 12(4), 618-627. doi.org/10.1187/cbe.13-08-0154

The Power of Misconception

“Misconception” is one of those words that makes you slump your shoulders and sigh. It’s not inspiring like “creativity” or “glee.” In fact, in education circles we often resort to “alternate conception” so we’re not starting the conversation at a bad place.

In this post, I want to share with you some beautiful new research on how misconception affects teaching and learning.

In the 6 March 2013 issue of the American Education Research Journal, Philip M. Sadler, Gerhard Sonnert, Harold P. Coyle, Nancy Cook-Smith and Jaimie L. Miller describe “The Influence of Teachers’ Knowledge on Student Learning in Middle School Physical Science Classrooms”. Those of us in astronomy education immediately recognize Phil Sadler. His “A Private Universe” video is must-see for every astronomy instructor, K-12 and beyond.

Here’s what Sadler et al. did in the present study.

They created a 20-question, multiple-choice quiz based on concepts taught in middle school science: properties and changes in properties of matter, motion and forces, and transfer of energy. They chose concepts where kids have a common misconception, for example,

Electrical circuits provide a means of transferring electrical energy when heat, light, sound and chemical changes are produced (with common misconception that electricity behaves in the same way as a fluid.) (p. 12)

With the test in hand, they recruited 100’s of seventh and eighth grade science teachers in 589 schools across the U.S. They asked them to give the test at the beginning, middle and end of the year, to look for signs of learning. By the end of testing, there were matching sets of tests from 9556 students and 181 teachers. In other words, a big enough N that the data could mean something.

By looking at the students’ responses, the authors were able to classify the 20 questions into 2 types:

  • for 8 questions, some students got them right, some got them wrong, with no pattern in the wrong answers. They call these “no misconception” questions.
  • for 12 questions, when students got them wrong, 50% or more chose the same incorrect answer, a carefully chosen distractor. These questions are called “strong misconception” questions.

Sadler et al. also had the students write math and reading tests. From their scores, the students were classified as “high math and reading” or “low math and reading”.

They did something else, too, and this is what makes this study interesting. They asked the teachers to write the test. Twice. The first time, the teachers answered as best they could. Their scores are a measure of their subject matter knowledge (SMK). The second time, the teachers were asked to identify the most common wrong answer for each question. How often they could identify the common wrong answer in the strong misconception questions is the teachers’ knowledge of student misconception (KoSM) score.

With me so far? Students with high or low math and reading skills have pre- and post-scores to measure their science learning gain. Teachers have SMK and KoSM scores.

Do you see where this is going? Good.

There’s a single graph in the article that encapulates all the relationships between student learning and teachers SMK and KOSM. And it’s a doozie of a graph. Teaching students how to read graphs, or more precisely, teaching instructors how to present graphs so students learn how to interpret them, is something I often think about. So, if you’ll permit me, I’m going to present Sadler’s graph like I’d present it to students.

First, let’s look at the “architecture” of the axes before we grapple with the data.

Let's look at the axes of the graph first, before the data blind us. (Adapted from [1])
Let’s look at the axes of the graph first, before the data overwhelm us. SMK = teachers’ subect matter knowledge; KoSM is the teachers’ knowledge of student misconceptions.  (Adapted from Sadler et al. (2013))
The x-axis give the characteristics of the science teachers (no SMK,…, SMK & KoSM) who taught the concepts for which students show no misconception or strong misconception. Why are there 3 categories for Strong Misconception but only 2 for No Misconception? Because there is no misconception and no KoSM on the No Misconception questions. What about the missing “KoSM only” condition? There were no teachers who had knowledge of the misconceptions but no subject matter knowledge. Good questions, thanks.

Cohens_d_4panel_wikipedia_CCThe y-axis measures how much the students learned compared to their knowledge on the pre-test given at the beginning of the school year. This study does not use the more common normalized learning gain, popularized by Hake in his “Six-thousand student” study. Instead, student learning is measured by effect size, in units of the standard deviation of the pretest. An effect size of 1, for example, means the average of the post-test is 1 standard deviation higher than the average of the pre-test, illustrated in the d=1 panel from Wikipedia. Regardless of the units, the bigger the number on the y-axis, the more the students learned from their science teachers.

And now, the results

This is my post so I get to choose in which order I describe the results, in a mixture of  the dramatic and the logical. Here’s the first of 4 cases:

Students who scored low on the reading and math tests didn't do great on the science test, though the ones who had knowledgeable teachers did better. (Graph adapted from Sadler et al. (2013))

The students who scored low on the reading and math tests didn’t do great on the science test either, though the ones who had knowledgeable teachers (SMK) did better. Oh, don’t be mislead into thinking the dashed line between the circles represents a time series, showing students’ scores before and after. No, the dashed line is there to help us match the corresponding data points when the graph gets busy. The size of the circles, by the way, encodes the number of teachers with students in the condition. In this case, there were not very many teachers with no SMK (small white circle).

Next, here are the learning gains for the students with low math and reading scores on the test questions with strong misconceptions:

Students with low math and reading scores did poorly on the strong misconception questions, regardless of the skill of their teachers. (Adapted from Sadler et al. (2013))
Students with low math and reading scores did poorly on the strong misconception questions, regardless of the knowledge of their teachers. (Adapted from Sadler et al. (2013))

Uh-oh, low gains across the board, regardless of the knowledge of their teachers. Sadler et al. call this “particularly troubling” and offer these explanations:

These [strong misconception questions] may simply have been misread, or they may be cognitively too sophisticated for these students at this point in their education, or they many not have tried their hardest on a low-stakes test. (p. 22)

Fortunately, the small size of the circles indicates there were not many of these.

What about the students who scored high on the math and reading tests? First, let’s look at their learning gains on the no-misconception questions. [Insert dramatic drum-roll here because the results are pretty spectaculars.]

Students with knowledgeable teachers exhibited huge learning gains. (Adapted from Sadler et al. (2013))
Students with knowledgeable teachers exhibited huge learning gains. (Adapted from Sadler et al. (2013))

Both black circles are higher than all the white circles: Even the students with less-knowledgeable teachers (“no SMK”) did better than all the students with low math and reading scores. The important result is how much higher students with knowledgeable teachers scored, represented by the big, black circle just north of effect size 0.9. Science teachers with high subject matter knowledge helped their students improve by almost a full standard deviation. Rainbow cool! The large size of that black circle says this happened a lot. Double rainbow cool!

Finally we get to the juicy part of the study: how does a teacher’s knowledge of the students’ misconceptions (KoSM) affect their students’ learning?

Subject matter knowledge alone isn't enough. To get significant learning gains in their students, teachers also need knowledge of the misconceptions. (Adapted from Sadler et al. (2013))
Subject matter knowledge alone isn’t enough. To get significant learning gains in their students, teachers also need knowledge of the misconceptions. (Adapted from Sadler et al. (2013))

Here, students with knowledgeable teachers (I guess-timate the effect size is about 0.52) do only slightly better than students with less knowledgeable teachers (effect size around 0.44). In other words, on concepts with strong misconceptions, subject matter knowledge alone isn’t enough. To get significant learning on these strong misconception concepts, way up around 0.70, teachers must also have knowledge of those misconceptions.

Turning theory into practice

Some important results from this ingenious study:

  • students with low math and reading skills did poorly on all the science questions, despite the knowledge of their teachers, once again demonstrating that math and reading skills are predictors of success in other fields.
  • Teachers with subject matter knowledge can do a terrific job teaching the concepts without misconceptions, dare we say, the straightforward concepts. On the trickier concepts, though, SMK is not enough.
  • Students bring preceptions to the classroom. To be effective, teachers must have knowledge of their students’ misconceptions so they can integrate that (mis)knowledge into the lesson. It’s not good enough to know how to get a question right — you also have to know how to get it wrong.

Others, like Ed Prather and Gina Brissenden (2008), have studied the importance of teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge (PCK). This research by Sadler et al. shows that knowledge of students’ misconceptions most definitely contributes to a teacher’s PCK.

If you use peer instruction in your classroom and you follow what Eric Mazur, Carl Wieman, Derek Bruff and others suggest, the results of this study reinforce the importance of using common misconceptions as distractors in your clicker questions. I’ll save it for another time, though; this post is long enough already.

Epilogue

Interestingly, knowledge of misconceptions is just what Derek Muller has been promoting over at Veritasium. The first minute of this video is about Khan Academy but after that, Derek describes his Ph.D. research and how teachers need to confront students’ misconceptions in order to get them to sit up and listen.

 

If you’ve got 8 more minutes, I highly recommend you watch. Then, if you want to see how Derek puts it into practice, check out his amazing “Where Do Trees Get Their Mass From?” video:

Update 6/6/2013 – I’ve been thinking about this paper and post for 3 months and only today finally had time to finish writing it. An hour after I clicked Publish, Neil Brown (@twistedsq on Twitter) tweeted me to say he also, today, posted a summary of Sadler’s paper. You should read his post, too, “The Importance of Teachers’ Knowledge.” He’s got a great visual for the results.

Another Update 6/6/2013  – Neil pointed me to another summary of Sadler et al. by Mark Guzdial (@guzdial on Twitter) “The critical part of PCK: What students get wrong” with links to computer science education.

Self-enhancement and imposter syndrome: neither is good for your teaching

I read a terrific paper this week by Jennifer McCrickerd (Drake University) called, “Understanding and Reducing Faculty Reluctance to Improve Teaching.” In it, the author lists 6 reasons why some post-secondary (#highered) instructors are not interested in improving the way they teach:

  1. instructors’ self-identification as members of a discipline (sociologists, biologists, etc.) instead of as members of the teaching profession;
  2. emphasis early in instructors’ careers (graduate school, when working to attain jobs and then tenure) on research and publishing;
  3. instructors’ resistance to being told what to do;
  4. instructors’ unwillingness to sacrifice content delivery for better teaching;
  5. instructors’ momentum and no perception that current practices need to change;
  6. risk to sense of self involve with change by change by instructors

These are succinct descriptions of the anecdotes and grumblings I hear all the time, from instructors who have transformed to student-centered instruction, from instructors who see no need to switch away from traditional lectures and from my colleagues and peers in the teaching and learning community whose enable and support change.

What makes McCrickerd’s paper so good, in my opinion, is she connects the motivation behind these 6 reasons  to research in psychology. In particular, to Dweck’s work [1] on fixed- and mutable-mindsets (with fixed-mindset, you can either teach or you can’t, just like some people can do math and some can’t) and to Fischer’s work [2] on dynamic skill theory (which posits, “skill acquisition always includes drops in proficiency before progress in proficiency returns”).

I won’t go into all the details because McCrickerd’s paper is very nice — you should read it yourself. But there’s one facet that I want to examine because of how it relates to a blog post I recently read, “How I cured my imposter syndrome,” by Jacquelyn Gill (@jacquelyngill on Twitter). She writes,

I felt like I’d somehow fooled everyone into thinking I was qualified to get into graduate school, and couldn’t shake the anxiety that someone would ultimately figure out the error. When something good would happen– a grant, or an award– I subconsciously chalked it up to luck, rather than merit.

With that resonating resonating in my head (yes, resonating: I often feel imposter syndrome), I read that McCrickerd traces some instructors’ reluctance to “self-enhancement” which she describes as follows:

Most Westerners tend, when assessing our own abilities, character or behavior, to judge ourselves to be above average in ability. In particular, we view ourselves as crucial to the success of our accomplishments but when not successful, we attribute the lack of success to things other than our actual abilities.

The streams crossed and I scratched out a little table in the margins of the paper:

McCrickerd points out it is only through dissatisfaction that we change our behavior. An instructor with an overly-enhanced self sees no reason to change when something bad happens in class. “Not my fault they didn’t learn…”

And who else does a lot of teaching? Teaching assistants, that’s who. Graduate students with a raging case of imposter syndrome. When something goes wrong in their classes, “It’s my fault. I shouldn’t even be here in the first place…”

Yeah, that’s a real motivator.

So, what do we do about it.Again, McCrickerd has some excellent ideas:

[I]nstructors need to be understood to be learners with good psychological reasons for their choices and if different choices are going to be encouraged, these reasons must be addressed.

The delicate job of those tasked with helping to improve teaching and learning is to engage these reluctant instructors so they begin to look at learning objectively, then to demonstrate there are more effective ways to teach, to closely support their first attempts (which are likely to result in decrease in proficiency) and to continue to support incremental steps forward. It’s not always easy to start the process but if there’s one thing I’ve learned in my job, it’s the importance of making a connection and then earning the trust of the instructor.

Now, go read the McCrickerd paper. It’s really good.

 

References

[1] Dweck, C. 2000. Self-theories: Their roles in motivation, personality and development. New York, NY: Taylor and Francis Group.

This Scientific American article by Dweck is a nice introduction to fixed and mutable minds-sets

[2] Fischer, K., Z. Yan, & J. Stewart. 2003. Adult cognitive development: Dynamics in the developmental web. In Handbook of developmental psychology, ed. J. Valsiner & K. Connelly, 491-516. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. [pdf from gse.harvard.edu]

 Image “The Show Off. Part 2” by Sister72 on flicker (CC)

Navigation