Penina Axelrad
Professor
University of Colorado Boulder
College of Engineering and Applied Science
Department of Aerospace Engineering Sciences
Astrodynamics and Satellite Navigation
431 UCB, Boulder, CO, 80301
303.492.6872
penina.axelrad@colorado.edu
Activating Student Learning in Lecture and Homework Through Discourse
a. What is the central question, issue, or problem you plan to explore in your proposed work?
It has been shown that discourse through oral exam preparation is an extremely effective tool in improving student understanding and performance in Calculus courses and consequently the retention of students in STEM majors. I propose to investigate how the learning benefits of discourse can be extended to other learning forums - specifically to traditional lecture periods and homework assignments.
In conventional classroom and homework situations engineering students have a tendency to focus on quickly finding ways to get the "right answer" - i.e. the one in the back of the book or what their friends got. Mary Nelson refers to this as "pattern matching" - that is, they figure out which solved problem is most similar to the one presented and use that solution to guide their problem solving. In relying so heavily on pattern matching students don't question why the selected approach is a good one and this significantly limits the depth of their learning.
The Orals approach developed by Prof Nelson invites students to a small group setting, led by an instructor or learning assistant, in which they answer conceptual questions orally and graphically on the board. She has found in her research [1] that the discourse resulting from these sessions improves student learning not only in Calculus, but has a significant impact on their performance in subsequent classes. It is particularly effective for students who, based on prior background, are likely to do relatively poorly in their first year mathematics courses.
In an "Orals" setting, several elements are present that lead to active and effective student learning:
1) Revealing misconceptions - Through the qualitative and verbal question and answer interaction, students regularly reveal their underlying misconceptions. The way this occurs in an orals session, wherein a student articulates a misconception in a supportive environment, enables her to find the disconnect herself, rather than feel like she was "tricked" into a wrong answer by a multiple-choice question. 2) Talking the talk - Learning to use technical language correctly can significantly help students to clarify their actual understanding of the material. Students who are careless about technical descriptions often have a vague understanding of the material. They are able to see this firsthand in the Orals sessions and take steps to address the areas in which they are having difficulty. 3) Reflective communication - By listening and responding to descriptions and comments made by the learning assistants and other students, learners can solidify their own understanding and reflect on both how and why they have constructed this understanding.
I propose to explore means to achieve these three effects in a large classroom setting and in homework assignments.
b. Why is your central question, issue, or problem important, to you and to others who might benefit from or build on your findings?
If the benefits of discourse can be extended to more efficient teaching activities like lecture and homework, it will have a significant impact on student learning. Having taught at all undergraduate levels I have seen the detrimental effect of students’ reliance on "the solutions" increasing. Today it is far too convenient to find solutions on the internet; as a result, we all become lazy in checking our own work and reflecting on our understanding of complex subjects. Orals are one way to deepen understanding, especially for at-risk students; however, they are time consuming for both instructors and students. Partnering with the Department of Applied Mathematics, my department has done some trial implementations of the Orals approach in two of our sophomore core classes. We are currently in the process of assessing the impact on student performance. However, we already did find that time constraints significantly limited student participation in Orals. Our undergraduate students, particularly sophomores, already spend a large amount of time in lecture, lab, and on homework. When we offered Orals sessions to our students, many of those who did not participate said that they would have liked to, but could not afford to add another class activity to their schedules. In conversations with Prof Nelson we had the idea that if we could find a way to engage the students in discourse during lecture or (in writing) in their homework, we might be able to "activate" the same kind of learning more efficiently.
I believe that if I can carefully identify the educational benefits of orals and then design lecture-based activities and homework questions that get at the same kind of experiences, it would have a significant benefit in improving understanding and retention for students in my sophomore class. I expect that the techniques developed for this class could have broad applicability to other engineering and science disciplines.
c. How do you plan to conduct your investigation? What sources of evidence do you plan to examine? What methods might you employ to gather and make sense of this evidence?
My plan for this project is tied to my teaching schedule, which has me instructing a sophomore core course (ASEN2003) in the Spring 2011. In the Summer and Fall 2010 semester we will work to identify the key mechanisms by which orals provide learning benefits. Initially I take these to be 1) the use of conceptual questions, 2) interactive discussion of student responses, and 3) exposure of misconceptions. We will then develop several model lecture activities and homework problems for ASEN 2003 that attempt to capture the essence of the orals experience. A key element will be developing efficient homework grading /coding approaches and student feedback tools that are not too time consuming to implement in a class of 80-100 students. In the Spring semester we will administer the first of these instruments, assess student learning on exams and survey the students twice during the term. At the end of the semester we can look at grades and in subsequent year performance in follow on courses.
The PTLC research assistant will work with me to develop the tools and do the specialized assignment grading to improve the approach. They will also code the results to allow for accurate assessment of the effectiveness of the proposed approach. We will compare student performance on exams compared with previous years looking at factors like grades in prerequisite subjects and participation in orals sessions. We will also conduct a survey of students’ impressions of the lectures and assignments that included discourse activities.
Some initial ideas regarding the in-class and homework exercises are as follows:
1) In the homework, ask students to reflect on the solution process. 2) Give them a problem and several correct and incorrect ways of solving it. Ask them to select the right ones and explain why the others are wrong, and the pros and cons of each acceptable alternative. 3) Ask students to explain the process by which they can check/verify their solution without the answer key.
d. How might you make your work available to others in ways that facilitate scholarly critique and review, and that contribute to thought and practice beyond the local?
We will write a paper for presentation at the American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) conference and if the results are significant, follow up with a journal submission. If effective techniques are found, I will also offer a workshop through FTEP to provide faculty with ideas on how to incorporate these techniques into their teaching. At the department level I will make all of my materials available to future instructors of the course.
e. Include a literature review of the theory and effective teaching practice of the subject of your inquiry in order to locate your research in the literature preceding it.
My work will initially be based on techniques developed by Mary Nelson [1] with specific attention paid to the role of discourse in learning and approaches for integrating discourse into different settings. She has helped me identify several key references as a starting point for my work - References 2 and 3 describe techniques for improving the effectiveness of mathematical (technical) communication. Reference 4 describes scaffolding - a technique in which a teacher identifies students' base of understanding and works with them to stretch their understanding just beyond the point at which they can succeed independently.
f. What is your record of innovation in teaching and/or the assessment of learning?
This would be my first formal work in teaching innovation and learning assessment. In my 18 years at the university I have been involved in many teaching activities and continue to try to improve my skills in this area.
In the mid 1990's I was a key contributor to a complete revision of our undergraduate curriculum. Since that time I have developed lab materials and curricula for several courses at the sophomore (ASEN 2003) and junior levels (ASEN 3300, 3200). For the past two years I have been learning about Mary Nelson's "Orals" approach and am working with her to extend it to the sophomore curriculum in Aerospace Engineering Sciences. I introduced "Orals" sessions in my sophomore course in Spring 2010 and plan to continue this next academic year. I also regularly participate in seminars and activities related to teaching conducted by the College of Engineering and Applied Science, most recently, the college seminar (4/16) and retreat (4/17) on the First Year experience, and a seminar (4/29) given by Prof. Monica Cox on teaching assessment. I have been involved in the Faculty Teaching Excellence Program as a participant since starting as a faculty member in 1992, and as an Associate since 2007.
g. Are you able to attend the required meetings as specified the sections titled, “What are the Benefits?” and “What commitments are expected of participants?”
Yes.
h. Can you suggest an appropriate coach/mentor for your project?
Mary Nelson has agreed to serve as my mentor should my project be selected. Mary.Nelson@colorado.edu
i. If your project is selected, are you willing to serve as a coach in PTLC in a future year?
Yes.
References
1. Nelson, Mary Farrell (2005). A reform approach to calculus instruction: Effects on retention, grades and understanding. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Colorado at Boulder.
2. Brendefur, J. & Frykholm, J. (2000). Promoting mathematical communication in the classroom: Two preservice teachers’ conceptions and practices. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 3, 125-153.
3. Rowe, M. B. (1986). Wait times: Slowing down may be a way of speeding up. J Of Teacher Ed, 37 (1), 43-50.
4. Roehler, L. & Cantlon, D. (1997). Scaffolding: A powerful tool in social constructivist classrooms. In K. Hogan and M. Pressley (Eds.), Scaffolding student learning: Instructional approaches and issues (pp.6-42).
