Online Learning Teams

John RothgebToday we have a guest post from John M. Rothgeb, Jr., professor of political science at Miami University of Ohio. He can be contacted at rothgejm[at]miamioh[dot]edu.

Do online learning teams help students recall facts and/or analyze political problems? Instructors often use online chat rooms and discussions as convenient tools for engaging teams of students in the process of writing, reading, and reacting, helping them recall information, and giving them opportunities for analyzing problems.  Despite much agreement about the benefits of online teams, there is little evidence supporting their value.

I collected data on this subject from four sections of my introductory world politics course. Two sections from 2014 with a total of 75 students employed online learning teams, and two sections from the Fall of 2015 and Spring of 2016 with a total enrollment of 86 did not.  The classes met at the same time, the same days, in the same classroom, and received the same lectures.

The learning teams were created by randomly assigning five or six students to groups, with each group given its own online chat room.  Students received careful instructions regarding the use of chat rooms.  They were required to post chat room comments at least twice each week, first with a response to the week’s assignment and second with their reaction to other students’ posts. This activity counted for ten percent of the final grade. Students in the sections that did not use online learning teams were instructed to study material on their own.

I assessed students’ learning with in-class exams on conceptual definitions and a take-home essay in which they used theory to analyze an historical event—for example, applying deterrence theory to the outbreak of the Gulf War in 1990.

A chi square analysis showed that students’ grades on exams and the paper assignment did not significantly differ between the sections with the online learning teams and those without. The findings imply that the online learning teams had no effect on student performance.

These results invite reflection as to why online teams did not lead to evidence of superior factual recall or analytical ability.  More than two-thirds of students across all sections earned a B or better on the exams, indicating good recall. While fewer students earned an A grade on the analytical paper, only a small number earned grades below a C+. Perhaps the lectures, problem exercises, and readings that were part of all course sections were enough to generate this result.

Further research should explore the relative efficacy of online teams and weekly study guides. Given that my research did not control for variables like a student’s prior GPA, year in college, major, or extra-curricular activities, it also might be useful to include this kind of data in future investigations.

For additional information, please refer to John M. Rothgeb, “The Efficacy of Learning Teams: A Comparative Analysis,” Journal of Political Science Education 9, 3 (2013): 336-344, or contact him at the email address listed above.

Audio Assignments, Oral Communication, and Accessibility

I’m taking a break from specs grading this week–not because I don’t have anything to write about, but actually because I’m too busy writing specs and grading homework modules to write up everything that’s going on.  Plus we are in the midst of a search, and I’m buried in applications.  I’ll be back on topic next week with my thoughts about grading, and some micro adjustments I had to make to the course as a result of my reflections.

When I’m not talking about specs grading, I try to share some quick and easy ideas for teaching that can make a big difference. These often fall into the vein of James Lang’s Small Changes in Teaching, both his book and his series over at the Chronicle of Higher Ed (definitely worth checking out!).

Today’s idea is about using audio and oral assignments in the classroom.

Continue reading

The First Day of Class: Remix

As classes start up again for the fall semester, this might be a good time to revisit some great ALPS posts on how to approach the first days and weeks of the term.  We recommend:

Start the way you finish–A reminder that active learning–regardless of when you may have scheduled a simulation or other activity–begins on day one.

Picture it! A game for the first year students that teaches students to create and read maps while learning how to get around campus.

Close reading a syllabus–why not quiz your students on the syllabus to incentivize them to read it thoroughly?

Government in our lives--an idea for starting that first class session of American politics.

Today’s lucky winner is… and The other side of presenting–two posts that look at how to approach student presentations, from requiring all students to show up ready to present on the day’s topic to teaching students how to be the audience for a presentation.

And finally, because every class benefits from a bit of lego, take a page from Susherwood’s playbook and think about using lego in your classes.

 

Happy Fall Semester!

Trust But Verify: Assessing Preparation Instead of Participation

Joel MooreToday’s guest contributor is Joel D. Moore of Monash University Malaysia.

Discussion sections (‘tutorials’ at my institution) are frequently my most and least favorite part of teaching. When they work well, they can be more than the sum of their parts. Informed by the week’s readings, students will drive discussions in unexpected directions, critiquing the work and applying it to new examples. Small group activities will be dynamic and student-led, leaving participants with a deeper appreciation of the material and their own preconceptions.

When they fail, they fall to the lowest common denominator. Unprepared students waste valuable time derailing conversations, trying to hide the fact that they haven’t done the readings. Well prepared students become resentful when, class after class, their peers scramble to extract Cliff’s Notes versions of the material from them. The best outcome to be hoped for class is that students come away with a basic understanding of the essential arguments in the readings.

Other than avoiding the dreaded after-lunch time slot for sections, I’ve not been able to do much to ensure that a section runs smoothly. Some classes just worked and some didn’t. Some students simply don’t seem to be motivated by the threat of a poor participation grade or the promise of a vigorous discussion.

Last Fall, I tried a new strategy: grading preparation instead of participation. I allowed students in my States and Markets class to self-report their level of preparedness and claim a commensurate grade for each class session. I would then spend the first 10-15 minutes of the session calling on three random students (assisted by an on-screen random number generator) to verify that they were prepared. After the verification portion of the class was finished, I led the section as usual — sometimes with discussion and sometimes with activities. Continue reading

Already Closed Minds

CrybabyTaking Simon’s recent post about encouraging student feedback in a different direction:

Yes, students often perceive and understand differently than I do, and I agree that removing barriers to their acquisition of knowledge as an important part of my job. But in many cases students are as different from one another as they are from me, and some of them are simply not interested in learning.

For example, I’m still using the Quality of Failure essay in all my courses as an end-of-semester exercise in meta-cognitive reflection. Compare these quotes from essays written by two students in a course that just ended:

When I realized that we only really went over the homework in class, I mentally decided that I didn’t really want to participate because I had already written my response and it had already been graded.”

While I feel that I have achieved my goal of learning about new populations, I also feel that this was achieved for other reasons than what I previously mentioned. For instance, the one thing that I never really took into consideration was the fact that discussions with my peers would end up being the most influential factor in learning what I did this semester.”

The first student decided early on that she would learn nothing from hearing about the perspectives of her peers during classroom discussions, while the second student was surprised to find that this aspect of the course was by far the most valuable.

The pedagogical “experts” might say that I should meet all students where they are and adjust to all the ways in which students define their interests. But I refuse to accommodate those who are too close-minded to try something that challenges their own view of themselves.

Beginner’s Guide to Simulations: Part 2, Benefits of Simulations

This is Part 2 of an ongoing series aimed at newcomers to using simulations and games in their classroom.  Part 1 introduced the series and focused on how to reduce the workload required in the design and use of these pedagogies.

Skepticism is a pretty standard attitude that we face when trying to convince instructors to try simulations and games in their classes.  Beyond the issues of workload and time that cause new adopters to hesitate, there is a more basic problem: convincing instructors that simulations and games have any place at all in a classroom traditionally dominated by lecture and discussion.

I won’t bury the lede: the ALPS team are all strong proponents of the value of simulations and games in the classroom.  That being said, we are also very aware of the limits of these pedagogies, and one of us publishes consistently on the failures of simulations.  So we are not die-hard true believers. I’m going to focus this post on highlighting some of the benefits of using simulations–such as increasing interaction, engagement, and skill-building opportunities– and then turn to a potential limit–the lack of solid evidence that they improve learning.

Continue reading