Collaborative and Active Learning – Pre reading Material I

What are active learning instructional strategies?

Active learning instructional strategies include a wide range of activities that share the
common element of “involving students in doing things and “thinking about the things they
are doing” (Bonwell & Eison 1991).

Active learning instructional strategies can be created and used to engage students in (a)
thinking critically or creatively, (b) speaking with a partner, in a small group, or with the
entire class, (c) expressing ideas through writing, (d) exploring personal attitudes and values,
(e) giving and receiving feedback, and (f) reflecting upon the learning process

It should also be noted that active learning instructional strategies can (a) be completed by
students either in-class or out-of-class, (b) be done by students working either as individuals
or in group, and (c) be done either with or without the use of technology tools

When an instructor employs active learning strategies, he or she will typically will (a) spend
greater proportion of time helping students develop their understanding and skills (promoting
deep learning) and a lesser proportion of time transmitting information (i.e., supporting
surface learning). In addition, the instructor will provide opportunities for students to (a)
apply and demonstrate what they are learning and to (b) receive immediate feedback from
peers and/or the instructor.

Why are active learning strategies instructionally important in college and

university courses?

Extensive workshop experience with faculty members indicates that before considering why
using active learning instructional strategies is important in college classes, it is first helpful
to address “the elephant in the room‖ by examining the question” by examining the question
“What‘s wrong with a 50-minute lecture?”

Though a well-crafted and captivating lecture presentation would seem to be an especially

time efficient way for an instructor to “cover course content”, converging evidence from a
wide variety of different types of sources indicates that listening to a classroom lecture is not
an especially effective way to promote deep and lasting student learning. As many have long
maintained, more commonly “Lecturing involves the transfer of information from the notes
of the lecturer to the notes of the student without passing through the minds of either”
(Multiple sources).

For example, watching students today during instructor presentations, in both regular size
classrooms as well as large lecture halls, will reveal significant proportions of students (a)
daydreaming, (b) attending casually to the lecture, (c) listening to IPods, (d) instant
messaging on a cell phone, or (e) playing on a laptop computer. The proportion of students
visibly engaged in taking notes in most classes has become all-too-often rather small.
Further, the ubiquitous use PowerPoint slides during presentations has led students to
anticipate routinely that they will have ready access to these slides.
Further, the lecture method is a relatively poor instructional approach for maintaining student
attention (e.g., Bligh, 2000). Research findings suggest that student concentration during
lectures begins to decline after 10-15 minutes (e.g., Stuart & Rutherford, 1978). A summary
of the different types of evidence offered to support this assertion is provided by Bligh (2000,
pgs 44-56). Recently, Wilson & Korn (2007) have both reviewed this literature and
questioned this claim, (i.e., largely by raising legitimate methodological and interpretive
questions about the early yet often cited studies done in this area). Their critique, however,
does not challenge the consistent findings of recent research demonstrating that when
compared to “traditional 50-minute classroom lectures”, “interactive lectures” produce
superior educational outcomes.

For example, over twenty years ago, empirical research comparing lecture methods versus
discussion techniques was summarized in the report Teaching and Learning in the Classroom:
A Review of the Research Literature prepared by the National Center for Research to
Improve Postsecondary Teaching and Learning (McKeachie, et al., 1987). The review
concluded that ―In those experiments involving measures of retention of information after
the end of a course, measures of problem solving, thinking, attitude change, or motivation
for further learning, the results tend to show differences favoring discussion methods over
lecture‖ (p. 70).

To cite some additional large-scale, high-quality research studies:

Hake (1998) reported the results of one study involving 62 introductory physics courses
(N>6000 students). Compared to traditional lecture-based instruction, instructional
approaches that promoted interactive engagement produced dramatic student gains in
conceptual and problem-solving test scores.

Springer et al. (1998) similarly reported a large meta-analysis of studies examining small
group learning in SMET courses (i.e., Science, Math, Engineering, and Technology).
Compared to traditional lecture-based instruction, various forms of small group learning
produced higher achievement test scores, more positive student attitudes, and higher levels
of student persistence.

Knight & Wood (2005), in an article titled ―Teaching More by Lecturing Less,‖ report the
results of a study completed in a large, upper-division Biology lecture course. When
compared to students‘ performance when the course was taught using a traditional lecture
format, students who were taught with (a) in-class activities in place of some lecture time,
(b) collaborative work in student groups, and (c) increased in-class formative assessment and
(d) group discussion were observed to make significantly higher learning gains and better
conceptual understanding.

Over the years, scholars, researchers and national reports have also discussed the
importance of employing active learning instructional strategies to maximize student learning
in the college or university classroom. Consider individually or collectively the following
succinct observations and/or recommendations: Lectures alone are too often a useless
expenditure of force. The lecturer pumps laboriously into sieves. The water may be
wholesome; but it runs through. A mind must work to grow (Elliot, 1869).
Faculty should make greater use of active modes of teaching and require that students take
greater responsibility for their learning (Study Group on the Conditions of Excellence in
American Higher Education, 1984).

Students learn by becoming involved . . . Student involvement refers to the amount of

physical and psychological energy that the student devotes to the academic experience
(Astin, 1985).

Learning is not a spectator sport. Students do not learn much just by sitting in class listening
to teachers, memorizing prepackaged assignments, and spitting out answers. They must talk
about what they are learning, write about it, relate it to experiences, apply it to their daily
lives. They must make what they learn part of themselves (Chickering & Gamson, 1987).

When students are actively involved in the learning task, they learn more than when they are
passive recipients of instruction (Cross, 1987).

All genuine learning is active, not passive. It involves the use of the mind, not just the
memory. It is the process of discovery in which the student is the main agent, not the
teacher (Adler, 1987).

Experience makes it increasingly clear those purely verbal presentations - lecturing at large
groups of students who passively expect to absorb ideas that actually demand intense
deductive and inductive mental activity coupled with personal experience - leave virtually
nothing significant or permanent in the student mind (Strauss & Fulwiler, 1989/1990).

Tell me and I'll listen. Show me and I'll understand. Involve me and I'll learn. (Teton Lakota
Indians)

I hear, and I forget. I see, and I remember. I do, and I understand. (Asian proverb)

What obstacles do faculty members commonly report limit their use of active
learning instructional strategies? And, how can these barriers be overcome?

Some commonly mentioned obstacles to using active learning instructional strategies include:

You cannot cover as much course content in class within the time available - Admittedly, the
use of in-class active learning strategies reduces the amount of available lecture time that
can be devoted to instructor-provided content coverage. Many faculty are surprised to learn,
however, that student learning during a fifty-minute class can be enhanced by simply
pausing three times for approximately three minutes each (Rowe, 1980); in short, student
test performance rose as a consequence of faculty lecturing for ten minutes less while
providing three brief periods for student-to-student interaction. In addition, faculty members
who regularly use more time-intensive in-class active learning instructional strategies can
ensure that students learn important course content through (a) pre-class reading and
writing assignments, (b) formative in-class quizzes, (c) brief in-class activities completed
individually, with a partner, or in small groups, (d) classroom examinations, etc..
Devising active learning strategies takes too much pre-class preparation - Though the
preparation time needed to create new active learning instructional strategies often will be
greater than the preparation time needed to "recycle old lectures," it will not necessarily take
greater time than the preparation time needed to create thoughtful lectures for new courses.
In addition, there are now hundreds of published articles describing instructor use of active
learning instructional strategies across the disciplines. Project Merlot similarly offers 300 more
peer-reviewed classroom activities online

Large class sizes prevents implementation of active learning strategies - Large class size may
restrict the use of certain active learning instructional strategies (e.g., it is difficult to involve
all students in class discussion in groups larger than 40) but certainly not all. For example,
dividing large classes into small groups can allow for productive in-class discussion activities.
Heppner (2007), Stanley & Porter (2002) and Weimer (1987) each offer excellent ideas on
how to teach large classes well.

Most instructors think of themselves as being good lecturers (and, therefore, see no reason
to change) - Though many view lecturing as a useful means of transmitting information,
attending a lecture does not necessarily give rise to student learning. Evidence of this can be
seen clearly in the disparity between what an instructor thinks he or she has taught
effectively and the actually proportion of course content his or her students successfully
demonstrate they have understood and remember on their examination papers.

A lack of materials or equipment needed to support active learning approaches - The lack of
materials or equipment needed to support active learning can be a barrier to the use of
some active learning strategies but certainly not all. For example, asking students to
summarize in writing the material they have read or to form pairs to evaluate statements or
assertions does not require any equipment. And while classroom use of personal response
devices or clickers has become the current instructional rage (and for many good reasons
based upon the findings of numerous studies), low cost alternatives described later in this
handout are also available to interested faculty (e.g., IF-AT answer sheets; visit
http://www.epsteineducation.com/home/ for more on this)

Students resist non-lecture approaches - Students resist non-lecturing approaches because

active learning alternatives provide a sharp contrast to the very familiar passive listening role
to which they have become accustomed. With explicit instruction in how to actively
participate and learn in less-traditional modes, students soon come to favor new approaches.
An excellent text entitled “Helping Students Learn in a Learner-Centered Environment: A
Guide to Facilitating Learning in Higher Education (Doyle, 2008), offers many helpful
suggestions and ideas.

A second set of potentially more difficult obstacles to overcome involves increasing one's
willingness to face two types of risks. First, there are risks that students will not (a)
participate actively, (b) learn sufficient course content, (c) use higher order thinking skills,
and (d) enjoy the experience. And second, there are risks that you as a faculty member will
not (a) feel in less control of your class, (b) feel as self-confident, (c) initially possess the
skills needed to use active learning instructional strategies effectively, and (d) be viewed by
others as teaching in an established fashion.
While trying any new instructional approach will always entail a certain level of risk (for both
the instructor and his or her students), many faculty members have reported it helpful to
start by first using low risk active learning instructional approaches. Figure 1 (Bonwell &
Eison, 1991, p. 66) below contrasts several general characteristics of low- and high-risk
active learning instructional strategies.

Figure 1
A Comparison of Low- and High-Risk Active Learning Strategies

Dimension Low Risk Strategies High Risk Strategies

1
Class Time Required relatively short relatively long
2
Degree of Structure more structured less structured
3
Degree of Planning meticulously planned Spontaneous
4
Subject Matter relatively concrete relatively abstract
Students' Prior knowledge
of the Subject Matter 4 better informed less informed
Students' Prior Knowledge
5
of the Teaching Technique familiar Unfamiliar
Instructor's Prior Experience
5
With the Teaching Technique considerable Limited
between faculty &
6
Pattern of Interaction students among students

Short active learning strategies (e.g., the pause procedure) involve less risk that valuable
class time will be "wasted" (i.e., not used productively or effectively) than longer activities.

More highly-structured active learning strategies (e.g., short writing activities, debates, case
studies) involve less risk that course content will not be adequately covered and that the
instructor will not feel in control of the class than instructional activities that are less carefully
structured or scripted (e.g., role playing, informal group discussion).

The greater the degree of instructor planning, and the more thorough and thoughtful the
instructions that are provided to students, the less the risk that an activity will take an
unexpected and/or unproductive turn.

When the subject of a lesson is relatively concrete (e.g., an in-class or out-of-class reading
assignment with an accompanying writing activity) and students are relatively well prepared,
there is less risk that an activity (e.g., a large-class discussion) will go astray than if the
subject of the lesson is relatively abstract and/or students are not adequately prepared or
informed (e.g., material supposedly covered either in high school or an assigned pre-class
reading).
The more familiar and experienced students and faculty members become with a particular
active learning strategy, the less the instructional risk. This is especially true when faculty
and students are using relatively new and/or unfamiliar technology tools.

Encouraging the flow of communication between the faculty member and his/her students
involves less risk that a discussion will stray off topic or that shy students will not participate
than a discussion that encourages student-to-student communication without a moderator.

One especially low-risk high-impact alternative to traditional classroom lectures is the

“interactive lecture”

What are interactive lectures?

Interactive lectures are presentations that provide students with multiple brief opportunities
for structured engagement. In contrast to the “traditional lecture”, interactive lectures involve
both (a) several relatively brief segments of “instructor talk” (or mini-lectures) and (b) explicit
opportunities for student thinking and responding.
To distinguish further between ”traditional” and “interactive lectures” consider the following:

Traditional Lectures Interactive Lectures

Instructor talks & students listen Instructor talks with periodic

with minimal interruptions pauses for structured activities

Student concentration can be As student concentration begins to

observed dropping after 10-15 wane, a short structured in-class
minutes activity is assigned

Instructor‘s questions are largely rhetorical Instructor‘s questions require responses

Students‘ responses to an instructor‘s Students‘ responses to an instructor‘s

questions are commonly made by questions are commonly made by
students raising their hands using a clicker or an IF-AT Answer
Sheet
Student-to-student talk is discouraged
Student-to-student talk is encouraged
Students listen and take
notes independently Students often work with partners
or in groups
Student comprehension during the
lecture is not monitored explicitly Student comprehension during the
lecture is assessed directly
Opportunities to correct
misunderstandings are not provided Opportunities to correct
routinely during the lecture misunderstandings are periodically
provided within the lecture
Student absenteeism often is quite high
High rates of attendance often are
reported
What are some strategies for transforming traditional lectures into interactive
lectures?

The breaks between mini-lectures offer instructors countless possibilities for actively
engaging students. Popular types of brief, low-risk and high-impact activities that students
can complete during the breaks between mini-lecture segments include:

The Pause Procedure (Rowe, 1980; 1986; Ruhl, Hughes, & Schloss, 1980) is an extremely
easy and effective approach to promoting greater student engagement with minimal
modification to one‘s traditional lecture presentations. The pause procedure has the
instructor pausing for approximately two minutes on three occasions during a fifty-minute
lecture (i.e., every 12-15 minutes). During the pauses, students work in pairs to discuss and
rework their notes without instructor-student interaction. In one study, the mean score
comparison between the pause procedure treatment group and a control group was large
enough to equal two letter grades.

Think-Pair-Share is another widely used and highly effective form of promoting brief
structured group interaction within traditional lecture sessions. As described originally in the
cooperative learning literature (Millis, Lyman, & Davidson, 1995), a think-pair-share exercise
often begins with information that provided initially through a reading assignment, a short
lecture, a videotape, etc. The instructor then poses a single question and students are
instructed to reflect (i.e., think) about the question and to note their response in writing.
Students then turn to a partner and share their responses. This can end the sharing or the
pair may turn to another pair and share again in groups of four. Provide sufficient time for
each participant to speak with his or her partner; the instructor, however, can determine the
total time required for the activity by limiting the number of pairs invited to share their
responses with the whole class. Think-Pair-Share is a collaborative learning strategy that (1)
is effective in very large classes, (2) encourages students to be reflective about course
content, (3) allows students to privately formulate their thoughts before sharing them with
others, and (4) can foster higher-order thinking skills.

ConcepTests were developed, and their effectiveness clearly demonstrated, by Erik Mazur
(1997) to encourage active learning through in-class peer collaboration in physics courses.
In this approach designed to focus students‘ attention on developing conceptual
understanding rather than memorization, at intervals of approximately every 15 minutes,
Mazur stops his presentation and poses a ConcepTest. The ConcepTest consists of a
challenging conceptual question or problem posed in multiple-choice format. Students turn
to a partner seated nearby and they work together to reach a common answer (these
responses get recorded electronically). Mazur (1997) offers a helpful resource for instructors
of physics attempting to transform ―conventional lectures to a more interactive format;‖ the
methods described, however, can be applied by faculty teaching in a wide variety of
different disciplines. Chapter Two of Mazur‘s (1997) text Peer Instruction is available in
electronic form at http://mazur-www.harvard.edu.
Personal Response Systems or ―Clickers‖ provide an exciting new way to actively engage
students enrolled in even the largest of classes. For example, Poirier & Feldman (2007)
compared student performance in a large (N=418) traditional 75-minute lecture class with
student performance in a second section of this same class (N=447) meeting immediately
afterwards. Though clicker use made up less than 10% of the total class time, students in
the clicker section earned higher exam scores and most, but not all, reported positive
attitudes towards clicker use. MacArthur & Jones (2008) have identified 56 publications
reporting on the use of clickers in college-level science classes and reported ―students have
a positive attitude towards the technology and that many benefits and few drawbacks are
associated with its use. Research studies show that the use of clickers results in measurable
increases in student learning in some cases and inconclusive results in other cases. In every
published report of student improvement with the use of clickers, the course included
student collaboration of some form‖ (p. 187).

Personal Response Cards, or quarter-sheets sheets of four colored papers, with the letters A
through D prominently printed on them, can be created by an instructor and distributed to
his or her students at the start of the term. To solicit student feedback, students signal their
responses to instructor-posed questions by raising their hands while the holding the
appropriately colored response sheet. Though lacking the ―cool factor‖ associated with a
sexy ―instructional techno-tool‖ such as clickers, I personally have come to think of colored
paper as a ―Poor Students‘ Personal Response System.‖ Freeman et al. (2007) recently
reported that daily clicker use in a gateway course for biology majors produced significantly
lower failure rates, higher exam scores and increased daily attendance. As some faculty
might predict, students did better on clicker questions if graded for right/wrong answers
versus simply of participation. In addition, in a test to see if clickers were more effective
than personal response cards (i.e., my ―Poor Students‘ Personal Response System‖),
attendance was higher in the clicker section.

Classroom Assessment Techniques or CATs (Angelo & Cross, 1993) are a widely used
collection of formative assessment strategies; CATs both actively engage learners as well as
assist faculty efforts to determine how much and how well students are learning. CATs are
generally anonymous, ungraded, and brief assessments of student understanding that are
completed in-class. Angelo & Cross (1993) describe over fifty such strategies in their
outstanding text. ―Minute Papers‖ are probably the best-known Classroom Assessment
Technique. Minute Papers engage students by having them respond in writing at the end of
a class session to some variation of questions such as (a) What important question remains
unanswered? or (b) What was the most important thing you learned during this class?

In addition, building upon Angelo & Cross (1993), Devorah Lieberman and Tom Creed
coined the term Techno-CATs to describe an electronic way to collect formative assessment
information (in either a synchronous or an asynchronous fashion) about student learning.
Information about Techno-CATS is found online at
http://www.nea.org/he/head9697/advo9810/feature.html
What are some other active learning instructional strategies to create
excitement and enhance learning?

In addition to inserting the above-mentioned activities into breaks between mini-lectures,

instructors can use the following instructional strategies for actively engaging students at
any point within (or throughout) a class session.

Questioning Purposefully is an extremely effective approach to increasing student

engagement as well as fostering critical/creative thinking. This involves the frequent use of
classroom questions including (a) questions posed by the instructor to students and (b)
questions posed by students to either their classmates or their instructor.

Instructor-posed questions can (a) help arouse student interest and curiosity, (b) sharpen
students‘ thinking skills, (c) demonstrate the application of theory to practice, (d) assess
students‘ knowledge, skills, or attitudes, and (e) prepare students for licensure
examinations.

Student-posed questions can (a) stimulate student-instructor interaction, (b) identify areas
of confusion or test understanding, (c) formulate personal connections with course content,
and (d) encourage student-student collaboration.

An instructor‘s specific instructional goals for a given class session (or, segment of a class
session) should determine the specific types and forms of questions that he or she poses to
students. See Appendix 2 on page 21 of this handout for an illustrative set of alternative
question types each designed to address a specific type of instructional objective.

A high degree of planning and forethought in advance of class should go into the
preparation of discussion questions; just as an instructor might bring a set of lecture notes
to class, he/she might similarly insert specific discussion questions into one‘s lecture notes.

To maximize participation by all students, it is important to adapt the level of sophistication

and difficulty of one‘s questions to students‘ ability level.

To enhance student comprehension, it is generally helpful to ask questions in a logical and

sequential order.

To maintain student interest it is generally helpful to ask questions at various levels (e.g.,
application, evaluation).

The manner used to pose classroom questions will also impact their effectiveness in
promoting effective student engagement. For example, research at all grade levels (Rowe,
1987) has found that when a faculty member asks his or her students a question, he or she
typically pauses but then allows less than one second of silence before speaking again.
―Wait time‖ is a term used to describe the interval of silence after a teacher‘s question and
the start of a student‘s reply. Wait time has also been used to describe the interval of
silence after a student‘s answer before the teacher provides further explanation or
elaboration.

Research findings on the educational impact of adequate wait time since 1969 have
suggested that several significant educational benefits result when faculty members extend
the wait time following a question from less than one second to 3-5 seconds (Rowe, 1986).
These benefits include: (a) the length of students‘ responses to your questions will increase
dramatically, (b) students are more likely to support inference statements by the use of
evidence and logic based on evidence, (c) students do more speculating about possible
alternative explanations or ways of thinking about a topic, (d) the number of questions
asked by students increases, (e) failures to respond to your questions decreases, (f)
student-to-student exchanges increases, (g) the variety of students participating voluntarily
in discussions increases as does the number of unsolicited but appropriate contributions, (h)
students gain confidence in their ability to construct explanations and to challenge the logic
of a situation, and (i) achievement on written measures improves, particularly on items that
are cognitively more complex.

―Many faculty habitually arouse their students with an engaging example and initiate
discussion with a well-formulated question, only to frustrate them by delivering a
spontaneous two- to three-minute mini-lecture after the first student comment. They do not
realize that the reason they rarely get a second response is because the readiness that they
created in students was dissipated during their own lengthy response‖ (Lowman, 1984).

Employing classroom demonstrations, when used skillfully, also help arouse student interest
and promote memorable learning. Recent research findings have documented, however that
―contrary to the common belief that seeing a demonstration makes students understand or
at least remember the phenomena, many science instructors have demonstrated that after
seeing a demonstration, the majority of students comes away with an incorrect
interpretation of what they saw‖ (Milner-Bolotin et al., 2007, p. 45)

Milner-Bolotin et al., (2007) reported that after observing physics demonstrations

(accompanied by the instructor‘s explanations) students responses to conceptual questions
was only 8-12% superior to students who were not shown the demonstrations. When asked
to predict a demonstrations outcome prior to seeing the demonstration, student scores rose
between 25-35% higher. And, when students had the opportunity to make a prediction,
discuss it with peers, and only then see the demonstration, their rate of correct responses
was higher than 50% (p. 46)

Assigning short in-class writings are another obvious yet all-too-often overlooked way to
increase student engagement during class presentations. Such activities will help (a)
stimulate more students to complete pre-class reading and preparation, (b) focus student
attention to selective information presented during mini-lectures, (c) stimulate individual
reflection and/or problem solving through writing, and (c) increase the proportion of
students willing to volunteer a contribution to a subsequent class discussion.
This type of ―writing for learning‖ does not require instructor feedback, correction, or
evaluation. Alternatively, such assignments can be turned and used as a time-efficient way
of monitoring and/or rewarding regular class attendance. These assignments can, if one
prefers, be easily graded as being worth one point for a thoughtful and acceptable response
and worth two points for an exceptionally well-prepared response (some of these two point
responses might be shared aloud by the student author with the whole class).

Bean et al. (1982) have provided an outstanding description of ―microtheme‖ assignments

that are brief essays limited to one side of a 5" x 8" card. Four illustrative types of
microtheme assignments include: (a) the summary-writing microtheme requiring reading,
comprehending and cogently condensing a body of information, (b) the thesis-support
microtheme requiring the taking a position and defending it with evidence, (c) the data-
provided microtheme requiring the interpreting of information provided in the form of tables
and then commenting on its significance, and (d) the quandary-posing microtheme
presenting a puzzling situation that must be explained using course content. Thus,
depending upon the specific instructional challenge you wish to pose, students are
challenged to prepare clear, concise and easily evaluated written responses to a purposeful
question addressing important course content.

Butler et al (2001) combined two previously described active learning instructional strategies
(i.e., ―minute papers‖ with ―think-pair-share‖) by having students write short responses to
instructor-posed content-related questions on index cards and then discuss their responses
in groups of 2-3. This activity motivated increased attendance and was well received by
students

Drabick et al. (2007) demonstrated that 5-minute ungraded free-writing assignments on

lecture material gave rise to increased attendance and improved performance on both
factual as well as conceptual multiple-choice exam questions when compared a control
group who spent the 5-minute period simply thinking about the material (i.e., without doing
any writing).

Using brief get-acquainted icebreaker activities and/or subject matter warm-ups - Students
are more likely to become excited about, as well as participate actively in, a class in which
they know other students. In fact, when asked why large numbers of students typically do
not pose the questions they have about complex course content to their instructors, and
why relatively few students actually participate during in-class group discussions, students
commonly acknowledge their hesitancy to speak and possibly embarrass themselves in front
of a group of strangers. Thus, the frequent use of social icebreakers at the start of each
new term, as well as the periodic use of course-relevant brief warm-up activities in the
opening minutes of class sessions, can have great a great positive impact on reducing this
formidable obstacle to in-class discussion.
Having brief ―Who was this person and why might we care?‖ student presentations –
Students often complete reading assignments without ever personally wondering about (or
being asked to reflect upon) the source of the information they are learning. Further, many
of today‘s undergraduates incorrectly assume that each of the prominent individuals
discussed or cited in textbooks are white males. One way to arouse student interest and
curiosity about course content is to have students research the lives of the many noteworthy
individuals whose work has contributed significantly to topics mentioned in their textbook
and/or explored in your course. Thus, students can make short presentations addressing the
theme ―Who is this person and why might we care?‖ For added relevance, in addition to
concisely providing some traditional biographical highlights, students could also investigate
what this prominent contributor to the field was like when he or she was an undergraduate
student.

Infusing humor into class sessions (e.g.,”Joke of the Day”) - Given what we know about the
positive benefits of humor in the college classroom (Berk, 1996; Garner, 2006; Took et al.
2004), inserting a ―Joke of the Day‖ into class sessions is another type of brief energizing
interlude that can become a part of one‘s pedagogical repertoire. Better still from an active
learning perspective, share the responsibility for bringing to class ―course and audience
appropriate‖ humor (e.g., cartoons, riddles, jokes, humorous mnemonic devices) with your
students.

Inviting effective guest speakers – Students like few class periods less than those in which
an ineffective guest speaker delivers a boring talk lasting the entire session. Conversely,
adding the voice of an especially knowledgeable and instructionally effective invited speaker
can bring both ―outside authority‖ and possibly enhanced student inspiration to your
classroom. In short, the thoughtful selection of one or more potential guest speakers,
combined with skillful pre-class planning to adequate prepare both the speaker and your
students, can excite student interest in a topic and stimulate lively in-class discussion.
Sorenson (2001) offers some helpful advice in Guest Speakers: Agony or Ecstasy (online at
http://fc.byu.edu/opages/reference/newslet/v9n2.pdf). For example, Lynn recommends
―First, when inviting the expert, steer clear of these terms: speech, presentation, lecture
(unless you have heard the expert ―do their thing‖ and you want that exact shtick
reproduced; then say, ―Please do the PowerPoint presentation you did at the 2nd Annual
Utah Crustacean Rally in July.‖). Otherwise, invite the guest to ―spend a half-hour with us,‖
―visit our class,‖ or ―allow us to get acquainted with you.‖ It is also worth noting that if all
the pre-requisite technology tools are available to you on your campus, consider also
bringing one or more prominent ―virtual guest speakers‖ from their home campuses to
your class. In either format, to reduce the risk level associated with this type of active
learning instructional strategy, make certain that your students thoughtfully pre-plan and
prepare ―interview questions‖ prior to guest speaker visits.
Connecting course content to current events - Yet another approach to energizing students‘
attention and helping students develop a clearer sense of the personal relevance and
significance of course content involves introducing a daily (or weekly) ―Breaking News‖
items. After personally modeling and establishing a pattern of how this is best done at the
start of each semester, assign students the task of (a) locating current news items
illustrating or relating to important course content, and (b) making a brief in-class oral
presentation about the news item found. Alternatively, each student can be required to
prepare a brief written synopsis of his or her news item for posting on an electronic
discussion board or course website. In a relatively short amount of time, you will have a
rather large collection of current illustrative material to both keep your classes ―fresh‖ and
your students actively engaged. And if you also want to help your students develop greater
global awareness as they learn about your discipline, consider having report on relevant
current events stories as presented by newspapers of differing regions of the world;
numerous websites provide easy access to such resources (e.g.,
http://www.refdesk.com/paper.html; http://www.ipl.org/div/news/)

Transforming study guides into puzzles – Creative faculty can learn an important lesson
about designing challenging instructional activities to arouse student motivation (e.g., to
review important course content) from the countless number of newspaper readers who
start their day by attempting the daily crossword puzzle. In contrast to the oftentimes-dull
act of completing and then later mechanically memorizing material transferred from
textbooks and lecture notes onto paper-and-pencil study guides, relatively easy-to-learn
computer software, combined with a little instructor creativity can transform ordinary test
review sheets containing such things as important terms, people, facts, etc. into engaging
crossword puzzles.

Employing “high-interest low-stakes” in-class contests – In my experience working with

both students in classroom contexts and faculty groups in workshop settings, problem-
solving games and contests area are almost universal energizers and crowd pleasers.
Friendly and instructionally effective competition among individuals or between groups
follows instantly from the mere promise of a small prize to the winning team or individual.
According to Tom Verhoeff (1997), ―Marcus Verrius Flaccus, a Roman teacher famous in
the late 1st century BC, is credited to have introduced the principle of competition among
his students as a pedagogical aid. He awarded attractive books as prizes.‖ If for no other
reason, this historical example suggests one productive use for unsolicited ―publisher-
provided textbook examination copies‖ that commonly form into a large pile on the floor of
faculty offices. More readily obtained but equally sought after by students are prizes such as
small individually wrapped candies; for this reason, I generally keep a small supply of
Hershey‘s Kisses or Dove chocolates in my office.
I have also known other faculty members who keep a roll of quarters in a pocket for use
either as positive reinforcement for a desirable student response or as a small prize for each
member of a group. One faculty member in a College of Business has developed a bit of a
campus-wide reputation for using dollar bills as prizes; for obvious reasons, this is not
something I personally recommend to those faculty members teaching in the Humanities or
Education. As with many other applications of active learning instructional strategies, variety
is essential to reduce student fatigue and boredom. Thus it is wise to vary both the types of
high-interest low stakes contests employed, as well as the criteria chosen for identifying the
―winners‖ – e.g., the first correct response; the most creative response; the response
offered with the greatest amount of supporting evidence; the longest list, etc.

Creating classroom versions of television game shows - Create classroom versions of

television game shows – Today, faculty members can easily bring the excitement of TV
Games Shows into their classrooms to stimulate the lively review of course content. And,
such activities similarly provide instructors with an informal method to assess students‘
mastery of challenging topics. Fortunately, instructors do not need advanced computer
programming skills and/or other sophisticated technology skills to accomplish this. Free and
relatively easy-to-learn educational software is readily available at websites such as (a)
http://superteachertools.com/, (b) http://facstaff.uww.edu/jonesd/games/ and (c) http://jc-
schools.net/tutorials/PPT-games/ as well as through Project Merlot (http://www.merlot.org).
Alternatively, a variety of alternative other software programs are available for purchase
(e.g., http://www.almorale.com/classroom.html).

Having students prepare “Public Service Announcements” - A public service announcement

(PSA) is a non-commercial advertisement broadcast on radio or television, ostensibly for the
public interest. PSAs are intended to modify public attitudes by raising awareness about
specific issues (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_service_announcement). Having
students create PSAs challenges them to (a) research a topic, (b) synthesize the findings,
and (c) communicate the most important information learned in a very brief fashion. Provide
students with alternative formats for sharing their PSA‘s with their classmate is encouraged;
while some students will prefer to prepare printed brochures, others might favor preparing a
live in-class performance and others still might make short videotape presentations (that
they might enjoy later posting to YouTube). Requiring students to prepare a more
comprehensive research paper is also an option available to instructors.

Integrating web-site use and/or creation into course assignments – Given that the World
Wide Web has undeniably become today‘s students ―go to place‖ for finding information,
faculty members across the disciplines have an instructional responsibility for helping
students learn to critically evaluate the information they find. Consequently, as academic
librarians readily attest, much valuable scholarly attention has already been devoted to this
challenge. Though an in-depth analysis of this literature is well beyond the scope of the
present document, two illustrative examples of ways discipline-based instructors have
employed active learning instructional strategies to address this important instructional
challenge are worth noting.
Sanchez, Wiley & Goldman (2006) identified four primary areas that undergraduate
students needed support when thinking about information found on the World Wide Web:
―(a) considering the source of the information, (b) considering the evidence that was
presented, (c) thinking about how the evidence fit into an explanation of the phenomena,
and (d) evaluating the information with respect to prior knowledge.‖ To address these
needs, the researchers developed and then empirically tested ―an educational unit in which
students were taught to consider the Source, Evidence, Explanation, and evaluate the
information given in terms of their prior Knowledge (SEEK). This unit represents a set of
activities designed to help learners adopt a critical stance while doing research online and
with multiple sources by encouraging (1) thinking about the reliability of Sources, (2)
evaluating the Evidence and Explanations provided, and (3) relating new information to
prior Knowledge. Thus, this training encourages learners to not only consider information
about the source itself, but also the nature of the information that is presented by each
source and how well this information coincides with relevant prior knowledge‖ (pgs. 662-
663). The authors found that compared to a control group, students who had completed
the SEEK unit were not only better able to learn to use critical evaluation skills during
training but were also able to transfer these same inquiry based skills to another task.

As a alternative to a research paper assignment in her Business Law class, Hotchkiss (2002)
created a web page project that required ―small groups of students to analyze and
research a problem, prepare analyses in the form of web sites, post their web sites as a
reading assignment for the remainder of the class, and present their analyses to the class.‖
Among the positive outcomes reported from this assignment, Hotchkiss noted, ―Asking
students to solve problems using a new medium of communication encourages students to
examine that medium with a critical eye. Although most will never be web designers by
profession, the process of trying their hands at web site creation allows them to see this
medium in a wholly new way. They participate in building the frame of a house, rather than
simply looking at the exterior. Once they know the construction process, they will not see
the house in the same way again (pgs. 243-244).‖

Integrating debates into course assignments - Classroom debate assignments help students
(a) learn to locate information, (b) think critically, (c) formulate persuasive arguments and
counter-arguments, and (d) express themselves in oral and written forms. While an early
account of using debate as a teaching strategy dates back to when Protagoras taught in
ancient Athens, classroom debates have been gaining increasing visibility and popularity
across higher education over the past thirty years.

Using case method teaching - Case method teaching commonly refers to an instructional
approach first introduced at Harvard Law School in 1870 and subsequently adopted by the
Harvard Business School in 1908 (Weaver et al, 1994). In his ―shorthand guide‖ on how to
use teaching cases, Husock (2000) succinctly notes ―Teaching cases - also known as case
studies - are narratives designed to serve as the basis for classroom discussion. Cases do
not offer their own analysis. Instead, they are meant to test the ability of students to apply
the theory they have learned to a ―real world‖ situation. (Source:
http://www.ksgcase.harvard.edu/). For a rich and informative online resource on essential
case method ―how-to‖ issues, visit http://www.hbs.edu/teachingandlearningcenter/in-
practice/index.html.
Having students do in-class role-plays – When skillfully designed and facilitated, classroom
role-plays are an especially effective active learning instructional strategy for (a) arousing
student interest and engagement, (b) providing a realistic and relevant way for students to
connect essential course content to their personal and/or professional lives, (c) teaching
students to develop and apply critical thinking skills, (d) creating opportunities for
knowledge transfer as well as developing deeper self-awareness and understanding, and (e)
helping students develop increased empathy for others and a valuing of and respect for
cultural diversity.

Using cooperative learning strategies - Cooperative learning strategies involve the use of
small groups so that students work together to maximize their own and each other‘s
learning (Johnson, Johnson, & Smith (1991).

Johnson, Johnson, & Smith (1991) note ―A crucial difference exists between simply putting
students in groups to learn and in structuring cooperation among students. Cooperation is
not having students sit side by side at the same table to talk with each other as they do
their individual assignments....To be cooperative, a group must have clear positive
interdependence, members must promote each other‘s learning and success face to face,
hold each other personally and individually accountable to do his or her fair share of the
work, use appropriately the interpersonal and small-group skills needed for cooperative
efforts to be successful, and process as a group how effectively members are working
together. These five essential components must be present for small group learning to be
truly cooperative‖ (pp. iii-iv).

An essential element of this type of student group work involves the use of ―cooperative
learning structures‖ which are the ―content-free building blocks or tools of cooperative
learning used by instructors to help students learn specific course content. A brief yet
outstanding paper describing cooperative learning fundamentals, entitled Enhancing
Learning – And More!- Through Cooperative Learning, by Barbara Millis, can be found at
http://www.idea.ksu.edu/index.html. Better still is the text Cooperative learning for Higher
Education Faculty by Millis and Cottell (1998). As Barbara astutely asserts ―The power of
cooperative learning lies in its ability to promote what is known as deep learning. Deep
learning does not occur simply because students are placed in groups, however. It emerges
from the careful, sequenced assignments and activities ―orchestrated‖ by a teacher
committed to student learning.‖ (Source: http://www.tltgroup.org/resources/rmillis3.html).

Another exciting small group cooperative learning structure is Structured Academic

Controversy (e.g. Johnson & Johnson, 1998; 1993; 1997; Johnson, Johnson, & Smith,
1996). Academic controversy exists when one student‘s ideas, information, conclusions,
theories, and opinions are incompatible with those of another student, and the two seek to
reach an agreement‖ (Johnson, Johnson, & Smith, 1996). Structured academic controversy
is a systematic, and sequential instructional method for stimulating critical and creative
thinking, promoting student collaboration, and ensuring that students view an event or
problem from multiple perspectives.
In this approach, place students into cooperative learning groups of four students and then
divided again into two pairs. The instructor then guides students through the following
steps:

Research and prepare a position-- Each pair develops the position assigned, learns relevant
information about it, and plans how to present the best case possible to the other pair.

Present and advocate their position-- Each pair makes a presentation to the opposing pair,
with each member of the pair participating.

Engage in an open discussion, refuting the opposing position and rebutting attacks on their
own position-- Students argue forcefully and persuasively for their position, presenting as
many facts as they can to support their point of view.

Reverse perspectives-- The pairs reverse perspectives and present each other‘s positions.
Synthesize and integrate the best evidence and reasoning into a joint position-- The four
members of the group drop all advocacy, synthesizing and integrating what they know into
factual and judgmental conclusions.

Exploring team-based learning course redesign - As described by Michaelsen (1992), ―The

primary features of team learning include: (1) permanent and purposeful heterogeneous
work groups; (2) grading based on a combination of individual performance, group
performance, and peer evaluation;
(3) the majority of class time devoted to small group activities (necessitating a shift in the
role of the instructor from dispenser of information to manager of a learning process): (4) a
six-step instructional activity sequence, repeated several times per term that makes it
possible to focus the vast majority of class time on helping students develop the ability to
use concepts as opposed to simply learn about them‖ (p. 109). Michaelsen, Knight, & Fink
(2004) and Michaelsen, McMahen, Levin, & Parmalee (2008). are must read texts on this
especially exciting instructional approach. Visit also the team-based learning website at
http://faculty.ucmo.edu/teambasedlearning/index.htm.

Creating field trips (real, simulated or virtual) – Taking students outside of the traditional
classroom on a carefully designed educational field trip can achieve a wide range of
powerful learning outcomes (e.g., DeWitt & Storksdieck, 2008). On a foundational level,
field trips offer the obvious opportunity for students to create strong authentic connections
between oftentimes-abstract academic material and their own life experiences. For example,
under the direction of a creative instructor, a short and simple walking tour around campus
can provide a wealth of educational opportunities to illustrate concepts previously presented
only through textbook readings and/or in-class presentations. Involving only slightly more
complexity, a five-minute drive from my own campus can provide students a dramatic
experience with (or view for the less adventuresome learners) real-world applications of
principles of physics on the thrill rides (e.g., roller coasters) found at a local amusement
park (i.e., Busch Gardens).
A field trip to this same location, however, might similarly be an ideal location to take
students studying plants, animal behavior, social psychology, marketing, tourism, culinary
arts, etc. And virtual field trips provide faculty with the opportunity to use available
technology tools address many of the instructional and logistical problems associated with
actual field trip excursions (e.g., time constraints, travel complexities, economic cost, lack of
adequate institutional support, liability issues). Thus, a virtual field trip to an art museum, a
historical site (either found here in the US or elsewhere on our planet or from some other
time period – e.g., excavations of ancient civilizations), a national park or a location of great
geological significance will all add both excitement and instructional impact to a class. Field
trips, like several other types of active learning approaches, might initially appear to be a
complex and high risk instructional strategy; however, thoughtful planning, careful attention
to providing clear instructional structure, and a reading of published literature describing
ways faculty have successfully incorporated field trips into their own classes, will
significantly reduce the anticipated risk level. Articles by Klemm & Tuthill (2003) and
Jacobson, Militello, & Baveye (2009) identify some best practices for planning and creating
virtual field trips.

Using Summative Assessment Strategies- Giving a test or quiz to measure student learning
for purposes of grading offer yet another approach to stimulating active student
engagement both in- and out-of-class. There is considerable research evidence to support
the proposition that the nature of the classroom test given influences what students study
and how students learn (e.g., see Will That Be On The Final? by Ohmer Milton, 1982). For
example, the "two most frequently asked questions on all campuses are: 'Will that be on the
final?' and 'Will the test be objective or essay?' If the answer to the first question is 'no,'
studying and learning often cease. If the answer to the second question is 'multiple-choice'
students will memorize isolated facts; but if the answer is 'essay,' students will attempt to
exercise higher-order mental processes such as critical thinking and evaluating" (Milton,
Pollio, and Eison, 1986). Thus, well-designed and carefully constructed traditional quizzes
and tests (e.g., multiple-choice, essay) can, for example, be used to enhance learning when
they focus clearly on important learning goals (rather than isolated pieces of factual
information) and are accompanied by supportive instructional activities and materials that
help students prepare for the challenges posed on the test. Tobias & Raphael (1997a;
1997b), for example, have assembled an extensive collection of brief descriptive reports
describing how summative and formative assessment strategies have been used successfully
by faculty teaching science courses to enhance student learning.
Concluding Observations

True learning involves figuring out how to use what you already know in order to go beyond
what you already think (Bruner, 1983))

Start with modest expectations (i.e., think big but start small). Felder & Brent (1996) offer
some several excellent tips for getting started in an article available online at
http://www2.ncsu.edu/unity/lockers/users/f/felder/public/Papers/Resist.html).

One must learn by doing the thing; for though you think you know it, you will have no
certainty until you try (Sophocles).

As long as one keeps searching, the answers come (Joan Baez).

References

Adler, M. J. (1982). The Paideia proposal: An education manifesto. NY: Macmillan.

Angelo, T. A., & Cross, K. P. (1993).Classroom assessment techniques (Second Ed.). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Astin, A. W. (1985). Achieving educational excellence. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bean, J. C., Drenk, D., & Lee, F. D. (1982). Microtheme strategies for developing cognitive
skills. In C.

W. Griffin (Ed.). Teaching writing in all disciplines. New Directions for Teaching and
Learning, No. 12, San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.

Bligh, D. A. (2000). What’s the use of lectures. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bonwell, C., & Eison, J. (1991). Active learning: Creating excitement in the classroom
(ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 1). Washington, DC: George Washington
University. Abstract online at http://www.ed.gov/databases/ERIC_Digests/ed340272.html

Buchanan, R., W., and Rogers, M. (1990, Spring). Innovative assessment in large classes.
College Teaching, 38(2), 69-73.
Bunz, U. (2003, February). Website creation as a valuable exercise: Seven steps to
communicating significance online. The Technology Teacher, 62(5), 7-9.

Bruner, J. S. (1983). In search of mind: Essays in Autobiography. New York: Harper & Row.
Chickering, A. W. & Ehrmann, S. C. (1996). Implementing the seven principles: Technology
as a lever. AAHE Bulletin, 49(2), 3-6.

Chickering, A. W. & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in

undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin, 39(7), 3-7.
Chism, N. V. (1989, June). Large enrollment classes: Necessary evil or not necessary evil?
Notes on Teaching, No. 5. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University, Center for Teaching
Excellence.

Chomsky, N. A. (1986) Language and the Problems of Knowledge, MIT Press.

Cross, P. (1987). Teaching for learning. AAHE Bulletin, 39(8), 3-7.
Cross K. P., and Angelo, T. A. (1988). Classroom Assessment Techniques: A Handbook for
Faculty.

Ann Arbor, MI: National Center for Research on Postsecondary Teaching and Learning.
Cummings, J. A. (undated). Promoting Student Interaction in the Virtual College Classroom.
Available online at http://www.ihets.org/learntech/distance_ed/fdpapers/1998/52.html

DeWitt, Jennifer and Storksdieck, M. (2008). A short review of school field trips: Key findings
from the past and implications for the future. Visitor Studies, 11(2), 181-197.

Doyle, T. (2008). Helping students learn in a learner-centered environment: A guide to

facilitating learning in higher education. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.

Eison, J. A., & Bonwell, C. C. (1993, January). Recent works on using active learning
strategies across the disciplines. Unpublished manuscript. ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED 364 135.

Emerick, R. E. (1994, October). A conversation on classroom etiquette in introductory

sociology courses. Teaching Sociology, 22, 341-344

Felder, R. M., & Brent, R. (1996). Navigating the bumpy road to student-centered
instruction. College Teaching, 44(2), 43-47. Available online at
http://www2.ncsu.edu/unity/lockers/users/f/felder/public/Papers/Resist.html

Frederick, P. (1987). Student involvement: Active learning in large classes. In M.G. Weimer,
M. G. (Ed.). Teaching large classes well. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, No. 32.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Hake, R. R. (1998). Interactive-engagement vs. traditional methods: A six-thousand-student

survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics,
66, 64-74. Online at http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~sdi/>.

Heppner, F. (2007). Teaching the large college class: A guidebook for instructors with
multitudes. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Hotchkiss, C. (2002, September). Website creation as an active learning strategy in Business

Law classes. Journal of Legal Studies Education, 20(2), 235-247.
Hyman, R. T. (1979). Strategic questioning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Hyman, R. T. (1980). Improving discussion leadership. NY: Teachers College Press.
Jacobson, A. R., Militello, R., & Baveye, P. C., (2009). Development of computer-assisted
virtual field trips to support multidisciplinary learning. Computers and Education, 52(3), 571–
580.

Klemm, E. B., & Tuthill, G. (2003). Virtual field trips: Best practices. International Journal of
Instructional Media, 30(2), 177-193.

Lewis, K. G. (1987). Taming the pedagogical monster: A handbook for large class instructors
(2nded.). Austin, TX: The University of Texas at Austin, Center for Teaching Effectiveness.
Lewis, K. G. (1994). Teaching large classes (How to do it well and remain sane). In K. W.
Prichard & R. M. Sawyer (Eds.). Handbook of college teaching: Theory and applications.
Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Litke, R. A. (1995). Learning lessons from large classes: Student attitudes toward effective
and ineffective methods in large classes. Paper presented to the Western States
Communication Association, Communication. Portland, OR: February,1995. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 384 088).
Lowman, J. (1984). Mastering the techniques of teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Lowman, J. (1987, Winter). Giving students feedback. In M. Gleason (Ed.). Teaching large
classes well. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, No. 32. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
(pp. 71-83).

Maxwell N. L., and Lopus, J. S. (1995, Summer). A cost effectiveness analysis of large and
small classes in the university. Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 17(2), 167-178.

McGee, R. (1991).Teaching the mass class, (2nd Ed.). Washington, DC: American
Sociological Association.

McKeachie, W. J., Pintrich, P. R., Lin, Y. G., & Smith, D. A. (1987). Teaching and learning in
the college classroom: A review of the literature. Ann Arbor: National Center for Research to
Improve Postsecondary Teaching and Learning, The University of Michigan.

Michaelsen, L. K. (1992). Team learning: A comprehensive approach for harnessing the

power of small groups in higher education. In D. Wulff & J. D. Nyquist (Eds.). To Improve
the Academy, Vol. 11 (pps.107-122). Stillwater, OK: New Forums Press and the Professional
and Organizational Development Network in Higher Education.

Michaelsen, L. K., & Black, R. H. (1994). Building learning teams: The key to harnessing the
power of small groups in higher education. In S. Kadel & J. A. Keehner (Eds.), Collaborative
learning: A sourcebook for higher education, Vol. II (pp. 65-85). University Park, PA:
National Center on Postsecondary Teaching, Learning and Assessment.
Michaelsen, L. K., Black, R. H., & Fink, L. D. (1996). What every faculty developer needs to
know about learning groups. In L. Richlin, (Ed.). To Improve the Academy, Vol. 15 (pp. 31-
58). Stillwater, OK: New Forums Press and the Professional and Organizational Development
Network in Higher Education.

Michaelsen, L. K., Fink, L. D., & Watson, W. E. (1994, February). Pre-instructional minitests:
An efficient solution to the problem of covering content. Journal of Management Education,
18(1), 32-44.

Michaelsen, L. K., Fink, L. D., & Knight, A. (1997). Designing effective group activities:
Lessons for classroom teaching and faculty development. In D. DeZure (Ed.). To Improve
the Academy, Vol. 16 (pp. 373-398). Stillwater, OK: New Forums Press.

Millis, B., Lyman, F. T., & Davidson, N. (1995). In H. C. Foyle (Ed.). Interactive learning in
the higher education classroom (pp. 204-225). Washington, DC: National Education
Association.

Millis, B. J., & Cottell, P. G. (1998). Cooperative learning for higher education faculty.
Phoenix: AR: Oryx Press.

Millis, B. J. (undated) Managing—and Motivating!—Distance Learning Group Activities.

Available online at http://www.tltgroup.org/gilbert/millis.htm

Moss, A., & Holder, C. (1988). Improving student writing: A guidebook for faculty in all
disciplines. Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt.

Myers, C., & Jones, T. B. (1993). Promoting active learning. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Novak, G. M., & Patterson, E. T. (1998). Just - in- Time Teaching: Active Learner Pedagogy
with Paper presented at IASTED International Conference on Computers and Advanced
Technology in Education , May 27 -30, 1998 in Cancun, Mexico [Available online at:
http://webphysics.iupui.edu/JITT/ccjitt.html]

Pierce, W. (2001). Strategies for Teaching Thinking and Promoting Intellectual Development
in Online Classes. Online at http://academic.pg.cc.md.us/~wpeirce/MCCCTR/ttol.html

Rowe, M. B. (1974). Wait time and rewards as instructional variables: Their influence on
language, logic, and fate control. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 11(2), 81-94.

Rowe, M. B. (1980). Pausing principles and their effects on reasoning in science. In

Brawer, F. B. (Ed.). Teaching the sciences. New Directions for Community Colleges,
Number 31. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Ruhl, K. L., Hughes, C. A., & Schloss, P. J. (1978, Winter). Using the pause procedure to
enhance lecture recall. Teacher Education and Special Education, 10, 14-18.

Sanchez, C. A, Wiley, J., & Goldman, S. R. (2006). Teaching students to evaluate source
reliability during internet research tasks. Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on
Learning Sciences. Bloomington, Indiana. Retrieved May 1, 2009 from
http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1150034.1150130

Stanley, C. A. & Porter, M. E. (2002). Engaging large classes: Strategies and techniques for
college faculty. Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing.

Strauss, M., and Fulwiler, T. (1989/1990). Writing to learn in large lecture classes. Journal
of College Science Teaching, 19(3), 158-163.

Stuart, J. & Rutherford, R. J. (1978). Medical student concentration during lectures. The
Lancet, 514-516.

Study Group on the Conditions of Excellence in American Higher Education. (1984).

Involvement in learning: Realizing the potential of American Higher Education. Washington,
DC: National Institute of Education/ U.S. Department of Education.

Verhoeff, T. (1997). The role of competitions in education. Presented at Future World:

Educating for the 21st Century Conference and Exhibition. Retrieved online May 1, 2009
from ftp://ftp.win.tue.nl/pub/ioi/ioi97/competit.pdf

Weimer, M. G. (Ed.). (1987). Teaching large classes well. New Directions for Teaching and
Learning, Number 32. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Wilen, W. W. (Ed.). (1987). Questions, questioning techniques, and effective teaching.

Washington, DC: National Education Association.

Wilen, W. W. (Ed.). (1990). Teaching and learning through discussion. Springfield, IL:
Charles C. Thomas.