Team-based learning (TBL) is a structured form of small-group learning that emphasizes student preparation out of class and application of knowledge in class. Students are organized strategically into diverse teams of 5-7 students that work together throughout the class. Before each unit or module of the course, students prepare by reading prior to class.
In the first class of the module, students participate in a “Readiness Assurance Process,” or RAP. Specifically, students complete a test individually (the “Individual Readiness Assurance Test,” or iRAT); and then complete the test with their group members (the “group Readiness Assurance Test,” or gRAT). Both the individual scores and the group scores contribute to the students’ grades. The tests are typically multiple choice, and students often complete the group test using a “scratch-off” sheet and score themselves, reducing grading time and promoting student discussion of correct answers.
After the students complete the group test, the instructor encourages teams to appeal questions that they got incorrect. The appeals process encourages students to review the material, evaluate their understanding, and defend the choice they made.
To conclude the Readiness Assurance Process, the instructor gives a mini-lecture that focuses on concepts with which students struggled the most.
Importantly, this work serves as preparation for the in-class application activities that complete the module. These application activities require the teams to make a specific choice about a significant problem. Importantly, all teams work on the same problem and report their decisions simultaneously. This structure requires teams to articulate their thinking, and gives teams an opportunity to evaluate their own reasoning when confronted with different decisions that other teams may make. Peer evaluation is an important part of team-based learning; it is essential for keeping students accountable to their teammates.
L. Dee Fink uses a method in which students are given 100 points to distribute among their teammates (but don’t evaluate themselves). Based on all team members’ evaluations, a student is assigned a score (out of 100) that is used as a multiplier for the score they receive for group activities. Thus, if a team member does not contribute to group activities, her or her score for the group activities will suffer, while a team member who contributes very effectively benefits.
Larry Michaelson uses a variation of this method in which a student evaluates the other members of her team and distributes a set number of points among them. The points the students receive from each of their teammates determine the peer evaluation score that is a direct component of their grade for a given module.
Finally, the Paul Koles method combines the two approaches and includes grading of the comments students provide for their teammates.
Patricia Hrynchak and Helen Batty provide an excellent analysis of the theoretical basis of team based learning (2012).They argue that team-based learning incorporates the main elements of constructivist learning, in which the “focus is on the mental representation of information by the learner” (Svinicki 2004, p. 242; Kaufman 2003):
Team-based learning is consistent with all of these elements. The teacher establishes the learning objectives and chooses the problems on which the students will focus but then acts as a guide while teams work toward their solution to the problem. A careful choice of problems can help reveal common student misconceptions, and the constant interaction and debate among team members allows learners to compare their current understandings with those of other team members and to construct new understandings. Group interaction and a focus on relevant problems is an inherent element of team-based learning. Finally, team-based learning provides several opportunities for reflection: during the group readiness assessment test; while hearing other teams’ reports of their conclusions; and during the peer evaluation process, which often includes self-evaluation.
Team-based learning is one version of a flipped classroom, which is supported by a 1998 study by Richard Hake. Hake gathered data on 2084 students in 14 introductory physics courses taught by traditional methods (defined by the instructor as relying primarily on passive student lectures and algorithmic problem exams), allowing him to define an average gain for students in such courses using pre/post-test data. Hake then compared these results to those seen with interactive engagement methods, defined as “heads-on (always) and hands-on (usually) activities which yield immediate feedback through discussion with peers and/or instructors” (Hake p. 65) for 4458 students in 48 courses. He found that students taught with interactive engagement methods exhibited learning gains almost two standard deviations higher than those observed in the traditional courses (0.48 +/- 0.14 vs. 0.23 +/- 0.04).
More specifically, team-based learning has been shown to produce learning gains in a variety of healthcare education classrooms. A selection of those studies are described here; you can also view a more comprehensive list of studies of team-based learning effectiveness.
Levine and colleagues incorporated team-based learning into a psychiatry clerkship curriculum, replacing half of the lectures with TBL activities including readiness assurance tests and application exercises (2004). Following implementation of team-based learning, students performed significantly better on the National Board of Medical Examiners psychiatry subject test. They also scored higher on attitudes about working in teams and reported the team learning activities to be more effective learning strategies.
Koles and colleagues compared medical students’ test performance on questions that assessed concepts learned by TBL methods or by other methods (2010). Students exhibited higher mean scores on questions that assessed knowledge of content learned via TBL than on questions assessing content learned using other methods. Importantly, students within the lowest quartile showed the greatest gains: average improvement of 7.9% for students in the lowest quartile as compared to average improvement of 5.5% for all students.
Zgheib and colleagues investigated the impact of team-based learning for second year medical students in a pharmacology course (2010). They found that team-based learning approaches were more effective than traditional lecture-based pedagogy for improving student learning of difficult concepts but were not more effective for easier concepts.
The best source of information about team-based learning is theTeam-Based Learning Collaborative website. The website provides an introduction to TBL, specific information about elements to consider when implementing TBL, and books and articles on TBL.
Hake R (1998). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics 66: 64-74.
Hrynchak P and Batty H. (2012) The educational theory basis of team-based learning. Medical Teacher 34: 796-801.
Kaufman DM. (2003). Applying educational theory in practice. BMJ 326: 213-216.
Koles PG, Stolfi A, Borges NJ, Nelson S, Paremelee DX. (2010). The impact of team-based learning on medical students’ academic performance. Acad. Med. 85: 1739-1745.
Levine RE, O’Boyle M, Haidet P, Lynn DJ, Stone MM, Wolf DV, and Paniagua FA. (2004). Transforming a clinical clerkship with team learning. Teach Learn Med 16: 270-275.
Svinicki MD. (2004) Learning and motivation in the postsecondary classroom. San Francisco: Anker Pub. Co.
Zgheib NK, Simaan JA, and Sabra R. (2010). Using team-based learning to teach pharmacology to second year medical students improves student performance. Med Teach 32: 130-135.
Each department should consider using the model below as the starting point for a self-evaluation that will maximize the integration of instruction.
Work together as a department to characterize the basic mode of thinking integral to your field. Then elaborate what is involved (crucially) in that thinking. Spell this out in an integrated way as it might be manifested in a student successfully completing your program, as in the examples below. Then contextualize that description for representative courses in the program or department.
Model Description
Students successfully completing a major in ____ will demonstrate a range of ____ thinking skills and abilities which they use in the acquisition of knowledge. Their work at the end of the program will be clear, precise, and well-reasoned. They will demonstrate in their thinking command of the key ____ terms and distinctions, the ability to identify and solve fundamental ____ problems. Their work will demonstrate a mind in charge of its own ____ ideas, assumptions, inferences, and intellectual processes.
They will demonstrate the ability to analyze ____ questions and issues clearly and precisely, formulate ____ information accurately, distinguish the relevant from irrelevant, recognize key questionable ____ assumptions, use key ____ concepts effectively, use ____ language in keeping with established professional usage, identify relevant competing ____ points of view, and reason carefully from clearly stated ____ premises, as well as sensitivity to important ____ implications and consequences. They will demonstrate excellent ____ reasoning and problem-solving.
Example: History Department
Students successfully completing a major in History will demonstrate a range of historical thinking skills and abilities which they use in the acquisition of knowledge. Their work at the end of the program will be clear, precise, and well-reasoned. They will demonstrate in their thinking, command of the key historical terms and distinctions, the ability to identify and solve fundamental historical problems.
Their work will demonstrate a mind in charge of its own historical ideas, assumptions, inferences, and intellectual processes. They will demonstrate the ability to analyze historical questions and issues clearly and precisely, formulate historical information accurately, distinguish the relevant from irrelevant, recognize key questionable historical assumptions, use key historical concepts effectively, use historical language in keeping with established professional usage, identify relevant competing historical points of view, and reason carefully from clearly stated historical premises, as well as sensitivity to important historical implications and consequences. They will demonstrate excellent historical reasoning and problem-solving.
The Biology Department
Students successfully completing a major in Biology will demonstrate a range of biological thinking skills and abilities which they use in the acquisition of biological knowledge. Their work at the end of the program will be clear, precise, and well-reasoned. They will demonstrate in their thinking, command of the key biological terms and distinctions, the ability to identify and solve fundamental biological problems.
Their work will demonstrate a mind in charge of its own biological ideas, assumptions, inferences, and intellectual processes. They will demonstrate the ability to analyze biological questions and issues clearly and precisely, formulate biological information accurately, distinguish the relevant from irrelevant, recognize key questionable biological assumptions, use key biological concepts effectively, use biological language in keeping with established professional usage, identify relevant competing biological points of view, and reason carefully from clearly stated biological premises, as well as sensitivity to important biological implications and consequences. They will demonstrate excellent biological reasoning and problem-solving.
Philosophy Department
Students successfully completing a major in Philosophy will demonstrate a range of philosophical thinking skills and abilities which they use in the acquisition of philosophical knowledge. Their work at the end of the program will be clear, precise, and well-reasoned. They will demonstrate in their thinking, command of the key philosophical terms and distinctions, the ability to identify and solve fundamental philosophical problems.
Their work will demonstrate a mind in charge of its own philosophical ideas, assumptions, inferences, and intellectual processes. They will demonstrate the ability to analyze philosophical questions and issues clearly and precisely, formulate philosophical information accurately, distinguish the relevant from irrelevant, recognize key questionable philosophical assumptions, use key philosophical concepts effectively, use philosophical language in keeping with established professional usage, identify relevant competing philosophical points of view, and reason carefully from clearly stated philosophical premises, as well as sensitivity to important philosophical implications and consequences. They will demonstrate excellent philosophical reasoning and problem-solving.
Mathematics Department
Students successfully completing a major in Mathematics will demonstrate a range of mathematical thinking skills and abilities which they use in the acquisition of mathematical knowledge. Their work at the end of the program will be clear, precise, and well-reasoned. They will demonstrate in their thinking, command of the key mathematical terms and distinctions, the ability to identify and solve fundamental mathematical problems.
Their work will demonstrate a mind in charge of its own mathematical ideas, assumptions, inferences, and intellectual processes. They will demonstrate the ability to analyze mathematical questions and issues clearly and precisely, formulate mathematical information accurately, distinguish the relevant from irrelevant, recognize key questionable mathematical assumptions, use key mathematical concepts effectively, use mathematical language in keeping with established professional usage, identify relevant competing mathematical points of view, and reason carefully from clearly stated mathematical premises, as well as sensitivity to important mathematical implications and consequences. They will demonstrate excellent mathematical reasoning and problem-solving.
Music Department
Students successfully completing a major in Music will demonstrate a range of musical thinking skills and abilities which they use in the acquisition of musical knowledge. Their work at the end of the program will be clear, precise, and well-reasoned and well-performed. They will demonstrate in their musical thinking and performance, command of the key musical terms and distinctions, the ability to identify and solve fundamental musical problems.
Their work will demonstrate a mind in charge of its own musical ideas, assumptions, inferences, and intellectual processes, as well as musical performance. They will demonstrate the ability to analyze musical questions and issues clearly and precisely, formulate musical information accurately, distinguish the relevant from irrelevant, recognize key questionable musical assumptions, use key musical concepts effectively, use musical language in keeping with established professional usage, identify relevant competing musical points of view, and reason carefully from clearly stated musical premises, as well as sensitivity to important musical implications and consequences. They will demonstrate excellent musical reasoning, problem-solving, and performance.
{This article is adapted from the resource: Critical Thinking Basic Theory and Instructional Structures.
The Logic of Instructional Design
Instructional design involves two deeply interrelated parts: structures and tactics. In this article we focus on structures. Structures involve the "what" of the course: What am I going to teach? What content am I going to teach? What questions or problems will be central to the course? What concepts will be fundamental? What amount of information will students need to access? What point of view or frame of reference do they need to learn to reason within? What is my concept of the course? What overall plan shall I adopt? What requirements shall I set up? What grading requirements? What performance profiles? etc.
Tactics involve the "how": How am I going to teach so as to make the structures work? How am I going to get the students to be actively involved? How am I going to get them to develop insights, understandings, knowledge, and ability that are essential? How am I going to get them to learn to "reason" their way to the answers to questions in the field?
Five Important Structural Determinations That Set the Stage for Everything Else
We suggest that for every course you teach, there are five defining dimensions you should carefully think through. You should note that each of these "structures" have a "tactical" dimension to them. That is, something of the "how" (you will cover) is implicit in these decisions as to "what" (you will cover). They are:
The students, in other words, should know from the beginning what in general is going to be happening in the course, how they are going to be assessed, and what they should be striving to achieve. To put it yet another way, the students should know, from the beginning, what they are going to be doing most of the time-this should not be passive listening-and what exactly is expected of them in that doing. The aim of the course should be carefully spelled out. It is usually helpful to contrast the aim with that of standard didactically taught courses. It is useful to ask oneself what kind of reasoning is going to be central to learning the content (historical, mathematical, biological, literary, etc...)
In addition to a written syllabus, the students should be given an orientation to the mechanics of the course (as you were given an orientation to the mechanics of this seminar). This orientation should include an oral explanation of the concept of the course, the plan, the requirements, the performance profiles and any other salient features of the design. The overall logic of the course should be made as clear as possible. You might consider using a "student understandings" sign-off sheet (a model will be presented to you).
Studies have indicated that, on average, 90% of the decisions made about instruction are a result of the textbook chosen. But textbooks should not drive instruction, since most textbooks are not structured to enhance critical thinking in the subject. Our decisions made about the structure and tactics of our courses should be a result of our concept of the course, of our most fundamental objectives in teaching the course.
Once we have the most basic structure (and substructures) of our course decided, we must focus on the tactics we will use to drive that structure home, to enable that structure to be effectively achieved. One can divide tactics in two different ways. The first way is into daily tactics (what we will be doing everyday) and episodic (what we will do from time to time). The second way to divide tactics is into complex and simple. Socratic instruction, teaching students how to read critically, devising an oral test format, developing tactics for student self-assessment: these are all complex tactics. As the complex ones have multiple parts and often require an extended period of time to be carried out, they are generally harder to master. On the other hand, most simple tactics, like calling on students who don't have their hands up, asking that students summarize what other students have said, requiring students to state the purpose of an assignment or to express the question on the floor-are rather easy to learn and can take up much less time.
To illustrate these two distinctions, some instructors may choose to do some Socratic instruction every day, or simply to use it episodically, or just to lead off units. Designing an instructional day around an activity (with Task, Purpose, Question, and Tactic-see seminar samples) is another complex tactic, but it is one that may be used daily. Complex daily tactics may involve a variety of different simple tactics from day to day-see the teaching tactics listed in your workshop assignments.
In sum, instructional design involves a teacher thinking about instruction in both structural and tactical ways. Overall structural thinking-for example, about the concept for the course-can help free a teacher from the Didactic Model into which we have been conditioned and the ineffective teaching that invariably accompanies it. Simple and complex tactical thinking can provide the means by which we can follow through on our structural decisions in an effective way. Our teaching will not be transformed simply because we philosophically believe in the value of critical thinking. We must find practical ways to bring it into instruction, both structurally and tactically.
{This article is adapted from the resource: Critical Thinking Basic Theory and Instructional Structures.
Here are some tips on designing an assignment using library resources.
Attributed to University of Puget Sound
There are any number of library related assignments that can be incorporated into a course. Here are a few examples that can be adapted to most subjects.
Office hours are important opportunities for good teaching. Face-to-face in private, students share their confusions, misunderstandings, and questions more candidly and completely than they do in class, and you are in the best position to give them the individual attention they need.
Teaching at Its Best: A Research-Based Resource for College Instructors by Linda B. Nilson, is a great source of information on how to make your office hours more productive.
Make efforts to induce students to see you. These efforts include finding the right place, setting the right times, and giving a lot of encouragement.
The right place: Office hours need not always be in your office. You an implement an "Office Hours" feature inside your course's Moodle shell that would allow students to chat with you remotely. You can also use your University Skype account or Ringcentral Meetings to talk with students.
The right times: Be careful and considerate in scheduling your office hours. If you are available only briefly during prime class time–that is, when students are attending their other classes–then you immediately reduce your students’ ability to see you. If you teach a discussion, recitation, or laboratory section, make sure that your office hours do not overlap with the lecture portion of the course. If there aren’t enough hours in the day, consider scheduling an early evening office hour. During the semester, remind your students that you also meet by appointment.
The right encouragement: Start out by publicizing your office hours, first in your syllabus, then on the board during the first day of class, and intermittently during the term before “high traffic” weeks (before exams and paper deadlines). Post your office hours prominently outside your office door if you're on campus. Even the warmest
encouragement may not get students into your office hours, so you may have to “require” their attendance. For example, you could require each student to schedule a meeting with you early in the semester–as part of a paper assignment (draft review) or to go over a problem solution. This first meeting will foster repeat visits.
When students arrive to meet with you, especially the first time, make them feel more comfortable with some brief personal chat. It is helpful to spend the first few minutes finding out how they are, how they find the course, and how they are experiencing college. However, be careful to maintain appropriate boundaries in your relationship with the student. If you are meeting in your office, close the door for privacy but leave it slightly ajar. Also, maintain a respectable seating distance.
Advise students on how to prepare for meetings with you. You might instruct them to bring appropriate materials, such as their lecture notes, books, homework problems, drafts of their papers, or readings with troublesome passages marked. You might tell them to write out their questions or points of confusion to help clarify and prepare before meeting with you. In addition, remind them that office hours are not an opportunity to receive a recap of a lecture or lesson.
Make your sessions with students a chance to continue teaching them, by helping them work through their own confusions or problems. It may be helpful to respond to their questions with further questions that will lead them to their own conclusions. Provide guidance toward problem-solving rather than simply giving students the answer.
Inform your students about your use of email. The following guidelines suggest ways of structuring your email exchanges with students. Once you’ve decided how you will use email in your teaching, it’s important to make these decisions clear to your students.
Recognize the value of one-to-many emails. In the classroom, it’s not unusual that a question articulated by one student is a live question for many students. If a student emails you to ask a question that is generally relevant to the class, you might send your response to the entire class either through Email or in the News Forum of your Moodle shell. In many instances, it’s a good idea not to include in your response the name or email address of the student who asked the question.
Use email messages to establish course/teaching FAQ. If a question is asked often, either in the same class or from semester to semester, consider adding it and your response to it to a course Frequently Asked Questions collection. Your course Moodle shell would be a great place to host this.
Consider establishing email office hours. If you’ve published office hours, students know when they can expect to find you to ask a question about the class. It would be helpful to them also to know when they might expect a response to an email message about the class. The notice here could be something rather general (e.g., “I generally check email only once a day.”) or specific (e.g., “I will respond to student email messages between 2:00 and 3:00 on Tuesdays and Thursdays.”) You are free to respond at other times, just as you are free to be available for student appointments at times other than your stipulated office hours. But it’s important for students to know when they can reasonably expect an answer to an email message.
Assign pre- or post-class email messages. Depending on the size of the class, consider requiring students to email a question about the reading to you before the class starts. A quick skim of these emails can give you a sense of the students’ understanding of the material and shape your approach to it during the class session. Similarly, requiring students to email a question they have about the issues discussed in a particular class can give you a sense of the effectiveness of that discussion.
Shift some email exchanges to face-to-face discussions. Some matters are better discussed in person than via email. In some instances, one might respond to a student email with a request that the student come to the office for a face-to-face discussion.
Office Hours, from the University of Washington, provides helpful tips on managing office hours.
Tips for holding office hours from the Center for Teaching Excellence at Waterloo.
Stanford University’s guide for holding office hours.
“Flipping the classroom” has become something of a buzzword in the last several years, driven in part by high profile publications in The New York Times (Fitzpatrick, 2012); The Chronicle of Higher Education (Berrett, 2012); and Science (Mazur, 2009); In essence, “flipping the classroom” means that students gain first exposure to new material outside of class, usually via reading or lecture videos, and then use class time to do the harder work of assimilating that knowledge, perhaps through problem-solving, discussion, or debates.
Bloom’s Taxonomy (Revised)
In terms of Bloom’s revised taxonomy (2001), this means that students are doing the lower levels of cognitive work (gaining knowledge and comprehension) outside of class, and focusing on the higher forms of cognitive work (application, analysis, synthesis, and/or evaluation) in class, where they have the support of their peers and instructor. This model contrasts from the traditional model in which “first exposure” occurs via lecture in class, with students assimilating knowledge through homework; thus the term “flipped classroom.”
To ensure that students do the preparation necessary for productive class time, Walvoord and Anderson propose an assignment-based model in which students produce work (writing, problems, etc.) prior to class. The students receive productive feedback through the processing activities that occur during class, reducing the need for the instructor to provide extensive written feedback on the students’ work. Walvoord and Anderson describe examples of how this approach has been implemented in history, physics, and biology classes, suggesting its broad applicability.
Maureen Lage, Glenn Platt, and Michael Treglia described a similar approach as the inverted classroom, and reported its application in an introductory economics course in 2000. Lage, Platt, and Treglia initiated their experiment in response to the observation that the traditional lecture format is incompatible with some learning styles.1 To make their course more compatible with their students’ varied learning styles, they designed an inverted classroom in which they provided students with a variety of tools to gain first exposure to material outside of class: textbook readings, lecture videos, Powerpoint presentations with voice-over, and printable Powerpoint slides.
To help ensure student preparation for class, students were expected to complete worksheets that were periodically but randomly collected and graded. Class time was then spent on activities that encouraged students to process and apply economics principles, ranging from mini-lectures in response to student questions to economic experiments to small group discussions of application problems. Both student and instructor response to the approach was positive, with instructors noting that students appeared more motivated than when the course was taught in a traditional format.
Eric Mazur and Catherine Crouch describe a modified form of the flipped classroom that they termpeer instruction (2001). Like the approaches described by Walvoord and Anderson and Lage, Platt, and Treglia, the peer instruction (PI) model requires that students gain first exposure prior to class, and uses assignments (in this case, quizzes) to help ensure that students come to class prepared. Class time is structured around alternating mini-lectures and conceptual questions. Importantly, the conceptual questions are not posed informally and answered by student volunteers as in traditional lectures; instead, all students must answer the conceptual question, often via “clickers”, or handheld personal response systems, that allow students to answer anonymously and that allow the instructor to see (and display) the class data immediately. If a large fraction of the class (usually between 30 and 65%) answers incorrectly, then students reconsider the question in small groups while instructors circulate to promote productive discussions. After discussion, students answer the conceptual question again. The instructor provides feedback, explaining the correct answer and following up with related questions if appropriate. The cycle is then repeated with another topic, with each cycle typically taking 13-15 minutes.
Mazur and colleagues have published results suggesting that the PI method results in significant learning gains when compared to traditional instruction (2001). In 1998, Richard Hake gathered data on 2084 students in 14 introductory physics courses taught by traditional methods (defined by the instructor as relying primarily on passive student lectures and algorithmic problem exams), allowing him to define an average gain for students in such courses using pre/post-test data. Hake then compared these results to those seen with interactive engagement methods, defined as “heads-on (always) and hands-on (usually) activities which yield immediate feedback through discussion with peers and/or instructors” (Hake p. 65) for 4458 students in 48 courses. He found that students taught with interactive engagement methods exhibited learning gains almost two standard deviations higher than those observed in the traditional courses (0.48 +/- 0.14 vs. 0.23 +/- 0.04). Assessment of classes taught by the PI method provides evidence of even greater learning gains, with students in PI courses exhibiting learning gains ranging from 0.49 to 0.74 over eight years of assessment at Harvard University (Crouch and Mazur, 2001). Interestingly, two introductory physics classes taught by traditional methods during the assessment period at Harvard show much lower learning gains (0.25 in a calculus-based course in 1990 and 0.40 in an algebra-based course in 1999).
Carl Wieman and colleagues have also published evidence that flipping the classroom can produce significant learning gains (Deslauriers et al., 2011). Wieman and colleagues compared two sections of a large-enrollment physics class. The classes were both taught via interactive lecture methods for the majority of the semester and showed no significant differences prior to the experiment. During the twelfth week of the semester, one section was “flipped,” with first exposure to new material occurring prior to class via reading assignments and quizzes, and class time devoted to small group discussion of clicker questions and questions that required written responses. Although class discussion was supported by targeted instructor feedback, no formal lecture was included in the experimental group. The control section was encouraged to read the same assignments prior to class and answered most of the same clicker questions for summative assessment but were not intentionally engaged in active learning exercises during class. During the experiment, student engagement increased in the experimental section (from 45 +/- 5% to 85 +/- 5% as assessed by four trained observers) but did not change in the control section. At the end of the experimental week, students completed a multiple choice test, resulting in an average score of 41 +/- 1% in the control classroom and 74 +/- 1% in the “flipped” classroom, with an effect size of 2.5 standard deviations. Although the authors did not address retention of the gains over time, this dramatic increase in student learning supports the use of the flipped classroom model.
How People Learn, the seminal work from John Bransford, Ann Brown, and Rodney Cocking, reports three key findings about the science of learning, two of which help explain the success of the flipped classroom. Bransford and colleagues assert that
“To develop competence in an area of inquiry, students must: a) have a deep foundation of factual knowledge, b) understand facts and ideas in the context of a conceptual framework, and c) organize knowledge in ways that facilitate retrieval and application” (p. 16).
By providing an opportunity for students to use their new factual knowledge while they have access to immediate feedback from peers and the instructor, the flipped classroom helps students learn to correct misconceptions and organize their new knowledge such that it is more accessible for future use. Furthermore, the immediate feedback that occurs in the flipped classroom also helps students recognize and think about their own growing understanding, thereby supporting Bransford and colleagues’ third major conclusion:
“A ‘metacognitive’ approach to instruction can help students learn to take control of their own learning by defining learning goals and monitoring their progress in achieving them” (p. 18).
Although students’ thinking about their own learning is not an inherent part of the flipped classroom, the higher cognitive functions associated with class activities, accompanied by the ongoing peer/instructor interaction that typically accompanies them, can readily lead to the metacognition associated with deep learning.
The mechanism used for first exposure can vary, from simple textbook readings to lecture videos to podcasts or screencasts. For example, Grand Valley State University math professor Robert Talbert provides screencasts on class topics on his YouTube channel, while Vanderbilt computer science professor Doug Fisher provides his students video lectures prior to class (see examples here and here. These videos can be created by the instructor or found online from YouTube, the Khan Academy, MIT’s OpenCourseWare, Coursera, or other similar sources. The pre-class exposure doesn’t have to be high-tech, however; in the Deslauriers, Schelew, and Wieman study described above, students simply completed pre-class reading assignments.
The flipped learning network is a professional learning community focused particularly on the use of screencasting in education.
Berrett D (2012). How ‘flipping’ the classroom can improve the traditional lecture. The Chronicle of Higher Education, Feb. 19, 2012.
Anderson LW and Krathwohl D (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: a revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman.
Bransford JD, Brown AL, and Cocking RR (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
Crouch CH and Mazur E (2001). Peer instruction: Ten years of experience and results. American Journal of Physics 69: 970-977.
DesLauriers L, Schelew E, and Wieman C (2011). Improved learning in a large-enrollment physics class. Science 332: 862-864.
Fitzpatrick M (2012). Classroom lectures go digital. The New York Times, June 24, 2012.
Hake R (1998). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics 66: 64-74.
Lage MJ, Platt GJ, and Treglia M (2000). Inverting the classroom: A gateway to creating an inclusive learning environment. The Journal of Economic Education 31: 30-43.
Mazur E (2009). Farewell, Lecture? Science 323: 50-51.
Novak G, Patterson ET, Gavrin AD, and Christian W (1999). Just-in-Time Teaching: Blending Active Learning with Web Technology. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Pashler H, McDaniel M, Rohrer D, and Bjork R (2008). Learning styles: Concepts and evidence. Psychological Science in the Public Interest 9: 103-119.
Walvoord BE, and Anderson VJ (1998). Effective grading: A tool for learning and assessment. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Adapted from Brame, C., (2013). Flipping the classroom. Retrieved [15 June 2016] from http://cft.vanderbilt.edu/guides-sub-pages/flipping-the-classroom/.
Photo Credit: Night Owl City via Compfight cc
Building rapport with students is very important. One of the main reasons students leave school is the feeling of isolation that they experience. Chickering & Gamson state that faculty need to demonstrate concern for students so that they feel supported when they are struggling academically. Their research indicates faculty members can serve as role models in regard to career commitment. Teacher presence in the courses is one of the most important factors for student success. 
The second principle for effective teaching involves developing a reciprocity and cooperation among students. Chickering and Gamson consider that characteristics of good learning are collaborative and social, not competitive and isolated. Working together improves thinking and understanding. Research indicates that students felt more prepared to complete their assignments as a result of the interaction with other students (Ryan, Clarton, & Ali, 1999). For online environments, the research specifies that students who had higher levels of contact with other students also had higher grades than the students who had little contact with other online students (Wang & Newlin, 2000).
The 3rd principle involves the use of active learning methods rather than relying on passive methods such as text books and lectures. Students need to relate the material to their own lives. They ust be able to talk about what they are learning, write about it, relate it to past experiences, and apply it to their daily lives. In other words, students need to make learning a part of themselves. In the online environment, research indicates that most college teachers recognize the need for learner-centered instructions and faculty rate an active learning approach as one of the most relevant competencies for online instructors (Bigatel, et al., 2012). Online courses allow a unique opportunity for active learning because students often initiate their own web research on a topic and then share the information in class discussions (Newlin & Wang, 2002). This is a special feature of online courses because there is so much information available in online libraries and on websites.
By knowing what you know and what you do not know provides a focus to learning. In order for students to benefit from courses, they need appropriate feedback on their performance. When starting out, students need help in evaluating their current knowledge and capabilities. Within the classroom, students need frequent opportunities to perform and receive suggestions for improvement. Throughout the course, students need chances to reflect on what they have learned, what they still need to know, and how to assess themselves. In the online environment, research indicates the importance of transparent and prompt grading as a highly valued competency among online instructors (Bigatel, et al., 2012). Feedback after the first week of class encourages non-participating students to become more involved in the course. This is critical for retention (Wang & Newlin, 2000).
Learning needs time and energy. Efficient time management skills are critical for students. By allowing realistic amounts of time, effective learning for students and effective teaching for faculty are able to occur. Students become more interested in course assignments when they are able to apply creative methods to complete them (Sansone & Thoman, 2005). You are encouraged to vary types of interaction that your students will have within the course. However, one thing to note, in creating an interactive environment, it can be overwhelming to the students and teacher if the types of interaction required are too time consuming. So it is all about balance. And it is of utmost importance that the instructors help students learn good time management techniques. For example, if you have a course long project you may want to provide a pacing guide for your students to be able to gauge whether or not they are on pace for completing the assignment. Research indicates that online courses encourage more time to be spent on the learning tasks; therefore online instructors will want to consider this when designing instruction for the online environment (Bachman & Panzarine, 1998).
Expect more and you will get it. The poorly prepared, those unwilling to exert themselves, and the bright and motivated all need high expectations. Colleges and universities expect students to meet their high expectations for performance in the classroom, but also expect a personal and professional commitment to values and ethics. The instructor's expectation level for students becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy for those students (Chickering & Gamson, 1987).
There are many different ways to learn and no two people learn the same way. Students need the opportunity to show their talents and learn in ways that work for them. Then, they can be guided into new ways of learning that are not as easy for them. Instructors should present a range of learning experience in order to accommodate students with different learning styles. Research indicates that most instructors agree that a range of learning opportunities should be offered, but that most instructors still do not incorporate a variety of learning tasks (Smith & Valentine, 2012).
References
Theories of learning, whether explicit or tacit, informed by study or intuition, well-considered or not, play a role in the choices instructors make concerning their teaching. The major trend in understanding how students learn has been a movement away frm the behaviorist model to a cognitive view of learning. This teaching guide highlights learning theories and examines their implications on teaching.
Commissioned by the National Research Council, How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School presents the conclusions of recent research in cognitive science, and then develops their implications for teaching and learning. First released in the Spring of 1999, How People Learn has been expanded to show how the theories and insights from the original book can translate into actions and practice. New evidence from many branches of science has significantly added to our understanding of what it means to know, from the neural processes that occur during learning to influence of culture on what people see and absorb. How People Learn examines these findings and their implications for what we teach, how we teach it and how we assess what our students learn.
Topics include:
To access a free PDF version click the following link: http://www.nap.edu/catalog/9853/how-people-learn-brain-mind-experience-and-school-expanded-edition
More information about the book can be found here: https://cft.vanderbilt.edu/guides-sub-pages/how-people-learn/
How People Learn: Bridging Research and Practice provides a broad overview of research on learners and learning and on teachers and teaching. It expands on the 1999 National Research Council publication How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School, Expanded Edition that analyzed the science of learning in infants, educators, experts, and more. In How People Learn: Bridging Research and Practice, the Committee on Learning Research and Educational Practice asks how the insights from research can be incorporated into classroom practice and suggests a research and development agenda that would inform and stimulate the required change.
The committee identifies teachers, or classroom practitioners, as the key to change, while acknowledging that change at the classroom level is significantly impacted by overarching public policies. How People Learn: Bridging Research and Practice highlights three key findings about how students gain and retain knowledge and discusses the implications of these findings for teaching and teacher preparation. This books highlights principles of learning applicable to teacher education, professional development programs as well as to K-12 education. However, many higher education institutions can benefit from the findings of the research given the research-based messages found in this book are clear and directly relevant to classroom practice. It is a useful guide for teachers, administrators, researchers, curriculum specialists, and educational policy makers.
To access a free PDF version click the following link: http://www.nap.edu/catalog/9457/how-people-learn-bridging-research-and-practice
These resources include research-based overviews of learning theories and models, offering context for instructors who are interested in learning about the theory behind recommended approaches to teaching and learning.
Atherton J S (2013) Learning and Teaching; Angles on learning, particularly after the schooling years [On-line: UK] retrieved 25 May 2016 from http://www.learningandteaching.info/learning
Fry, H., Ketteridge, S., Marshall, S. (2009). A Handbook for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education - Enhancing Academic Practice (3rd ed.). New York: Routledge.
Bloom's Taxonomy is a classification system developed in 1956 by education psychologist Benjamin Bloom to categorize intellectual skills and behavior important to learning. Working with a group of college and university examiners in Boston, Bloom attempted to formulate a common language for curriculum and assessment to reduce the amount of time and effort needed to develop meaningful and effective tests by facilitating communication between instructors. The original intent in creating the taxonomy was to focus on three major domains of learning: cognitive, affective, and psychomotor.
Despite the creators' intent to address all three domains, Bloom's Taxonomy applies to only the cognitive domain, which involves intellectual skill development. While it should be noted that other educational taxonomies and hierarchic systems have been developed, Bloom's is the de facto standard for most educational based curricula.
The original taxonomy contained six developmental categories. The diagram illustrates cognitive processes in hierarchic form with lower order thinking skills at the base of the triangle and higher level thinking skills at the top. The diagram represents a continuum of increasing cognitive complexity. They are described below:
In 1990, one of Bloom's students, Lorin Anderson, revised the original taxonomy. The original framework was changed to indicate action because thinking implies active engagements. Two major changes were made. First, instead of listing knowledge as a part of the taxonomy, the category is divided into different types of knowledge: factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive. Second, the revised taxonomy moved the evaluation stage down a level and the highest element became 'creating.' These changes presented a more dynamic conception of classification and the focus transformed to a more accurate representation of active nature of learning. Mary Forehand from the University of Georgia provides a guide to the revised version giving a brief summary of the revised taxonomy and a helpful table of the six cognitive processes and four types of knowledge.
Bloom's Taxonomy is a useful tool for creating objectives. Objectives (learning goals) are important to establish in a pedagogical interchange so that teachers and students alike understand the purpose of that interchange. Having an organized set of objectives helps teachers "plan and deliver appropriate instruction, design valid assessment tasks and strategies, and ensure that instruction and assessment are aligned with the objectives" (Anderson, Krathwohl, & Bloom, 2001).
The following are some graphical representations of Bloom's taxonomy in different contexts.
A Model of Learning Objectives (CELT - Iowa State University)
The Padagogy Wheel (Bloom's Taxonomy applied to Apps!)
Here are some helpful links for creating effective learning objectives:
Objectives Builder, ASU
Writing Clear Learning Objectives, BU
Guidelines for Writing Learning Objectives, University of Florida , IFAS
References
Adapted from Armstrong, P. Center for Teaching Vanderbilt University. Bloom's Taxonomy. Retrieved from: https://cft.vanderbilt.edu/guides-sub-pages/blooms-taxonomy/
Anderson, L., Krathwohl, D. & Bloom, B. (2001). A Taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: a revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman
Bloom, B.S. (Ed.). Engelhart, M.D., Furst, E.J., Hill, W.H., Krathwohl, D.R. (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Handbook I: The Cognitive Domain. New York: David McKay Co Inc.
RESEARCH HELP
LIBRARY SERVICES
INSTRUCTION SUPPORT
CONTACT
