Fai clic su di un'immagine per andare a Google Ricerca Libri.
Sto caricando le informazioni... Discussion in the College Classroom: Getting Your Students Engaged and Participating in Person and Online (edizione 2015)di Jay R. Howard (Autore), Maryellen Weimer (Prefazione)
Informazioni sull'operaDiscussion in the College Classroom: Getting Your Students Engaged and Participating in Person and Online di Jay R. Howard
Nessuno Sto caricando le informazioni...
Iscriviti per consentire a LibraryThing di scoprire se ti piacerà questo libro. Attualmente non vi sono conversazioni su questo libro. nessuna recensione | aggiungi una recensione
Keep students engaged and actively learning with focused, relevant discussion Second only to lecture as the most widely used instructional strategy, there's no better method than classroom discussion to actively engage students with course material. Most faculty are not aware that there is an extensive body of research on the topic from which instructors can learn to facilitate exceptional classroom discussion. Discussion in the College Classroom is a practical guide which utilizes that research, frames it sociologically, and offers advice, along with a wide variety of strategies, to help you Non sono state trovate descrizioni di biblioteche |
Discussioni correntiNessuno
Google Books — Sto caricando le informazioni... GeneriSistema Decimale Melvil (DDC)378.1Social sciences Education Higher education Organization and management; curriculumsClassificazione LCVotoMedia:
Sei tu?Diventa un autore di LibraryThing. |
The biggest point is that the person who is doing the most work in the room is doing the most learning, which is a reason to make students take on discussion responsibilities. The student-as-customer mentality is unhelpful because students sometimes use it to suggest they’ve paid for the right to stay silent/engage just as much as they want to; plus it leads them to believe that only the instructor has anything worthwhile to say. Other concepts: “civil attention,” which is the expectation in many classrooms that students will look like they’re paying attention—not obviously texting, talking, etc.—even if they are not actively engaged; and “consolidation of responsibility,” which is what happens when 5-8 students take on the burden of doing 75-95% of the talking for the rest of the class, an event regarded with a mixture of disdain and relief by the rest of the class. (These numbers come from actual research about typical classrooms, regardless of class size.)
Other research: male students consistently overestimate how much participation they’re engaged in, though the research is inconsistent on whether men actually talk more per capita. Older students talk more; non-American students talk less (likely related to educational cultures that more heavily value respectful silence); students talk more in classes with female instructors. Class participation is associated with learning the material better, so it is worth trying to encourage participation in useful ways—another thing I learned is that students often define “participation” more broadly than teachers do, so students think they’re participating by reading all the assignments, coming to class, and paying attention/taking notes. Unfortunately for those of us subjected to teacher evaluations, effective teaching is often uncomfortable because students have to confront their areas of uncertainty.
Online discussion: as it turns out, the research on this is young enough that I didn’t get much in the way of help, other than the suggestion that it might make sense to front-load any online contribution responsibilities, so as the semester winds down and other responsibilities start to press in, there’s less pressure to post to class discussion forums. One intriguing suggestion for larger classes was to divide students into groups and require them to read the posts from their group and then summarize the discussion for the professor—this both cuts down on the burden of keeping up with lots of classmates’ required posts and requires them to synthesize the discussion and figure out if it went anywhere. Also, demographics matter even online: white and female students were more positive about online learning than African-American and male students; female students in particular may participate more frequently/be more motivated in online discussions.
To grade participation or not: Howard takes the position that the arguments against grading participation, while worth serious consideration—mostly that it favors a certain kind of student/penalizes others—are true of grading any kind of behavior. Participation is important enough that it’s worth encouraging by making clear that it is a part of the learning objectives of the course. At least one study found better learning outcomes where participation was required than in a no-participation-required control group. Plus, it’s almost the only kind of performance on which it’s impossible to cheat. Self-assessment/self-grading or peer grading, he suggests, can improve participation and decrease the burden on the instructor. Even providing students with a rubric to grade themselves or their partners can help clarify for the instructor what she wants them to be doing when they participate. But though students learned more and liked the class more when participation was required, they may nonetheless judge the class more harshly because they perceive it as harder. Such is life.
Howard emphasizes the importance of learning students’ names as a way of showing engagement with them—there’s even research backing this up. This is pretty much impossible for me—I don’t formally have prosopagnosia, but making a good faith effort with the assistance of the seating chart and roster photos is as far as I can go. ( )