Laura Romito, DDS, MS E.C. Moore Symposium March 4, 2010

1

Student small groups can be used as a means to engage learners in critical thinking and in depth analysis of problems or concepts.

This session presents several methods to enhance the effectiveness of small group settings to facilitate learning including specific structured activities, effective feedback, and assessment techniques. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQ

KcxnFUMxk&feature=related

2

3

Small Group Literature K-12 populations studied the most Collegiate research increasing rapidly Lack of integrative research

No theoretical basis Vocabulary issues Differences among experts in the field

All or none approach Take What Works and Leave the Rest

4

5

Vygotsky - Social constructivism Learning is a product of social interaction Collaborative learning Time for reflection and synthesis of

concepts Instructional methods:

Scaffolding, Participant modeling, Reciprocal teaching

Facultystudent Studentstudent

Social Cognition6

Higher order (critical) thinking skills Cognitive development Active (vs. passive) learning Social outcomes

Active listening Altruism Teamwork skills

7Astin, 1993

May have an positive impact on women and minority students

Effect of culture Generally superior to traditional

methods Achievement Attrition Attitude

8Springer, Stanne & Donovan, 1997

9

Resources Unsuitable classrooms, shortage of faculty,

library Students

Unwilling to engage the process Students may value it less! Student expectations about learning Class size Student heterogeneity (cultural

differences) Faculty attitudes

Faculty have less control Too much faculty prep time Students don’t come prepared

Michael, 2007 10

Communicate to students the rationale for this pedagogical approach

Imperative to set clear objectives Objectives /tasks must be explained

at the outset, reiterated; allow enough time for task completion

Ongoing feedback and assessment of management and content –allow time for debriefing /review (in group or plenary) 11

Be aware of group dynamics How students behave in groups (Belbin,

2010). Ground rules

Facilitator role build trust teach how to give and receive feedback resist temptation to teach!

12

1. Positive interdependence- sink or swim together!

2. Promotive interaction (preferably face to face)

3. Individual & group accountability4. Interpersonal & group skills5. Group processing

Johnson & Johnson, 198913

How should groups be formed? How large should groups be? How long should they stay together? What to do with freeloader /dominator

types? How to grade? How to overcome faculty resistance?

14

Physical space & arrangement Circle or face-to-face seating Computers & resources

Selection of groups Size of group

Affects intimacy, interaction and achievement.

Variety of sizes depending on purpose 3-6 is most widely advocated 7-10 upper limit for productive interaction

(most literature) 15

Cohesion & familiarity Combat dominance Ice breakers, dispersion of leadership,

open discussion of expectations Task Design

Reward structure interdependence Controversial tasks / “ill-structured

problems”

16

Instructional Materials Group dependency Variety – vary instructional materials; use

concrete objects; relevant and realistic problems

Task difficulty Make it challenging (discourages social loafing)

Personal involvement (reduces social loafing) E.g. counter attitudinal arguments; group therapy

exercises, role play, reflections students’ cultural backgrounds.

17

If students are not taught differently, they will operate at the most concrete level High level cognitive skills Interpersonal skills

Given an ill-structured problem and a group task, productivity will depend on the frequency of task-related interaction

18

Don’t divide the labor so each member does a different part of the task; ensure inter-dependence through limiting resources or setting a group goal.

Individual accountability can be created either by providing specific group rewards based on members’ learning or by having students perform unique tasks and providing incentives for students to learn from each other. (Slavin, 1983).

19

Simple task instructions (e.g. come to consensus) to detailed instructions (scripted interactions /role assignment)

For low level outcomes, limited interaction focusing on acquiring info and correct answers is better. For higher order thinking skills, the interaction must be more elaborate and less constrained.

Cohen, 1994 20

Benefits of Controversy (Johnson & Johnson, 1985; Cohen, 1994)

(reintroduction of wolf debate) debate in pairs-switch roles-debate-consensus group report

Dilemma: Not enough structure to the interaction

concrete response from students Too much structure miss gains of small

group

21

Academic ability (relative to group members)

Peer popularity Women and minorities Pre-training in group function or

facilitation processing can improve interaction and productivity

Facilitator role

22

It’s crucial to make evaluation procedures directly relevant to the group activity

Individual assignments derived directly from group tasks Reflects the skills students are expected to

acquire Demonstrate critical thinking, problem

solving, communication skills E.g. concept mapping, product creation,

portfolios, demonstrate capability

23

Assessment of group products Build in safeguards against freeloaders

E.g profile of each person’s contribution

Assessment of group behavior (process) Self and Peer assessment

Not well correlated with facilitator assessment Inform students well in advance Formative & Summative Don’t over–assess !

24

Worksheets (individual or group) Timed team challenges Case studies Simulations Group projects /presentations Audio / video sources Role play / debates / speech assignments Journaling /art / portfolios Field trips Creation /design of a product Games

25

Hybrid PBL D1 &

D2 ; D3 & D4Rounds & GLA

PBL 4-6 hrs/wk + ILA

The Problem

Facts Ideas hypotheses Learning Issues

Reorganize ideas

Learning Resources Revise ideas

26

27

28

Ill-defined problems, yet well-structured

Relevant problems Length / duration Objectives clear Objectives CAN be met by case

content & experiences

29

Learning activities Structured Problem solving /critical thinking

skills Independent study

Research Reflection

Group interaction Peer-to-peer teaching Field trips

30

Case formats Standardized Variety between Year 1 and 2

Case tasks ↑Individual & group accountability Individual assignments consensus

group assignment adds a layer of complexity

Pre /post activity reflection31

Case tasks Emphasize critical thinking /problem

solving skills

Case development Student case writing

Learning objectives Number & quality Distribution

32

Timing Daily verbal feedback Periodic (end of each “block”)

Formative Summative Triple Jump – process exercise Content exams

Compatibility with goals / values of small group instruction

33

Formative & Summative Process assessments Written & one to one meeting Simpler for students to understand and

facilitators to complete Triple Jump

Calibrated, shorter cases (2 pg) Orientation sessions ; practice cases Reward – no spring test for achievers

Content exams Compatibility with small group instruction –

testlets 34

Small group facilitators Initial Training Mentoring /shadowing Case reviews Calibration Feedback & Ongoing Learning

Opportunities

35

Facilitator feedback & thank you Initial Training

Modified based on feedback; simplified & shortened

Calibration More sessions (Need more videos) Reduced number of triple jump

examiners Employ more student facilitators

36

Attitude Rules of engagement Safe environment for learning

Accountability

37

Done well – learning in small group settings can help bridge gap between science/theory and practice/application.

Considerations must be given to: Goals for the learning activity / learning

outcomes Resources Group formation, size & dynamics Tasks Assessment

38

Benware, C.& Deci, E. Quality of learning with an active versus passive motivational set. Amer Educ Res Journ. 1984; 21(4):755-65.

Haidet P. et al. A Controlled trial of active versus passive learning strategies in a large group. Advances in Health Sciences Educ. 2004; 9(1):15-27.

Michael, J. Faculty perceptions about barriers to active learning. College Teaching. 2007;55(2):42-47.

Cherney, I. The effects of active learning on students’ memories for course content. Active Learning in Higher Education. 2008; 9:152.

Bennett, C., Howe, C.,Truswell, E. Small group teaching and learning in psychology. ITSN Psychology Report and Evaluation Series No. 1. 2002; 1-36. 39

Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. Cooperation and competition: theory and research. 1989. Edina, MN. Interaction Book Company.

Belbin, R. Management Teams: Why They Succeed or Fail. 2010. Butterworth Heinemann, 3rd ed.

Cohen, E.G. Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups. Review of Educational Research. 1994;64(1): 1-34.

Astin, What Matters in College: Four Critical Years Revisited. 1993.San Francisco, Jossey-Bass.

University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey. http://cte.umdnj.edu/active_learning/active_group.cfm

40

41