Audience response systems (ARSs), such as iClicker (cost involved) and Mentimeter (free), have become quite popular within the educational field, especially in large lecture-format classes (Mayer et al., 2009). While working with my colleague, Dr. Sarah Hosch, on a complete redesign of our BIO 1200 courses, one of our observations was that frequently, faculty used ARS-based questions to only target and reinforce the lower Bloom’s level concepts of “remember” and “understand” (Caldwell, 2007). We wished to develop a straight-forward (read: simple) process to allow us (instructors) to ask more complex questions that covered the upper Bloom’s levels of “apply,” “analyze,” and “evaluate,” AND we wanted a process that could be used in large classes (50-150+) to provide real-time data that the instructor could immediately analyze and share with the class.

The Peer Paired Problems Method

The Peer Paired Problems (PPP) technique was originally piloted in 2 large sections of BIO 1200 Biology I during fall semester of 2017 and 2018.  For analysis and comparisons, our data was compared to 9 other BIO 1200 sections in the same terms (control) that were not using PPPs or being redesigned. 

Here is an overview of the PPP process:

Once or twice during lectures on a chapter, students were presented a series of 4 questions to answer using a classroom response system.  These questions are written to address the upper levels of Bloom’s taxonomy (Bloom, et al). We used the iClicker audience response system (Macmillan Learning).  We embedded the 4 questions directly into our lecture slides and determined a “good” spot within the class to conduct a PPP activity.  

The first two questions are answered initially by individual students (Individual Questions), and then the same two questions are asked again but students answer after consultations and discussions with fellow classmates (Paired Questions). 

Individual Questions

1. The PPP question is presented to the class the first time for up to 2 minutes.  Students must answer the question only by themselves. Student may or may not be allowed to use their notes, text, lecture slides, Google, etc., to answer the question, depending on the instructor’s intent and preferences. All students submit an answer within the 2 minutes. 

2. Next, the students are presented with a second question that directly asks them to report their confidence in their answer to the first question (High, Medium, Low confidence). All students submit a confidence vote (20 seconds or so is enough time).

Paired Questions

3. Next, students are shown the original question a second time.  However, this time the students are instructed to work in pairs or small groups to determine a consensus or best answer. Allow students 2 minutes again to answer.

4. Following the submission of answers from the 2nd attempt, students are again asked to judge their confidence in having answered the question correctly after working as part of a group. Confidence is again scored as high, medium, and low. Subsequently, the instructor will reveal the answer to the entire class.

Real-time Analysis

By using an ARS that can record and track student data, the instructor can quickly visualize the class data as a bar graph and/or percentages for each question of the PPP and report to the class on the number of correct responses and the confidence levels of the class.  

Most importantly, the instructor can easily show the class the data and comment on any significant “shifts” in the number of students getting the question correct between the second group attempt vs. the first, individual attempt. Also, any shifts in confidence between the 1st attempt and the 2nd attempt can be reviewed and discussed. This immediate feedback can be used to direct the material that is covered or reviewed in class by the instructor moving forward. 

Conclusions

We wished to develop an evidence-based method for asking complex Bloom questions in a format amendable to larger lecture classes. Data from our pilot studies indicated students increased their performance on questions following pairing; this improvement carried over on upper level and critical thinking questions included on exams; and using the confidence scores as a measure of student metacognition, we found 25% more students reported feeling highly confident after paring and about 20% fewer students reported low confidence after pairing.

The PPPs aim to provide “early and often feedback.” With this information, faculty can encourage student success in several ways. 

First, students will be given feedback on their mastery of content and application of that content in critical thinking exercises IN class. 

Second, instructors can use PPP data to identify students who are struggling and, using emails and Faculty Feedback, are better able to direct those students to advisers and resources on campus. 

Thirdly, students have repeated opportunities to develop their metacognition skills by being prompted to rate their confidence levels. If students can more accurately gauge their knowledge and skill level, they may be better able to alter their learning activities appropriately to fill in the gaps in their knowledge.  

A final observation of our BIO 1200 redesign was that by using demographic data from OIRADA (institutional research office), we were able to compare the DFWI rates of underrepresented minorities (URMs) in our 2 sections compared to URMs from all of the other non-redesigned BIO 1200 sections.  Interestingly, we found that the DFWI rates for URM students in redesigned sections decreased 11.7%, from 40.7% (non-redesigned) to 29.3% (redesigned) while having no effect on the DFWI rates of non-URM students (18.8% in redesigned and non-redesigned sections of BIO 1200).  We are currently following up on this unexpected outcome from our 1200 redesign data and hope to tease out what specific (if any) activities or changes we made contributed to this increased performance of URMs in BIO 1200.

References and Resources 

Mayer RE, Stull A, DeLeeuw K, et al. Clickers in college classrooms: Fostering learning with questioning methods in large lecture classes. Contemp Educ Psychol. 2009;34(1):51-57.

Caldwell JE. Clickers in the large classroom: Current research and best-practice tips. CBE life sciences education. 2007;6(1):9-20. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17339389. doi: 10.1187/cbe.06-12-0205.

Bloom, B. S.; Engelhart, M. D.; Furst, E. J.; Hill, W. H.; Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Vol. Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York: David McKay Company.

Levy MG, Scott BM. Metacognition: Examining the components of a fuzzy concept. Educational Research eJournal. 2013;2(2):120-131. http://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/oaiart?codigo=4459208.

Teaching and Learning Academy, John N. Gardner Institute, February 25, 2017.

Chick, N. (2013). Metacognition. Vanderbilt University Center for Teaching. Retrieved [from https://cft.vanderbilt.edu/guides-sub-pages/metacognition/.

Bransford, John D., Brown Ann L., and Cocking Rodney R. (2000).  How people learn:  Brain mind, experience, and school.  Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

Save and adapt a Google Doc version of this teaching tip.

About the Author

Jonathan Yates is a Special Instructor in the Department of Biological Sciences. His area of interest is the scholarship of teaching and learning with a focus on student success in large lecture class environments. Dr. Yates is also the course coordinator for BIO 1200 and BIO 1300. Outside of the classroom, Dr. Yates can often be found playing golf at the OU courses, weather permitting!

Others may share and adapt under Creative Commons License CC BY-NC. 

View all CETL Weekly Teaching Tips. 

As faculty, we are used to learning from one another as a community advancing research and practice. Therefore, while teaching and learning centers like CETL provide robust, holistic teaching leadership and support, faculty learning communities are still a staple way for faculty to come together, explore a teaching topic, and embark on a shared goal or project. 

OU faculty can propose a learning community every year based on shared interests and needs. In this teaching tip, members of a current learning community (LC) share what they have learned from one another and the unique learning opportunities that have come out of this community structure. This particular LC on “adventures” in teaching with technology has bonded so well that it is on its third year. Its current facilitator provides an overview of the group, followed by participant testimonies.

Learning Community Experiences

Technologies and Teaching Pedagogies That Can Enhance Student Learning and Promote Student Success
Subha Bhaskaran, Biological Sciences

Being a part of the Adventure, Adapt and Achieve (Triple A’s) of Teaching Learning Community (LC) has given me a great opportunity to connect with faculty members from various departments at OU. Through this connection, each of us gain new insights and ideas both in relation to technologies and teaching pedagogies that would help enhance student learning and promote student success, especially in this dynamic environment that encompasses both in-person and online learning. For example, some of the technological tools that we have shared with and demonstrated to one another include: 

• Poll everywhere (real-time polling tool)
• Voki.com (a communication tool)
• Be funky (collage making site)
• Visme (creating a timeline tool)
• Canva (tool for creating graphics for projects)
• Adobe spark (presentation making tool) 

Similarly, based on each of our course content and format, we have discussed and brainstormed “Hyflex and hybrid teaching” methods, info on “Building community in a Zoom class,” “Warm-up/Ice-breaker activities”, etc. 

Expanding our knowledge base on available resources on technological tools and teaching pedagogies can not only help enhance the comprehensive ability of the lecture/content but also promote student success and their well-being as we prepare them for their academic and professional career.

Collaboration for Collective Learning
Patrick Hillberg, Industrial and Systems Engineering

As an adjunct teaching one course per year, I found it difficult to connect with other teachers prior to joining a learning community. I don’t recall how I became connected, though I attended a CETL seminar in the Fall of 2019 and I’m sure ended up on an email list. 

It has been a great experience, especially as we all adapted to the post-COVID online world. I’ve now turned my teaching methodology on its head based on conversations that have happened in the community. 

I come from the professional consulting world, which proactively encourages collective learning through conferences, projects, and ad-hoc teams. A University environment is different, but the Learning Communities provide an avenue for sharing and learning. Departments should set up communities amongst their staff, all the more if they are dependent on adjuncts.

With a Little Help from My Faculty Friends
Jessica Rico, Writing & Rhetoric

Before and during my time teaching in the Writing and Rhetoric department, much of my pedagogy was based on in-person collaboration in the form of small group work, peer revision, student presentations, and other student-led learning. With the onset of fully online teaching that began in 2020, it was challenging to find new ways to adapt.

Through my work with this LC, I have gained not only a sense of interdepartmental collaboration but also new resources and tools for teaching fully online that keeps students involved. I feel more confident and it was helpful to hear how faculty in different disciplines were learning and adapting new ideas and tools as well.

Learning Communities Are Fun and Informational
Marilyn Borner, Writing & Rhetoric

Joining a Learning Community is not just something that looks good on a resume. It’s fun to meet with your peers and see what others are doing. I’ve been involved in the Triple A’s of Teaching LC and have gained a great deal of knowledge in both practice and professional development. I’ve revamped the way I teach in Zoom, learned about how to engage students (especially online) in class, and found meaningful ways to reprogram assignments to be more useful and interesting to students. It’s also great to meet with others, since I no longer teach on campus. It provides an excellent avenue for sharing with others and learning from our peers.

Conclusion

Greg Allar, International Studies

A learning community creates an environment for faculty members united by a common bond, a passion for teaching, and the desire for continuous improvement. As instructors tend to work in isolation, this learning community brought together faculty members from a variety of disciplines with a diversity of perspectives. It provided a dedicated time for members to discuss best practices, identify specific challenges that are shared across disciplines, try out teaching strategies and classroom techniques and solicit unbiased comments from their peers. An extraordinarily rich and rewarding experience!

References 

Save and adapt a Google Doc version of this teaching tip.

About the Author

Edited and designed by Christina Moore, Center for Excellence in Teaching and Learning at Oakland University. Others may share and adapt under Creative Commons License CC BY-NC. 

View all CETL Weekly Teaching Tips. 

Expressing our teaching in 10 words can be a short but powerful way to reflect on our teaching identities, values, and practices. Over the years we have prompted OU faculty to share their teaching in 10 words, and we invite you to do the same not only for yourself, but for your students.

Put It in 10 Words

Start by asking yourself what your strengths are as a teacher, and what you feel are the purpose and values at the core of your teaching. If you are new to teaching you might think about great teachers you have had, describe what made them great, and then reflect on how you see yourself as similar to and different from them. 

Brainstorm a list of phrases, activities, and anything else. With this list, describe your teaching approach/philosophy in 10 words (usually as one sentence or 1-3 key points). See Teaching in 10 Words, from OU Faculty, and please share your 10 words with us!

Your 10 words might clarify what you want to prioritize or change in your courses.

Share It with Students

These 10 words are great for putting in your syllabus. Sharing your short teaching statement not only helps students get to know you, but explains why you do what you do. Your students can see that your approach to class sessions, activities, and learning materials are intentional. In our previous What Makes a Great Teacher workshop, we share examples of how we have used syllabus statements, videos, and Moodle profiles to communicate our teaching philosophy.

Save and adapt a Google Doc version of this teaching tip.

Others may share and adapt under Creative Commons License CC BY-NC. View all CETL Weekly Teaching Tips.