Today was our first meeting for the Physics 495 class; Teaching College Physics. We went over some housekeeping items, discussed the reading, and ran a debate about active learning and lecturing in a Physics classroom.
We began by going over the important parts of the syllabus. Instead of printing it out and having them read it over while we talked through it, we told them to download it from the course website, and instead had the important parts in a powerpoint presentation. I think that this worked very well, because they weren't reading to themselves; rather, they were attentive and focused on us.
After we finished going over the syllabus, we asked them for their initial reactions from the reading. We encouraged them to be brutally honest with us; If they thought that the reading was ridiculous and useless, we wanted to know. But they needed to be able to defend their position. We asked if anyone had already taught their discussion sections or labs (several had), and how those classes went. We asked who lectured and who used active learning techniques. We had a good mix of people who had used active learning with success and people for whom the active learning activities were awkward and ineffective. One student told us that his students asked for a lecture (although whether they know what's best for them may be up for debate).
The Debate: Active Learning vs. Lecturing (1 hr)
We gave them a 5 minute break, then separated them between two classrooms (there are 44 people in the class, so 22 people per classroom). I started by asking my group if they felt comfortable with the pace and content planned for the 495 course. Some felt that it was boring so far (which I would agree with), but I didn't get too much of a response.
I then told them that they would be breaking up into two groups of 11 people (I split the class in half) and assigned one group to be "pro-lecturing" and the other group to be "pro-active learning." Before they began, I assured them that there is no right answer. I asked them to represent the most extreme version of their assigned stance, and to argue their point assuming no compromise is possible. I did this because I didn't want the debate to end with "Well, both methods of teaching have their merits, so both should be used." I wanted the arguments to continue. I think this was an important distinction in the way I ran my class.
I told them that they would have 20 minutes to discuss (in their groups of 11) their stance and to come up with an "opening statement." I gave them a list of questions to consider during their discussion, and encouraged them to consider the opposing argument. I then let them begin discussing. During this 20 minutes, I made sure to wander around and eavesdrop on the two groups. I was happy to hear them seriously working through the reasoning behind each style of teaching. Both groups at some point mentioned that in reality, both styles have their place in a Physics classroom.
After the 20 minutes were up, I allowed them each an uninterrupted 5 minute "opening statement." During this time, they were not to address the weaknesses of the opposing side. Rather, hey were meant to present their stance. I made two lists on the board, one for each side with their major points. I then asked each side to present a critique of the opposing side for 10 minutes. I asked one person to start the conversation, then asked the rest of his/her group to participate by chiming in. Surprisingly, I got input from all members of the group, not just the loudest.
Once each side had their uninterrupted 10 minute critique, I allowed the groups to respond directly to each other for 5 minutes. At one point, they began speaking over each other - which, on the one hand, was great because it meant they were getting passionate about the activity. But I had to put an end to that because no one was listening to each other.
With the remaining 5 minutes, I reiterated the point of the activity: to demonstrate that both teaching styles have their strengths and weaknesses. I also reminded them that this course is not meant to tell them how they should be teaching. Rather, it is to present them with options and give them the tools they need to make thoughtful decisions about how they want to run their classrooms. Finally, I asked them for feedback on how the activity went. Specifically I wanted to know if my writing on the board while they spoke was distracting or helpful (it was helpful). They also wanted to be able to have more back-and-forth arguments (though that would be harder to mediate).
No comments:
Post a Comment