First Day(s) of Class (UM-CRLT)
How to Create an Inviting Classroom (Vanderbilt University)
Teaching Strategies for Higher Education (UM-CRLT)
Identify Appropriate Instructional Strategies (Carnegie Mellon University)
A Common Theme: Excellent Teaching & Innnovation (Carnegie Mellon University)
Changing the Way We Deliver Instruction (Faculty Focus)
- Group work, team quizzes, and peer teaching are all examples of classroom collaboration that play an important role in students’ learning experiences. There are certain things faculty should be aware of in order to ensure collaborative learning goes smoothly.
- In the context of collaborative learning environments, there is a positive relationship between high social self-efficacy and grades and leaders in groups tend to have higher social self-efficacy than followers. It is important to keep this in mind when creating curriculum (Curseu, Chappin, & Jansen, 2018).
- In regards to group-work at the higher education level, free-riding and communication issues are among the greatest concerns (Hall & Buzwell, 2012; Smith et al., 2011; Popov et al., 2012). It’s also important to consider how to move through socio-emotional challenges in group work. For example, students may be frustrated to be receiving the same grade as their non-contributing group member(s). Faculty should identify free-riding behavior early to reduce its impact (Hall & Buzwell, 2012).
- Faculty should also be able to recognize and respond to the socio-emotional challenges in group work. Research shows that group work challenges need to be resolved on the emotional level, not just the cognitive level, in order for work to get accomplished (Naykki et al., 2014).
- Students’ cultural background, specifically measured on the individualist-collectivist dimension, affects their perceptions/importance of group work challenges. For example, there may be different expectations with respect to learning in groups and the behavioral motives of others, which may lead to conflict (Popov et al., 2012).
- The higher proportion of women in groups, and the group level need for cognition and core self-evaluations positively predicted discussion quality, which in terms predicted group academic performance (Curseu, Chappin, & Jansen, 2018).
- When quizzes are both collaborative (discussing in pairs how to answer questions) and open-book, students perform better on their final exams and projects (Rezaei, 2015)
- Professors report that peer teaching benefits students’ critical thinking, communication, and personal development, but not necessarily their academic development (Stigmar, 2016).
- Leading Dynamic Discussions (University of Washington)
- Discussion Strategies (Indiana University Bloomington)
- Effective Class Discussions (Yale University)
- Holding a Better Class Discussion
- Leading Better Discussions (Duquesne University)
- Discussion Tools (Vanderbilt University)
- Discussion Guideline Examples (UM-CRLT)
- Cognitive, Social/Emotional, and Physical Aspects of Discussion (Carnegie Mellon University)
- Facilitating Your Online Discussion
- School Reform Initiative Discussion Protocols
- Strategies for Discussion Facilitation (UM LSA IT)
Group Work & Peer Learning
- Team Based Learning (Yale University)
- Techniques for Group Work (UC Berkeley)
- Group Work Strategies (Harvard University)
- Faculty Guide to Team Projects (University of Minnesota)
- Implementing Group Work in the Classroom (University of Waterloo)
- Assessing Group Work (Carnegie Mellon University)
- Students prefer active learning and it has been shown to increase engagement (Fook, 2012; Ní Raghallaigh & Cunniffee, 2013). However, a learning environment that is safe and welcoming, where students can take risks, give opinions, and reflect together is critical to the success of the active learning methodology. The teacher-student relationship also plays a role in the success of the methods used (Ní Raghallaigh & Cunniffee, 2013).
- Flipped classrooms—an instructional model in which the most lecture material is filmed and viewed by students for prior to class and the class session is spent primarily on engaging activities—are related to academic gains, higher levels of self-efficacy beliefs, increased creativity, better peer interaction, and improved faculty and student class satisfaction (Jensen, Kummer, Godoy, 2015; Kurt, 2017; Al-Zahrani, 2015; O’Flaherty & Phillips, 2015; Zainuddin & Perera, 2019; Thai De Wever & Valcke, 2017). More specifically, the active learning component of the flipped classroom that leads to higher learning gains and better attitudes, rather than the flipped classroom itself (Jensen, Kummer, & Godoy, 2015).
- Graduate and credential students have been shown to benefit from the flipped classroom model. Preservice teachers displayed higher levels of reflection and inquiry and modelled a higher number of instructional strategies compared to their peers that received traditional instruction. Master’s students demonstrated more critical thinking and better peer collaboration than their peers receiving traditional instruction. (Vaughan, 2014; Moraros et al., 2015).
- Flipped classroom design is important for its success. Some faculty run into issues with the flipped classroom when students are not preparing outside of the class and are not able to fully engage in classroom activities (Al-Zahrani, 2015). Flipped classroom design must include an opportunity for students to gain first exposure prior to class, enough time for students to carry out assignments, and an incentive for students to prepare (Kim, Kim, Khera, Getman, 2014).
- Active Learning Overview
- Classroom Activities for Active Learning
- Interactive Lectures
- Examples of Active Learning
- Activities to Promote Active Learning
- Teaching in an Active Learning Classroom
- Making Teaching More Engaging
- What is a Flipped Classroom? (YouTube video)
- Key Elements of a Flipped Classroom
- Examples of Flipping a Classroom
- Planning Structured Activities in Flipped Classrooms
- Classroom Assessment Techniques in a Flipped Classroom (Youtube video)
Al‐Zahrani, A. M. (2015). From passive to active: The impact of the flipped classroom through social learning platforms on higher education students' creative thinking. British Journal of Educational Technology, 46(6), 1133-1148.
Baran, E. (2014). A review of research on mobile learning in teacher education. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 17(4), 17.
Baumgartner, D., Bay, M., Lopez-Reyna, N. A., Snowden, P. A., & Maiorano, M. J. (2015). Culturally responsive practice for teacher educators: Eight recommendations. Multiple Voices for Ethnically Diverse Exceptional Learners, 15(1), 44-58.
Bernal, D. D. (2002). Critical race theory, Latino critical theory, and critical raced-gendered epistemologies: Recognizing students of color as holders and creators of knowledge. Qualitative inquiry, 8(1), 105-126.
Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Schmid, R. F., Tamim, R. M., & Abrami, P. C. (2014). A meta-analysis of blended learning and technology use in higher education: from the general to the applied. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 26(1), 87-122.
Butz, N. T., & Stupnisky, R. H. (2016). A mixed methods study of graduate students' self-determined motivation in synchronous hybrid learning environments. The Internet and Higher Education, 28, 85-95.
Bolliger, D. U., & Martin, F. (2018). Instructor and student perceptions of online student engagement strategies. Distance Education, 39(4), 568-583.
Castillo-Montoya, M. (2019). Professors' Pedagogical Strategies for Teaching Through Diversity. The Review of Higher Education, 42(5), 199-226.
Cook-Sather, A., & Des-Ogugua, C. (2019). Lessons we still need to learn on creating more inclusive and responsive classrooms: recommendations from one student–faculty partnership programme. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 23(6), 594-608.
Curşeu, P. L., Chappin, M. M., & Jansen, R. J. (2018). Gender diversity and motivation in collaborative learning groups: the mediating role of group discussion quality. Social Psychology of Education, 21(2), 289-302.
Daddow, A. (2016). Curricula and pedagogic potentials when educating diverse students in higher education: students’ Funds of Knowledge as a bridge to disciplinary learning. Teaching in Higher Education, 21(7), 741-758.
Dixson, M. D. (2012). Creating effective student engagement in online courses: What do students find engaging?. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 10(2), 1-13.
Eddy, S. L., & Hogan, K. A. (2014). Getting under the hood: how and for whom does increasing course structure work?. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 13(3), 453-468.
Fitchett, P. G., Starker, T. V., & Salyers, B. (2012). Examining culturally responsive teaching self-efficacy in a preservice social studies education course. Urban Education, 47(3), 585-611.
Fook, C. Y. (2012). Best practices of teaching in higher education in United States: a case study. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46, 4817-4821.
Gao, W., & Mager, G. (2011). Enhancing pre-service teachers’ sense of efficacy and attitudes toward school diversity through preparation: A case of one U. S. inclusive teacher education program. International Journal of Special Education, 26 (2), 1-16.
García, E., Arias, M. B., Harris Murri, N. J., & Serna, C. (2010). Developing responsive teachers: A challenge for a demographic reality. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1-2), 132-142.
Gikas, J., & Grant, M. M. (2013). Mobile computing devices in higher education: Student perspectives on learning with cellphones, smartphones & social media. The Internet and Higher Education, 19, 18-26.
Grosseck, G. (2009). To use or not to use web 2.0 in higher education?. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1(1), 478-482.
Hall, D., & Buzwell, S. (2013). The problem of free-riding in group projects: Looking beyond social loafing as reason for non-contribution. Active Learning in Higher Education, 14(1), 37-49.
Jacquemin, S. J., Smelser, L. K., & Bernot, M. J. (2014). Twitter in the higher education classroom: A student and faculty assessment of use and perception. Journal of College Science Teaching, 43(6), 22-27.
Jenkins, C. M. (2018). Educators, Question Your Level of Cultural Responsiveness. Journal on Empowering Teaching Excellence, 2(2), 4.
Jensen, J. L., Kummer, T. A., & Godoy, P. D. D. M. (2015). Improvements from a flipped classroom may simply be the fruits of active learning. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 14(1), ar5.
Kim, M. K., Kim, S. M., Khera, O., & Getman, J. (2014). The experience of three flipped classrooms in an urban university: an exploration of design principles. The Internet and Higher Education, 22, 37-50.
Kumar, R., & Lauermann, F. (2018). Cultural Beliefs and Instructional Intentions: Do Experiences in Teacher Education Institutions Matter?. American Educational Research Journal, 55(3), 419-452.
Kurt, G. (2017). Implementing the flipped classroom in teacher education: evidence from Turkey. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 20(1), 211.
Larke, P. (2013). Culturally responsive teaching in higher education: What professors need to know. Counterpoints, 391, 38-50.
Linder, C., Harris, J. C., Allen, E. L., & Hubain, B. (2015). Building inclusive pedagogy: Recommendations from a national study of students of color in higher education and student affairs graduate programs. Equity & Excellence in Education, 48(2), 178-194.
Martin, F., Wang, C., & Sadaf, A. (2018). Student perception of helpfulness of facilitation strategies that enhance instructor presence, connectedness, engagement and learning in online courses. The Internet and Higher Education, 37, 52-65.
Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., & Baki, M. (2013). The effectiveness of online and blended learning: A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Teachers College Record, 115(3), 1-47.
Milner IV, H. R. (2010). What does teacher education have to do with teaching? Implications for diversity studies. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1-2), 118-131.
Moraros, J., Islam, A., Yu, S., Banow, R., & Schindelka, B. (2015). Flipping for success: evaluating the effectiveness of a novel teaching approach in a graduate level setting. BMC medical education, 15(1), 27.
Morris, R. C., & Parker, L. C. (2014). Examining the connection between classroom technology and student engagement. Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology.
Näykki, P., Järvelä, S., Kirschner, P. A., & Järvenoja, H. (2014). Socio-emotional conflict in collaborative learning—A process-oriented case study in a higher education context. International Journal of Educational Research, 68, 1-14.
Ní Raghallaigh, M., & Cunniffe, R. (2013). Creating a safe climate for active learning and student engagement: an example from an introductory social work module. Teaching in Higher Education, 18(1), 93-105. Nicol, A. A., Owens, S. M., Le Coze, S. S., MacIntyre, A., & Eastwood, C. (2018). Comparison of high-technology active learning and low-technology active learning classrooms. Active Learning in Higher Education, 19(3), 253-265.
Nortvig, A. M., Petersen, A. K., & Balle, S. H. (2018). A Literature Review of the Factors Influencing E-Learning and Blended Learning in Relation to Learning Outcome, Student Satisfaction and Engagement. Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 16(1), 46-55.
Oberne, A. (2017). I Can Cee You! Using Videos in Online Courses to Promote Student Engagement. Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, 6(1), 85-90.
Ocak, M. A. (2011). Why are faculty members not teaching blended courses? Insights from faculty members. Computers & Education, 56(3), 689-699.
O'Flaherty, J., & Phillips, C. (2015). The use of flipped classrooms in higher education: A scoping review. The Internet and Higher Education, 25, 85-95.
Ouyang, F., & Scharber, C. (2017). The influences of an experienced instructor's discussion design and facilitation on an online learning community development: A social network analysis study. The Internet and Higher Education, 35, 34-47.
Owston, R., & York, D. N. (2018). The nagging question when designing blended courses: Does the proportion of time devoted to online activities matter?. The Internet and Higher Education, 36, 22-32.
Paechter, M., & Maier, B. (2010). Online or face-to-face? Students' experiences and preferences in e-learning. The internet and higher education, 13(4), 292-297.
Pollak, M. (2017). Designing and Managing Engaging Discussions in Online Courses. Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, 6(1), 76-80.
Popov, V., Brinkman, D., Biemans, H. J., Mulder, M., Kuznetsov, A., & Noroozi, O. (2012). Multicultural student group work in higher education: An explorative case study on challenges as perceived by students. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 36(2), 302-317.
Rezaei, A. R. (2015). Frequent collaborative quiz taking and conceptual learning. Active Learning in Higher Education, 16(3), 187-196.
Rezaei, A. R. (2017). Features of successful group work in online and physical courses. The Journal of Effective Teaching, 17(3),1-19
Rezaei, A. R. (2018). Effective Groupwork Strategies: Faculty and Students’ Perspectives. Paper accepted to be published in the journal of Education and Learning (April, 2018).
Rossing, J. P., Miller, W. M., Cecil, A. K., & Stamper, S. E. (2012). iLearning: The future of higher education? Student perceptions on learning with mobile tablets. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 12(2), 1-26.
Shelton, C. C., Warren, A. E., & Archambault, L. M. (2016). Exploring the use of interactive digital storytelling video: Promoting student engagement and learning in a university hybrid course. TechTrends, 60(5), 465-474.
Slone, N. C., & Mitchell, N. G. (2014). Technology-based adaptation of think-pair-share utilizing Google drive. Journal of teaching and Learning with Technology, 3(1), 102-104.
Smith, G. G., Sorensen, C., Gump, A., Heindel, A. J., Caris, M., & Martinez, C. D. (2011). Overcoming student resistance to group work: Online versus face-to-face. The Internet and Higher Education, 14(2), 121-128.
Song, L., Singleton, E. S., Hill, J. R., & Koh, M. H. (2004). Improving online learning: Student perceptions of useful and challenging characteristics. The internet and higher education, 7(1), 59-70.
Stigmar, M. (2016). Peer-to-peer teaching in higher education: A critical literature review. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 24(2), 124-136.
Swaggerty, E. A., & Broemmel, A. D. (2017). Authenticity, relevance, and connectedness: Graduate students' learning preferences and experiences in an online reading education course. The Internet and Higher Education, 32, 80-86.
Thai, N. T. T., De Wever, B., & Valcke, M. (2017). The impact of a flipped classroom design on learning performance in higher education: Looking for the best “blend” of lectures and guiding questions with feedback. Computers & Education, 107, 113-126.
Thomas, R. A., West, R. E., & Borup, J. (2017). An analysis of instructor social presence in online text and asynchronous video feedback comments. The Internet and Higher Education, 33, 61-73.
Vaughan, M. (2014). Flipping the learning: An investigation into the use of the flipped classroom model in an introductory teaching course. Education Research and Perspectives (Online), 41, 25.
Walton, G. M., & Cohen, G. L. (2011). A brief social-belonging intervention improves academic and health outcomes of minority students. Science, 331(6023), 1447-1451.
Warren, C. A. (2018). Empathy, teacher dispositions, and preparation for culturally responsive pedagogy. Journal of Teacher Education, 69(2), 169-183.
Yamauchi, L. A., Taira, K., & Trevorrow, T. (2016). Effective Instruction for Engaging Culturally Diverse Students in Higher Education. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 28(3), 460-470.
Zainuddin, Z., & Perera, C. J. (2019). Exploring students’ competence, autonomy and relatedness in the flipped classroom pedagogical model. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 43(1), 115-126.