by Joe Bauer, STL CC
Last spring, I was invited to participate in Teaching for Prowess, and my group from St. Louis Community College attended the Summer Institute in August. Of course, I was excited for the trip, but if I am to be entirely honest, I was skeptical about the goal of the conference. I have been around long enough to have seen several other proposals of systemic change to mathematics education, and I have even seen them implemented and fail. If I am going to make a dramatic change in the classroom, I expect it to be purposeful and evidence based, and during the Summer Institute, I learned that this is precisely what TfP is. I became interested.
The conference was designed to teach the core principals of the active learning in techniques detailed in Peter Liljedahl’s book Building Thinking Classrooms. As we discussed the different topics, the active learning strategies were modeled to us—the best ways to form groups, how groups are to display the work, the role of the teacher, etc. About halfway through the conference, my skepticism began to fade, and I thought there might be something to this. Then during one session, the speaker said, “Just try this in one of your classes, and you will never look back.” So, I decided to try. Sure, the semester just one week later, so I would have to completely scrap my plans, but it was just one class. I learned quite a bit at the conference, but I decided to start small and implement a few of the recommended strategies.
Just try this in one of your classes, and you will never look back.
The first strategy I implemented was to form “visibly random groups,” and the ideal number in each group according to Liljedahl’s research is three. This is very simple to implement, so I decided to start here. Of course, I have always had students work in groups, but I have never made visibly random assignments. It might seem that it would have little impact, but it turned out to be an important change. Firstly, when I had students self-select group members, there would always be those who refused to pick a group because they wanted to work (or not work) on their own. Also, students tend to choose other students like themselves, so I would have motivated groups, unmotivated groups, chatty groups, etc. It just never really worked. Having randomly assigned groups accomplishes many things. It keeps students slightly unsettled, so routines and roles are not established. It allows for everyone to effectively work with everyone else at least once by the end of the semester, and I have noticed it gave students who struggle the time and space to establish themselves and participate.
The research recommended to make the group assignments visible as well. I use a deck of cards and students choose a card on their own. This way, they are certain that this groups have been randomized, and they do not have to trust that I am not secretly choosing groups. This is important for many reasons. For example, I do not want students impose a purpose to the groups such self-imposed stigmas like “I must be the dumb one in the group,” or “why does he always put me with her.”
The second strategy that I chose to implement was to have students do their work on “vertical, non-permanent surfaces”—that is, I have students work at the blackboard. This also was extremely easy to implement, but it had an enormous impact. For one, students just enjoy it. At the beginning of the semester, I had many unexpected reactions. I remember one student said that it made him feel “sophisticated.” But aside from the pleasure it brings some students, it serves many practical reasons.
Because they are working on vertical surfaces, and not at their desks working on paper, I can always see what everyone is doing at from anywhere in the classroom. It allows me to know which groups are moving quickly, which groups have made a mistake that requires my assistance, and it prevents groups from slacking because it is obvious when they are not working. It also allows all students to see what everyone else is doing. At the conference, I learned that students should be encouraged to view other groups work and that this behavior should not be dismissed as cheating. It is helpful to me to have students look around to see what others have done. It allows groups to find answers to their questions without always having to call me over to answer them.
Not that I really have another option, but I learned that the non-permanent component is essential. It is essentially the same principal that mathematics should be done using a pencil, because mistakes are inevitable, and they should be embraced as part of the process. I have never really noticed students who are conscious that what they are writing is visible to the entire class—they do not seem to be bothered by it. Because anything they write can quickly be erased, students do not fear embarrassment of writing something that is wrong, and they have the freedom to experiment trying something novel and using their imagination, and this absolutely is the goal of mathematics.
Though I was skeptical at the beginning, I am now fully converted. Active learning really works and I hope that more teachers across the country adopt this for themselves and for their students!
The last strategy that I decided to implement is to “de-front the classroom.” Again, I chose to do this because of the simplicity, but it has made an impact on the culture of my classes. I actively avoid the teacher’s station at the front of the room, and I constantly move around from group to group. It signals to the students that I am not their leader, that they should not look to me for instruction. Instead, they should look to me as a facilitator. The most surprising thing that has occurred because of this is the focus I receive from students when I do lecture. Whereas in the past, I would surmise that I spent about 90% of the time lecturing, this semester it was roughly 5% of the time. So, when I did choose to present one of the more challenging topics to the class, they recognized that this is probably something that they need to pay attention to. You could hear a pin drop. The entire class would focus—no doodling, no daydreaming, no cell phones. It made me realize that most of the time I used to spend lecturing was probably wasted. I was telling the class the information, but most were probably not hearing it and there was no active learning taking place.
Students have taken more ownership this semester than I have ever seen in my classes. My calculus class regularly stays past the end of class—once they stayed for an extra 30 minutes. This small change signals the role we play, and because the students are expected to do the work to learn the material, rather than being expected to be told the information and “mimic” me (the instructor), motivation and engagement has significantly increased this semester.
Though these three changes were simple to implement, I needed to rework my notes so that they functioned more like a guided activity. Here are some examples. I have learned through this grant important components of great learning activities—they should be engaging, collaborative, and promote talking. Also, they should have a “low floor/high ceiling”—that is, very approachable for everyone, but able to provide a lot to think about for students who understand the basics quickly. I recognize what I have is not perfect, but it took quite a bit of work to make the changes to my classes that I did with such short notice. I intend to continue to improve my activities in future semesters.
I have shared the changes I’ve made, but really the most important outcome are the changes I have seen in my students. As I mentioned earlier, I initially decided to try in just one class—Precalculus Algebra with Support—and this was for several reasons. First, this class is the focus of the STLCC group. Also, this is a five-credit hour course as compared to the three-credit hour counterpart. After the first week it was obvious that the teaching style I was trying was successful, or at least that the students really enjoyed it. So, I decided to try it in my calculus class. They loved it. I had one last face-to-face course that I intended to use as a control group that I resisted making the change and I lectured for the first two weeks. The class seemed miserable. Compared to my other classes (and probably in reality) they seemed bored, and it appeared that they did not want to be there. By the third week I completely changed all of my classes, and I do not think I will ever return to what was essentially lecture only. The students absolutely love it. I heard many things throughout the semester that shocked me. On numerous occasions, I heard students mention that they were surprised how quickly the time went. I also heard a few students comment how fun (a math) class was. I also had two students tell me that my class made them love math. One of those students was in my calculus I class. She needed the class for her business major, and that is the last math class she needs. She decided to take calculus II in the spring as an elective.
I had a fantastic fall semester using active learning in my class—it is honestly fun. I am happy I decided to try, and I do not anticipate returning to how I held class in the past. Going forward I plan to experiment, implement other strategies, and make changes as I learn through experience. Though I was skeptical at the beginning, I am now fully converted. Active learning really works and I hope that more teachers across the country adopt this for themselves and for their students!