Todd Campbell, Ph.D.Utah State UniversitySecondary Education

ProgramScience Education

Engaging Students in University

Classrooms

Kim Lott, Ph.D.Utah State UniversitySecondary Education

ProgramScience Education

Presentation OverviewA TargetRational for Focusing on Engaging StudentsTransmission Model and Passive LearningConstructivism Model and Active Learning

(Engagement)Constructive Indicators for Engaging

StudentsPanel Introduction and Discussion

A TargetKen Bain (2004) had the following to say as he described what

distinguished college teachers as “the best”Favorable Comments: the class “required a lot of work”, that

the professor motivated them to “get it done” and was thorough and fair in covering, as one student put it, “all the stuff that would be on the exam”. . . Student dwelled on being successful in the class and offered high praise because the instructor helped them achieve that goal

While these comments were all quite favorable they did not necessarily point to deep learning.

In contrast, the best college teachers’ students talked about how they could “put a lot of things together now” or “get inside” their own heads. They stressed that they wanted to learn more, sometimes spoke about changing majors to study under a particular professor, and seemed in awe and fascinated with how much they didn’t know. “I thought it was all cut and dried before I took this course . . . It is pretty exciting stuff”. They talked about issues the course had raised, how they learned to think differently, and how the course had changed their lives. (p 10)

Rational for Focusing on Engaging Students

• Psychologically, engaged learners are intrinsically motivated by curiosity, interest, and enjoyment, and are likely to want to achieve their own intellectual or personal goals (Jablon & Wilkenson, 2006)

• Engagement is active. . . it requires the student to be committed to the task and find some inherent value in what he or she is being asked to do (Schlechty, 2001, p. 64).

• Engaging students aligns with constructive principles of learning.

• Engaging students affords educators the chance to ‘change students lives’ consistent with what students reported Bain’s ‘best college teachers’ did.

Transmission Model and Passive LearningTransmission model of learning: The idea is the

expert (teacher/instructor) transmits information to students. Transmitted in tact from Instructor to Student.

Learning is seen as passive or received.

Problems with Transmission Model

•Learning may only be superficial •Student understanding is shaped by prior understanding and experiences•Student conceptions/ideas are resilient•There is a concern that students worldviews are shaped by the implicit/explicit messages of instruction. •Students may not be motivated to learn•Students may not be able to see importance of learning in their lives or future.

Characteristics of Transmission Model Classrooms

Treating all students alike and responding to the group as a whole

Rigidly following curriculum [chapters in the text]Focusing on student acquisition of informationPresenting knowledge only through lecture, text,

and demonstrationAsking for recitation of acquired knowledgeTesting students for factual information at the end

of the unit or chapterMaintaining responsibility and authority

Characteristics taken from National Science Education Standards (NRC, 1996)-revised for consideration across disciplines.

Constructivism Model and Active Learning (Engagement)

Tobin, Briscoe, and Holman (1990) described learning framed by constructivist theory as:

[T]he construction of knowledge by individuals as sensory data are given meaning in terms of prior knowledge. Learning is an interpretive process, involving constructions of individuals and social collaborations. (p. 411) 

Theoretical Base for Constructivism Model

Subject matter [content] . . . remains. It is extended beyond a traditional shell of isolation and connected to the social, economic, historic, and technological context (Erdogan & Campbell, 2007, p 3).

The constructivist learning environment guided by a sociocultural perspective draws on social interaction facilitated through a more open classrooms where students’ ideas are elicited through teacher questions, encouraging a much wider range of student response (Koufetta & Scaife, 2000).

In these more open classrooms attuned to an increased range of student responses, student prior knowledge is more readily revealed as they have the opportunity to check, refine, and expound upon what they already know (Mercer, 1995).

Furthermore, as communication is promoted . . . Edwards and Mercer (1987) argue that ‘there is a real possibility that by pooling their experiences [in a social context] they achieve a new level of understanding beyond that which either had before’ (p. 3).

Characteristics of Constructive/Engaging Environments

Understanding and responding to individual student's interests, strengths, experiences, and needs 

Selecting and adapting curriculum Focusing on student understanding and use of

knowledge, ideas, and inquiry processesGuiding students in active and extended

inquiriesProviding opportunities for discussion and

debate among studentsSharing responsibility for learning with students

Characteristics taken from National Science Education Standards (NRC, 1996)-revised for consideration across disciplines.

Transmission Vs. Constructivism

Transmissionist Classroom

Constructivist Classroom

View of Learning

Objective (fixed) Subjective

Ownership of Learning

Textbooks and Teacher

Student

Managing Student Learning

Teacher Teacher and Student share

Instruction Style Teacher explains and checks for understanding.

Teacher facilitates discussion of ideas

Nature of Questions

Remain in the context of what is being taught

Divergent and open ended

Student Learning Preferences

Alone, memorization Collaboration, constructed through sustained dialogue

Responsive Indicators for Engaging Students

The following are a list of indicators that we selected from a more comprehensive list of indicators found in the Reformed Teaching Observation Protocol (Piburn et al., 2000) These indicators are used in science and math education and are judged to be aligned standards documents framed by constructive principles. These are what we offer to all to discuss and consider in increasing student engagement in the classroom.

In addition, these are also what we hope to discuss with the help of our panel who has had time to reflect on them.

Responsive Indicators for Engaging Students

1 The instructional strategies and activities respected students’ prior knowledge and the preconceptions inherent therein.A cornerstone of reformed teaching is taking into consideration the

prior knowledge that students bring with them. The term “respected” is pivotal in this item. It suggests an attitude of curiosity on the teacher’s part, an active solicitation of student ideas, and an understanding that much of what a student brings to the . . . classroom is strongly shaped and conditioned by their everyday experiences.

1 This lesson encouraged students to seek and value alternative modes of investigation or of problem solving.Divergent thinking is an important part of mathematical and

scientific reasoning. A lesson that meets this criterion would not insist on only one method of experimentation or one approach to solving a problem. A teacher who valued alternative modes of thinking would respect and actively solicit a variety of approaches, and understand that there may be more than one answer to a question.

3 The focus and direction of the lesson was often determined by ideas originating with students.If students are members of a true learning community, and if

divergence of thinking is valued, then the direction that a lesson takes can not always be predicted in advance. Thus, planning and executing a lesson may include contingencies for building upon the unexpected. A lesson that met this criterion might not end up where it appeared to be heading at the beginning.

4 Connections with other content disciplines and/or real world phenomena were explored and valued.Connecting . . . content across the disciplines and with real

world applications tends to generalize it and make it more coherent. A physics lesson on electricity might connect with the role of electricity in biological systems, or with the wiring systems of a house. A mathematics lesson on proportionality might connect with the nature of light, and refer to the relationship between the height of an object and the length of its shadow.

Responsive Indicators for Engaging Students

5 Students were actively engaged in thought-provoking activity that often involved the critical assessment of procedures.This item implies that students were not only actively doing

things, but that they were also actively thinking about how what they were doing could clarify the next steps in their investigation.

5 Students were reflective about their learning.Active reflection is a meta-cognitive activity that facilitates

learning. It is sometimes referred to as “thinking about thinking.” Teachers can facilitate reflection by providing time and suggesting strategies for students to evaluate their thoughts throughout a lesson. A review conducted by the teacher may not be reflective if it does not induce students to re-examine or re-assess their thinking.

Responsive Indicators for Engaging Students

7 Intellectual rigor, constructive criticism, and the challenging of ideas were valued. At the heart of mathematical and scientific endeavors is rigorous

debate. In a lesson, this would be achieved by allowing a variety of ideas to be presented, but insisting that challenge and negotiation also occur. Achieving intellectual rigor by following a narrow, often prescribed path of reasoning, to the exclusion of alternatives, would result in a low score on this item. Accepting a variety of proposals without accompanying evidence and argument would also result in a low score.

8 There was a high proportion of student talk and a

significant amount of it occurred between and among students.A lesson where a teacher does most of the talking is not reformed.

This item reflects the need to increase both the amount of student talk and of talk among students. A “high proportion” means that at any point in time it was as likely that a student would be talking as that the teacher would be. A “significant amount” suggests that critical portions of the lesson were developed through discourse among students.

Responsive Indicators for Engaging Students

9 Student questions and comments often determined the focus and direction of classroom discourse.This item implies not only that the flow of the lesson was

often influenced or shaped by student contributions, but that once a direction was in place, students were crucial in sustaining and enhancing the momentum.

10 The teacher acted as a resource person, working to support and enhance student investigations.A reformed teacher is not there to tell students what to

do and how to do it. Much of the initiative is to come from students, and because students have different ideas, the teacher’s support is carefully crafted to the idiosyncrasies of student thinking. The metaphor, “guide on the side” is in accord with this item.

Responsive Indicators for Engaging Students

Panel IntroductionScott Bates-College of Education & Human Services,

Department of PsychologyBonnie Glass-Coffin-College of Humanities, Arts and

Social Sciences, Department of Sociology, Social Work & Anthropology

Bob Mills-School of Business, Management Information Systems Department.

Greg Podgorski-College of Science, Biology Department

Lisa Gabbert-College of Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences, English Department

What thoughts or questions do you have about the ideas presented?

What thoughts or questions do you have about the indicators proposed for engaging students?

A Challenge and InvitationChallenge: Consider these indicators in your

classes and see which of these might help you better engage your own students.

Become part of our Weblog community (sign-up sheet)

Visit ours or a colleagues classroom.Invitation: Join us on Wednesday, March 25th (3:00-

4:00PM) for a follow-up meeting sponsored by Anne Austin. We want to meet with those who have accepted this challenge and any others interested to discuss the impact of aligning instruction with these indicators in USU classes across campus. This will be an informal sharing/discussion.

Contact Information

Todd CampbellEmail:todd.campbell@usu.eduPhone: 7-7038Office: 331 EDUC

Kim LottEmail: kimberly.lott@usu.eduPhone: 7-1103Office: 333 EDUC