Recently, an op-ed piece in the New York Times had Twitter all aflutter. In Lecture Me. Really., Molly Worthen, Assistant Professor of History at the University of North Carolina, argues that although lecturing has been widely criticized in higher education circles, there is good reason to utilize this approach, at least in the humanities. In the piece, Worthen quotes Monessa Cummins, the chairwoman of the classics department at Grinnell College, stating that in the humanities, a lecture “places a premium on the connections between individual facts. It is not a recitation of facts, but the building of an argument.”
Worthen goes on to argue that the challenge of actively listening and processing information is a valuable and often under-developed skill for college students. She states, "Absorbing a long, complex argument is hard work, requiring students to synthesize, organize and react as they listen." The approach challenges students to effectively take notes in a way that helps them to engage with and internalize the material. Although I often write about active learning strategies and the importance of varying teaching strategies, I think Worthen has a point.

False dichotomy
As I've begun reading more in the scholarship of teaching and learning, I've picked up on a pretty striking bit of either/or thinking. It seems that folks who favor the lecture on the one side and proponents of active and problem-based learning on the other have created a false dichotomy. Why do we have to be proponents of only one approach? Why can't we incorporate both forms of learning activities where they make sense in service of student learning?
To be too dogmatic for any approach to teaching and learning limits our thinking and can put greater emphasis on a teaching approach than on student learning. The neuroscience research upon which Universal Design for Learning was developed suggests that to continually privilege any particular learning activity is a disservice to the diversity of our students' varied learning styles and preferences. I think we can systematically find ways to remain pedagogically neutral and determine the best "fit" of learning activity type based upon the learning goals and needs of our students.

Strategies for integrating lecture with more student-centered approaches
Lecture can include more than one voice. We often think of lecture as a 50-minute monologue by the professor. Indeed, this may often be the case. It doesn’t have to be this way, however. The lecturer can build in regular Q&A activities during the lecture. In larger lecture classes, she can utilize polling software like Poll Everywhere to elicit student feedback or check for understanding. Students can also be prompted for small and large group discussions based around instructor or student-created prompts. This back and forth between the lecturer and the students can greatly enhance the lecture.
Start with your learning goal to determine what approach(es) makes sense. Some topics and learning goals lend themselves to the lecture format. For example, an introduction or setting of the stage can be a natural opportunity for a lecture. Similarly, when the professor hopes to illuminate subtle or nuanced connections between ideas, a carefully designed lecture can be most effective. When application of concepts is required or when the professor hopes to promote divergent ideas related to the topic, lecture would be less effective.
Introduce a topic with shorter duration lectures. In some cases, 50 minutes of listening and taking notes, even when part of the goal is for students to develop the focus and self-discipline required to engage in the lectures, may be a bit much. One way to compromise is to develop shorter-duration lectures, intermixed with more student-centered learning activities like engaging in a brief case study or to provide the space for reflection.
Incorporate multiple representations for longer lectures. When we do need to leverage longer lectures, we can appeal to diverse learning styles and preferences by incorporating multiple representations of the content (UDL Principle I). This can be as simple as using slides that incorporate visual links or representations to the content you are discussing in the lecture. You can also embed video clips, simulations, and other forms of media to provide students with additional ways to engage with the content.
Incorporate multiple means of expression during and after lectures. The other half of UDL is to provide students with multiple ways for action and expression with the content. This can be achieved through intermixing some of the student-centered learning activities described above.  Students can also be offered multiple ways to synthesize material from the lecture. This can be achieved through some form of student response, debate or discussion, or through the development of a model.
​
In the end, how we design the learning experience in our courses shouldn’t be driven by a laser-like focus on a particular teaching approach any more than it should be driven by a particular technology. What should drive all our decisions in the classroom is student learning.

How do you incorporate lecture with other approaches in your teaching?
Please post your comments below.   

Free inquiry is at the heart of teaching and learning in colleges and universities. Through inquiry we build on existing knowledge and develop new understandings that serve society and the greater good. In addition to our own research and development efforts, we also strive to encourage our students in their own inquiry.
 
This is a topic I’ve explored on this blog, both in terms of specific strategies to support inquiry, and a more conceptual conversation on inquiry with David Slykhuis. However, if we hope to encourage our students to thrive in this area, we must first be clear on what we mean by inquiry and how we might “level up” our efforts.
 
What exactly do we mean by inquiry?
When one peruses definitions of inquiry, we find many different words and phrases, including:

• a systematic investigation
• an examination into facts or principles
• the act of asking questions
• exploration
• analysis

I think this variance in definitions and terms indicates the myriad ways we might approach inquiry in the higher ed classroom. If we want to consider incorporating more or higher level inquiry in our classes, we need to agree on a particular definition or approach. For the purposes of this post, we’ll consider inquiry as “the systematic investigation or exploration of a particular course concept.”
 
Levels of Inquiry
Of the many models available, the one that resonates most with me is the Levels of Inquiry framework introduced by Tafoya, Sunal, & Knecht (1980). They organize their framework according to level of student autonomy in the process, summarized below:

• Level 1: Confirmation or Verification – at this level, students confirm or verify a concept or principle through an instructor-designed activity in which the results are known in advance
• Level 2: Structured Inquiry – in structured inquiry, the instructor poses a question and structures as a process; the results may not be known in advance
• Level 3: Guided Inquiry – with guided inquiry, the instructor poses the question, but the students devise a process to answer the question; results are not known in advance
• Level 4: Open Inquiry – with open inquiry, the students have autonomy for all phases of the process

 
I think this framework provides a helpful way to think through the appropriate level of inquiry for a particular course project, experience or assignment. While it may seem that open inquiry is the “best” form of inquiry, it may not always be appropriate for your topic, your students, or the context of a course. For example, open inquiry is most appropriate (and essential) for a doctoral student embarking on her dissertation. A student in an introductory course may not even know what kinds of questions to ask. In this case, a confirmation or structured experience would be most appropriate.
 
What can we do, though, if when we evaluate the level of inquiry in a particular project we want to “level up?” There are several different simple strategies you can use to change your game plan.
 
Leveling Up Inquiry

1. Provide more autonomy – While some students may not be prepared to create a structure for how they explore a particular concept or question, you might provide them with choice in a number of different ways that would increase their autonomy. For example, they might choose the topic or specific focus for their inquiry. You might provide different pathways to guide the process from which they can choose. You might also provide choice for how they present their results. All these choices relate directly to Universal Design for Learning and provide higher levels of student autonomy.
2. Provide access to authentic tools – Whatever level of inquiry you opt for, you can greatly increase the authenticity of the work when you provide access to rich tools and datasets. For example, in a data-based exploration, setting students up with high yield data visualization tools can create a rich experience for students.
3. Provide access to rich resources - Similarly, when we expand the data sources, students can interrogate their way through a variety of Web-based resources, thus increasing the authenticity of the experience. When we open up research material in a case-based learning experience beyond what is included in the textbook, we enable a higher level of inquiry.
4. Consider hard scaffolds when removing the structure – In a previous post, I explored the idea of hard scaffolds – the learning supports that you design in advance to facilitate challenging work. When we shift from a level 1 or 2 activity to a level 3 guided inquiry approach, we may need to consider the kinds of scaffolds that students will need to successfully structure their work. We don’t need to provide them with the steps, but we may need to provide prompts for them to consider important variables or different approaches.
5. Provide mentoring at higher levels – When we strive to provide students with an open inquiry experience, we may need to coordinate mentors for our students. When students explore a concept or data source outside your particular area of expertise, it can be important (and perhaps essential) to connect them with a mentor to support them in the work. This can take the form of a face-to-face mentor on your campus, or a virtual mentor via Skype from the other side of the globe.

 
How do you support inquiry in your courses?
Please post your comments below.   

The further students move through upper level courses in their major and the more complex our learning goals for our classes become, the more student supports are required to help them be successful. The term we often use in education to describe these supports is scaffolds. While some disciplinary jargon can be trite or unnecessarily confusing, I really like the idea of scaffolds.
 
Scaffolding in construction projects provides the necessary support structure to enable the carpenters and other crew members to do their work. In building a skyscraper or even working up high on a home, these scaffolds are absolutely essential. When these supports are no longer required, they are gradually removed.
 
Learning scaffolds function in much the same way. They provide the necessary guidance and support that students need when they are new to a concept, procedure, or skill. When they are no longer necessary to enable students to be successful, they are removed so that students can function independently.
 
Common Learning Scaffolds
If you think back to English class in middle school, I’ll bet you remember being introduced to the “five paragraph essay.” This format consists of an introductory paragraph with an assertion, three supporting paragraphs with some form of evidence, and a summary concluding paragraph. This relatively simple approach to helping students to structure an evidence-based argument is a very concrete, albeit simplistic, way to help students develop the habits of mind for argument structure. Once students have some practice with this approach, the teacher removes this structure and encourages students to develop more sophisticated and creative approaches to convey their ideas.
 
And who can forget the classic atomic structure diagram with electrons orbiting neatly around the nucleus in a perfect circle? We later learned that the structure of an atom is much more complex and messy than this simple diagram reflects. However, these more sophisticated understandings are built with the help of this initial, more simplistic way of understanding the concept.
 
One interesting contribution by Tom Brush and John Saye exploring learning scaffolds in historical inquiry through computer based simulations is the categorization into hard and soft scaffolds (Brush & Saye, 2002). They define the two types of scaffolds in this way (p. 2):

• Hard scaffolds are static supports that can be anticipated and planned in advance based upon typical student difficulties with a task.
• Soft scaffolds are dynamic, situation-specific aids provided by a teacher or peer to help with the learning process

The two examples I offered above (i.e. five paragraph essay and atomic diagram) are what Brush & Saye would describe as hard scaffolds. They are built around an understanding of how students struggle with a particular concept or process and are designed to help the students overcome these obstacles. Other examples of hard scaffolds are pre-created concept maps that students complete, specific strategies to solve problems or work through an experiment, and structured case studies that walk students through the process.
Soft scaffolds come more in the form of “just-in-time” support during a learning experience. For example, when we see that a class discussion is headed off the rails or students seem to be developing misconceptions related to the topic, we can  redirect the conversation through a carefully formed question or simply reframe an idea. This can happen in an online discussion board in much the same way. To effectively facilitate a discussion online, we need to be “present” and interject strategically into the conversation when necessary. I have also stopped a class working in groups when I see multiple examples of questions or misunderstandings for a brief discussion or demonstration to get them back on track. These are not often issues you can anticipate, but these soft scaffolds can help to save the day in many instances.

How to Determine the Appropriate Scaffolds
 Whenever I’m teaching a topic or concept that I know or suspect might be challenging for students, I try to anticipate the trouble points. These can also be identified based on prior experience in teaching the same topic. In these cases, I work to develop some form of hard scaffold in advance that I may or may not choose to use in the class session, depending on how things unfold. It’s comforting to know, though, that I have a support planned out in case I need it. In other cases, I implement the hard scaffold from the outset. In either case, I try to determine the minimum level of support needed and try to remove it as quickly as I can to help students develop independence in their learning.
 
Soft scaffolds can be more tricky. If you’re like me, it can be difficult to think on your feet – particularly when a carefully designed lesson seems to be faltering. I do my best in these instances to redirect students, particularly drawing on past experience when it’s relevant. My other strategy is to “unpack” the class session afterwards and make notes on any challenges I encountered. As best I can, I then reflect on the experience to learn from the challenge so that I can better anticipate the need for a hard or soft scaffold in subsequent class sessions.
 
The reality is that teaching and learning is challenging stuff. Where we can anticipate challenges and put scaffolds in place, we should do so. Where we can’t, we try to adjust on the fly. In all cases, we should strive to be reflective and learn from our experience to grow as teachers.
 
What kind of scaffolds do you find effective?
Please post your comments below.   

I recently enjoyed reading a post on the Faculty Focus blog by Maryellen Weimer called The Names We Give to Our Instructional Strategies. In the post she argues that we often throw around terms about teaching (e.g., active learning, cooperative learning, inquiry), but those labels don't always accurately capture what they are doing in class. The challenge is that these are often broad categories of learning activities rather than specific strategies.

Rather than try to untangle the challenge of delineating the differences between cooperative and collaborative learning (which Weimer has already done quite well), I'd like to attempt to describe different options for how to engage students in active learning experiences. To do so, however, requires settling on a definition of the terms.

Differing definitions of active learning

• According to the University of Michigan Center for Research on Learning and Teaching, active learning is, "a process whereby students engage in activities, such as reading, writing, discussion, or problem solving that promote analysis, synthesis, and evaluation of class content."
• According to the Teaching Commons at Stanford, "'Active learning' means students engage with the material, participate in the class, and collaborate with each other." 
• The Center for Innovation in Teaching and Learning at the University of Illinois suggests that active learning, "refers to the teaching approaches, strategies and learning activities that promote active engagement with the material and lead to deep learning."

Clearly, different folks view active learning in a variety of ways. I think the key common feature is a high level of student engagement in the learning task in ways that promote higher-level cognitive processes. When we consider the first parameter, we can contrast active learning with more passive learning modes that would include attending to a lecture, watching a video, or listening to a presentation. For the second parameter, we can contrast active learning with taking notes (at least in the traditional sense rather than more active approaches) and answering recall level questions. 

Fortunately, this leaves us with a number of different ways to approach active learning in our courses. I've attempted to lay out a range of options in the Higher Education Learning Activity Types Taxonomy. In the following sections, we'll explore a few specific strategies according to three of the higher levels of Bloom's Taxonomy that encourage active learning for students. 

Active learning for "Application"
When students apply what they learn in class to different concepts from the course, domains, or authentic problems they have to translate or transform the knowledge in new ways. In this way, they are forced to shift from consuming the knowledge at a recall or "remember" level to a more active, applied level.

A number of different learning activities challenge students in this way. One of my favorite ways to facilitate this application of knowledge is through simulation and role-playing. When students are immersed in a task where they must consider multiple variables or perspectives as they apply their knowledge, they must grapple with the complexity of real-world situations. As novice teachers interact with virtual students in the mixed-reality teaching environment of TeachLivE, they have an opportunity to virtually practice their craft. For even more authentic application, students can also engage in field work or service learning experiences.

Active learning for "Analysis"
When students work with data - either data they generate or extent data - they engage in deep levels of analytical thinking. In terms of cognitive level, this is the 
third highest level in the taxonomy and can be challenging for students. In designing these kinds of learning opportunities, we need to be conscious of building in supports for students that can be gradually removed as they gain more experience. 

Problem-based learning experiences are a robust way to engage students in analytical thinking. Often anchored in real-world problems and cases, these experiences require active learning, often in a collaborative context. Engaging students in inquiry and research is another approach. Even the lowest levels of inquiry experiences in which the instructor determines the question, scope and process for inquiry demand active learning on the part of students. The degree to which students are challenged to frame the question, process, and output from an inquiry experience only increases active learning.

Active learning for "Creation"
Creation is the highest cognitive level in the revised version of Bloom's taxonomy. Learning activities situated at this level require students to create new products that demonstrate their understanding. It is in this space that students create new knowledge and share it with others.

One powerful creation learning activity type is for students to develop a model. Whether it be a physical 2-D or 3-D representation of a course concept or a conceptual model that explains relationships, developing a model is a flexible and high yield strategy in your courses. Teaching others is the learning activity that is the most sophisticated in terms of cognitive level in the Higher Education Learning Activity Types taxonomy. I see it as a particularly robust and challenging active learning strategy because in teaching others, they must first deeply understand their topic, determine how best to present their understanding to help others learn the material, organize their ideas in a logical and digestible way, determine how to best convey the information, and prepare any materials and strategies to instruct their classmates. 

How do you define and engage students in active learning?
Please post your comments below.   

We're fortunate enough to live near Busch Gardens, a beautiful theme park in Virginia. Needless to say, we've visited many times. As veterans, we recognize the importance of planning to maximize our fun. Even for a full day, there's too much to see and do to fit it all in. Consequently, we have to choose what and when we do things to get the most out of the day. For example, it's never a good idea to have a funnel cake immediately before hopping on a roller coaster. We also have different interests, so we try to mix up rides with carnival days and food during the day. With these options and the strategic planning, we all go home happy.

What we can learn from a day at the amusement park for our instructional planning
We can learn a lot from our experience at an amusement park in planning instruction for a class session or course. Just as we consider the possibilities available at the park, we have a number of options for teaching and learning activities. We need to be strategic in selecting and sequencing them for class sessions to create powerful learning experiences for our students.

One challenge we have as instructors considering teaching and learning options is to recognize the full range of the options we have. After all, it's easy (and only natural) to fall into ruts where we default to a small subset of the possibilities in our teaching. This is a big part of the reason that I developed the Higher Education Learning Activity Taxonomy (HELAT). The current version of the taxonomy includes 20 different learning activities you can consider in your planning.

You may be thinking that it's nice to have all these options, but wonder how to select, sequence and combine them into learning experiences for your students. While it's critical to begin by considering the big ideas in your course, build from your learning goals, and factor in students' needs and preferences, you may still be looking for some guidance in the process. Below I share three different strategies that you can use to build your teaching from the HELAT.

Build around cognitive levels
One effective and time-tested approach to selecting learning activities is to select appropriate activities based in part on the cognitive level of the targeted learning goal(s) using Bloom's Taxonomy. Developed originally in the 1950's, the revised version of the taxonomy offers a framework to consider the cognitive level of different learning tasks in the following categories:

• remember
  
• understand
  
• apply
  
• analyze
  
• evaluate 
  
• create
  

So, for example, if the learning goal is focused upon students developing a basic understanding of a topic or concept, a class discussion or focused exploration might be more appropriate than conducting research or engaging a problem-based learning experience. Both of these latter activities would probably be more effective with learning goals that require a greater level of analytical thinking. To assist you in selected learning activities based on the cognitive level of the learning goal, the HELAT activities are organized according to the six levels of Bloom's taxonomy.

Leverage content learning to build 21st century skills
Another strategy for selecting learning activities is to consider what skills you would like students to develop as they learn. A great framework to consider these kinds of skills is the 21st Century Learning Design framework. The framework includes the following six skills:

• collaboration
• knowledge construction
• self-regulation
• real-world problem-solving and innovation
• use of ICT for learning
• skilled communication

While some bristle at the notion of 21st century skills, I think most of us would agree that these are the kinds of skills that not only will be important for students in their future careers, but also help to enrich content-based learning experiences in our courses. To make it easier to zero in on the learning activities that are particularly suited to help students to develop these skills, in the HELAT taxonomy you'll see icons representing each skill "tagged" to specific learning activities.

 Assessment for learning
For many faculty, assessments may equate to quizzes, tests, and term papers. We may have a tendency to think of learning activities and assessments as two different things. In reality, many learning activities can be used as formative or summative assessments of student learning. The key advantage to considering assessments more broadly is that you can vary the options for students to express their understanding – an important component of Universal Design for Learning.

The HELAT includes a number of learning activities that can serve as formative (e.g., write/respond, compare/constrast) and summative assessments (e.g., develop a model, perform an experiment/procedure). When you view them in this light, you can combine these assessment activities with activities that are more focused on helping students build their knowledge. If you can combine a range of these assessments over the course of a semester-long class, you'll have great insight into student learning beyond the more typical approaches to summative assessment.

What do you consider when selecting and combining learning activities in your planning?
Please post your comments below.