While comparing all the 4 teaching strategies I realized
that there is no one solution that fits all. The strategies used in the
classroom should be varied depending on the maturity level of the students and
the nature of the content that is to be delivered. Does the content require students
to think out of the box or is it facts that they need to understand and grasp?
Is it repetitive practical task they need to do to master subject or is it a
problem they need to apply their thinking on? Most of these questions are
answered by carefully reading the course learning outcomes. The course learning
outcomes are designed according to the level of the students.
For example a level 1 student’s course will have most of the
learning outcomes designed in the lower order of the blooms taxonomy - to
remember, understand and/or apply. As the students’ progress through the
semester, their maturity level increases and so the learning outcomes are
mapped to a higher order of the blooms taxonomy – evaluate and create.
Therefore our teaching strategies and assessments should map the maturity level
of the students as well as the nature of the content and our plan on assessing
that content area. For example, if we expect the students to remember a concept
then we should not assess them via cases where they have to understand and
apply the content. Our teaching strategy should match the way we plan to assess
the students. Following are my thoughts
are ideas on when I would use the various teaching strategies with my students:
Direct Instruction and Interactive Lecturing
I think both these teaching approach maps to the remember
and understand cognitive level of the blooms taxonomy. I would use the Direct
Instruction teaching approach when teaching year 1 students, especially to
explain a new concept or when teaching a programming construct. I think in this
case it would be important to build the foundation concept of students to build
on later, like making a student understand and remember formula in math so
later they can apply it on their own while solving problems. Since the concept
would be very new to them, I would prefer to start the topics with direct
instruction while engaging them through interactive lecturing. I have noticed
that students get lost when they are asked to understand and learn the code
constructs for the first time.
Collaborative Learning and Problem/Project Based Learning
I think that collaborative learning and problem based
learning map to the higher order of blooms taxonomy of apply, evaluate and
create. These are effective teaching strategies when the student’s foundation
knowledge is strong, i.e. they have a good understanding of the core concepts.
I would also use the collaborative learning method when I want to reinforce a
topic by allowing students to practice and to teach each other since they say
that the best way to learn is to teach someone. Problem based learning as the
name implies would require students to be independent learners and be able to
solve problems and learn on their own. Since both these methods require
students to be mature enough to work in teams, be responsible, analytical, and
think critically I think these strategies would work best with year 2 and above
students.
I agree with you that Collaborative Learning and PBL cater to the higher cognitive levels of Bloom's taxonomy. In the final project which is done in the last semester technically students should be capable of critical thinking and working independently but unfortunately even at this level there are students who struggle to produce quality work even as part of a group. Perhaps then these skills need to be consciously cultivated at the start rather than later!
ReplyDeleteDefinitely I think these skills need to be consciously built up gradually, however, we should not have very high expectations from our students at lower levels. I tried the collaborative learning approach with my level 1 students this semester, and I was surprised and their shallow level of understanding when they were trying to learn a simple subject matter on their own. Some teams even defeated the purpose of CL as they decided to subdivide the task and had no clue as to what they were doing. These teaching approaches should be used carefully at these levels with a lot of guidance. For example, I think at these levels CL activities can be used to reinforce concepts and create an engaged learning environment. However, if the course learning outcome does not require students to create and evaluate then we should not assess them with it.
Delete