A methodology for active, student-controlled learning: motivating our weakest students

This paper outlines a methodology to improve the performance of the weakest students through networked hypermedia and in-class exercises. These efforts are an outgrowth of experiments using networked hypermedia in the form of the World Wide Web (WWW) as the basis for networked courseware [1-4]. While initial approaches significantly enhanced the performance of the average and best students, there was no noticeable gain in the performance of the weakest students [4]. They continued to come into class without preparing and expected to somehow condense the learning process into five 55-minute sections every two weeks. In order to enhance the performance of these students, a series of procedures were developed that should increase their performance while minimizing any negative impact on the rest of class. The first procedure uses a networked, Common Gateway Interface (CGI), form-based Student Response System to enhanced communications and expectations between the student and professor. The Student Response System automates the grading of homework assignments, and as a result, facilitates nightly homework assignments without increasing the grading load on the professor. The second component of this methodology involves developing a series of graded, in-class, group exercises that can be easily graded in-class, represents a substantial portion of the final grade, and requires a public presentation of the group's results. Together, these tools and practices form a methodology for reaching the weakest students and enhancing their performance.

[1]  Anne S. Goodsell Collaborative Learning: A Sourcebook for Higher Education. , 1992 .

[2]  Benjamin S. Bloom,et al.  Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals. , 1957 .

[3]  R. Felder,et al.  Learning and Teaching Styles in Engineering Education. , 1988 .

[4]  J. Hartley,et al.  Note‐taking: A critical review , 1978 .

[5]  David W. Johnson,et al.  Cooperative learning : increasing college faculty instructional productivity , 1991 .

[6]  J. Paul,et al.  Improving education through improved assessment , 1994, Proceedings of 1994 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference - FIE '94.

[7]  Thomas A. Angelo,et al.  Classroom assessment techniques : a handbook for collegeteachers / Thomas A. Angelo, K. Patricia Cross , 1993 .

[8]  Curtis A. Carver,et al.  Incorporating multimedia and hypertext documents in an undergraduate curriculum , 1994, Proceedings of 1994 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference - FIE '94.

[9]  C. A. Carver,et al.  An assessment of networked multimedia and hypermedia , 1995, Proceedings Frontiers in Education 1995 25th Annual Conference. Engineering Education for the 21st Century.

[10]  Patricia A. Heller,et al.  Teaching problem solving through cooperative grouping. Part 2: Designing problems and structuring groups , 1992 .

[11]  D. Krathwohl Taxonomy of educational objectives: The Classification of educational goals. Handbook II: Affective domain / David R. Krathwohl, Benyamin S. Bloom, Bertram B. Masia , 1964 .

[12]  Rebecca Brent,et al.  Cooperative Learning in Technical Courses: Procedures, Pitfalls, and Payoffs. , 1994 .

[13]  Thomas A. Angelo,et al.  Classroom Assessment Techniques: A Handbook for College Teachers. Second Edition. , 1993 .

[14]  R. Felder Reaching the Second Tier--Learning and Teaching Styles in College Science Education. , 1993 .

[15]  R. Felder,et al.  A Longitudinal Study of Engineering Student Performance and Retention. III. Gender Differences in Student Performance and Attitudes , 1995 .

[16]  David W. Johnson Cooperative Learning: Increasing College Faculty Instructional Productivity. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 4, 1991. , 1991 .

[17]  A. Astin What matters in college? : four critical years revisited , 1994 .