your courses and the specific con-
tent. Then engage in a writing
CXUTEISE by asking yourself the
following questions:

1) What appeals to me about using this
approach in this course?;

2) If I used the technique during one
class period, what is the worst pos-
sible scenario (List the things that
could go wrong)?;

and finally,

3) What could I do to correct the situ-
ation if my worst fears were real-
ized?

Instructors who finish this
exercise often remark that they
have become aware of two things.
First, they find that they were not
very willing to take risks in the
classroom, a stance that is under-
standable since most of us per-
ceive that what we do in the class-
room already is effective and we
are hesitant to make changes.
Second, those who have imag-
ined the worst that can happen
usually find that their fears were
overblown. Upon reflection they
find that they could have coped
with unforseen problems.

Lowering the risk

Ifthoughtfully carried out, this
exercise 1s particularly useful be-
Cause it forces the instructor to
identify those elements within the
classroom that can be controlled
and those that cannot. Bonwell
and Eison (1991) have suggested
thatrisk can be substantially mini-
mized if the following factors are
considered:

1) the active learning strategy
chosen

As suggested above, some
active learning techniques have
higher levels of risk than others.
Instructors wishing to make
changes in their classroom pres-
entations should not choose an
activity that is radically different
from that. with which they are
currently comfortable. Success-
ful modifications are made slowly
as both instructor and students
learn to adapt to new techniques.
For instance, someone wishing to
go slightly beyond traditional
Straight lecture might first con-
sider using the pause procedure

ENE nn ei Emer NDS ere | eRe nae SAE

or inserting a short writing activ-
ity designed to provide feedback
concerning student comprehen-
sion of the lecture.

2) the class-time allotted

In terms of class time, shorter
activities involve considerably
less risk than those involving
greater class time. For example,
when students meet in small dis-
cussion groups to analyze an is-
sue or solve a problem for 10 to 15
minutes, less risk is involved that
valuable class time will be non-
productive than when they meet
in discussion groups for 30 min-
utes. Therefore, faculty wishing
to lower risk might consider di-
viding class time into segments
with minilectures followed by
short active-learning exercises.

3) the amount of structure in-
corporated into the activity

Finally, in terms of planning
and organization, more highly
structured strategies involve lower
risk than less structured ones.
Highly structured activities in-
clude short quizzes, surveys or
questionnajres, self-assessment
instruments or case studies. Con-
versely, role playing or small
group discussions based on a
single abstract question typically
involve less structure. Indeed
when employing any active learn-
ing strategy, faculty should con-
sider the amount of structure they
deem necessary to control risk.
For example, the skillful use of
questioning in class could involve
crafting a careful sequence of
thought-provoking recitation
questions focused on understand-
ing a single concept (lower risk)
as Opposed to a series of ques-
tions that stimulate divergent
thinking about moral issues
(higher risk). The degree of struc-
ture imposed depends upon the
faculty member’s preference and
tolerance for risk.

To be successful when adopt-
ing a new active learning strat-
egy, choose an activity with which
you are comfortable, allocate a
Short period of time, and then
plan a carefully structured exer-

cise. As your confidence devel-
ops, you can loosen constraints
and ultimately develop a larger
repertoire, one that has signifi-
cant benefits for the learner.

References

Chickering, Arthur W. and Zelda F.
Gamson. (March 1987). “Seven Prin-
ciples for Good Practice.” AAHE
Bulletin 39: 3-7.

Bonwell, Charles C. and James A. Eison.
(1991). Active Learning: Creating
excitement in the classroom. ASHE-
ERIC Higher Education Report No.
1 Washington, D.C.: The George
Washington University.

 

[nt NETWORK

A PuBuicaTiON OF THE PROFESSIONAL AND
ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT NETWORK IN
HicHer EpucaTion

Editor:

Marilla Svinicki, Center for Teaching Ef-
fectiveness, University of Texas-Aus-
tin, Main Bldg. 2200, Austin, TX
78712-1111

Associate Editors:

Judy Greene , Center for Teaching Effec-
tiveness, University of Delaware, 132
Newark Hall, Newark, DE. 19716

Loren Ekroth, Educational Consultant. P.O.
Box 27480, Honolulu, HI, 96827-0480

Diane Morrison, Ctr. for Curriculum and
Professional Development, Victoria.
BC, CANADA

Susscriptions: $100 per year for institu-
tions; $80 per year for institutions at which
a POD member is the subscribing official:
$10 per year for individuals (no reproduc-
tion rights). Teaching Excellence is pub-
lished eight times annually. To order. send
check or P. O. to POD Network at the
address below or call (515) 294-3808 for
further information.

 

The POD Network facilitates the exchange
of information and ideas, the development
of professional skills. the exploration and
debate of educational issues, and the shar-
ing of expertise and resources. For further
information, write to:

Dr. David Graf

Manager. Administrative Services
POD Network

15B Exhibit Hall South

Towa State Univesrity

Ames. IA SOO!

 

 

Suan