USING PEER INSTRUCTION AND THE
FLIPPED CLASSROOM TO TEACH
RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY
Denise L. Davidson, Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania
INTRODUCTORY ESSAY
For many college faculty members, the ultimate teaching goal is to promote higher-‐order thinking skills such as analysis and evaluation; yet lack of student preparation or poor comprehension of foundational material stymies this objective (Bloom & Krathwohl, 1956). Instructors often use class time to review content and insure that students comprehend material at a basic level, finding it difficult to implement activities that cause students to apply and synthesize information. Arising from a social constructivist philosophy, a series of activities exploit the “flipped classroom” and uses peer instruction to promote student use of complex critical thinking skills.
SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIVISM AND PEER INSTRUCTION
A social constructivist epistemology asserts that learning is communal in nature and students learn by working together to examine content and make meaning of it (Adams, 2006; Watson, 2001). Such an epistemology, then, supports classroom activities designed to promote sharing and discussion of perspectives, ideas, and students’ understanding of course material. However, engagement in and the subsequent benefits that arise from these activities are often contingent upon adequate preparation for class. Many faculty members rely on students to complete assigned reading prior to class because advance contact with content contributes to classroom engagement, lecture comprehension, and learning (Sappington, Kinsey, & Munsayac, 2002). Yet, causing students to read is a continual challenge for college faculty (Hatteberg & Steffy, 2013; Hoeft, 2012). Therefore, identifying and implementing a method to motivate students to prepare for class so they can fully engage during the session may contribute to deeper learning.
Students have recommended the use of quizzes or other testing to motivate them to read (Hoeft, 2012). Quizzes certainly have their place as a means to encourage reading, yet instructors generally use them as a summative method of evaluation and not as a tool for students to more fully understand course content. Further, this assessment method is typically a solitary endeavor and unlikely to result in deep learning (Fernald, 2004). A constructivist philosophy, wherein learning is enhanced when students work together, suggests the use of peer instruction—students teaching content to each other—to motivate students to read and help them make sense of the subject matter, making meaning together. The primary advantage to peer instruction occurs when a student explains a concept to someone else: it reinforces the teaching student’s knowledge and causes him/her to find ways to communicate what they know (McKeachie & Svinicki, 2006).
THE FLIPPED CLASSROOM
Recently, some faculty members have “flipped” their classrooms, wherein the instructor moves lecture outside of class time and provides opportunities for students to work with and apply content during the class session. Class sessions can be “flipped” by developing a narrated PowerPoint or a screencast of the lecture and requiring students to watch and listen prior to class. Consequently, students can engage with material, to apply it and wrestle with it during class with instructor guidance. A common example involves mathematics courses where students might watch a narrated PowerPoint before class. During class, students tackle mathematical problems as the instructor works closely with students, moving about the classroom to offer guidance. The “flip” is that homework is completed during class while lecture occurs outside of class. As Talbert (2013) suggested, this helps students recognize “[t]hey got some basic knowledge on their own, but then in class they had to do something with it that they really didn’t think they could do – and then they did it, with the help of their friends and their professor” (para. 7).
There are several purported advantages when using a narrated PowerPoint or screencast. Students are able to listen to and watch the screencast at their own pace, potentially in chunks, which aids recall (Educause, 2012; Miller, 1956). They can return to the medium via the course management system as often as necessary and the file can be saved for later viewing (Educause, 2012). Then, class time previously devoted to passive lecture can be devoted to active learning. This might include case study activities, small group application of concepts addressed in the screencast, or problem-‐based learning activities.
These three elements—social constructivism, peer instruction, and the flipped classroom—united as I sought a new approach to how students and I examined and came to understand two difficult concepts related to educational testing.
THE CONTEXT
I teach an educational testing course to aspiring school counselors and college student affairs practitioners. The unit concerning reliability and validity of educational measurement tools (e.g., tests, inventories, surveys) has been unsatisfying for graduate students and me as much of this class session involved lecture. In spite of my efforts to make the session interactive through small group activity, the lecture sapped student enthusiasm and energy at an early point in the course. In earlier semesters, student performance on quizzes suggested that students understood the concepts, but a take-‐home midterm essay exam indicated difficulty with application. I sought a new approach to the material.
THE SEQUENCE
For this course, I moved the lecture outside of class via separate screencasts on reliability and validity. This made it possible to use class time to ensure students understood the material for later application in interactive exercises, an actualization of my philosophy of the socially constructed nature of knowledge. I instructed students to read the material for the week and watch the screencast, and I let them know we would be using the material during the next class session.
After students completed as much of the worksheet as they could (about eight minutes), I collected the red pens, and students worked with a peer to teach one another and fill in the gaps in their knowledge, adding to their worksheets as they talked. I had several objectives at this stage. I wanted to provide a safe space for students to articulate their confusions; although we have a strong sense of community in our academic program, some students hesitate to demonstrate a lack of knowledge or skill. In addition, this dyad work enabled students to teach one another and reap some of the benefits of peer instruction. Further, this approach reinforces the notion that students can be experts and can construct knowledge together.
As I circulated through the room, I could see how much students had written in red. Although not a firm measure of their comprehension, the scan gave me an idea of how much of the worksheet page was blank when students worked individually compared to how much they wrote in another color from collaborating with a classmate. I circulated through the classroom and listened in on student discussion to get a sense of who was having difficulty with the material, who was confident of their knowledge, and where student understanding of content was inaccurate.
Some instructors might be reluctant to implement peer instruction, worried that some students will rely on their peers for correct information. In part, the sequence is intended to capitalize on this possibility, causing students to explain and teach one another what they know about reliability and validity. Engaging in the material by teaching it to a peer deepens the teaching student’s comprehension while providing the peer with an alternate explanation; the student now has three explanations: the reading, the instructor-‐delivered screencast, and the teaching peer. Further, I chose not to grade the worksheet, instead emphasizing the importance of comprehension for the explicit purpose of application.
There is at least one drawback to this activity. It is possible that weaker students or students with incorrect understanding of the concepts will be paired or grouped together. Therefore, as student pairs continued to collaborate, I rearranged the dyads into groups of three or four, aiming to place stronger students with those who seemed less confident of their knowledge or who were grappling with the content. At this point, I told students they could access their notes and the reading material to alleviate the possibility that students were working with inaccurate or missing information. As they continued to discuss material, I circulated through the classroom and posed questions to the groups to highlight factual inaccuracies, challenge their thinking, and promote deeper exploration of content. At the conclusion of this sequence, I facilitated a class discussion to identify and fill in the gaps in their knowledge concerning reliability and validity. We also discussed the purpose of the in-‐class activity, and I was forthright about how social constructivism framed my approach to the material and the class session.
MY LEARNING AND FUTURE ADJUSTMENTS
Although the intent of this approach was to influence student learning of specific concepts and to effect a change in the classroom environment, I learned a few things along the way. I found it more difficult than I anticipated to rein in an orientation towards lecture. I was not yet comfortable assuming students had watched the screencast which suggests I should employ an accountability method (e.g., immediate follow-‐up electronic quiz or at the beginning of class). This might motivate students to watch/listen to the screencast and thus be prepared for class (Ruffini, 2012). An online quiz, completed prior to class, will provide me with information about comprehension, enabling me to more closely tailor the focus of the class session. It would be possible, for instance, to adjust the case studies towards particular types of validity evidence or ask students to examine only specific sections of the instrument manuals.
There are impacts to relying on a brief (ten minute) screencast to communicate content. For me, this manifested itself in uncertainty about how much to intervene in group work. As I moved through the classroom to monitor group progress, I pondered when—or if—I should intrude and draw all students’ attention to a point of information, clarification on the task, or response to a student question. I had to weigh the impact of interrupting productive group dynamic against the advantages of providing immediate feedback to all students. In the future, I can allow time at the end of class for a wrap-‐ up/review to address these points.
There are other effects of instructor intervention into work groups. Students later shared worries that I may have communicated information with one group and not all students. One solution is to allow the groups to work independently, without any instructor intervention. Another tactic involves asking each group to track the ways outside information altered their approach to the task at hand, reporting this back to the full class in a wrap-‐up discussion. Either way, consistent instructor interaction with groups seems important given the feedback I received.
Additional modifications to this procedure are possible. The worksheet can be collected and graded, or used as a means to provide formative feedback to students. Peer instruction can occur in small groups instead of using pairs and then groups. I had the advantage of a three-‐hour class period in which to implement the sequence; different class periods require some degree of adjustment. And, of course, summative evaluation methods (e.g., quiz, test) can assess student learning at the end of the session.
TENTATIVE CONCLUSIONS ABOUT OUTCOMES
An essay question in the midterm exam required students to evaluate validity and reliability evidence drawn from the manual for The Children’s Depression Inventory (Pearson, 2012). Although the average score (B+) was the same for the standard and flipped teaching methods (taught in summers 2012 and 2013, respectively) follow-‐up discussion with students at the conclusion of the course yielded positive feedback concerning this teaching strategy. Students voiced a strong preference for in-‐class activity instead of lecture. Importantly, students reacted positively to the opportunity to work collaboratively with a peer in a safe space—with an instructor available to answer questions and offer additional ways of considering the content—and indicated greater confidence with their ability to interpret reliability and validity evidence.
instructors a flexible teaching progression that can enhance student learning and positively influence the classroom learning environment.
REFERENCES
Adams, P. (2006). Exploring social constructivism: Theories and practicalities. Education 3-‐13. 34(3), 243-‐ 257. DOI: 10.1080/03004270600898893.
Bloom, B. S., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals, by a committee of college and university examiners. Handbook 1: Cognitive domain. New York, NY: Longmans.
Educause. (2012, February 7). 7 things you should know about flipped classrooms. Retrieved from
http://www.educause.edu/library/resources/7-‐things-‐you-‐should-‐know-‐about-‐flipped-‐classrooms
Fernald, P. S. (2004). The Monte Carlo quiz. College Teaching, 52(3), 95-‐99.
Hatteberg, S. J., & Steffy, K. (2013). Increasing reading compliance of undergraduates: An evaluation of compliance methods. Teaching Sociology, 41(4) 346–352. DOI: 10.1177/0092055X13490752
Hoeft, M. E. (2012). Why university students don’t read: What professors can do to increase compliance. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning,6(2), 1-‐19.
Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychology Review, 63(2), 81-‐97.
Pearson Education Inc. (2012). Children’s Depression Inventory. Retrieved from http://www.pearsonassessments.com/HAIWEB/Cultures/en-‐us/Productdetail.htm?Pid=015-‐8044-‐762 Ruffini, M. (2012, November 1). Creating a PowerPoint screencast using Camtasia Studio. Educause Review Online. Retrieved on October 1, 2013 from http://www.educause.edu/ero/article/creating-‐ powerpoint-‐screencast-‐using-‐camtasia-‐studio
Sappington, J., Kinsey, K., & Munsayac, K. (2002). Two studies of reading compliance among college students, Teaching of Psychology, 29(4), 272-‐274.
Talbert, R. (2013, August 6). What’s different about the inverted classroom? The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/blognetwork/castingoutnines/2013/08/06/whats-‐
different-‐about-‐the-‐inverted-‐classroom/
Watson, J. (2001). Social constructivism in the classroom. Support for Learning, 16(3), 140-‐146.
