Can students be encouraged to read? Experimental evidence from a large lecture

One of the structural problems of introductory lectures is that students’ learning progress is primarily assessed by taking a final exam. Weekly preparation and reading are driven only by self-motivation. Can a student’s decision to complete her weekly assignments be influenced by a simple reminder? In a pre-registered experimental design, we test if personalised reminders from the instructor delivered via text messages contribute to learning outcomes. We assess formative learning via regular quizzes at the beginning of each class, and summative learning via grades in a final exam. We do not find statistically significant differences in learning outcomes, and discuss how design features potentially drive this result. In the conclusion, we stress the importance of experimental design in assessing innovative and new learning techniques.

881 Delivering Consultant-Led Teaching During A Global Pandemic

Aim Providing high quality teaching has become increasingly difficult as social distancing and disrupted schedules caused by the COVID-19 pandemic make large in-person gatherings impractical. Yet the need and demand for this has only increased. We sought to use an innovative virtual + in-person format to facilitate delivery. Method We designed a 6-session ENT teaching programme for GP trainees over 3 evenings. Each session was consultant-led, delivered in-person in a large lecture theatre, and simultaneously broadcast on Microsoft Teams. The in-person element was intended to permit practical demonstrations, e.g., of the Dix-Hallpike test, to supplement presenter’s videos. Attendees could attend in-person or virtually. Sessions were timed to allow staff from the nearby hospital to join immediately after work. Results All attendees attended virtually. And all felt that the video demonstrations were sufficient, and that in-person replication was unnecessary. Course delivery was rated ‘very good’ or ‘excellent’ by 88% (n = 17), and the course overall was rated similarly by 94%. Several comments suggested that in future we focus on virtual delivery by shifting the starting time later to “allow a natural break after work”. Conclusions The COVID-19 pandemic has altered many aspects of our lives, and teaching delivery is not immune to this. The overwhelming preference for virtual attendance amongst our cohort suggests that many doctors are comfortable with, and even enthusiastic for, this change, and that teaching can still be effective. Future iterations of this course will likely emphasise the virtual element and record the sessions to allow for time-shifted viewing.

Activating Large Lecture Financial Learning: Collaboration and Clickers During Covid-19

This paper examines our approach to teaching a large-lecture personal finance course promoting students’ financial literacy. We identify the context of this course, including the rationale for large-enrolment courses and issues with the format in general, describing how using clickers and active learning strategies results in increased engagement, attendance, and critical thinking. Learning outcomes designed to support student formation of both internal and external views of finance are holistic and expansive, broader than measures of wealth accumulation alone. Moreover, a strategic initiative focused on career readiness aligns specific competencies with course content focused on developing transferrable skills through practical, real-world examples designed to engage problem-solving and critical thinking. This pragmatic and practical focus linked these transferable skills to a framework of learning grounded in the twin concepts of financial capability and competency. Additionally, we address how Covid-19 disrupted these courses, detailing adjustments necessitated by the new reality of social distancing while adjusting our approach to student participation as we met simultaneously in face-to-face and synchronous Zoom sessions. We concluded that additional considerations must include equitable access to resources based on our pandemic experience. Future research should examine these adjustments in light of developing culturally responsive methods to promote equitable learning.

What Type of Debrief is Best for Learning during Think-Pair-Shares?

Copious research demonstrates the benefits of adding active learning to traditional lectures to enhance learning and reduce failure/withdrawal rates. However, many questions remain about how best to implement active learning to maximize student outcomes. This paper investigates several “second generation” questions regarding infusing active learning, via Think-Pair-Share (TPS), into a large lecture course in Computer Science. During the “Share” phase of TPS, what is the best way to debrief the associated course concepts with the entire class? Specifically, does student learning differ when instructors debrief the rationale for every answer choice (full debrief) versus only the correct answer (partial debrief)? And does the added value for student outcomes vary between tasks requiring recall versus deeper comprehension and/or application of concepts? Regardless of discipline, these questions are relevant to instructors implementing TPS with multiple-choice questions, especially in large lectures. Similar to prior research, when lectures included TPS, students performed significantly better (~13%) on corresponding exam items. However, students’ exam performance depended on both the type of debrief and exam questions. Students performed significantly better (~5%) in the full debrief condition than the partial debrief condition. Additionally, benefits of the full debrief condition were significantly stronger (~5%) for exam questions requiring deeper comprehension and/or application of underlying Computer Science processes, compared to simple recall. We discuss these results and lessons learned, providing recommendations for how best to implement TPS in large lecture courses in STEM and other disciplines.

What Type of Debrief is Best for Learning during Think-Pair-Shares?

Copious research demonstrates the benefits of adding active learning to traditional lectures to enhance learning and reduce failure/withdrawal rates. However, many questions remain about how best to implement active learning to maximize student outcomes. This paper investigates several “second generation” questions regarding infusing active learning, via Think-Pair-Share (TPS), into a large lecture course in Computer Science. During the “Share” phase of TPS, what is the best way to debrief the associated course concepts with the entire class? Specifically, does student learning differ when instructors debrief the rationale for every answer choice (full debrief) versus only the correct answer (partial debrief)? And does the added value for student outcomes vary between tasks requiring recall versus deeper comprehension and/or application of concepts? Regardless of discipline, these questions are relevant to instructors implementing TPS with multiple-choice questions, especially in large lectures. Similar to prior research, when lectures included TPS, students performed significantly better (~13%) on corresponding exam items. However, students’ exam performance depended on both the type of debrief and exam questions. Students performed significantly better (~5%) in the full debrief condition than the partial debrief condition. Additionally, benefits of the full debrief condition were significantly stronger (~5%) for exam questions requiring deeper comprehension and/or application of underlying Computer Science processes, compared to simple recall. We discuss these results and lessons learned, providing recommendations for how best to implement TPS in large lecture courses in STEM and other disciplines.