Professional Documents
Culture Documents
JCST SCALE-UP Article PDF
JCST SCALE-UP Article PDF
Education Reform
By Jon D.H. Gaffney, Evan Richards, Mary Bridget Kustusch, Lin Ding, and Robert J. Beichner
P
icture your favorite restau- UP has also been employed in a intended as a support mechanism to
rant. Which aspects make it variety of courses such as chemistry, help students outside of class and
a relaxing, comfortable envi- biology, mathematics, engineering, are periodically changed to ensure
ronment? What if you could and even comparative literature. optimal effectiveness (Heller and
take those aspects and apply them In this article, we will discuss Hollabaugh 1992).
to a classroom? Imagine students the classroom design and teaching In front of each student is a nametag,
seated at round tables, discussing techniques that allow pedagogical ad- held in place with an aluminum name
physics while “waiters” (the course vances to be used in large-enrollment block (see Figure 4; later in this article
instructors) bounce around among classes. Should you want even more we will describe an activity using these).
the tables, asking questions. In fact, details of the implementation and re- The nametags are always prominently
many such classrooms are now in search underpinnings, a more in-depth displayed so that no student can remain
operation across the country, and stud- description can be found in Beichner anonymous. In a SCALE-UP classroom,
ies are showing major benefits over et al. 2007. it is impossible for a student to hide; the
traditional lecture settings. design of the room prohibits students
Over the years, quite a few Designing the classroom from choosing a seat in the middle of a
pedagogical advances have been Each school that implements SCALE- row or in the back of the class. Students
demonstrated to work effectively UP adapts it to meet the school’s are accessible to the instructors and to
(see Figure 1). The common factor in needs (see Figure 2 for a possible each other, and any student can be asked
most of them is interaction. However, layout; bear in mind that the design to present work at any time. This pro-
economics at large universities simply of the classroom was not accidental— motes individual accountability while
require that classes have large enroll- several iterations were made before enhancing personal interaction among
ment to be sustainable. The SCALE- we found a large classroom design students and with the instructors (John-
UP (Student-Centered Activities for that would promote interactive learn- son, Johnson, and Smith 1991).
Large Enrollment for Undergraduate ing). The tables are the most impor- Also shared by each group is a
Programs) project was developed to tant technological presence in the computer connected to the internet
implement reforms designed for small classroom. Their 7-foot diameter is and loaded with course-relevant
classes into large physics classes. optimal, as larger tables are not con- software. The instructor’s computer
Notwithstanding its specific ini- ducive to conversation and smaller is able to observe and, if necessary,
tial motivation, the SCALE-UP learn- tables are too crowded. Around each control students’ computers to prevent
ing environment is general in terms of table sit nine students in groups of distraction. While computers are quite
both class size and discipline. Over 50 three, denoted by the letters A, B, and helpful if present, SCALE-UP can be
schools across the country, ranging C. This group structure is regularly run without them.
from Wake Technical Community used for in-class activities, where Located on all walls of the class-
College to Massachusetts Institute of each group member has a specific room are whiteboards; additional
Technology (MIT), have adopted it role that changes for each activity personal whiteboards are distributed
for classes of various sizes. SCALE- (see Figure 3). The groups are also as needed. These whiteboards are
Collaborative learning (Johnson, Johnson, and Smith 1991) University of Minnesota Collaborative Groups (Heller and Hollabaugh
1992)
Learning by inquiry (Prince and Felder 2006) Physics by inquiry (McDermott and University of Washington Physics
Education Group 1995)
Problem solving (Evensen and Hmelo 2000) Minnesota real-world problems (Heller and Hollabaugh 1992), computer
modeling (Scherer, Dubois, and Sherwood 2000)
Social constructivism (Vygotsky 1978) Peer instruction (Mazur 1997), polling questions (Judson and Sawada 2002)
Proximal development (Vygotsky 1978) Just-in-time teaching (Novak, Patterson, and Gavrin 1999)
Communication (Rivard and Straw 2000) Modeling method (Wells, Hestenes, and Swackhamer 1995)
May/June 2008 19
Figure 3
Specific group roles for various activities in SCALE-UP.
Recorder Skeptic or Questioner Manager or Organizer Summarizer
“Ponderables” or • Writes problem steps • Ensures that all strate- • Provides sequence of • Summarizes group
whiteboard problems on the whiteboard gies are explored steps in the problem discussion/solution
• Ensures all agree on • Suggests alterna- • Manages time and • Maintains group
each step of solution tive approaches to keeps group on task energy and
• Verifies all members problem • Ensures participation by enthusiasm
understand solution • Checks solution valid- each group member • Suggests new ideas
ity (reality, units, etc.) • Reinforces the merits when motivation is low
of everyone’s ideas
“Tangibles” or • Monitors/records • Ensures that data inter- • Provides outline of ex- • Summarizes group
experiments experimental data pretation is correct perimental procedure plan/results
• Ensures all agree on • Suggests alternate • Manages time and • Maintains group en-
experimental results methods/interpreta- keeps group on task ergy and enthusiasm
• Verifies all members tions • Ensures participation by • Suggests new ideas
understand data/results • Checks validity of each group member when motivation is low
• Submits lab reports experimental results • Reinforces the merits
• Ensures questions/ of everyone’s ideas
results fully explored
Computer programs • Types the code • Debugs the program • Provides steps with • Summarizes group
• Ensures all agree on • Suggests alternative pseudo code outline discussion/conclusions
the typed code organization/expression • Manages time and • Maintains group energy
• Verifies all members • Checks validity of keeps group on task and enthusiasm
understand the code program (reality check) • Ensures participation by • Suggests new ideas
• Submits programs each group member when motivation is low
• Reinforces the merits
of everyone’s ideas
The roles are based on the University of Minnesota group role definitions (www.co-operation.org). These roles are rotated
through the group on a per-activity basis. To see examples of what the roles “sound like,” visit http://scaleup.ncsu.edu. Ide-
ally, all students would be in a group of three and the role of summarizer would not be used. However, in most classes,
the number is not evenly divisible by three, so occasionally students are placed into groups of four. Rather than having a
second skeptic (which is one possible solution), we prefer to introduce a new role: the summarizer. Groups of four rotate
among these four roles, but groups of three only use manager, recorder, and skeptic.
real-world connections and address Discussions, our term for infor- ing a 12-sided die) to present the table’s
scientific methodology. mal lecture sessions, are typically answer, and the instructor builds on that
Ponderables are problems that limited to 15–20 minutes each, and answer in the discussion.
students discuss and solve, usu- are used to connect the activities, No single approach or activity is
ally on whiteboards. These can range rather than the other way around. We able to accomplish all of the goals of
from simple calculations to complex introduce concepts as they are needed, our class; we therefore assemble activi-
paradoxes. Computer modeling (we after students have read the relevant ties specific to our needs. For example,
use VPython [www.vpython.org]) sections in the book and usually after if we are introducing a topic, we often
and simulations are often included in they have attempted homework. choose tangibles to enhance real-world
more complicated problems to help Within our discussions, we often connections; if we want to encourage
students visualize abstract three-di- ask polling questions (Judson and a problem-solving method, we often
mensional concepts (Scherer, Dubois, Sawada 2002), which are multiple- choose ponderables.
and Sherwood 2000; Beichner 2006). choice questions that poll the entire We use laboratory experiments
Along with tangibles, ponderables are class, or table questions. Table questions in SCALE-UP, as well. However,
designed to ensure that students who are open-ended questions that are meant students do not attend separate class
understand the material can encour- for short deliberation at each table. A and laboratory sections. Instead,
age and aid those who do not. student at a random table is selected (us- SCALE-UP allows for the labora-
May/June 2008 21
the class developed, emphasizing
Figure 5 that an actual specimen like the
Calculations for the name-block activity, using measurements. name block is not needed. A follow-
a. up task is then assigned to each of
the A, B, and C groups. Each let-
ter group is told to find the mass
and distance between neighboring
atoms for a different metal. Again,
at the end, random students are
called on to present their results.
The class takes note of which values
are similar and which are different
across the various metals.
Immediately following the ac-
tivity, we have students hand their
notebooks to the student on their
right (which is easy to do when
seated at a round table) and record
in that notebook the main points
of the activity. This is a structured
form of reflection, allowing stu-
dents a few moments to synthesize
the activity and to contribute to
another student’s understanding.
Impact on students
Based on data that we have collected, we
have reason to believe that every student
can benefit from the SCALE-UP envi-
ronment. Below are some highlights of
a relevant study conducted by Beichner
and his colleagues (2007).
Failure rates of women and
minority students are dramatically
reduced to as little as a fifth of the rate
of traditional classes. Failure rates of
“at-risk” students in later classes are
also reduced by more than half.
b.
Across the board, conceptual
learning is improved as can be seen
from impressive gains on the Force
Concept Inventory (FCI) (Hestenes,
Wells, and Swackhamer 1992). At
our university (as well as other
institutions), the normalized gain
on the FCI was double that of a tra-
ditional lecture course. Moreover,
the best students showed the largest
gain on standardized conceptual
tests, showing that stronger students
have already learned most of what
can be gleaned from lecture, but
that they still have more to learn,
especially when they have the op-
portunity to teach others. Studies
like these, involving a wide array
community to all students regard- Judson, E., and A. Sawada. 2002. Learn-
Figure 6 less of class size. n ing from past and present: Electronic
The ball-and-spring model used in response systems in college lecture
the name-block activity. Acknowledgments halls. Journal of Computers in
We thank the National Science Mathematics and Science Teaching
Fo u n d a t i o n ( D U E - 9 7 5 2 3 1 3 , 21 (2): 167–81.
DUE-0127050, and DUE-9981107) Mazur, E. 1997. Peer instruction:
and the FIPSE program of the A user’s manual. Upper Saddle
U.S. Department of Education River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
(PB116B71905 and P116B000659) McDermott, L.C., and University of
for providing funding for the Washington Physics Education
SCALE-UP project. We also thank Group. 1995. Physics by inquiry.
Hewlett-Packard, Apple Computer, New York: John Wiley and Sons.
and PASCO Scientific, all of which Novak, G.M., E.T. Patterson, and
also provided support. A.D. Gavrin. 1999. Just-in-time
teaching: Blending active learn-
References ing with web technology. Upper
Beichner, R.J. 2006. Instructional Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
technology research and devel- Prince, M.J., and R.M. Felder. 2006.
opment in a U.S. physics educa- Inductive teaching and learning
of concept assessments and other tion group. European Journal of methods: Definitions, comparisons,
measures of learning, show that a Engineering Education 31 (4): and research bases. Journal of Engi-
SCALE-UP environment provides 383–93. neering Education 95 (2): 123–38.
students with the opportunity to Beichner, R.J., J.M. Saul, D.S. Ab- Rivard, L.P., and S.B. Straw. 2000.
learn more, not only in terms of bott, J.J. Morse, D.L. Deardorff, The effect of talk and writing on
their conceptual gains, but also R.J. Allain, S.W. Bonham, M.H. learning science: An exploratory
in their problem-solving abilities. Dancy, and J.S. Risley. 2007. The study. Science Education 84 (5):
As noted earlier, detailed research Student-Centered Activities for 566–93.
results are available elsewhere (Be- Large Enrollment Undergraduate Scherer, D., P. Dubois, and B. Sher-
ichner et al. 2007). Programs (SCALE-UP) project. wood. 2000. VPython: 3D inter-
In Research-based reform of in- active scientific graphics for stu-
Building a “restaurant” class- troductory physics, ed. E. Redish. dents. Computing in Science and
room of your own Available online by searching PER Engineering 2 (5): 56–62.
SCALE-UP is dynamic and con- Central at www.compadre.org/per. The University of Minnesota. The
tinues to improve. Dissemination Evensen, D.H., and C.E. Hmelo. Cooperative Learning Center at
is an ongoing project, and over 50 2000. Problem-based learning. the University of Minnesota. www.
locations have already adapted our Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. co-operation.org.
model to suit their objectives. While Heller, P., and M. Hollabaugh. 1992. Vygotsky, L.S. 1978. Mind in society.
there are challenges involved in Teaching problem solving through Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univer-
transforming a traditional lecture cooperative grouping. Part 2: De- sity Press.
class to a SCALE-UP environment, signing problems and structuring Wells, M., D. Hestenes, and G.
colleagues from our university and groups. American Journal of Phys- Swackhamer. 1995. A modeling
other locations have experience and ics 60 (7): 637–44. method for high school physics
are willing to help in the process. If Hestenes, D., M. Wells, and G. instruction. American Journal of
you are interested in learning more Swackhamer. 1992. Force Concept Physics 63 (7): 606–19.
or want guidance in starting your Inventory. The Physics Teacher 30
own “restaurant,” contact us or one (3): 141–58.
of the many adopters listed at http:// Johnson, D.W., R.T. Johnson, and Jon D.H. Gaffney (jdgaffne@ncsu.edu),
K.A. Smith. 1991. Cooperative Evan Richards, and Mary Bridget Kustusch
scaleup.ncsu.edu.
are graduate students at North Carolina
The vision to enhance student learning: Increasing college fac-
State University in Raleigh, NC. Lin Ding
understanding by allowing students ulty instructional productivity. is a postdoctoral fellow at The Ohio State
to learn collaboratively no longer ASHE-ERIC Higher Education University in Columbus, OH. Robert J. Be-
needs to be constrained by the limi- Report No. 4. Washington, DC: ichner (beichner@ncsu.edu) is a professor
tations of a large class. SCALE-UP George Washington University, at North Carolina State University in Raleigh,
provides a way to overcome that School of Education and Human NC. All correspondence should be directed to
barrier and deliver an interactive Development. Robert Beichner.
May/June 2008 23