last updated: Jun 09 2007
Web Site Questions and Comments
The University of Texas at Austin
Executive Vice President and Provost

Course Design: Ideas for Graduate Student Instructors

Value Line

A Value Line ascertains students' opinions in a quick and visual way by asking them to line up according to how strongly they agree or disagree with a statement or proposition. In a philosophy class, for example, instructors may ask students to respond to the following statements:

• The killing of innocents is never justified.
• The United States made the correct decision in dropping the bomb on Nagasaki.
• The United States should not have intervened in Grenada.
• The bombing of Dresden was an act of terrorism.

Clear instructions reinforced by visual aids are particularly important for implementation of a Value Line because many students are unaccustomed to active learning that involves active movement. To initiate the structure, you should show the students a five point Likert scale on an overhead. Then ask students, after a moment of "think time," to choose the number that best describes their position on the issue. To avoid indecisiveness, it is a good idea to have the students jot down their number before the next step. Instructors next ask students who have chosen "one" to stand at a designated point along the wall of the room. The students who have chosen "two" follow them, and so forth until all students are lined up. It is important to stretch the line sufficiently so that students are not bunched together in large clumps.

After the students have formed a continuous line based on their own opinions, instructors must identify the midpoint. The easiest way to do this is to ask students to ignore the original number they selected as the basis for their location in the line and instead to number themselves sequentially in a military count-off. Find the median student by dividing the last number by two.

The next steps are critically important. You form the first group of four students by taking one from each extreme of the line and two from its midpoint. To insure the rapid and accurate identification of these four students, it is helpful to use an overhead transparency allowing the instructor to draw lines through the numbers associated with students who have been assigned to teams. A simple numerical grid works well. In a class of 40, for example, you would call the numbers 1, 40, 15, and 14, striking over them on the grid. For the next team, you would call 2, 39, 13, and 16, again striking over the numbers on the grid. Additionally, if the group is large, instructors can ask a student from the first group formed to record on the blackboard or a flip chart the four numbers as they are called out for each team. Instructors continue to form teams with this procedure until all students have been assigned to a team and have found their designated seats. Any students left over join a team as a fifth member.

A Value Line lends itself well to paired discussion, also. To form pairs or dyads where students can exchange viewpoints on various topics, have the students line up as before based on their stand on a controversial issue. This time, instead of pulling four students from the ends and mid-points to form a quad, break the line at the midpoint and literally double it back around so that the two students at each end are paired, and so on (e.g., 1 and 40 pair; 2 and 39 pair; 3 and 38 pair, etc.). Pairing students of opposing viewpoints allows them to stretch their perspectives and to learn to examine at least two sides of an issue.

Jigsaw

Students in many disciplines often confront complex, challenging problems involving multiple pieces of information necessary for a final, overall solution. Such problems are ideally suited for the cooperative learning structure, Jigsaw. In this structure, each member of a team assumes responsibility for a specific part of a problem. They are responsible not just for mastering or knowing their part; they must also be able to teach the material to their fellow teammates. Thus, working together, the group merges the various portions to solve the "puzzle."

In Jigsaw, students temporarily leave learning teams to form expert learning teams, which may be organized, for example, on the suits of the playing cards. The student holding the heart from each of the groups meets with all the other hearts in the classroom. Those holding spades, diamonds, and clubs form similar expert teams. A class of twenty can be quickly transformed from five structured learning teams into four expert learning teams with five members, one from each of the original groups. If classes are larger, then students can form two or more expert teams on the same piece of the puzzle. If the original structured team consists of five members rather than four, then two students pair and work as a unit in their expert team and when they return to their original team.

In expert learning teams, the students master or solve their part of the problem. They also discuss and develop strategies to teach the solution--and the process of deriving it--to the other members of their structured learning teams once they have rejoined them. Students must recognize that for Jigsaw to succeed, no one should leave his or her expert team without the ability to explain clearly--to teach--the problem solving process and procedures just developed.

Jigsaw takes careful monitoring. Instructors will be moving among the various expert teams, monitoring their progress and checking to see that all students are involved. Since these expert teams do not have the defined roles identified in the structured learning teams, students do not function as efficiently in these new, temporary teams. Instructors must ensure that students remain focused on both the learning objectives and on the subsequent teaching task. Clearly, too, they must be certain that students are producing valid responses.

Once satisfied that the students are ready, usually after the prescribed time has elapsed, the students return to their structured learning teams. The instructor urges the team monitor to confirm that each student in the group understands their piece of the puzzle and is prepared to teach their teammates. Then the students, rotating in turn, teach their respective parts of the overall problem solving task. After sufficient time has elapsed, the instructor may conclude the class with a brief summary of both the problem solving concepts and the purpose of Jigsaw itself.

Instructors must work hard to structure the team activities, the physical logistics, and the time frame of a Jigsaw. This is not a structure to be attempted by relative newcomers to cooperative learning, particularly if large classes are involved. Students, too, must be coached to understand both the mechanics and the value of Jigsaw. Instructors must guard, for example, against student tendencies to get off task. Instructors must clearly communicate to students that more is at stake than finding "the right answer." The ability to teach fellow teammates--and hence master and retain important materials and develop analytical skills--lies at the crux of Jigsaw. Students should be encouraged to think creatively about their teaching approach by rehearsing their presentation and by designing visual aids or study sheets. Thus, a properly executed Jigsaw provides benefits that far outweigh its costs in terms of time and effort.

Like most complex structures, Jigsaw reinforces the most basic tenets of cooperative learning. Positive interdependence is fostered by the fact that students must work together and teach one another in order to get the "big picture," all of the information and skills they will need as problem solvers in their discipline. At the same time, individual accountability is reinforced by the fact that students must learn all the information, not just their own portion, because they are tested individually. The fact that students interact within two different groups reinforces the idea of heterogeneity as a way to bring multiple perspectives to a given problem. The positive interactions that result from these brief, but intense encounters in the expert groups help to develop the skills students will need in the "real world." The fact that expert teams have the responsibility of making certain that all members can successfully teach the materials/conclusions also reinforces the important concept of group processing and accountability.

Within-Team Jigsaw

In Within-Team Jigsaw, expert learning teams consist of a pair formed within a quad. If instructors are using playing cards to identify team roles, the suits can be used for pairing, black suits forming one pair and red suits the other. These suit partners function as smaller expert learning teams, similar to their larger counterparts formed in Jigsaw. Any fifth member (sometimes identified with a wild card or joker) joins a pair to form a triad.

As in Jigsaw, the two pairs master their part of the material and plan to teach it to the other pair. At the conclusion of the specified work time, the students regroup in their original teams. There they teach one another their portion of the problem. They can be asked to compare and contrast the results and to discuss their implications.

Within-Team Jigsaw is easier to implement than Jigsaw. Its disadvantage lies in the fact that the "puzzle" can have only two pieces. In Jigsaw the number of pieces is limited only by the imagination of the instructor and the number of students in the class. Within-Team Jigsaw, however, can be a creative, efficient way to ensure content mastery and peer learning.

Responsive Written Exchanges

In this activity, advocated by Toby Fulwiler, a Writing Across the Curriculum scholar, students reflect in writing on issues identified through sentence stems or prompts. It involves letter exchanges between students.

You prepare an activity sheet with the prompts (sentence stems) for reflection. These can be presented as individual handouts for out-of-class assignments or projected on an overhead for in-class writing. Because these exchanges can be composed fairly rapidly, they are often effective as an active learning/reflective in-class activity lasting about thirty minutes. All assignment sheets begin with a salutation (Dear X) and end with a P. S.: "One personal thing about me you may not know is:”

Typical prompts might be: "I think the strongest candidate in the first Presidential debate was . . . because: . . . “His strongest point was: . . .”; “The ‘Just War’ tradition has relevance today because: . . .”

Paired students, working simultaneously in class or outside of class, write a personal letter to their partner based on the sentence stems. They exchange letters, read them, and write a response focused primarily on the issues, but they may also address in their own P. S. a response to the personal comment made by their partner. The partners again exchange letters so that they can read each other’s responses (No one likes to write a letter without getting a reply!). The letters can be kept by the students without teacher review, but more often they are taken up, read informally, and returned where they can become part of an on-going class journal.

Double Entry Journals

To help students understand and retain important information, have student s prepare a Double Entry Journal (DEJ) for important articles, chapters, or even lectures. Using a T-diagram, which can be sent to them electronically, students outline in the left-hand column the key points. Opposite each point, they include a response of some sort. Comments can be informal or formal. Students, for example, can talk about experiences or people from their own lives (their eccentric Uncle Joe) or relate the points to intellectual materials (books, lectures, etc.). The comments can be of any length, some as brief as “I agree!”

To heighten the critical thinking impact, have students pair in class and read and discuss each others’ entries, comparing their choice of key points and the responses. The peer discussions add authenticity to the assignment because students recognize that their audience extends beyond the teacher. They also allow students to see other perspectives. If students come unprepared, they can spend the time working alone on their DEJ rather than pairing. Rather than grade each DEJ, many teachers prefer to use a pass-fail approach with points awarded for a good-faith effort. Those coming unprepared receive little or no credit for the assignment. Sharing exemplary DEJs with a class later, provides useful feedback.

Sample Double Entry Journal (Two Points Cited, Only)

Name: Barbara J. Millis
Article: “Investing in Creativity: Many Happy Returns” by Robert J. Sternberg

Paired Annotations

This activity motivates students to read important chapters or articles prior to a class session. Besides this useful “front-loading” of course material, another key objective is to build critical thinking and writing skills by having students contrast and then compare their responses to the same piece of writing.

You identify a pool of articles on a specific topic under consideration or the students themselves can identify key resources. Students, working individually, prepare a reflective commentary on one of the articles or chapters using the Double Entry Journal format. They do so using a double-column format, where they cite key points excerpted from the original source on the left-hand side and reactions, questions, commentary, and connections with other readings on the right (the columns will not be the same length).

When students come to class, you randomly pair them with another student who has read and analyzed the same article or chapter. The two partners now read one anther’s reflective commentaries, comparing both the key points they have identified and their specific responses to them. They discuss their reasons for these choices. Then, working together, they prepare a composite annotation summarizing the article. If time permits, several students can present to the class their joint annotations. This step offers more peer reinforcement and enhances the speaking/presentation skills students will need.

This activity should be repeated several times during the semester, pairing different students. It enables students to reflect on their own thinking skills (metacognition) and to compare their thinking with that of other students. The more paired annotations they complete, the more skilled students become at identifying key points in an article. They are also more likely to remember the material because they had an opportunity not only to give a personal response, but also to discuss their response with another individual.

Although the bulk of the writing is done outside of class, students will need class time to compare and discuss their responses if the activity is to have critical thinking value. The student pairs turn in their double-columned analyses along with their jointly prepared annotation. You need not assign a letter grade to each piece of writing. Assuming that the work is of sufficient quality, students can receive “x” number of points for the analysis and for the paired annotation, points applied toward a criterion-referenced final grade. If students come to class unprepared, they must complete their analysis individually while their classmates work together, and they receive no credit, of course, for a paired annotation. Fortunately, this activity motivates students to arrive prepared if only because of peer pressure. Informal, hand-written comments on the pieces will reinforce student thinking and provide feedback leading to more sophisticated writing in the future. It is useful to share exemplary models with the class as a whole. If time is a problem, then the final step of preparing a joint annotation can be omitted, leaving students time, however, to discuss their reactions, a valuable learning tool. The final presentation step can always be deleted.

Send/Pass a Problem

This structure is particularly effective for problem solving. Its exact source is unknown. The Howard County Maryland Staff Development Center developed a version of it inspired by Kagan's (1989) work. The starting point is a list of problems or issues, which can be can be generated by students through an activity such as a Roundtable or can be teacher-selected. Each team identifies the particular problem or issue upon which they wish to focus initially and records their choice on the front of a folder or envelope. Each team selects a different problem. The teams then brainstorm effective solutions for these problems and write them down on a piece of paper. At a predetermined time, the ideas are placed in the folder or envelope and forwarded to another team. The members of the second team, without looking at the ideas already generated, compile their own list. This second set of ideas is forwarded to a third team which now looks at the suggestions provided from the other teams, adds its own, and then decides on the two most effective solutions. Besides encouraging collaborative higher order thinking skills, this structure results in student evaluative judgments, the highest cognitive level in Bloom's well-known taxonomy. Reports to the whole group occur as time permits and can take many forms, including written reports when the material is relatively complex. Some faculty members use this structure for examination review sessions by putting typical exam questions in folders for group problem solving.

Dyadic Essay Confrontation (DEC)

Developed by Sherman (1991) , this structure enables faculty members to "front-load" learning by making certain that students work independently outside of class to master assigned material. Students then extend and validate their individual study through an in-class writing/thinking cooperative learning exercise.

Students read assigned material, such as a textbook chapter, and prepare an essay question. They come to class with their essay question on one sheet of paper, along with a second sheet of paper, which includes the question and their carefully thought-out response. Randomly-paired students exchange questions, spending about 20 minutes writing an answer—either closed or open book depending on the complexity of the material—to their partner's essay question. The two then read, compare, and discuss the four answers, looking in particular for the differences between the in-depth responses prepared before class and the spontaneously generated in-class responses. This structure promotes critical thinking by requiring students to confront differing ideas, offers writing-to-learn opportunities, and provides solid and immediate feedback to students about their intellectual responses to discipline-specific material.

Guided Reciprocal Peer Questioning

King (1990; 1991; 1995) developed a series of questions stems based on Bloom's well-known taxonomy.

Questions involving analysis, for example, include What is the nature of ___? Why is ___happening? What are the implications of ___? How does ___effect ___? Students read an article, chapter, or literary work and prepare questions based on these stems. To make the questions authentic, they do not have to be able to provide an answer. In groups, students alternate posing their questions with sufficient time allotted for a meaningful discussion of each one.

REFERENCES

Kagan, S. (1989). Cooperative learning. San Juan Capistrano, CA: Resources for Teachers.

Sherman, L.W. (1991, April). Cooperative learning in post-secondary education: Implications from social psychology for active learning experiences. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Annual Conference, Chicago, IL.

King, A. (1990). Enhancing peer interaction and learning in the classroom through reciprocal questioning. American Educational Research Journal, 27(4), 664-687.

King A. (1992). Promoting active learning and collaborative learning in business administration classes. In T.J. Frecka (Ed.), Critical thinking, interactive learning and technology: Researching for excellence in business education (pp. 158-173). Arthur Andersen Foundation.

King, A. (1995, Winter). Guided peer questioning: A cooperative learning approach to critical thinking. Cooperative learning and college teaching, 5(2), pp. 15-19.