Applications of effective teaching strategies

Applications of

effective teaching strategies

Caitlin McCluskey Dean of Academics

Hattie (2003) argues that teachers account for 30 per cent of the variance in student achievement.

This effect size is second only to the students themselves and is far greater than the home and school environment and peer influence. Hattie makes the distinction between the experienced and the expert teacher, noting that expert teachers are superior when monitoring the learning of their students, with this usually resulting in greater outcomes for said students (2003). Many of Hattie’s findings have been supported by multiple researchers and studies, including Floden and Meniketti (2005), Kennedy (2008), and Pashler et al. (2007a). Such findings have prompted researchers to investigate some of the ways that teachers in the classroom can implement more effective teaching and learning strategies to track student progress and develop student metacognition. As Agarwal and Roediger (2018) surmise, it is imperative to ‘get knowledge about effective learning strategies (ones shown to work in both lab experiments and classroom studies) into the hands of teachers’ (p. 9). SUNATA 43

SUNATA 44

Retrieval

While teachers tend to view tests as assessment tools rather than learning tools, many teachers already use retrieval frequently in lessons through use of questioning. This, however, does not necessarily engage all students in the act of retrieval (Pearsall 2018), and therefore, more structured, formative retrieval opportunities are recommended. The benefit frequent low-stakes testing has is well-researched, so use of ‘pop quizzes’ at the beginning or end of the lesson to recall key information and processes is an easy way to implement retrieval (Glegg 2015). Minear et al. (2018) have found that item difficulty is key to maximum benefits, recommending increasing item difficulty using testing that requires generation of answers rather than recognition of an answer, for example, short response rather than multiple choice. It has also been noted by Pyc et al. (2016) that the benefits of retrieval practice are more pronounced as the delay between encoding and a final test increases, so ensuring that spacing between testing opportunities increases throughout the retention period is important. Avvisati and Borgonovi (2020) found that solving problems in test conditions led to improvement in similar types of questions even without corrective feedback, indicating that students should be provided with opportunities to attempt Complex Unfamiliar questions in preparation for examinations. However, Avvisati and Borgonovi specify that such gains were only found in scenarios where students expended an appropriate amount of effort, indicating that this approach may not be as effective for all students.

Feedback

Research carried out by Barker et al. (2019) indicates that immediate feedback produces greater retention than delayed feedback, a finding supported by Fyfe and Rittle-Johnson (2016). Thereby, it stands to reason that utilising time in the classroom to provide informal feedback can be more beneficial to students than the delayed feedback given on formal assessment tasks. Shute’s (2008) study on formative feedback suggests that there are specific feedback strategies that enhance learning, such as ensuring feedback is simple and focused, task focused rather than learning focused, and clear and specific. Interestingly, the study’s findings also indicated that when feedback included comparison between students, included praise, or involved an overall grade, there were little to no gains in student outcomes (Shute 2008). Fyfe (2016) finds that computer-based feedback, such as Kahoot!, quizziz or similar online programs, provide immediate correct-answer feedback that most benefits students with limited prior knowledge but also provides as much benefit to more advanced students as ‘try-again’ or more detailed feedback. Pearsall (2018) also provides strategies for feedback that promote self-regulated learning, including peer-marking with a scaffold, and ranking sample pieces of work. These types of strategies provide more comprehensive feedback than content recall tools such as Kahoot! and are therefore more appropriate for challenging questions (Butler et al. 2013).

Spacing

Given that literature suggests spaced learning can lead to high levels of failure in retrieval and therefore negate some of the retrieval benefits, it is important to use spacing effectively and intentionally in the classroom (Pashler et al. 2007b). Lyle et al. (2020) also found that while spacing retrieval practice benefited long term content retention (which is the focus of this literature review), it resulted in decreased quiz performance which could potentially cause disengagement with lower achieving students. Most research focuses on the spacing of retrieval, rather than the spacing of curriculum (Lyle et al. 2020), which supports the findings of interleaving research that interleaving (and therefore spacing) is only effective once a sufficient knowledge base is formed. Therefore, spacing in the mathematics classroom is likely to occur through two forms: retrieval practice intertwined with interleaving, and the circular, hierarchical curriculum that requires students to continue to use and build on prior knowledge over an extended period of time. The hierarchical curriculum occurs naturally within the mathematics classroom in Queensland due to the nature of the National Curriculum. However, it would be beneficial to break the strands up across each year to allow for shorter spacing periods rather than chunk each strand and only return to the content once a year, as Wiseheart et al.’s (2008) research indicates that for a full year retention, optimum spacing is 23 days. Teachers have more control over the use of spacing when performing retrieval tasks such as starter questions or ‘pop quizzes’. For optimum effects, teachers should aim for five to seven retrievals between teaching a concept and it being assessed on an examination (Morano 2019).

Interleaving

Most mathematics textbooks will present content in a blocked fashion (Rohrer et al. 2020), as it is in the Teaching, Learning and Assessment Plans (TLAPs) that have been provided by the QCAA to assist with program implementation. Considering this, it is not surprising that many teachers either do not consider interleaving or find the thought of it confusing or overwhelming. Agarwal and Agostinelli, (2020) argue that interleaving does not need to be as complex and involved as potentially believed. Instead, rather than interleaving entire topics, concepts within a topic can be interleaved for a similar outcome. For example, when teaching trigonometry, the sine, cosine and tangent ratios can all be taught together, along with interleaving finding unknown angles and sides (Agarwal & Agostinelli 2020). This is supported in part by a study conducted by Rau et al. (2013), where the sample consisted of 158 mathematics students ages 9 – 12 and focused on interleaving with the operational and representational knowledge of fractions. The outcomes of the study found that, generally, interleaving task types leads to stronger knowledge in terms of representation, but not operational knowledge. This indicates that while interleaving within a topic can be beneficial, it can be more effective to ‘interleave learning tasks along the

dimension with the greatest variability’ (Rau et al. 2013, pp. 109-110). In this context, that would mean interleaving with fractional operations (compare, add, subtract, etc.) rather than changing the graphical representations with the same operations. Agarwal & Agostinelli (2020) also suggest students can be supported to interleave and space outside of the classroom by setting homework sets that cover a combination of work from current work as well as that covered previously, whether that be a week or a year ago. Mixing the different concepts together (that is, interleaving) when practising also harnesses the benefits of the interleaving effects, which, according to Carpenter (2014), will lead to better retention on a final test when compared to blocking. For many teachers, some of these strategies are already being employed in the classroom, such as ongoing questioning and verbal feedback and informal quizzes using programs such as Kahoot!. For those strategies that are not always employed, for example interleaving and spacing in the mathematics classroom, there are small, impactful ways to easily integrate these into pedagogy and lesson structure. The key takeaways for staff are that a common language and understanding of these strategies across teaching staff, and using the common language and naming the strategies, can be instrumental in getting students on board (Yan et al. 2016).

References

Agarwal, P & Agostinelli, A 2020, ‘Interleaving in Math: A ResearchBased Strategy to Boost Learning’, American Educator, vol. 44, no. 1, pp. 24-28. Avvisati, F & Borgonovi, F 2020, ‘Learning Mathematics Problem Solving through Test Practice: a Randomized Field Experiment on a Global Scale’, Educational Psychology Review, vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 791-814 Barker, L & Moore, J & Olmi, J & Rowsey, K 2019, ‘A Comparison of Immediate and Post-Session Feedback with Behavioral Skills Training to Improve Interview Skills in College Students’, Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, vol. 39, pp. 1-19. Butler, A & Godbole, N & Marsh, E 2013, ‘Explanation Feedback Is Better Than Correct Answer Feedback for Promoting Transfer of Learning’, Journal of Educational Psychology, vol. 105, no.2, pp. 290-298. Carpenter, SK 2014, ‘Spacing and Interleaving of Study and Practice’, in VA Benassi, CE Overson, & CM Hakala (eds), Applying science of learning in education: Infusing psychological science into the curriculum, Teachpsych.org, viewed 29 May 2022, http://teachpsych. org/ebooks/asle2014/index.php Floden, R & Meniketti, M 2005, ‘Research on the effects of coursework in the arts and sciences and in the foundations of education’, in M Cochran-Smith & K Zeichner (eds), Studying Teacher Education: The report of the AERA Panel on Research and Teacher Education, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc, NJ, USA. Francis, S & Nagel, M 2020, ‘Your high-performance guide to study and learning’, Hawker Brownlow Education, University of Sunshine Coast, Queensland. Fyfe, E 2016, ‘Providing feedback on computer-based algebra homework in middle-school classrooms’, Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 63, pp. 568-574. Fyfe, E & Rittle-Johnson, B 2016, ‘The benefits of computer-generated feedback for mathematics problem solving’, Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, vol. 147, pp. 140-151. Glegg, P 2015, ‘Testing as a Tool for Learning: Ideas for Classroom Application’, Teaching Business & Economics, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 14-16. Hattie, J 2003, ‘Teachers make a difference: What is the research evidence?’, viewed 29 May 2022, http://research.acer.edu.au/research_ conference_2003/4/ Kennedy, M 2008, ‘Contributions of Qualitative Research to Research on Teacher Qualifications’, Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, vol. 30, pp. 344-367. Lyle, K & Bego, C & Hopkins, R & Hieb, J & Ralston, P 2020, ‘How the Amount and Spacing of Retrieval Practice Affect the Short- and LongTerm Retention of Mathematics Knowledge’, Educational Psychology Review, vol. 32, pp. 277-295. Minear, M & Coane, J & Boland, S & Cooney, L & Albat, M 2018, ‘The benefits of retrieval practice depend on item difficulty and intelligence’, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, vol. 44, no. 9, pp. 1474-1486. Morano, S 2019, ‘Retrieval Practice for Retention and Transfer’, Teaching Exceptional Children, vol. 51, no. 6, pp. 436-444 Pashler, H & Bain, P & Bottge, B & Graesser, A & Koedinger, K & McDaniel, M & Metcalfe, J 2007a, Organizing instruction and study to improve student learning (NCER 2007 – 2004), National Centre for Education Research, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, Washington DC. Pashler, H & Rohrer, D & Wiseheart, M & Carpenter, S 2007b, ‘Enhancing learning and retarding forgetting: Choices and consequences’, Psychonomic bulletin & review, vol. 14, no.2, pp. 187-93. Pearsall, G 2018, Fast and Effective Assessment: How to reduce your workload and improve student learning, Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development, VA, USA. Pyc, M A & Agarwal, P K & Roediger, H L 2014, ‘Test-enhanced Learning’, in VA Benassi, CE Overson, & CM Hakala (eds), Applying science of learning in education: Infusing psychological science into the curriculum. Teachpsych.org, viewed 29 May 2022, http://teachpsych. org/ebooks/asle2014/index.php Rau, M & Aleven, V & Rummel, N 2013, ‘Interleaved practice in multidimensional learning tasks: Which dimension should we interleave?’, Learning and Instruction, vol. 23, pp. 98-114. Rohrer, D & Dedrick, R & Hartwig, M 2020, ‘The Scarcity of Interleaved Practice in Mathematics Textbooks’, Educational Psychology Review, vol. 32, no.3, pp. 873-883. Shute, V 2008, ‘Focus on Formative Feedback’, Review of Educational Research, vol. 78, no. 1. pp. 153-189. Wiseheart, M & Vul, E & Rohrer, D & Wixted, J & Pashler, H 2008, ‘Spacing Effects in Learning A Temporal Ridgeline of Optimal Retention’, Psychological Science, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 95-102. Yan, V & Bjork, E & Bjork, R 2016, ‘On the difficulty of mending metacognitive illusions: A priori theories, fluency effects, and misattributions of the interleaving benefit’, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, vol. 145, no. 7, pp. 918-933.

SUNATA 45