Megan Barker, Lisa McDonnell, Laura Weir, Natalie...
1
Is more activity always better? A department-wide study of relationships between classroom practices and student performance in biology Megan Barker, Lisa McDonnell, Laura Weir, Natalie Schimpf, Garrett Huwyler, Tammy Rodela, Erica Jeffery, Patricia Schulte LS CWSEI Research Questions & Data Collected Departmental Characterization Classroom Practices & Student Learning Student Performance and Classroom Types Data collected Conclusions & Next Steps Student Learning Measured via diagnostic test scores Use of class time Measured via COPUS profiles ? • What variety of teaching practices are currently used in our program? • What are the relationships between specific classroom practices and student learning? Characterizing Classrooms using COPUS 1,2 : During a classroom visit, student and instructor activity codes are checked off in 2-min intervals. Each classroom can then be characterized: Lec RtW S-AnQ SQ CQ FUp MG GW 94% 2% 8% 8% 3% 4% 0% 2% 93% 88% 15% 16% 1% 3% 0% 2% 87% 48% 20% 9% 5% 7% 1% 6% 97% 87% 52% 24% 0% 1% 1% 1% 82% 6% 38% 21% 1% 9% 2% 8% 75% 3% 7% 4% 18% 18% 5% 23% 68% 70% 18% 8% 18% 24% 4% 22% 55% 13% 17% 4% 41% 50% 3% 24% 50% 3% 31% 6% 42% 54% 16% 50% 26% 43% 28% 9% 0% 39% 25% 51% Example data, representative of each cluster; figure modified from Lund 3 Profile of classroom types 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Percent of Biology classrooms observed Lecture Socratic Limited Peer Instruction Teacher-Centred Peer Instruction Student-Centred Peer Instruction • Profiles were created from analysis of COPUS observations. • Active learning teaching practices are very prevalent in the courses observed. Overall Student & Instructor Practices 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Individual Classes As a percentage of activities, students are... Receiving Talking to class Working Other 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Individual Classes As a percentage of activities, instructors are... Presenting Guiding whole group Guiding small groups Admin/other In our classes, the most common student-centred activities are: • Worksheets • Clicker questions • Individual problem-solving • Asking/ answering questions (talking to class) Lecture Socratic Limited Peer Instruction Teacher- Centred Peer Instruction Student- Centred Peer Instruction 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Student Performance (% Normalized Change) Student Performance Positively Correlated with Group Work and Clickers Thank you to… • the many Biology Instructors and students for participating in this research. • Leah MacFadyen & the LAVA group for helpful discussion on COPUS analysis. References 1 Smith M et al, CBE - Life Sciences Education (2013) 12(4):618-627. 2 Smith M et al, CBE - Life Sciences Education (2014) 13(4):624–635 3 Lund TJ et al, CBE - Life Sciences Education (2015) 14(2) in press. 4 Freeman S et al, PNAS (2014), 111(23):8410-5. R² = 0.60571 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 0 20 40 60 80 Student Performance % of class time containing this activity (2-minute blocks) Students doing group work 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 0 20 40 60 80 100 Student Performance % of class time containing this activity (2-minute blocks) Instructor Lecturing R² = 0.64137 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 0 10 20 30 40 Student Performance % of class time containing this activity (2-minute blocks) Clicker Questions • Student Performance here is defined as the Percent Normalized Change on the diagnostic test: (postscore-prescore) / (1-prescore) if post > pre. • As expected 4 , classes with higher levels student-centered peer instruction result in higher performance • There may be a ‘sweet spot’ for the amount of lecturing – need to analyze the rest of the data to see. Goal: identify these relationships to inform teaching practice Preliminary Conclusions and Next Steps • We can now quantitatively link program-wide class observational data with student outcomes. • Still to analyze: term 2 data What to make of the inconclusive data? e.g…. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Student Performance % of class time containing this activity (2-minute blocks) Instructor Feedback to Class Research: How would you approach your analysis? What would you look for? What questions would you ask? Teaching: How might these results impact your own teaching practices? Questions for you, with this rich dataset: Course Level # of Course sections # of Students Term 1 Term 2 Total Term 1 Term 2 Total 100 7 6 13 966 880 1846 200 7 5 12 1052 865 1917 300 2 3 5 197 260 457 400 2 3 5 51 85 136 Totals: 18 17 35 2266 2090 4356 • Each course was observed for a ‘typical week’ (~3 hours) • 16 diagnostic tests consisting of a total of 242 questions, compiled largely from validated questions in the literature. COPUS codes: For a given class, percent of 2-minute intervals checked with each code Lecture (with slides) Lecture (at the board) Transitional Lecture Socratic (at the board) Socratic (with slides) Limited PI PI (at the board) Teacher-Centered PI Student-Centered PI Group work Profile of that class Lecture Socratic Peer Instruction Group Lec GW CQ FUp
Transcript of Megan Barker, Lisa McDonnell, Laura Weir, Natalie...
Is more activity always better? A department-wide study of relationships between classroom
practices and student performance in biology
Megan Barker, Lisa McDonnell, Laura Weir, Natalie Schimpf, Garrett Huwyler, Tammy Rodela, Erica Jeffery, Patricia Schulte
LS CWSEI
Research Questions & Data Collected
De
pa
rtm
en
tal
Ch
ara
cte
riza
tion
C
lass
roo
m P
rac
tice
s &
Stu
de
nt
Lea
rnin
g Student Performance and Classroom Types
Data collected
Co
nc
lusio
ns
&
Ne
xt S
tep
s
Stud
ent
Le
arn
ing
M
ea
sure
d v
ia
dia
gn
ost
ic t
est
sc
ore
s
Use of class time Measured via COPUS profiles
?
• What variety of teaching practices are currently used in our program?
• What are the relationships between specific classroom practices and student learning?
Characterizing Classrooms using COPUS1,2:
During a classroom visit, student and instructor activity codes are checked off in 2-min intervals. Each classroom can then be characterized:
COPUS Profiles N RTOP Lec RtW S-AnQ SQ CQ FUp MG GW
Lect
ure
Lecture (with slides) 44 29 94% 2% 8% 8% 3% 4% 0% 2%
Lecture (at the board) 52 28 93% 88% 15% 16% 1% 3% 0% 2%
Transitional Lecture 44 33 87% 48% 20% 9% 5% 7% 1% 6%
Socr
atic
Socratic (at the board) 18 34 97% 87% 52% 24% 0% 1% 1% 1%
Socratic (with slides) 25 43 82% 6% 38% 21% 1% 9% 2% 8%
Peer
Inst
ruct
ion
Limited PI 24 39 75% 3% 7% 4% 18% 18% 5% 23%
PI (at the board) 24 42 68% 70% 18% 8% 18% 24% 4% 22%
Teacher-Centered PI 12 46 55% 13% 17% 4% 41% 50% 3% 24%
Gro
up
Student-Centered PI 16 52 50% 3% 31% 6% 42% 54% 16% 50%
Group work 10 50 26% 43% 28% 9% 0% 39% 25% 51%
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%Ave. percent of 2-min intervalsExample data, representative of each cluster; figure modified from Lund3
Profile of classroom types
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Perc
ent
of B
iolo
gy
cla
ssro
om
s o
bse
rve
d
Lecture
Socratic
Limited Peer Instruction
Teacher-Centred Peer Instruction
Student-Centred Peer Instruction
COPUS Profiles N RTOP Lec RtW S-AnQ SQ CQ FUp MG GW
Lect
ure
Lecture (with slides) 44 29 94% 2% 8% 8% 3% 4% 0% 2%
Lecture (at the board) 52 28 93% 88% 15% 16% 1% 3% 0% 2%
Transitional Lecture 44 33 87% 48% 20% 9% 5% 7% 1% 6%
Soc
ratic
Socratic (at the board) 18 34 97% 87% 52% 24% 0% 1% 1% 1%
Socratic (with slides) 25 43 82% 6% 38% 21% 1% 9% 2% 8%
Pee
r In
stru
ctio
n
Limited PI 24 39 75% 3% 7% 4% 18% 18% 5% 23%
PI (at the board) 24 42 68% 70% 18% 8% 18% 24% 4% 22%
Teacher-Centered PI 12 46 55% 13% 17% 4% 41% 50% 3% 24%
Gro
up
Student-Centered PI 16 52 50% 3% 31% 6% 42% 54% 16% 50%
Group work 10 50 26% 43% 28% 9% 0% 39% 25% 51%
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%Ave. percent of 2-min intervals
COPUS Profiles N RTOP Lec RtW S-AnQ SQ CQ FUp MG GW
Lect
ure
Lecture (with slides) 44 29 94% 2% 8% 8% 3% 4% 0% 2%
Lecture (at the board) 52 28 93% 88% 15% 16% 1% 3% 0% 2%
Transitional Lecture 44 33 87% 48% 20% 9% 5% 7% 1% 6%
Soc
ratic
Socratic (at the board) 18 34 97% 87% 52% 24% 0% 1% 1% 1%
Socratic (with slides) 25 43 82% 6% 38% 21% 1% 9% 2% 8%
Pee
r In
stru
ctio
n
Limited PI 24 39 75% 3% 7% 4% 18% 18% 5% 23%
PI (at the board) 24 42 68% 70% 18% 8% 18% 24% 4% 22%
Teacher-Centered PI 12 46 55% 13% 17% 4% 41% 50% 3% 24%
Gro
up
Student-Centered PI 16 52 50% 3% 31% 6% 42% 54% 16% 50%
Group work 10 50 26% 43% 28% 9% 0% 39% 25% 51%
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%Ave. percent of 2-min intervals
• Profiles were created from analysis of COPUS observations.
• Active learning teaching practices are very prevalent in the courses observed.
Overall Student & Instructor Practices
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Ind
ivid
ual C
lass
es
As a percentage of activities, students are...
Receiving Talking to class Working Other
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Ind
ivid
ual C
lass
es
As a percentage of activities, instructors are... Presenting Guiding whole group Guiding small groups Admin/other
In our classes, the most common student-centred activities are: • Worksheets • Clicker
questions • Individual
problem-solving • Asking/
answering questions (talking to class)
COPUS Profiles N RTOP Lec RtW S-AnQ SQ CQ FUp MG GW
Lect
ure
Lecture (with slides) 44 29 94% 2% 8% 8% 3% 4% 0% 2%
Lecture (at the board) 52 28 93% 88% 15% 16% 1% 3% 0% 2%
Transitional Lecture 44 33 87% 48% 20% 9% 5% 7% 1% 6%
Socr
atic
Socratic (at the board) 18 34 97% 87% 52% 24% 0% 1% 1% 1%
Socratic (with slides) 25 43 82% 6% 38% 21% 1% 9% 2% 8%
Peer
Inst
ruct
ion
Limited PI 24 39 75% 3% 7% 4% 18% 18% 5% 23%
PI (at the board) 24 42 68% 70% 18% 8% 18% 24% 4% 22%
Teacher-Centered PI 12 46 55% 13% 17% 4% 41% 50% 3% 24%
Gro
up
Student-Centered PI 16 52 50% 3% 31% 6% 42% 54% 16% 50%
Group work 10 50 26% 43% 28% 9% 0% 39% 25% 51%
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%Ave. percent of 2-min intervals
COPUS Profiles N RTOP Lec RtW S-AnQ SQ CQ FUp MG GW
Lect
ure
Lecture (with slides) 44 29 94% 2% 8% 8% 3% 4% 0% 2%
Lecture (at the board) 52 28 93% 88% 15% 16% 1% 3% 0% 2%
Transitional Lecture 44 33 87% 48% 20% 9% 5% 7% 1% 6%
Socr
atic
Socratic (at the board) 18 34 97% 87% 52% 24% 0% 1% 1% 1%
Socratic (with slides) 25 43 82% 6% 38% 21% 1% 9% 2% 8%
Peer
Inst
ruct
ion
Limited PI 24 39 75% 3% 7% 4% 18% 18% 5% 23%
PI (at the board) 24 42 68% 70% 18% 8% 18% 24% 4% 22%
Teacher-Centered PI 12 46 55% 13% 17% 4% 41% 50% 3% 24%
Gro
up
Student-Centered PI 16 52 50% 3% 31% 6% 42% 54% 16% 50%
Group work 10 50 26% 43% 28% 9% 0% 39% 25% 51%
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%Ave. percent of 2-min intervals
COPUS Profiles N RTOP Lec RtW S-AnQ SQ CQ FUp MG GW
Lect
ure
Lecture (with slides) 44 29 94% 2% 8% 8% 3% 4% 0% 2%
Lecture (at the board) 52 28 93% 88% 15% 16% 1% 3% 0% 2%
Transitional Lecture 44 33 87% 48% 20% 9% 5% 7% 1% 6%
Socr
atic
Socratic (at the board) 18 34 97% 87% 52% 24% 0% 1% 1% 1%
Socratic (with slides) 25 43 82% 6% 38% 21% 1% 9% 2% 8%
Peer
Inst
ruct
ion
Limited PI 24 39 75% 3% 7% 4% 18% 18% 5% 23%
PI (at the board) 24 42 68% 70% 18% 8% 18% 24% 4% 22%
Teacher-Centered PI 12 46 55% 13% 17% 4% 41% 50% 3% 24%
Gro
up
Student-Centered PI 16 52 50% 3% 31% 6% 42% 54% 16% 50%
Group work 10 50 26% 43% 28% 9% 0% 39% 25% 51%
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%Ave. percent of 2-min intervals
COPUS Profiles N RTOP Lec RtW S-AnQ SQ CQ FUp MG GW
Lect
ure
Lecture (with slides) 44 29 94% 2% 8% 8% 3% 4% 0% 2%
Lecture (at the board) 52 28 93% 88% 15% 16% 1% 3% 0% 2%
Transitional Lecture 44 33 87% 48% 20% 9% 5% 7% 1% 6%So
crat
ic Socratic (at the board) 18 34 97% 87% 52% 24% 0% 1% 1% 1%
Socratic (with slides) 25 43 82% 6% 38% 21% 1% 9% 2% 8%
Peer
Inst
ruct
ion
Limited PI 24 39 75% 3% 7% 4% 18% 18% 5% 23%
PI (at the board) 24 42 68% 70% 18% 8% 18% 24% 4% 22%
Teacher-Centered PI 12 46 55% 13% 17% 4% 41% 50% 3% 24%
Gro
up
Student-Centered PI 16 52 50% 3% 31% 6% 42% 54% 16% 50%
Group work 10 50 26% 43% 28% 9% 0% 39% 25% 51%
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%Ave. percent of 2-min intervals
Lecture
Socratic
Limited Peer Instruction
Teacher-Centred Peer
Instruction
Student-Centred Peer
Instruction
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Student Performance (% Normalized Change)
Student Performance Positively Correlated with Group Work and Clickers
Thank you to… • the many Biology Instructors and students for participating in this research. • Leah MacFadyen & the LAVA group for helpful discussion on COPUS analysis.
References 1 Smith M et al, CBE - Life Sciences Education (2013) 12(4):618-627. 2 Smith M et al, CBE - Life Sciences Education (2014) 13(4):624–635 3 Lund TJ et al, CBE - Life Sciences Education (2015) 14(2) in press. 4 Freeman S et al, PNAS (2014), 111(23):8410-5.
R² = 0.60571 0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
0 20 40 60 80
Stud
ent
Pe
rform
anc
e
% of class time containing this activity (2-minute blocks)
Students doing group work
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
0 20 40 60 80 100
Stud
ent
Pe
rform
anc
e
% of class time containing this activity (2-minute blocks)
Instructor Lecturing
R² = 0.64137
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
0 10 20 30 40
Stud
ent
Pe
rform
anc
e
% of class time containing this activity (2-minute blocks)
Clicker Questions
• Student Performance here is defined as the Percent Normalized Change on the diagnostic test: (postscore-prescore) / (1-prescore) if post > pre.
• As expected4, classes with higher levels student-centered peer instruction result in higher performance • There may be a ‘sweet spot’ for the amount of lecturing – need to analyze the rest of the data to see.
Goal: identify these
relationships to inform teaching practice
Preliminary Conclusions and Next Steps • We can now quantitatively link program-wide class observational data with student outcomes. • Still to analyze: term 2 data
What to make of the inconclusive data? e.g….
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Stud
ent
Pe
rform
anc
e
% of class time containing this activity (2-minute blocks)
Instructor Feedback to Class
Research: How would you
approach your analysis? What would you look for? What questions
would you ask?
Teaching: How might these results
impact your own teaching practices?
Questions for you, with this rich dataset:
Course Level # of Course sections # of Students
Term 1 Term 2 Total Term 1 Term 2 Total 100 7 6 13 966 880 1846
200 7 5 12 1052 865 1917
300 2 3 5 197 260 457
400 2 3 5 51 85 136
Totals: 18 17 35 2266 2090 4356
• Each course was observed for a ‘typical week’ (~3 hours) • 16 diagnostic tests consisting of a total of 242 questions,
compiled largely from validated questions in the literature.
COPUS codes:
For a
giv
en
cla
ss, p
erc
en
t o
f 2-m
inu
te in
terv
als
ch
ec
ked
with
ea
ch
co
de
COPUS Profiles N RTOP Lec RtW S-AnQ SQ CQ FUp MG GW
Lect
ure
Lecture (with slides) 44 29 94% 2% 8% 8% 3% 4% 0% 2%
Lecture (at the board) 52 28 93% 88% 15% 16% 1% 3% 0% 2%
Transitional Lecture 44 33 87% 48% 20% 9% 5% 7% 1% 6%
Socr
atic
Socratic (at the board) 18 34 97% 87% 52% 24% 0% 1% 1% 1%
Socratic (with slides) 25 43 82% 6% 38% 21% 1% 9% 2% 8%
Peer
Inst
ruct
ion
Limited PI 24 39 75% 3% 7% 4% 18% 18% 5% 23%
PI (at the board) 24 42 68% 70% 18% 8% 18% 24% 4% 22%
Teacher-Centered PI 12 46 55% 13% 17% 4% 41% 50% 3% 24%
Gro
up
Student-Centered PI 16 52 50% 3% 31% 6% 42% 54% 16% 50%
Group work 10 50 26% 43% 28% 9% 0% 39% 25% 51%
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%Ave. percent of 2-min intervals
COPUS Profiles N RTOP Lec RtW S-AnQ SQ CQ FUp MG GW
Lect
ure
Lecture (with slides) 44 29 94% 2% 8% 8% 3% 4% 0% 2%
Lecture (at the board) 52 28 93% 88% 15% 16% 1% 3% 0% 2%
Transitional Lecture 44 33 87% 48% 20% 9% 5% 7% 1% 6%
Socr
atic
Socratic (at the board) 18 34 97% 87% 52% 24% 0% 1% 1% 1%
Socratic (with slides) 25 43 82% 6% 38% 21% 1% 9% 2% 8%
Peer
Inst
ruct
ion
Limited PI 24 39 75% 3% 7% 4% 18% 18% 5% 23%
PI (at the board) 24 42 68% 70% 18% 8% 18% 24% 4% 22%
Teacher-Centered PI 12 46 55% 13% 17% 4% 41% 50% 3% 24%
Gro
up
Student-Centered PI 16 52 50% 3% 31% 6% 42% 54% 16% 50%
Group work 10 50 26% 43% 28% 9% 0% 39% 25% 51%
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%Ave. percent of 2-min intervals
Profile of that class COPUS Profiles N RTOP Lec RtW S-AnQ SQ CQ FUp MG GW
Lect
ure
Lecture (with slides) 44 29 94% 2% 8% 8% 3% 4% 0% 2%
Lecture (at the board) 52 28 93% 88% 15% 16% 1% 3% 0% 2%
Transitional Lecture 44 33 87% 48% 20% 9% 5% 7% 1% 6%
Socr
atic
Socratic (at the board) 18 34 97% 87% 52% 24% 0% 1% 1% 1%
Socratic (with slides) 25 43 82% 6% 38% 21% 1% 9% 2% 8%
Peer
Inst
ruct
ion
Limited PI 24 39 75% 3% 7% 4% 18% 18% 5% 23%
PI (at the board) 24 42 68% 70% 18% 8% 18% 24% 4% 22%
Teacher-Centered PI 12 46 55% 13% 17% 4% 41% 50% 3% 24%
Gro
up
Student-Centered PI 16 52 50% 3% 31% 6% 42% 54% 16% 50%
Group work 10 50 26% 43% 28% 9% 0% 39% 25% 51%
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%Ave. percent of 2-min intervals
COPUS Profiles N RTOP Lec RtW S-AnQ SQ CQ FUp MG GW
Lect
ure
Lecture (with slides) 44 29 94% 2% 8% 8% 3% 4% 0% 2%
Lecture (at the board) 52 28 93% 88% 15% 16% 1% 3% 0% 2%
Transitional Lecture 44 33 87% 48% 20% 9% 5% 7% 1% 6%
Socr
atic
Socratic (at the board) 18 34 97% 87% 52% 24% 0% 1% 1% 1%
Socratic (with slides) 25 43 82% 6% 38% 21% 1% 9% 2% 8%
Peer
Inst
ruct
ion
Limited PI 24 39 75% 3% 7% 4% 18% 18% 5% 23%
PI (at the board) 24 42 68% 70% 18% 8% 18% 24% 4% 22%
Teacher-Centered PI 12 46 55% 13% 17% 4% 41% 50% 3% 24%
Gro
up
Student-Centered PI 16 52 50% 3% 31% 6% 42% 54% 16% 50%
Group work 10 50 26% 43% 28% 9% 0% 39% 25% 51%
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%Ave. percent of 2-min intervals
COPUS Profiles N RTOP Lec RtW S-AnQ SQ CQ FUp MG GW
Lect
ure
Lecture (with slides) 44 29 94% 2% 8% 8% 3% 4% 0% 2%
Lecture (at the board) 52 28 93% 88% 15% 16% 1% 3% 0% 2%
Transitional Lecture 44 33 87% 48% 20% 9% 5% 7% 1% 6%
Socr
atic
Socratic (at the board) 18 34 97% 87% 52% 24% 0% 1% 1% 1%
Socratic (with slides) 25 43 82% 6% 38% 21% 1% 9% 2% 8%
Peer
Inst
ruct
ion
Limited PI 24 39 75% 3% 7% 4% 18% 18% 5% 23%
PI (at the board) 24 42 68% 70% 18% 8% 18% 24% 4% 22%
Teacher-Centered PI 12 46 55% 13% 17% 4% 41% 50% 3% 24%G
roup
Student-Centered PI 16 52 50% 3% 31% 6% 42% 54% 16% 50%
Group work 10 50 26% 43% 28% 9% 0% 39% 25% 51%
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%Ave. percent of 2-min intervals
COPUS Profiles N RTOP Lec RtW S-AnQ SQ CQ FUp MG GW
Lect
ure
Lecture (with slides) 44 29 94% 2% 8% 8% 3% 4% 0% 2%
Lecture (at the board) 52 28 93% 88% 15% 16% 1% 3% 0% 2%
Transitional Lecture 44 33 87% 48% 20% 9% 5% 7% 1% 6%
Socr
atic
Socratic (at the board) 18 34 97% 87% 52% 24% 0% 1% 1% 1%
Socratic (with slides) 25 43 82% 6% 38% 21% 1% 9% 2% 8%
Peer
Inst
ruct
ion
Limited PI 24 39 75% 3% 7% 4% 18% 18% 5% 23%
PI (at the board) 24 42 68% 70% 18% 8% 18% 24% 4% 22%
Teacher-Centered PI 12 46 55% 13% 17% 4% 41% 50% 3% 24%
Gro
up
Student-Centered PI 16 52 50% 3% 31% 6% 42% 54% 16% 50%
Group work 10 50 26% 43% 28% 9% 0% 39% 25% 51%
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%Ave. percent of 2-min intervals
COPUS Profiles N RTOP Lec RtW S-AnQ SQ CQ FUp MG GW
Lect
ure
Lecture (with slides) 44 29 94% 2% 8% 8% 3% 4% 0% 2%
Lecture (at the board) 52 28 93% 88% 15% 16% 1% 3% 0% 2%
Transitional Lecture 44 33 87% 48% 20% 9% 5% 7% 1% 6%
Socr
atic
Socratic (at the board) 18 34 97% 87% 52% 24% 0% 1% 1% 1%
Socratic (with slides) 25 43 82% 6% 38% 21% 1% 9% 2% 8%
Peer
Inst
ruct
ion
Limited PI 24 39 75% 3% 7% 4% 18% 18% 5% 23%
PI (at the board) 24 42 68% 70% 18% 8% 18% 24% 4% 22%
Teacher-Centered PI 12 46 55% 13% 17% 4% 41% 50% 3% 24%
Gro
up
Student-Centered PI 16 52 50% 3% 31% 6% 42% 54% 16% 50%
Group work 10 50 26% 43% 28% 9% 0% 39% 25% 51%
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%Ave. percent of 2-min intervals
