CETL: Maryellen Weimer on Resources on Learner-Centered Teaching

*Articles with no hyperlink are available at Central Library Service Desk*

Benjamin, L. T. (2005). Setting course goals: Privileges and responsibilities in a world of ideas. Teaching of Psychology, 32(3), 146-149.

This article discusses the importance of knowing what student expectations are for a course and of giving students some shared role in the content and conduct of a course.

Cohen, D., Kim, E., Tan, J., & Winkelmes, M. (2013). A note-restructuring intervention increases students' exam scores. College Teaching, 61(3), 95-99.

The authors provide evidence that supports students taking notes and an interesting way for students to engage with their notes.

DiClementi, J. D., & Handelsman, M. M. (2005). Empowering students: Class-generated course rules. Teaching of Psychology, 32(1), 18-21.

The authors report what happened when they gave students a set of categories (late arrival, sleeping in class, use of cell phones) and let them develop classroom policies.

Favero, T. G. (2011). Active review sessions can advance student learning. Advances in Physiology Education, 35(3), 247-248.

By incorporating active and cooperative learning approaches during a review session, students are able to recognize critical concepts and better prepare for physiological problem solving. Active review sessions help students prioritize the knowledge and develop the thinking skills will be required of them on the exam.

Gibson, L. (2011). Student-directed learning: An exercise in student engagement. College Teaching, 59(3), 95-101.

The author let students design the course syllabus by providing them with 50 possible course objectives and 22 potential assignments, and by stipulating the course design had to fit the course description. A qualitative review of their feedback on this exercise is provided

Giuliodoro, M. J., Lujan, H. L., & DiCarolo, S. E. (2009). Student interaction characteristics during collaborative group testing. Advances in Physiology Education, 33(1), 24-29.

The authors used collaborative testing in a veterinary physiology course to answer the following questions: 1) do students with individual correct responses or students with individual incorrect responses change their answers during group testing? and 2) do high-performing students make the decisions, that is, are low-performing students carried by high-performing peers?

Howard, J. R. (2004). Just-in-Time teaching in sociology or how I convinced my students to actually read the assignment. Teaching Sociology, 32(4), 385-390.

After a telling assessment revealing just how few students were actually doing the reading, the author devised an interesting assignment which did as the title claims.

Hudd, S. S. (2003). Syllabus under construction: Involving students in the creation of class assignments. Teaching Sociology, 31(2), 195-202.

Presents an exercise in which students are required to develop assessment criteria for an introductory sociology class. Notes that students respond positively to being included in the class syllabus design. Describes some logistical concerns and pedagogical constraints of the exercise implementation.

Kaplan, D. M., & Renard, M. K. (2015). Negotiating your syllabus: Building a collaborative contract. Journal of Management Education, 39(3), 400-421.

Provides instruction for engaging students in negotiating their course syllabus. The exercise works especially well in negotiation, conflict management, or labor relations courses, but can be reframed to fit any management course involving influence within organizations.

Lewis, L. K., & Hayward, P. A. (2003). Choice-based learning: Student reactions in an undergraduate organizational communication course. Communication Education, 52(2), 148-156.

Reports the experience of one teaching team's attempt to implement a "philosophy of choice" into a large lecture course at a major university. Assesses students' willingness to embrace innovation in the classroom, how choice-based learning impacted student self-assessed learning, and what considerations students take into account when selecting among learning activity options.

Litz, R. A. (2003). Red light, green light and other ideas for class participation-intensive courses: Method and implications for business ethics education. Teaching Business Ethics, 7(4), 365-378.

The author shares a multi-stage technique that deals with the problems inherent in facilitating and evaluating class participation. After describing the basic process, which includes preparatory pre-class essays, small group meetings,multi-colored name cards, and integrative post-class essays, additional insights and suggestions concerning its use are offered.

Manarin, K. (2012). Reading value: Student choice in reading strategies. Pedagogy, 12(2), 281-297.

This scholarship of teaching and learning project explores how students read in a first-year general education class on critical writing and reading. The author offers observations about which reading strategies seem most popular regardless of efficacy, which elements seem to foster student learning, and which obstacles remain.

McGowan, S., & Lightbody, M. (2008). Enhancing students' understanding of plagiarism within a discipline context. Accounting Education, 17(3), 273-290.

This paper describes and evaluates a unique assignment developed to provide second year accounting students with an understanding of plagiarism within the direct context of their study discipline.

McWilliams, S. (2015). The democratic syllabus. PS, Political Science and Politics, 48(1), 167-170.

Reports on experiences in a seminar where students selected discussion topics, led some of the discussions and completed loosely structured assignments.

Offerdahl, E. G., & Montplaisir, L. (2014). Student-generated reading questions: Diagnosing student thinking with diverse formative assessments. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 42(1), 29-38.

Students in an upper division biochemistry course generated questions from assigned reading, one question for each of 11 readings. The questions could not be factual but had to describe conceptual problems.

Parrott, H. M., & Cherry, E. (2011). Using structured reading groups to facilitate deep learning. Teaching Sociology, 39(4), 354-370.

Authors assigned students to reading groups and assigned them tasks to be completed before coming to class. In this article, they outline how to implement these groups, the benefits of them, and variations to the standard format.

Roberts, J. C., & Roberts, K. A. (2008). Deep reading, cost/benefit, and the construction of meaning: Enhancing reading comprehension and deep learning in sociology courses. Teaching Sociology, 36(2), 125-140.

This essay is an excursion into theory on deep learning and the implications of that theory for engaging students in reading. An assignment based on multiple intelligences and fostering reading comprehension is suggested and some initial data are provided regarding possible success of this strategy.

Tomasek, T. (2009). Critical reading: Using reading prompts to promote active engagement with text. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 21(1), 127-132.

The purpose of this article is to describe a variety of reading/writing prompts that can be used to promote critical out-of-class reading by undergraduate students. The prompts are organized into six categories: (1) identification of problem or issue, (2) making connections, (3) interpretation of evidence, (4) challenging assumptions, (5) making applications, and (6) taking a different point-of-view. The specific context of how to use and assign these reading/writing prompts and the subsequent benefits from their use will also be discussed.

Yamane, D. (2006). Course preparation assignments: A strategy for creating discussion-based courses. Teaching Sociology, 34(3), 236-248.

This article explains the rationale for discussion-based courses, describes the development and use of Course Preparation Assignments (CPAs), and assesses a discussion-based course by comparing it to a traditional lecture course on several outcomes.