Methods and strategies to use in planning

 

Methods  and strategies  to   use  in  planning 

The following is a list of some of the strategies used in this course to encourage active  learning. Active  lecturing.  An active lecture is not too different from any good lecture, but it attempts to directly involve listeners. There is no one best way to give an active lecture, but it involves any of the following techniques. Give information in small chunks (about 10 minutes), and then have class members do something with that information for a few minutes. Here are some examples of activities, which you can repeat or vary: ¡ ¡ •  Write a one-minute reaction to what you have just heard. Talk to the person next to you about what you heard and see how   your perspectives differ. Do you agree? Do you have questions? •  List as many key points as you can remember. •  Compare notes taken during the chunk. Help each other fill in gaps or   determine if crucial information is missing. (Some people do not allow note taking during the lecture, but this is up to the Instructor.) Give out cards or slips of paper in three different colours. When class members are listening to your comments, have them hold up a colour for ‘I understand’, ‘I don’t understand’, or ‘I disagree’. Then either stop and allow questions or adjust what you are saying so there are more ‘understand’ colours showing. This is particularly effective with large groups of 50 or more people. Ambassadors.  This is a useful way to get groups or individuals to exchange information. Two or more members move from one group to another to share/compare discussion etc. You may wish to have half of each group move to another group. This is especially useful if you do not have ample time for a whole-class discussion. Brainstorming. This is a technique for generating creative ideas on a topic. It may be an individual activity or organized as a group activity. Give people a limited amount of time (e.g. one minute) to say or write as many ideas as they can on a topic. No matter how unrelated an idea seems, write it down. (Alternatively, the Instructor might ask the whole class to brainstorm and write all the ideas on the board.) After the brief period of brainstorming, ideas may then be analysed, organized, and discussed. This is often used as a problem-solving technique. Ideas are then analysed in light of how useful they might be in solving the problem. Gallery  walk.  This is a strategy that borrows its name from a visit to an art gallery. Students walk through an exhibit of posters, artefacts, or display of items they have completed. They can be directed to take notes. The idea is to thoughtfully look at what is displayed. Graffiti  wall.  A graffiti wall may be displayed in the classroom for use all term. Students may write their thoughts, feelings, or expressions before or following each session and sign their name. Anonymous comments are not suitable. Ideas generated in class may

be posted on the ‘wall’. Use paper from a large roll of craft or newsprint paper or join several cardboard boxes together to make a wall that can be stored between sessions. Students can take turns getting and putting away the wall each session. Group work: some tips for forming instructional groups.  There is no one best way to form groups. The best way for you is the way that suits your purpose. Use a more complicated strategy if students need a break or need to be energized. Use a simple technique if time is short. Ways to form groups include the following: •  Ask people to count off from one to five (depending on the number of people you want in a group). Groups will form based on their number (e.g. all of the ones will gather together). •  Before class, determine how many people you want in a group or how many groups you need. Give each class member a different coloured sticker, star, or dot as they enter the class. Then when it is time to form groups, ask them to   find  people with the same sticker etc. and sit together. •  Put different coloured bits of paper in a cup or jar on each table. Have people take one and find people in the room with the same colour to form a group. •  Have students get together with everybody born in the same month as   they were. Make adjustments to the groups as needed. Mini-lecture.  A mini-lecture contains all the components of a good lecture. It is sharply focused. It begins with an introduction that provides an overview of what you will talk about. It offers examples and illustrations of each point. It concludes with a summary of the main point(s). One-minute  paper.  Ask class members to write for one minute on a particular topic (e.g. their reflections on a topic, an assigned subject). They are to focus on writing their ideas, without worrying about grammar and spelling. A one-minute paper differs from brainstorming because there is more focus. Pair-share.  Use this technique when you want two class members to work together to share ideas or accomplish a task. Simply ask them to work with a neighbour or have them find a partner based on some other criteria. It is very useful when you want people to quickly exchange ideas without disrupting the flow of the class. (Sharing in triads and foursomes are also small group techniques.) Poster session.  This is useful when you want students to organize their thoughts on a topic and present it to others in a quick but focused way. Have individuals or small groups work to create a poster to explain or describe something. For example, if they have been doing an inquiry on a particular topic, they would want to include their focus, methods, and outcomes, along with colourful illustrations or photographs. The poster can be self-explanatory or students can use it to explain their work. As an in-class tool, a poster session is often combined with a gallery walk so that the class may review a number of posters in a short time. Readers’ theatre.  readers’ theatre is a group dramatic reading from a text. Readers take turns reading all or parts of a passage. The focus is on oral expression of the part being read rather than on acting and costumes. readers’ theatre is a way to bring a text to life. It is a good idea to go over passages to be read aloud with students so they are familiar with any difficult words. Sometimes readers’ theatre is used to get student interested in a text. They hear passages read first and then read the longer text. KWL. This is a strategy that provides a structure for recalling what students know (K) about a topic, noting what students want to know (W), and finally listing what has already been learned and is yet to be learned (L). The KWL strategy allows students to take inventory of what they already know and what they want to know. Students can categorize information about the topic that they expect to use as they progress through a lesson or unit. Text-against-text.  This is a way of helping students learn to analyse and compare written documents. The idea is to look at two documents and search for overlap, confirmation, or disagreement. It is a way of looking at different perspectives. Sometimes it is useful to give students readings prior to class and ask them to compare the readings based on a set of study questions, such as: 1.  Look at each author separately. What do you think the author’s main point is? 2.  How does the author support his/her argument? 3.  Look at the authors together. In what ways do the authors agree? 4.  What are their points of disagreement? 5.  What is your opinion on the issue? Text-against-text may be used to compare a new reading or new information with material that has already been covered. In classrooms where the whole class uses a single textbook, Instructors often find they are teaching against what is in the textbook. Sometimes it is hard for students to accept that a textbook can and should be questioned. Putting together a text-against text activity using the textbook and outside materials (e.g. an article) can help them understand that there are legitimate differences of opinion on a subject. Articles need not contradict each other. They may be about the same topic, but offer students different ways of seeing a subject. Another way to use the activity is divide the class into groups, give each a set of materials, and have them debate the texts. Some university faculty like to put together text sets that include both scholarly and non-scholarly works and have students think about differences. For example, you might provide all students – regardless of their reading level or learning style – with easy-to-read materials as a way to introduce themselves to a topic. Even competent adult learners seek out ‘easy’ books or materials to learn about a new or complex topic. Providing a picture, newspaper article, or even a children’s book in a text set might give everyone the means of connecting to or understanding some aspect of the larger subject. Roundtable  technique.  For this technique, divide the class into small groups (i.e. four to six people), with one person appointed as the recorder. A question that has many possible answers is posed, and class members are given time to think about the answers. After the thinking period, members of the team share their responses with one another. The recorder writes the group’s answers. The person next to the recorder starts and each person in the group (in order) gives an answer until time is called. Quizzes.  Prepare and give a short quiz (15 minutes) over the different aspects of child development covered in the unit. As students take the quiz, ask them to circle items they are unsure of. They can review and discuss their work in the following ways: •  Triads. Have students meet in groups of three to review the quizzes so that   they can help each other with their weak areas. (10 minutes) •  Review. Go over the quiz with students, and have them look at their own work and make corrections. (30 minutes) ¡ ¡ ¡ 85 ¡ ¡ ¡ Notice points class members had difficulty remembering and take time to review them. You may ask students to assist with this and discuss how they were  able  to  remember. Use this time to correct any misconceptions. Have students save their quiz for future study.

Read More

Individual Differences and Differential

 Individual Differences and Differential 

 A brief history and prospect Used by permission of the author. [For classroom use only] William Revelle Joshua Wilt David M.Condon Northwestern  University Differential psychology has been a central concern to philosophers and psychologists, both applied and theoretical, for the past several millennia. It remains so today. he proper study of individual differences integrates methodology, affective and cognitive science, genetics and biology. It is a field with a long history and an exciting future. We review some of the major questions that have been addressed and make suggestions as to future directions. This handbook is devoted to the study of individual differences and differential psychology. To write a chapter giving an overview of the field is challenging, for the study of individual differences includes the study of affect, behavior, cognition, and motivation as they are affected by biological causes and environmental events. That is, it includes all of psychology. But it is also the study of individual differences that are not normally taught in psychology departments. Human factors, differences in physical abilities as diverse as taste, smell, or strength are also part of the study of differential psychology. Differential psychology requires a general knowledge of all of psychology for people (as well as chimpanzees, dogs, rats and fishes) differ in many ways. Thus, differential psychologists do not say that they are cognitive psychologists,  social-psychologists,  neuro-psychologists,  behavior  geneticists, psychometricians, or methodologists, for although we do those various hyphenated parts of psychology, by saying we study differential psychology, we have said we do all of those things. And that is true for everyone reading this handbook. We study differential psychology. Individual differences in how we think, individual differences in how we feel, individual differences in what we want and what we need, individual differences in what we do. We study how people differ and we also study why people differ. We study individual differences. There has been a long recognized division in psychology between differential psychologists and experimental psychologists (Cronbach, 1957; H. J. Eysenck, 1966), however, the past 30 years has seen progress in integration of these two approaches (Cronbach, 1975; H. J. Eysenck, 1997; Revelle & Oehleberg, 2008). Indeed, one of the best known experimental psychologists of the 60’s and 70’s argued that “individual differences ought to be considered central in theory construction, not peripheral” (Underwood, 1975, p 129). However, Underwood (1975) went on to argue (p 134) that these individual differences are not the normal variables of age, sex, IQ or social status, but rather are the process variables that are essential to our theories. Including these process variables remains a challenge to differential psychology. OVERVIEW OF DIFFERENTIAL PSYCHOLOGY The principles of differential psychology are seen outside psychology in computer science simulations and games, in medical assessments of disease symptymatology, in college and university admissions, in high school and career counseling centers, as well as in applied decision making. Early Differential Psychology and its application Differential psychology is not new for an un- derstanding of research methodology and individ- ual differences in ability and affect was described as early as the Hebrew Bible in the story of Gideon (Judges 6, 7). Gideon was something of a skeptic who had impressive methodological sophistication. In perhaps the first published example of a repeated measures, cross over design, he applied several behavioural tests to God before agreeing to go off to fight the Medians as instructed. Gideon put a wool fleece out on his threshing floor and first asked that by the next morning just the fleece should be wet with dew but the floor should be left dry. Then, the next morning, after this happened, as a cross over control, he asked for the fleece to be dry and the floor wet. Observing this double dissociation, Gideon decided to follow God’s commands. We believe that this is the first published example of the convincing power of a cross over interaction. (Figure 1 has been reconstructed from the published data.) In addition to being an early methodologist, Gideon also pioneered the use of a sequential assessment battery. Leading a troop of 32,000 men to attack the Midians, Gideon was instructed to reduce the set to a more manageable number (for greater effect upon achieving victory). To select 300 men from 32,000, Gideon (again under instructions from God) used a two part test. One part measured motivation and affect by selecting those 10,000 who were not afraid. The other measured crystallized intelligence, or at least battlefield experience, by selecting those 300 who did not lie down to drink water but rather lapped it with their hands (McPherson, 1901).  REVELLE, CONDON,

Gideon thus combined many of the skills of a differential psychologist.

 He was a methodologist skilled in within subject designs, a student of affect and behavior as well as familiar with basic principles of assessment. Other early applications of psy- chological principles to warfare did not emphasize individual differences so much as the benefits of training troops of a phalanx (Thucydides, as cited by Driskell & Olmstead,  1989). Early Differential Psychology and its   Differential psychology is not new for an un- distending of research methodology and individual differences in ability and affect was described as early as the Hebrew Bible in the story of Gideon (Judges 6, 7). Gideon was something of a skeptic who had impressive methodological sophistication. In perhaps the first published example of a repeated measures, cross over design, he applied several be- hairball tests to God before agreeing to go off to fight the Medians as instructed. Gideon put a wool fleece out on his threshing floor and first asked that by the next morning just the fleece should be wet with dew but the floor should be left dry. Then, the next morning, after this happened, as a cross over control, he asked for the fleece to be dry and the floor wet. Observing this double dissociation, Gideon decided to follow God’s commands. We believe that this is the first published example of the convincing power of a cross over interaction. (Figure 1 has been reconstructed from the published data.)  In addition to being an early methodologist, Gideon also pioneered the use of a sequential as- assessment battery. Leading a troop of 32,000 men to attack the Midians, Gideon was instructed to reduce the set to a more manageable number (for greater effect upon achieving victory). To select 300 men               COURSE GUIDE:  Educational Psychology            Floor         Wool     Moistur e 0. 0 0. 2 0. 4 0. 6 0. 8 1. 0 2 Night Figure 1. Gideon’s tests for God are an early example of a double dissociation and probably the first published example of a cross over interaction. On the first night, the wool was wet with dew but the floor was dry. On the second night, the floor was wet but the wool was dry (Judges  6:36-40)   Figure 1. Gideon’s tests for God are an early example of a double dissociation and probably the first published example of a cross over interaction. On the first night, the wool was wet with dew but the floor was dry. On the sec- ond night, the floor was wet but the wool was dry (Judges

 

REVELLE,  CONDON,  WILT Personality taxonomies That people differ is obvious.

How and why they differ is the subject of taxonomies of personality and other individual differences. An early and continuing application of these taxonomies is most clearly seen in the study of leadership effectiveness. Plato’s discussion of the personality and ability characteristics required for a philosopher king emphasized the multivariate problem of the rare cooccurence of appropriate  traits: ... quick intelligence, memory, sagacity, cleverness, and similar qualities, do not often grow together, and that persons who possess them and are at the same time high-spirited and magnanimous are not so constituted by nature as to live orderly and in a peaceful and settled manner; they are driven any way by their impulses, and all solid principle goes out of them.  ... On the other hand, those steadfast natures which can better be depended upon, which in a battle are impregnable to fear and immovable, are equally immovable when there is anything to be learned; they are always in a torpid state, and are apt to yawn and go to sleep over any intellectual toil. ... And yet we were saying that both qualities were necessary in those to whom the higher education is to be imparted, and who are to share in any office or command. (Plato, 1991, book 6) Similar work is now done by Robert Hogan and his colleagues as they study the determinants of leadership effectiveness in management settings (Hogan, 2007, 1994; Hogan et al., 1990; Padilla et al., 2007) as well as one of the editors of this volume, Adrian Furnham (Furnham, 2005). The dark side qualities discussed by Hogan could have been taken directly from The Republic. A typological rather than dimensional model of individual differences was developed by Theophrastus, a student of Aristotle, who was most famous as a botanical taxonomist. However, he is known to differential psychologists as a personality taxonomist who organized the individual differences he observed into a descriptive taxonomy of “characters”. The characters of Theophrastus are often used to summarize the lack of coherence of early personality trait description, although it is possible to organize his “characters” into a table that looks remarkably similar to equivalent tables of the late 20th century (John, 1990; John & Srivastava, 1999). 1600 years after Theophrastus, Chaucer added to the the use of character descriptions in his “Cantebury Tales” which are certainly the first and probably the “best sequence of ‘Characters’ in English Literature” (Morley, 1891, pg 2). This tradition continued into the 17th century where the character writings of the period are fascinating demonstration of the broad appeal of personality description and categorization  (Morley,  1891).

OVERVIEW OF DIFFERENTIAL PSYCHOLOGY Causal theories Tyrtamus of Lesbos, who was known as Theophrastus for his speaking ability, (Morley, 1891), asked a fundamental question of personality theory that is still of central concern to us today: Often before now have I applied my thoughts to the puzzling question – one, probably, which will puzzle me for ever – why it is that, while all Greece lies under the same sky and all the Greeks are educated alike, it has befallen us to have characters so variously constituted. This is, of course, the fundamental question asked today by differential psychologists who study behavior genetics (e.g., Bouchard, 1994, 2004) when they address the relative contribution of genes and shared family environment as causes of behavior. Biological personality models have also been with us for more than two millenia, with the work of Plato, Hippocrates and later Galen having a strong influence. Plato’s organization of the tripartite soul into the head, the heart and the liver (or, alterna- tively, reason, emotion and desire) remains the classic organization of the study of individual differences (Hilgard, 1980; Mayer, 2001; Revelle, 2007). Indeed, with the addition of behavior, the study of psychology may be said to be the study of affect (emotion), behavior, cognition (reason) and motivation (desire) as organized by Plato (but  without  the  physical  localization!). 500 years later, the great doctor, pharmacologist and physiologist, Galen (129-c.a. 216) organized and extended the earlier literature of his time, particularly the work of Plato and Hippocrates (c 450-380 BCE), when he described the causal basis of the four temperaments. His empirical work, based upon comparative neuroanatomy, provided support for Plato’s tripartite organization of affect, cognition, and desire. Although current work does not use the same biological concepts, the search for a biological basis of individual differences continues to this day. 1800 years later, Wilhelm Wundt (Wundt, 1874,1904) reorganized the Hippocrates/ Galen four temperaments into the two dimensional model later discussed by Hans Eysenck (H. J. Eysenck, 1965, 1967) and Jan Strelau (Strelau, 1998).

 

Read More