ELI Austin 2010 – III
A week since my journey into ELI is a good time for a personal refresher on an a teaching and learning technique I learned at a session there and a never-better time to share it here. Presenters Barry Hill and Michael Lehr of Lebanon Valley College posed the question that all instructors ask themselves but the answer to which many fear: “Are Your Students Getting It?” Barry Hill, Professor of Music and Director of the Center for Excellence in Teaching and Learning, began by asking, “What are your students learning? Probably not what you think.” He went on to explain that people process information in unique ways and, partly because of this, you can’t guarantee that what you think you are communicating to students is, in fact, what they are learning. In a classroom of 20 students, 20 different versions of what you have taught will leave the room on a given day. Accordingly, we cannot find out what students are learning by asking ourselves as instructors; we have to find out from those individuals.
Hill referred to the highly individualized way in which we each organize information as a mental model, which I understand as a system of linkages or a structure that underlies the way we think. This knowledge structure consists of three types:
- Declarative — identification, rote memorization (that thing with a stem, some leaves, and petals is a flower);
- Structural — relationships among declarative knowledge (the characteristics of these two different flowers indicate that both are members of Rosaceae, the rose family);
- Procedural — how to knowledge which enacts the previous types (to continue with this example <I think>: both of these flowers are roses, which combined with my knowledge of gardening, means that they should be planted in a sunny well-drained location).
From this we can ask: at what knowledge level is the student engaging the material? Put in terms of instructional goals, we want students to think like experts, which means that we want them to have accurate information, organized meaningfully, that they can apply and transfer to new situations. To get at this, we need to see their mental models, and one method of doing this is the card sort.
The card sort involves sorting terms into piles which represent meaningful categories to the sorter. Note that the latter part of that description– meaningful to the sorter– indicates that the process is individualized. An investigator or instructor would develop a list of concepts or terms, which participants then sort in piles and label the piles. In labeling the piles, the individual demonstrates their understanding of the concept(s) at hand. Here’s a short visual of the process.
Card sorting is quite useful for understanding the level at which students are engaging the material because it requires the individual to categorize her knowledge, to ask herself, “Why have I put these things together?” A basic level of understanding might simply put things which are categorically similar together, while a higher level of understanding would construct categories which require linking what might seem like disparate concepts to the novice. As an example, the presenter showed a group of terms from a music history course including the names of composers, time periods, instruments and so forth. When asked to sort the corresponding cards, students who were engaging the material at a lower level made piles corresponding more or less to the categories I listed. However, those engaging the material on a higher level could select the particular composers, instruments, and intervals that match the musical eras (Renaissance, Baroque, etc.).
How card sorts work across disciplines will vary, but in general, this technique provides a mechanism through which the instructor can gauge whether the class generally seems to get a concept, as well as trends in just how that concept is being understood. Although the benefits of this exercise on a one-to-one/teacher-to-student basis are clear–student sorts cards; instructor immediately sees whether she has gotten the intended knowledge–it seems a bit more challenging for a large class. But, to the rescue, the presenters provide free software to assist in the analysis of card sorts among large groups. Based on the presenter’s explanation, it seems that the results provided are something akin to a factor analysis where the software tells you which cards students tended to group together. I look forward in trying this out in my own classroom and, in the very least, experimenting with the software myself.
