DESIGNING CLASSROOM ACTIVITY: TO UNDERSTAND THE KEY PSYCHOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES IN AN INTRODUCTORY COURSE
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17501/icedu.2018.4107Keywords:
Psychological perspectives, Classroom Activity, Introduction to Psychology courseAbstract
Introductory classes are essential for understanding any course. In a traditional class format, the instructor delivers lecture to students who passively grasps the information presented to them. However, recent researches emphasize on the importance of active student engagement in classroom for better retention. The paper presents a demonstration of class activity designed to engage students in introductory psychology course for undergraduate students. It tries to foster critical thinking and application of various viewpoints through class participation. The study took place in two sections of Introduction to Psychology course with 84 participants in Dhaka, Bangladesh. In one section, a class of one hour and thirty minutes was allocated for the activity, i.e. five groups were created to represent five Psychological perspectives, case reading and presentation was done in groups as well as question and answer round took place among each group. In another section, the case was presented to students for reading and analyzing it during their free time after class. The responses were marked from their examination scripts. The result indicates a significant difference in responses from those who took part in the class activity than those who did not. The students had better recall of elements from the case and could relate more to real life situations.
Downloads
References
Achen, R. M., Lumpkin, A. 2015. Evaluating Classroom Time through Systematic Analysis and Student Feedback. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 9(2), 1-18.
Association for Experiential Education, Retrieved from http://www.aee.org/
Berens, K. I. 2014, January 23. Double flip: 3 insights flipping the humanities seminar. Hybrid Pedagogy.
Borchardt, J., & Bozer, A. H. 2017. Psychology course redesign: an interactive approach to learning in a micro-flipped classroom. Smart Learning Environments, 4(1), 1-9. doi:10.1186/s40561-017-0049-3
Kolb, D. A. 1984. Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. 1999. Development and adaptations of the seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. New Directions for Higher Education, (80), 75-81.
Churchill, D. 2003.Effective design principles for activity-based learning: the crucial role of 'learning objects' in Science and engineering education.
Dale, E. 1969. Audio-visual methods in teaching. (3rd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Gilgeous, V., & D’Cruz, M. 1996. A study of business and management games. Management Development Review, 9(1), 32-39. doi:10.1108/09622519610181757
Gurung, R. A. R., Hackathorn, J., Enns, C., Frantz, S., Cacioppo, J. T., Loop, T., & Freeman, J. E. 2016. Strengthening introductory psychology: A new model for teaching the introductory course. American Psychologist, 71(2), 112-124. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0040012
Khan, M., Muhammad, D.N., Ahmed, M., Saeed, F., Khan, S. A. 2012. Impact of activity-based teaching on students’ academic achievements in physics at secondary level. Academic Journal International, 3(1), 146-156.
Lom, B. 2012. Classroom Activities: Simple Strategies to Incorporate Student-Centered Activities within Undergraduate Science Lectures. The Journal of Undergraduate Neuroscience Education, 11(3), 64-71.
Lumpkin, A., & Achen, R. M. 2015. Flipping a Class: Active Learning and More of It. Sport Management Education Journal,9(2), 79-90. doi:10.1123/smej.2014-0042
Matthews, J. C. 1997 Intermeshing Passive and Active Learning Strategies in Teaching Biochemistry. American journal of pharmaceutical education, 61, 388-394.
Melton, B. F., Bland, H., & Chopak-Foss, J. 2009. Achievement and Satisfaction in Blended Learning versus Traditional General Health Course Designs. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 3(1), 1-13. doi:10.20429/ijsotl.2009.030126
Miller, C. J., & Metz, M. J. 2014. A comparison of professional-level faculty and student perceptions of active learning: its current use, effectiveness, and barriers. Advances in Physiology Education, 38(3), 246-252. doi:10.1152/advan.00014.2014
Miller, C. J., Mcnear, J., & Metz, M. J. 2013. A comparison of traditional and engaging lecture methods in a large, professional-level course. Advances in Physiology Education, 37(4), 347-355. doi:10.1152/advan.00050.2013
Ng, E. M. 2010. A Comparative Study of Blended Learning Activities between Two Classes. Proceedings of the 2010 InSITE Conference, 307-315. doi:10.28945/1254
Pereira, J. A., Pleguezuelos, E., Meri, A., Molina-Ross, A., Molina-Tomas, C., & Masdeu, C. 2007. Medical Education, 41, 189-195.
Plotnik, R., & Kouyoumdjian, H. 2014. Introduction to Psychology (10th ed., pp. 3-10). Wadsworth: CENGAGE Learning.
P. & Jordan, H. M. 2004. Blended learning and sense of community: A comparative analysis with traditional and fully on-line graduate courses. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 5(2).
Tanner, K. D. 2009. Talking to Learn: Why Biology Students Should Be Talking in Classrooms and How to Make It Happen. Cell Biology Education, 8(2), 89-94. doi:10.1187/cbe.09-03-0021
Walker, J. D., Cotner, S. H., Baepler, P. M., & Decker, M. D. 2008. A Delicate Balance: Integrating Active Learning into a Large Lecture Course. Cell Biology Education, 7(4), 361-367. doi:10.1187/cbe.08-02-0004
Wurdinger, S. D., & Carlson, J. A. 2010. Teaching for experiential learning: Five approaches that work. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Education.
