ࡱ>  bjbj Eu% 8LL-ee"bbb-------$/02A-]bbA-FM4-###-#-##*sc,`Z_d N+$--0-,H2V!2Hc,2c,b#LbbbA-A-8"bbb-2bbbbbbbbb :  INCORPORATING ACTIVE LEARNING STRATEGIES IN AN INTRODUCTORY ECONOMICS CLASS A. Wahhab Khandker Abstract: This study showed that a Collaborative Learning Lab (CLL), conducted and supervised by the instructor, could be accommodated in a standard three-credit introductory microeconomics class without increasing instructors workload and without significantly reducing the course content. The data provided convincing information that incorporating CLL into the class improved student learning. (JEL Classification Number: A2 Teaching of Economics A22 Undergraduate Teaching of Economics) I. INTRODUCTION I had been teaching introductory microeconomics at the University of Wisconsin-La Crosse with an in-class collaborative learning lab (CLL) component for the last eleven years. In each of nine 55-minute CLL sessions, four students spent the first twenty-five minutes discussing a set of twenty questions corresponding to each of nine units. Each group submitted one answer sheet, which I graded immediately and returned it to the group. For the next thirty minutes, I moderated the inter-group discussions. In this study I found that the students were enthusiastic about the in-class CLL and, in addition, performed significantly better in a standardized test than the students attending classes without an in-class CLL. Moreover, I introduced in-class CLL without reducing in-class content coverage or increasing my workload. There is a substantial amount of literature that emphasizes the importance of collaborative learning activities. The rationales for introducing collaborative learning activities are explained eloquently by Moore (1998): "students sometimes learn the material best when they have to explain it to another student and that a student who does not understand a concept sometimes learns better by having a peer (instead of a teacher) help him. -- working in group is usually more fun, allows student to know other students (especially some they would not get to know otherwise), provides some variety, and develops group learning skills." Bartlett (1995) suggested changing the classroom climate to an active cooperative experience. Johnson et al. (1991) and Meyers and Jones (1993) prescribed collaborative learning or "hands-on" exercises to increase the effectiveness of lectures. So far, instructors who successfully introduced collaborative learning activities used both in and out-of-class collaborative reading and writing assignments, discussion questions, and quizzes. While collaborative learning activities get higher praise, resource constraints compel institutions of higher learning to increase class sizes, which reduces the effectiveness of in-class CLL. In a class with 48 students, Brooks and Khandker (2002) showed that students failed to perform significantly better on a standardized test than the students attending classes without an in-class CLL. A University of Nebraska-Lincoln study reported that students were unfavorably disposed toward large classes that are destined to be the trend of the future: Given the anonymity, lack of individual attention and student-teacher interaction, and the constraints that large classes impose on teach-learning techniques, this conclusion is not surprising. But many institutions of higher learning offer large classes and given the prospect of increased budget stringency in the years ahead, such classes are likely to become increasingly common. [McConnell-Sosin (1984)]. As it is difficult to involve all students in discussion in large classes (usually larger than forty), in-class collaborative learning activities in introductory classes with all its merits are becoming a matter of the past. Another serious obstacle for using in-class collaborative learning activities is that its use reduces the amount of available lecture time that can be devoted to content coverage. Some instructors value collaborative learning more than content coverage, and justify reduced material coverage in lectures by showing that there is always a practical limit to how much students can learn in any given class period: A switch from high density (for example, cover the field) strategy to the low density (for example, amplify the basis) approach will have a positive influence on student retention of lecture material. [Russell et al., (1984)] Instructors concerned about students taking higher level courses that require a certain minimum introductory knowledge must make difficult decisions if a syllabus is to be pared. Their reluctance toward in-class collaborative learning activities is quite understandable. Some instructors evade the problem of less course content coverage by requiring students to engage in collaborative learning activities only outside of class. As collaborative learning activities become more rewarding, hiring mentors/proctors to conduct the active learning part of a course outside of class is getting wider acceptance. In an article, Moore (1998) showed a method of incorporating CLL where the students were urged to take unit-tests outside of class at pre-arranged times to save the class time for content coverage. Since it required seventy hours of additional time per 100 students, Moore hired and prepared student mentors who mainly conducted the CLL part of the course. An additional problem that he faced was to arrange schedule-compatible student work groups. CLL was also a part of our introductory microeconomics class. However, my study differed from Moore (1998) in three major ways. First, I incorporated the CLL inside the class time with minimal loss of content coverage. It was also conducted in a small class setting to reap the maximum benefit. Second, the students were directly under my supervision rather than under student mentors guidance in the lab. My approach made it possible for me to supervise the lab without increasing my workload. In that way, I evaded both the problems of hiring and preparing student mentors, and arranging schedule-compatible student work groups. Third, I measured the effectiveness of the course in two different ways. First, from answers to a student questionnaire measuring student perception of the effectiveness of the course, and second from the students actual performance score in a test compared to the control groups performance score on the same test. II. CLASS DESIGN In the fall of 1996, I taught two consecutive sections of Monday-Wednesday-Friday three-credit introductory microeconomics class with forty-eight students each. The classes were taught in the standard format (control group) without a CLL component. Each student spent three hours (three-credit course) while I spent six hours in the class in a week. In a fourteen-week semester, I had forty-two hours of instruction time, thirty-four of which were used for conventional lecture to cover the standard materials, the remaining eight hours were used for first day introduction, pre-test, three mid-term exams, and three review sessions. The course was divided into nine units. After completing each unit, each student was given a unit homework assignment consisting of twenty multiple-choice questions. Each homework assignment was worth 4% of the total grade, and the best seven out of nine homework scores were taken for grading purposes. The pre-test (similar to pre-TUCE) with twenty multiple-choice questions was designed by the department, and was administered in the first day of class. The final examination comprised our test instrument with forty multiple-choice, and the pre-test, and was administered at the two-hour final examination period after the fourteenth week of classes. The department compared the mean score of the pre-test part of the final examination with the mean pre-test score given at the beginning of class to assess students' learning in the value-added sense. I compared the pre-test scores of the control and experimental groups given at the beginning of classes to ensure the homogeneity of the groups. In the fall of 1998, I implemented the new format (experimental group) with an in-class CLL component. Here, two sections were combined and all ninety-six students signed up for a two-hour lecture. They were also required to concurrently sign up for one of the four one-hour classes. These classes were limited to twenty-four students. Out of fourteen one-hour classes in a semester, nine of them were CLL where the students sit in groups of four. For CLL, I formed the groups with names in alphabetical order. I justified my action by pointing out that most of the time workers will not choose their co-workers in the real world. In this new format, I had fourteen two-hour lecture classes (twenty-eight hours of lecture) and nine hours of CLL where students solved and discussed nine unit-exercises. The remaining five one-hour classes were used for the same introduction, pre-test, and examinations that were given to the control group. I observed that I could cover the same content at the same pace in twenty-eight hours (fourteen consecutive two-hour lectures) of lectures that I covered in thirty-four one-hour lectures in the standard format, a saving of six hours of lecture time from the standard format. This saving was due to reduced recap time in between two lectures (recap fourteen times instead of thirty-four times), and reduced time wasted by giving ten-minute break in a two-hour lecture at a convenient time when a section or chapter is completed. This six saved hours and three in-class review sessions in the standard format made room for the nine in-class CLL in the new format. In this way, a lecture given in large class enabled me to have small classes for collaborative learning activities. Following the standard format, the same pre-test was administered on the first day of class, and the final examination given in a two-hour final examination period after the fourteenth week of classes. The course was again divided into nine units. After completing each unit, the students were given a unit-exercise. Unit multiple-choice exercises had the advantage that those could be graded and returned in the lab immediately for review. In that way, maximum time could be spent discussing the mistakes and reviewing the relevant sections. The students had until their next CLL to think about the questions and come up with the answers. In the CLL, they compared and discussed their answers with their group members for the first twenty-five minutes, and came up with one answer sheet per group. They were allowed to consult books and class notes for discussion purposes. If nobody in the group could explain a particular problem, or they came up with multiple answers to a question, I was there to guide the group without giving the answer. In this twenty-five minutes, I made sure that everybody was participating in the discussion, and groups with relatively lower group-scores, detected from the past group-works, received my extra attention. After twenty-five minutes, answer sheets were collected from each of the six groups, graded and returned within a few minutes. During the remainder of the period I moderated inter-group discussions which helped shed light on questions perceived to be difficult by the students. Again, each lab exercise was given the same 4% of the total grade, and the best seven out of nine were taken for grading purposes. That also allowed a student to miss up to two lab exercises due to unforeseen circumstances. A student would work alone in the lab if he/she: didnt have his/her answers of the unit-exercise ready prior to coming to the CLL, was identified by the majority as a free rider, chose to do so. III. PROCEDURES AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS To measure the effectiveness of teaching in new format (experimental group with in-class CLL), I compared my fall 1998 students performances in a standardized test with the performances of my fall 1996 students (control group without in-class CLL). Strict measures were taken to keep other parameters like lecture material coverage, examinations, homework assignments, extra-help sessions outside the class, the amount of formal and informal writing, and my enthusiasm toward the two formats of teaching, the same. Note that both the control and the experimental groups were given the same pre-test on the first day of class to ensure the homogeneity at the beginning. The same test instrument was administered to the two groups at the end of each semester to compare the actual performances of the students. My study was also concerned with the students perceptions of the new format. Specifically, I wanted to measure students' satisfaction with in-class CLL. This was determined through the students responses to a survey designed to measure the effectiveness of the new format. To gain some understanding of some of the characteristics of the new format that the students liked or disliked, the students responses were analyzed to an attitude survey pertaining to the characteristics of the new format. The significance of gender was also tested that might influence students perception. Because of the presence of qualitative variables, (group, sex, and preference), regression methods were employed using dummy-variable coding to denote group membership. The mean pre-test scores were compared between the two groups (group = 1 if it is experimental, group = 0 if it is control) using the linear regression model: Pre-test = 1 + 1 * group + . [ ( N (0, 2)]. The expected value of the pre-test for a student in the experimental group is 1 + 1. On the other hand, if a student is in the control group, the expected value of the pre-test for that student is 1. Thus 1 represents the difference between the expected values of the pre-tests between the students in the experimental group and the control group. Therefore testing Ho: 1 = 0 is the same as testing Ho: control - experiment = 0 where i is the mean of the ith group (i = control, experiment). In addition, the two groups were compared using the pretest as a covariate (to adjust for possible initial differences between the groups) using the linear regression model: Post-test = 2 + 2 * pre-test + 3 * group + . IV. RESULTS To minimize the self-selection bias, I taught both the control and the experimental groups during two fall semester Monday-Wednesday-Friday classes. CLL classes met in the morning. Unfortunately, due to high demand for the limited number of large lecture halls, two-hour morning lecture was not possible. I compared the pre-test scores of the control group with that of the experimental group to control for student ability. The results given in Table 1 indicated that there was no significant difference between the mean pre-test scores of the two groups (p-value = .55). It showed that neither of the groups started with an advantage. I found that the mean test scores of the control group and the experimental group were 21.2 and 23.2 respectively. Results using the pre-test as a covariate indicated that those test scores of the two groups were statistically significant, and the students in the new format (experimental group) scored higher than the students in the standard format (control group). (See Table 2). It showed that the in-class CLL had a positive impact on student learning. In a study with U.K. students, Lumsden and Scott (1987) concluded that female students performed significantly lower on micro multiple-choice questions. Since multiple-choice questions were our sole evaluative instrument, I wanted to check whether our female students were significantly at a comparative disadvantage. Table 3 provided information concerning male and female students performance difference with pre-test scores used as a covariate. Although the mean scores of the male students were slightly higher than that of the female students in both formats, the differences were not statistically significant at the 0.05 level. The survey questionnaire was administered at the end of the new format class. Out of 96 students, 82 returned our questionnaire. Approximately 72% reported that they perceived the CLL component more effective than the lecture component of the new format in helping them learn the material, 17.2% were indifferent between CLL and lecture components, and 10.3% said they learned more in the lecture component than the CLL component. It validated the fact that it is important to use different teaching techniques to reach more students with different learning styles. To compare the students perception of the two methods, I needed a sample of students who experienced both formats for this course. Since no student attended the same class from the same instructor in two different formats, I settled for students in the new format who were exposed to the standard format in at least one class at the college level so that they had some basis for comparison. This may be justified when we are measuring students' perception only. Among 86 students who responded, 23 never had a college level class under the standard format, and as a result were excluded from the sample that compared the two different formats. My attitude survey results, therefore, were based on 59 responses. I was especially interested in the question, If you had to retake this class, which teaching format would you prefer? 69.5% of the students preferred the new format as opposed to 30.5% who preferred the standard format. Table 4 showed the responses of the students attitude survey in percentage terms. It was clear that students felt favorably about the new format on almost all the issues; e.g. 74% of the students either agreed or strongly agreed with the statement, I would recommend the new format class to a friend, and 71% of the students either agreed or strongly agreed with the statement, There is more student teacher interaction in the new format than in the standard format. Sixty-eight percent of the students also indicated that they perceived the new format as more conducive to learning, as they would receive more individual attention in the new format than the standard format. Fifty-seven percent of the students indicated that they understood the material better in the new format, 54% said they felt more motivated to learn in the new format, and 53% thought their grade would be higher as a result. To compare the average scores of the eight statements of the attitude survey for the two groups of students who preferred and did not prefer the new format, the results indicated that the differences were statistically significant between these two groups for all statements (See Table 5). The students who preferred the new format scored higher than those who preferred the standard format for all eight statements. So far as the sex of the students is concerned, I found no statistically significant difference at the .05 level between female and male students for each of the statements in the attitude survey. V. CONCERNS One of the major concerns of the administration was that the students might find it difficult to schedule a two-hour time block for the lecture class in a university setting where almost all the Monday-Wednesday-Friday classes are fifty-five minutes long. One two-hour lecture class in a week blocks two Monday-Wednesday-Friday three credit hour classes. In my survey, 3.8% said it was very difficult and 11.3% said it was difficult to schedule a two-hour time block for the lecture class. Another concern was the shortage of large classrooms during the prime mid-morning hours. 90.3% of the students preferred the lecture component of the class either late in the morning or early in the afternoon, whereas large lecture rooms were available for my experiment only in late afternoons. Only 1.2% of the students preferred a late afternoon lecture component of the class. Despite all the measures taken by me to eliminate the bias toward a particular format of teaching, questions can still be raised whether some bias may have occurred in the class towards the CLL format, especially when the instructor and the author was the same. This problem can be eliminated if a large number of instructors repeat this experiment. A random sample of those experiments can then be taken to address the issue. VI. CONCLUSION My first goal in this study was to incorporate an in-class CLL to reach the maximum number of students with different learning styles without significantly increasing my workload. I contrived a method where I myself supervised the CLL in a small class setting, which I believe is most conducive for better learning. I also wanted to cover the standard syllabus of introductory microeconomics through conventional lectures so that the students acquired a standard amount of knowledge in class. My findings were: the mean students' performance score was significantly higher in the new format than that of the standard format, the students were enthusiastic about the in-class CLL. They perceived that the CLL was a worthwhile experience which significantly increased their amount of learning, most students in the new format perceived that in-class CLL component contributed more to their understanding microeconomics than the lecture component. VII. FEEDBACK AND QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS In the past ten years, I was regularly assessing my teaching effectiveness through opinion survey and through observation. In the process I made the following adjustments in my teaching techniques: I noticed that a significant number of students did not return after the break given at the end of one hour. An opinion survey showed that a vast majority of the students preferred two one-hour lectures over one two-hour lecture. Realizing that the level of concentration was also diminished significantly in the second hour, I decided to accommodate students preferences. That compelled me to reduce some material coverage in the lecture class, but by keeping discussions and hands-on works to a minimum, I minimized the reduction of content coverage in the lecture class. Previously, I assigned the group members with names in alphabetical order. After getting a complaint from a student that she was stuck with all the dumb students in the class, I started randomizing the group members by drawing from a deck of cards. Now that the group members are different in each CLL class, the students get to know almost everyone in the class of twenty. I noticed that familiarity with the rest of the students reduced inhibition and encouraged student participation in the class. In both the control and the experimental groups, students had to get the answers of the unit exercises from outside the class. I found out that some students were getting the answers of the unit exercises from undesirable sources and brought the answers to the CLL class. It was revealed when some students reported that some of the group members had the correct answers but couldnt explain why those were the right answers. To tackle that problem, I eliminated the unit exercises and introduced an eleven multiple-choice question in-class quiz. Recently, Buckles and Siegfried (2006) showed how multiple-choice question can measure in-depth understanding of concepts up to analysis level on the Blooms taxonomy ladder. I chose the questions carefully to ensure that majority of the questions are applicative or analytical in nature. The students answer the questions individually during the first fifteen minutes. Next fifteen minutes, they get in groups and answer the same questions while I check the individual answers. Both the students and I keep track of their individual performances, but they are not graded. It serves the purpose of informing the students: about their current level of preparation for the next exam which is usually scheduled one week ahead and which is on the same chapters as the quiz. how much some of their peers mastered the chapters how much extra effort they need to put into these chapters to do well in the next exam. I tried to incorporate Kagan and Kagans (1994) four basic principles in my CLL. It is widely accepted that when these principles are included in the class, they make cooperative learning more effective. They are: (1) simultaneous interaction, (2) equal participation, (3) positive interdependence, and (4) individual accountability. Simultaneous interaction occurs in a classroom when there is more than one active participant at a time. Five groups of four in my class satisfy that criterion. To ensure equal participation, I grade only the group answers. It is in the best interest of each group member to agree on an answer that seems to be superior to all the possible answers in case of split individual choices. I also stroll from one group to another to ensure that everyone is participating in the discussion. After collecting the group answers, I give the answers in the class. By the time I finished grading the group answers and giving the frequency distribution of the mistakes on the board, the students find out their individual and group performance scores. When a group(s) answers a question incorrectly, I randomly invite one student, from a group that answered it correctly, to explain the answer. This ensures individual accountability that makes each member accountable for his or her own learning. Although the students know that I can choose anyone from the class, I call a student with a low individual score with a promise that if he or she can give a satisfactory answer to the question, the whole group gets two bonus points. Here, a gain for one member of the group means a gain for the whole group that leads to positive interdependence. This encourages group members to make sure that everyone understands the answers to the questions. TABLE 1: Comparison of Pre-test Scores of the Two GroupsVariableCoefficientt***p-valueConstant group**6.39 - .2421.18 - .60S NS**NS = Not significant ( ( .05), **(group = 0 if it is control, group = 1 if it is experimental) ***test statistic. TABLE 2: Comparison of the Test Scores of the Two Groups Using Pre-test as CovariatesVariableCoefficienttp-valueConstant pre-test group16.69 .40 1.898.47 2.05 2.11S* S S*S = Significant ( ( .05) TABLE 3: Performance Difference of Sexes with Pre-test Scores as CovariatesNEW FORMAT (EXPERIMENTAL GROUP)VariableCoefficienttp-valueConstant pre-test sex*19.92 .32 1.9110.69 1.19 1.70S NS NSSTANDARD FORMAT (CONTROL GROUP)VariableCoefficienttp-valueConstant pre-test sex*17.85 .51 - .0058.41 1.77 -.003S NS NS*(sex = 1 if it is male, sex = 0 if it is female) TABLE 4: Percentage Responses of the Attitude SurveySTATEMENTSSAANDSDI feel more motivated to learn in the new format than in the standard format class15393970In the new format class I received more individual attention than in a standard format class274115170There is more student teacher interaction in the new format than in the standard format34372270Because of the new format I understand the material better203731120Because of the new format my grade will be higher223131152The new format is more conducive to learning than the standard format20482452I would recommend the new format class to a friend25491753It is easier to pay attention in a new format class than in a standard format class94132145 TABLE 5: Test of Format Preference in the Attitude SurveyStatement #VariablesCoefficienttp-value1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8Constant preference* Constant preference Constant preference Constant preference Constant preference Constant preference Constant preference Constant preference2.476 1.492 2.286 1.78 2.71 1.48 2.28 1.64 2.23 1.58 2.71 1.23 2.43 1.74 2.09 1.6616.51 8.29 14.45 9.71 17.2 9.1 14.45 .89 12.4 7.55 15.78 6.18 15.84 9.76 14.86 8.87S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S*(preference = 1 if it is yes, preference = 0 if it is no) REFERENCES BARTLET, R. L. (1995): "Attracting 'Otherwise Bright Students' to Economics 101," Review, 85, 362-366. BLOOM, B. S., ed. (1964): Taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: David McKay. BROOKS, T.J. and A. W. KHANDKER (2002): A Collaborative Learning Lab: Does the form Matter? Contemporary Economic Policy, Vol. 20, No. 3, July. BUCKLES, S. and J. J. SIEGFRIED (2006): Using Multiple-Choice Questions to Evaluate In-Depth Learning of Economics, Journal of Economic Education, 37, 48-57. JOHNSON, D. W., R. T. JOHNSON, and K. A. SMITH (1991): "Cooperative Learning: Increasing College Faculty Instructional Productivity," AHSE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 4, Washington D.C.: School of Human Development, George Washington University. KAGAN, S. and M. KAGAN (1994): The Structural Approach: Six Keys to Cooperative Learning, In S. Saran, Handbook of Cooperative Learning Methods, Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. KHANDKER, A. W. and A. ELFASSI (2000): "Teaching Introductory Microeconomics with an In-Class Collaborative Learning Lab Component", The Journal of Economics, Vol. XXVI, No. 2. LUMSDEN, K. G., and A. SCOTT (1987): "The Economics Student Reexamined: Male-Female Differences in Comprehension," Journal of Economic Education, 19, 365-375. McCONNELL, C. R., and K. SOSIN (1984): "Some Determinants of Students Attitudes toward Large Classes," Journal of Economic Education, 15, 181-190. MEYERS C., and T. B. JONES (1993): Promoting Active Learning: Strategies for the Classroom, San Francisco, CA Jossey-Bass. MOORE, R. L. (1998): "Teaching Introductory Economics with Collaborative Learning Lab Component," Journal of Economic Education, 29, 321-329. RUSSELL, I. J., W. D. HENDRICKSON, and R. J. HERBERT (1984): "Effects of Lecture Information Density on Medical Student Achievement," Journal of Medical Education, 59, 881-889. ENDNOTES     PAGE  PAGE 2  An earlier and different version was published as Teaching Introductory Microeconomics with an In-Class Collaborative Learning Lab Component with Abdulaziz Elfessi in The Journal of Economics, XXVI, No. 2, 2000  Professor of Economics, University of Wisconsin-La Crosse, La Crosse, WI 54601  This doesnt have to be the case. The students can be allowed to be free to form their own groups or they can be assigned randomly.  The unit-exercises are the same as the nine homework assignments given to the control group.  Note that my teaching load didn't increase. Each student spent three hours while I still spent six hours in the class each week.  The control group had the same time until their next class outside of class to come up with the answers.  The control group was also allowed to consult books, class notes, and their classmates outside of class to come up with the answers.  Students answered the questions in a scantron sheet and I had the key with hole punched at the right answers. 2JOPQdefrsu ' ( q } ~ '    # & 5 y ] ^ 6:|!"13LMK ƻ߶߯߫hU2Ih;hB<:h hKu5>* hB<:5hB<:hB<:^JaJ hKuCJ hKu5H*jhKu0J5U hKu5jh4f0JCJU h4fCJ hKuCJhKu>-QRfghij     $ p@ n^`na$gdB<: $?^?a$gdB<:$a$dgd4fd     ) C m ~ 9:0d^` d^`$da$ $ pa$$ pa$$ p@ n^`na$gdB<:9!"2H!!!#$'>+M.T4h55555 @ $ & Fda$ $ da$$da$$da$ $d`a$`K ] ! !!!.!/!N"Q"""&&''S)T)))))******;+<+>+?+N+P+++--. . ..0011324222'3)333335555556&6+6366666 7 7777708;8X9Z99999htQF hKu>*󰭳ܿ0~<:hU2I hKu>*hKu hKu6S5'608=D>CCC DF[HJMPVVVX2Z[[[$da$ @d$da$d` $d`a$ $ @da$$ @a$9:::::;Q;R;l;|;;;<2<<<<<===>>>>>$>&>(>*>8>:><>>>>>>>??????0A2A6A8A:AtAvAzA|AAAAAAAAlBBCCCCCCCCCCCDD/D0D>E@EFF;IhtQF hKu>* hQH* hKuH* j~hKu hKuH* hQ^Jh~[hKuS;I* hKu>* hKu>*hrEhKuhtQFR[]d^ ____`bdnij8jjqqqq $$Ifa$ $>^`>a$ & Fdgd\L & Fdgduk & Fdgduk & Fdgd5  !d & Fddb$cccFdPdSddddddddddeUeeeefmf~ffffffffg#ghhLhMhmhhh@iVi\i_ilini{iiiii7j8jjkk.k2kkkllllfmmmsmmnnn(n,n/nInLnnnnnnhh,h;huk h\Lh\Lheh:/h5h\Lh h\Zhh(edOno oooDoEo\oooooo ppp q(qfqgqqqqqqqq.r/rrrrsTsUs]ssssss+tKtLtktt:uuuvvlvmvvvvvKwLwwwww+x,xYxyy7z8zCzϻԻԻԻԻԻԻԻϻԻԳhAhKu>* hKuCJ j<hKu j>hKu hKu5hKu htQF5 hE|hukh\Zh=h,h;huwhh Fqqqqqq $$Ifa$\kd$$Ifl4!,"04 laf4qqqqqr rrrrlccZZZZZZ $$Ifa$ $$Ifa$kd$$Ifl\p:!04 la rr7rwrrrrrlggggg^ $$Ifa$$a$kd2$$Ifl\p:!04 larrrrrs $$Ifa$\kd$$Ifl4!,"04 laf4ss sss!s%s*s/s4s9slcccZZZZZZ $$Ifa$ $$Ifa$kdd$$Ifl\!04 la 9ss@sAs[s\s]sssc^^Q $>^`>a$$a$kd"$$Ifl\!04 la $$Ifa$ sssssss<\kdb$$Ifl4!,"04 laf4 $$Ifa$\kd$$Ifl4!,"04 laf4ssssst t ttttcZZZ $$Ifa$kd$$Ifl\P!pp04 la $$Ifa$ t"t$t't*t+tKtckd$$Ifl\P!pp04 la $$Ifa$KtLtUtatctkt $$Ifa$\kdD$$Ifl4!,"04 laf4ktltut~ttttttttlcccZZZZZZ $$Ifa$ $$Ifa$kd$$Ifl\P!pp04 la ttttttttttcVVVVV $>^`>a$kdv$$Ifl\P!pp04 la $$Ifa$ ttttttttt!u"u-u0u2u4u6u\kd&$$Ifl4f!!04 laf4$ @d$Ifa$ $>^`>a$6u9u:uu6"$ & F @d$Ifa$kd$$Iflֈ&f!vv04 la$ @d$Ifa$uuuuuuu6kd $$Iflֈ&f!vv04 la$ @d$Ifa$uuuuvvv$ @d$Ifa$$ & F @d$Ifa$vv_vbvevF5%%$ @d$Ifa$ & F @d$IfkdS $$Iflֈ&f!vv04 laevhvjvlvmv6kd& $$Iflֈ&f!vv04 la$ @d$Ifa$mvvvvvvv$ @d$Ifa$ & F @d$IfvvvvvF5%%$ @d$Ifa$ & F @d$Ifkd $$Iflֈ&f!vv04 lavvvvv6kd $$Iflֈ&f!vv04 la$ @d$Ifa$v>wAwDwGwIwKw$ @d$Ifa$ & F @d$IfKwLwwwwF5%%$ @d$Ifa$ & F @d$Ifkd $$Iflֈ&f!vv04 lawwwww6kdr$$Iflֈ&f!vv04 la$ @d$Ifa$wwwwwww$ @d$Ifa$ & F @d$Ifwwww+xF990 $$Ifa$ $>^`>a$kdE$$Iflֈ&f!vv04 la+x,x8xBxNxPxXx $$Ifa$\kd$$Ifl4!!04 laf4XxYx[x\x]x_x`xaxcxdxYPPPPPPPP $$Ifa$kd$$IflrN !fT{04 la dxexgxhxixkxlxmxoxpxqxsxtxuxwxxxxxxxxxxxxxx $$Ifa$ $$Ifa$xxxxxxx y yyy%y+y,y2y7y8y=yByCyHyMyNySyXyYy^ycy $$Ifa$ $$Ifa$cydyiynyoytyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy $$Ifa$yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy $$Ifa$yy7zCzDzzYL?53 >^`> $>^`>a$ $>^`>a$kdn$$IflrN !fT{04 laCzzzzzzzzzzzzz{{{{-{4{5{6{:{<{s{{{{{{{{{{{|<|I|J|H}I}M}Z}^}_}`}d}f}}~~~~~~ ~~~ƽhAhA>*@aJhA@aJhAhA@aJhAhA>*aJ hAaJhAhAaJhAhA5^JaJhAhA6]^JaJhA^JaJhAhA^JaJhA hKu>*hKu8zz{{{{I|J|G}H}}}~~LM^_ /`0p@ P !$gdA $ /`0p@ P !$a$gdA~~~~~ ==€߀vÁɁʁˁ́́ρЁсҁ{¾¾¾¾ԴԾ{jhKu0JU h4fh4f h4f6h\Zh4fjh4f0JUhb0JmHnHu hKu0JjhKu0JUhjhU hKu5 hKu>*hKuhAhAhA@aJhAhA@]aJhAhA6@aJ.́΁ρЁރb Z^Z` Z^Z`gd4f&`#$ $>^`>a$gdA\}ރ߃23bc̈́΄TUąŅghbd hKu5hhAUh\ZhVjhKu0JUhKuh'b̈́Tąg $>^`>a$ Z^Z` Z^Z` It seemed to me that peer pressure compelled the students to work harder and be prepared for the CLL.  Nobody opted for working alone in my class. Better prepared students enjoyed sharing their knowledge with other group members with a sense of pride.  To avoid the problem of teaching to the test in the CLL, the same nine homework exercises in the standard format were given as the nine CLL exercises, so that both the groups were exposed to the same questions from me. The difference between the two formats was that the homework exercises in the standard format were discussed in the review classes by me, whereas CLL exercises were discussed in the CLL by the students moderated by me. C 0P1F:pbBP/ =!"#$% Dp$$If!vh5,"#v,":V l405,"4f4$$If!vh5555#v#v#v:V l05554$$If!vh5555#v#v#v:V l05554$$If!vh5,"#v,":V l405,"4f4$$If!vh5555#v#v#v#v:V l055554$$If!vh5555#v#v#v#v:V l055554$$If!vh5,"#v,":V l405,"4f4$$If!vh5,"#v,":V l405,"4f4$$If!vh555p5p#v#v#vp:V l0555p4$$If!vh555p5p#v#v#vp:V l0555p4$$If!vh5,"#v,":V l405,"4f4$$If!vh555p5p#v#v#vp:V l0555p4$$If!vh555p5p#v#v#vp:V l0555p4$$If!vh5!#v!:V l405!4af4$$If!vh55v5555v#v#vv#v#vv:V l055v55v4a$$If!vh55v5555v#v#vv#v#vv:V l055v55v4a$$If!vh55v5555v#v#vv#v#vv:V l055v55v4a$$If!vh55v5555v#v#vv#v#vv:V l055v55v4a$$If!vh55v5555v#v#vv#v#vv:V l055v55v4a$$If!vh55v5555v#v#vv#v#vv:V l055v55v4a$$If!vh55v5555v#v#vv#v#vv:V l055v55v4a$$If!vh55v5555v#v#vv#v#vv:V l055v55v4a$$If!vh55v5555v#v#vv#v#vv:V l055v55v4a$$If!vh5!#v!:V l405!4f4$$If!vh5f5T555{#vf#vT#v#v#v{:V l05f5T555{4$$If!vh5f5T555{#vf#vT#v#v#v{:V l05f5T555{4^ 2 0@P`p2( 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p8XV~_HmH nH sH tH L`L Normal1$CJOJQJ_HhmH sH tH >>  Heading 1$$@&a$5D@D  Heading 2$$dh@&a$>*DA`D Default Paragraph FontVi@V  Table Normal :V 44 la (k (No List JCJ Body Text Indenthdh`h4 @4 Footer  !.)@. Page Number@Y"@  Document Map-D OJQJTR2T Body Text Indent 2$hdh`ha$8B@B8 Body Text$a$5@OR@ Body Text 21$da$NS@bN Body Text Indent 3$^a$0Uq0 Hyperlink>*B*:@:  Footnote TextCJ@&@ Footnote ReferenceH*8+@8  Endnote TextCJ>*@> Endnote ReferenceH*44 bHeader  H$>/> b Header CharCJOJQJhPK![Content_Types].xmlj0Eжr(΢Iw},-j4 wP-t#bΙ{UTU^hd}㨫)*1P' ^W0)T9<l#$yi};~@(Hu* Dנz/0ǰ $ X3aZ,D0j~3߶b~i>3\`?/[G\!-Rk.sԻ..a濭?PK!֧6 _rels/.relsj0 }Q%v/C/}(h"O = C?hv=Ʌ%[xp{۵_Pѣ<1H0ORBdJE4b$q_6LR7`0̞O,En7Lib/SeеPK!kytheme/theme/themeManager.xml M @}w7c(EbˮCAǠҟ7՛K Y, e.|,H,lxɴIsQ}#Ր ֵ+!,^$j=GW)E+& 8PK!Ptheme/theme/theme1.xmlYOo6w toc'vuر-MniP@I}úama[إ4:lЯGRX^6؊>$ !)O^rC$y@/yH*񄴽)޵߻UDb`}"qۋJחX^)I`nEp)liV[]1M<OP6r=zgbIguSebORD۫qu gZo~ٺlAplxpT0+[}`jzAV2Fi@qv֬5\|ʜ̭NleXdsjcs7f W+Ն7`g ȘJj|h(KD- dXiJ؇(x$( :;˹! I_TS 1?E??ZBΪmU/?~xY'y5g&΋/ɋ>GMGeD3Vq%'#q$8K)fw9:ĵ x}rxwr:\TZaG*y8IjbRc|XŻǿI u3KGnD1NIBs RuK>V.EL+M2#'fi ~V vl{u8zH *:(W☕ ~JTe\O*tHGHY}KNP*ݾ˦TѼ9/#A7qZ$*c?qUnwN%Oi4 =3ڗP 1Pm \\9Mؓ2aD];Yt\[x]}Wr|]g- eW )6-rCSj id DЇAΜIqbJ#x꺃 6k#ASh&ʌt(Q%p%m&]caSl=X\P1Mh9MVdDAaVB[݈fJíP|8 քAV^f Hn- "d>znNJ ة>b&2vKyϼD:,AGm\nziÙ.uχYC6OMf3or$5NHT[XF64T,ќM0E)`#5XY`פ;%1U٥m;R>QD DcpU'&LE/pm%]8firS4d 7y\`JnίI R3U~7+׸#m qBiDi*L69mY&iHE=(K&N!V.KeLDĕ{D vEꦚdeNƟe(MN9ߜR6&3(a/DUz<{ˊYȳV)9Z[4^n5!J?Q3eBoCM m<.vpIYfZY_p[=al-Y}Nc͙ŋ4vfavl'SA8|*u{-ߟ0%M07%<ҍPK! ѐ'theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsM 0wooӺ&݈Э5 6?$Q ,.aic21h:qm@RN;d`o7gK(M&$R(.1r'JЊT8V"AȻHu}|$b{P8g/]QAsم(#L[PK-![Content_Types].xmlPK-!֧6 +_rels/.relsPK-!kytheme/theme/themeManager.xmlPK-!Ptheme/theme/theme1.xmlPK-! ѐ' theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsPK] Od"";#()+--/|(\| $$$'K 9;IbnCz~CGIJLMoqs 5[qqrrs9ssstKtkttt6uuuvevmvvvvKwwww+xXxdxxcyyyzbDEFHKNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnprt  '!!8@0(  B S  ?OO4W#OOьOdO< O<O~OdOOOd{OOlOLO#O$O$-"O$O|O::l<l<pq qq)q)q0q;q?t?tNtt|     BBp<p<q qqq/q:qEqEqLtPtPtt|  = *urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags PlaceName= *urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags PlaceTypeB *urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagscountry-region9*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsplace8*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsCity9 *urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsState       6666666667{<<^^^^MsVsQtWtuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuupvwv{yy~|| q*u*--77<<dRgR SSo]t]8^;^,f/f8f:fRgUgsooQpUprrrrfsnsssu&uuuuuuuuuuuuuuu|33333333333333333333eeuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuvvvvv\w}www2x3xyy{{'|)|x|z||eeuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuvvvvv\w}www2x3xyy{{'|)|x|z||x ?HZ ¨>~  UN¨>~y!& d%. /rC aF ^ lhOwt`|]w=|¨>~*hh^h`.hh^h`B*OJQJo(hh^h`o(.hh^h`.hh^h`o(.hh^h`.hh^h`.hh^h`.hh^h`.hh^h`B*OJQJo(h^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohp^p`OJQJo(hHh@ ^@ `OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohP^P`OJQJo(hHhh^h`B*OJQJo(hh^h`B*OJQJo(hh^h`o(.[?H^Owt UN]w=|Z /rCy!&xaF`|d%. lPAV @h ^`OJQJo(         #"o,E|euw5y?:/B<:[EtQF+)HU2I\L~[(ed4f9tQVrEA&Ku=*g uk\Z;buu@ffffX45678y|p@p<p>p@pBp@p@UnknownG* Times New Roman5Symbol3. * Arial5. *aTahoma?= * Courier New;WingdingsA BCambria Math"h̆&&d<d<$xdouou 2QHP ?Q2!xx!AN ALTERNATIVE METHOD OF TEACHINGWord DevelopmentUserH          Oh+'0  ( H T ` lx$AN ALTERNATIVE METHOD OF TEACHINGWord Development Normal.dotmUser8Microsoft Office Word@ @➆_d@|a@(b_dd՜.+,0 hp  UW - La Crosse<ou "AN ALTERNATIVE METHOD OF TEACHING Title  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxz{|}~Root Entry F@о_dData yB1Table 3WordDocument ESummaryInformation(DocumentSummaryInformation8MsoDataStoregw_d`Z_dZORBUIEXDQQ==2gw_d`Z_dItem  PropertiesUCompObj y   F'Microsoft Office Word 97-2003 Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q