Jennia Schwebach and Dr. Scott Hammond and Quint Randle, Communication
Double-loop learning is when the teacher offers the students more than one cycle of conceptualization. For example, the teacher may lecture on the material (loop one) and then give a group exercise (loop two). However, the teacher is not limited to two loops and may go on to give the students more exercises or activities to create loop three or four. This theory is student centered because it focuses on adapting to the needs of the students. However, all the loops must occur in the classroom and not as homework. Conversely, single-loop learning is centered on the expertise of the teacher. The traditional teaching method is where the teacher will lecture during the entire class or use another single loop method (such as a lab). Chris Arguris introduced the concept of double loop learning in his studies back in the 1970s.i
All students enrolled in Statistics 221 are also enrolled in a supplementary lab, which function is to explain concepts, help with homework, and teach corresponding computer application commands. Since the class time of Statistics 221 is lecture oriented, as a statistics TA, I thought it would be valuable to evaluate if a more active and multiple loop method of teaching labs would help students learn the Statistics 221 material better. I evaluated four labs—two labs that I taught using a more active and multiple loop method, and two that were taught by a TA who used a more traditional method.
In my labs we did a lot of group work. Often a practice question would start off the day. First each student would attempt the problem by his or herself, then the students would pair up and finally a pair or group of students would explain the problem to the class. Other times I would explain a difficult concept on the board and then the class would practice a similar problem by themselves, in pairs, or as groups. On the first day of lab, my class, on their own, using two different kinds of candy, came up with their own design of an experiment, carried out the experiment and recorded the data. We used this experience to talk about the principles of experimental design.
The test scores of the students in my labs were compared with the scores of the students in the other TA’s labs. Also, the students took a survey that evaluated the teaching method of each TA.ii No significant difference was found in test scores between the two groups. A factorial analysis was performed on the surveys given, and there was a significant difference between the personalities of the two TAs. The control group TA was found to be significantly more social, personable and conversational. However, after evaluating the survey, it became apparent the survey measured teacher personality and not teaching style.
This project was not without its complications. First, the statistics department started, during this semester especially, to push active teaching styles among all TAs. Articles to read and a few pre-planned active lab activities were handed out and all TAs were encouraged to teach actively rather than lecture. I think a push towards this direction is great, however, it made it difficult to distinguish the teaching used in the experimental group from the control group. Also, the TA from the control group held special study sessions, against departmental policy, for the control class to help study for tests. Since tests were used to evaluate the two groups, this placed an unfair advantage to those receiving extra help. Also, although all students are automatically signed up for a lab, students do not receive credit for labs and many do not come. This confounded evaluating test scores for differences because it was hard to tell who attended labs and if it helped.
This study is preliminary at best. Due to the challenges explained above, the study is too biased to place any sort of conclusions. If a study such as this were to be carried out in the future it needs to involve the entire department and all TAs. Half the TAs should teach using a lecture method, and half the TAs should teach using an active method. The TAs using the active method should use pre-prepared active lab activities; pre-assigned topics or lecture outlines should be assigned to the control groups. With such a large sample, simple biases, such as the ones listed above would be mitigated.
The TA labs cover three lecture periods to every lab. Since the amount of information to cover in a lab period is so great, it may be more advantageous to use double loop and active learning styles during regular classes and not during labs. Active learning lessons and multiple loop teaching take more time than lecture methods. I found it hard to cover the amount of material necessary while maintaining the depth of understanding desired.
This study taught me a lot about research. I realized the difficulty of establishing a controlled environment in the social sciences. It became clear to me that biases you don’t account for or don’t expect can easily creep up and prejudice results. As such, I also realized that although eighty students is a fairly large number, a study using all the students in Statistics 221 or at least a large portion would help establish valid results. I also realized the need for thorough planning. I found I needed to be more detailed in my planning to maintain internal validity.
Overall, this study made me realize more fully the necessary components of a successful study and problems that easily occur. As I prepare to carry out a thesis, this background will enable me to more carefully design my project. This study has made me aware of the amount of support and cooperation needed, as well as the constant controls necessary for a study to carry external validity.
A study regarding teaching methods such as this one, at a larger scale and in more collaboration at the department level, could yield some interesting results that may affect BYU and its teaching methods.
References
- Arguris, C. (1982) Reasoning, Learning and Action: Individual and Organizational. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
- Copyright 1988 by the Speech Communication Association.