"Let's Get Into Groups!"

For an informal, nongraded group activity, I always liked games or contests. What I would do was lecture for the first 1/3rd of the class time. I would then break them up into groups of four. Then they would get into their groups and pick team names, as Davis suggests. For the actual contest, I would have premade, somewhat hard, open-ended questions. They would then have three minutes to come up with an answer and hand them in. We would then spend some time discussing the merits and failures of each group’s response, allowing the group to defend their answer or argue against another group’s response. A winning group would be awarded a certain amount of points and at the end of the class time the group with the most points would win a prize.

For a formal group project, I would want to have the groups solve a controversy. That is, in groups of four, each group would be assigned a chapter, within which there may be some debate in the field. I am thinking of a Social Psychology course here. The group would then have to split into two, two presenting one side and the other two presenting the other side. Each subgroup of two would have to write and present their side and then together as a full group come to a consensus which they have to write and present at the end of their paper and presentation. They would also have to create a short answer question for the final exam.

One of the main ways in which I am utilized information in the readings is in regard to group sizes. First, I kept them small enough that it does not really allow for an individual to just sit back and watch. More to the point, in the formal group project, the groups are subdivided so that they are working in pairs and as an entire group. I would think this would further circumvent slackers.

In the informal group activity, I think that creating a game is always a fun way to test the knowledge. Then by adding in the ability to decide which group had the best answer by letting them debate their answers makes sure they invest the effort to come up with something important.

In the formal group project, I would also have the group members grade each other’s participation. As an overachiever, I always felt like I took on the brunt of the work and always appreciated the chance to evaluate my group members. I particularly liked the idea presented by Lang about giving both a group and individual grade. I think that is something that I would incorporate as well. Finally, Lang also mentioned having the groups create an essay question for the final. I think this is another idea I would use as well. That way, the other students pay attention to the presentations.

On lectures

I have been in many lectures over the years and I have seen my fair share of good ones and bad ones. The ones that I enjoyed most stood above the others because of the enthusiasm of the lecturer. Along with this enthusiasm comes a majority of the ideas laid forth in Lang’s On Course text and Davis’ Tools for Teaching text. It seems that when the instructor appears excited about what they are teaching, they incorporate a variety of ways in which to grab the audience. However, when the instructor had seemed bored, I felt bored along with them. In fact, I have had instructors that would cut their lectures short because they was bored by topics outside their specialty. I actually got a lower grades in courses with instructors that apparently did not enjoy the material.


Had the ineffective lectures incorporated ideas presented by Lang and Davis, the lectures could have been salvaged. For example, if the lecturers would have created a sense of community, as Davis suggests, the class may have contributed more to the conversation and she/he might have had a re-invigorated appreciation for the material. Furthermore, as both authors suggest, had these lecturers used relatable examples, aside from just using the ones from the textbook, the students may have related to the material more. That is something that Lang touched on quite nicely. There is no need to regurgitate the entire book, since the students have the ability to read. Another issue, based on the last, that could have been fixed, would be for them to know the audience. Numerous times I have had lecturers teaching introductory courses during summer sessions that typically teach advanced undergraduate or graduate courses and did not change the way they presented the information. Had they used a less jargon and scientific conversational style, the material would have been more understandable and thus more engaging.


My advisor has told me a number of times that I have a good speaking style and that I am relatable, but that I tend to go too fast, cover too much material, and assume that everyone already knows what I know. Therefore, while I have my speaking skills handled, I can apply some of the things the authors suggest, to strengthen my weak points. Both authors mention covering 3-5 major points during a lecture. I think keeping this in mind will help me with the issue of covering too much material and also being too fast. During past talks, I have typically had to rush through my topics because I tried to fit too much in and the main points get lost in the material. Finally, understanding that I know more about my topic than most students will make me take time explaining the basics. This should help me from going over the audiences' head and losing them altogether. When an audience is lost, the lecture will lose all effectiveness.