“Students Teaching Students” Project

This web page contains supplementary procedural details and results to accompany the manuscript:

“Students Teaching Students: An Experiential Learning Opportunity for Large Introductory
Psychology Classes in Collaboration with Local Elementary Schools”
by Gary M. Muir and Gretchen J. van der Linden,
St. Olaf College, Northfield, MN.

The Project and Participants
Undergraduate Students
Students in the introductory psychology class at St. Olaf College (a four-year, liberal arts college) over seven semesters from Spring 2005 to Spring 2008 participated in the project (N = 774; M = 111 students per class; 303 men and 471 women; ages: 18-22 yrs). Many students take the course out of interest and later go on to major in psychology. Others choose the course because of the general education credits it provides (the natural science credit can be attractive to students less comfortable with other natural science disciplines), or because it is a requirement of their major (e.g., nursing students).

Initiating the project
The city of Northfield, Minnesota, has a population of approximately 18,000 and three elementary schools. It was essential to gain the support of the principals from all three schools at the initiation of the project in order to support the approximately 30 groups of undergraduate students who prepare presentations each semester. It was also important to ensure that the principals and teachers did not see the project as a significant addition to their workload. For example, a sign-up sheet was provided to allow teachers to choose the presentation topic for their class with a minimum of inconvenience (see below). After individual meetings with the elementary school principals to explain the goals of the project, they agreed as a group to pilot the project across all three schools. This required each school to have only 10 teachers volunteer to have presentations in their classes – a realistic number for each school that did not require all teachers to be involved every time.
Another critical factor in the project’s success has been the involvement of two senior undergraduate student TAs per semester who assist with the necessary and time-consuming logistical tasks involved (e.g., organization of groups and presentation topics).

Establishing groups and presentation topics.
Students in the introductory psychology class were asked to choose a chapter of the psychology textbook (Gray, 2006) on which to base their presentation content. To increase students’ sense of ownership of their presentations, students were given the option of choosing their own group of 3-5 members (depending on class size) using an online forum. If students did not choose their own group members, they were assigned to groups of 3-5 members based on the textbook chapter they selected. This choice occurred in the third week of the semester and usually provided 25-30 groups per class. Subsequently, in the sixth week of classes, each group posted a short description (2-3 sentences) of its presentation topic on an online forum. Class TAs screened the descriptions for age-appropriateness, edited them, arranged them into three different sign-up sheets containing approximately 10 presentation topics each, and e-mailed one sign-up sheet to each of the three elementary school principals. These sign-up sheets were posted in the staff rooms of the three schools, and kindergarten through fifth grade teachers signed up for the presentation topic(s) that interested them most. Teachers usually selected topics that fit well with their curriculum and were age-appropriate for their class.

Arranging the presentation time.
After approximately 1½ weeks, the principals faxed the completed sign-up sheets back to St. Olaf, and class TAs notified the student groups of their teacher, grade level, and teacher’s contact details via an online forum. This provided students with at least 2 to 3 weeks to contact the teacher to arrange a mutually convenient time to present within a specified 2-week period at the end of the semester. This was also good timing for the schools, as they were more likely to have finished standardized testing by that time. The instructor advised groups to try, if possible, to visit the classroom before presenting and use their observations to decide how to better match their presentation to the level of their elementary class. Students were expected to find their own way to the elementary schools for their presentations, but this was facilitated by free public transportation for all college students permanently provided by the City of Northfield. Students were encouraged to arrange a presentation time outside of psychology class time, if possible.

Creating an age-appropriate presentation.
One of the biggest challenges that students face in this project was how to create an age-appropriate presentation. Because students do not know the exact grade level they are presenting to until approximately 2 to 3 weeks prior to the presentation, it is important to make sure that groups develop an outline that is flexible enough to be adapted to the final age level. To assist with this process, the developmental psychology part of the course was covered in lectures approximately 3 weeks prior to the presentations, as this explicitly examined children’s cognitive abilities at different ages. In addition, an education professor from St. Olaf College guest lectured in the class each semester approximately 3 weeks prior to the presentations. During the lecture, he shared his experiences as an elementary school teacher and talked about what students could expect when presenting to children of various ages. Students also drew heavily on previous personal experiences with children (e.g., as summer camp counselors, with younger relatives) to help them construct age-appropriate presentations. Students were reminded that 30 minutes (the duration of their presentation) would go very quickly once they began to present and that presenting less content in a clear manner would allow more time to make sure that the elementary school students really understood what they were being taught. It also was emphasized that making the presentations interactive would help the elementary students stay engaged so that they would benefit maximally from the EL opportunity.

Elementary school feedback on outcomes.
Groups were each given packets to give to their teacher containing a teacher feedback form and survey forms for the elementary students. The teacher’s feedback form contained the following six questions with responses on a 5-point scale, as well as a space for any comments:
Q1: Was the group prepared? (1 = unprepared; 5 = well prepared)
Q2: Based on your observations, how well do you think your students enjoyed the presentation? (1 = not at all; 5 = a great deal)
Q3: How interactive was the presentation? (1 = not interactive; 5 = very interactive)
Q4: Was the material presented at an age-appropriate level? (1 = inappropriate; 5 = very appropriate)
Q5: Based on your observations, how much did your students learn from the presentation? (1 = very little; 5 = a great deal)
Q6: How interested would you be in working with the St. Olaf Psychology Department on this project in the future? (1 = not interested; 5 = very interested)
An additional question added in Spring 2007 asked: Did the student presenters display a clear understanding of the presentation material? (1 = not at all; 5 = a great deal)
Elementary students’ feedback forms consisted of three faces (sad, happy, and neutral), and students were asked to circle the face that best reflected how they felt about the presentation. Because the elementary students ranged from kindergarteners to fifth graders, this system allowed for feedback to be collected from all ages independent of literacy level. Once completed, teacher and elementary students’ feedback forms were sealed in the envelope provided and left at the school’s main office for collection.

Grading
The presentation component of the course comprised 25% of undergraduate students’ final grade, and the overall presentation grade itself consisted of three components:

• Feedback from teachers and students (as described above). Elementary student feedback was scored as proportion of smiley faces out of 5 (e.g., 9/10 smiley faces = 4.5).
• Peer assessment of participation in planning and conducting the presentation. Students rated each member of their group on how much they contributed to the planning and execution of the presentation. The ratings across all members of the group (including the rater themselves) were required to sum to 100%. Therefore, if all members contributed equally, they would all score at a maximum for this component. If someone was considered to have contributed more than everyone else, they would score at a maximum while the remaining members at less than a maximum by default.
• A short, three-page reflective paper (written individually) describing what they did in their presentation and why they chose to do those particular things. As part of the paper, each member of the group needed to provide a citation from a different primary source to help justify their group’s choice of presentation content. Students were free to share additional references within their group. To assist with this process, a reference librarian at St. Olaf College conducted an information literacy session in the second week of classes, where she demonstrated how to use the library’s resources to find such sources.

Evaluation Results
Undergraduate Student Evaluations
Data from the online course evaluation forms for a total of 518 undergraduate college students (167 men and 351 women) over seven semesters showed that 95% (n = 515) agreed in some way (i.e., strongly agreed, agreed, or somewhat agreed) that the presentation had been a valuable learning experience, 98% (n = 507) agreed that the presentation had been an enjoyable experience, 91% (n = 516) agreed that the presentations should be a regular part of the course, and 89% (n = 516) agreed that the presentation helped increase their understanding of psychology. Importantly, the earlier the student was in their college experience when they completed the presentation, the greater the positive impact they reported it having on their understanding of psychology, rs(505) = -0.148, p < 0.001 (two-tailed). However, because juniors and seniors in the class were much less likely to be psychology majors than freshmen or sophomores, it is possible that this result instead reflects different levels of investment and engagement in the course between majors (first years and sophomores) and non-majors (juniors and seniors). To rule out this alternative explanation, a t test showed no significant difference between majors’ and nonmajors’ responses to the question, t(505) = -1.452, n.s. (two-tailed). Note, however, that “majors” here included not just psychology majors but all majors that required the class (e.g., nursing). Further analysis also showed that level of interest in the subject before taking the course was not related to ratings of increased understanding of psychology as a result of the presentation, t(505) = 0.023, n.s. (two-tailed).
The following are representative quotes from Fall 2006 and Spring 2007 students in answer to how they thought the project improved their understanding of psychology:

“Having an opportunity to not only work with, but teach, young children helped me to gain a better understanding of developmental psychology and how much differently from us they think. Putting concepts we were learning in a college level psychology class into terms that they could understand also added to this challenge. It was a very interesting and enjoyable project.”

“The presentation was a great project, partially because I love working with kids. However, challenging yourself to teach a fairly complex scientific concept to elementary students forces you first, to understand the concept inside and out, and second, to be creative in designing ways to teach and explain the material, which further cements the concept for you.”

“In having to present to third graders, we were forced to have a full understanding of our topic. Thus, we had to find examples that applied to the topic and, at the same time, simple enough that our audience might understand. I was able to grasp the topic and able to answer any question no matter how obscure it was.”

“Just by requiring that we teach an area of psychology to younger children caused us to learn about it in a much more in depth kind of way, and to figure out alternate ways of teaching it, so the kids could understand. It also gave us insight into how children learn and behave in general.”

Elementary Teacher and Student Evaluations
Feedback from the elementary school teachers (n = 199) over seven semesters on 5-point ratings scales showed that the student presentations were well prepared (M = 4.70; SD = 0.14), interactive (M = 4.48; SD = 0.13), and age-appropriate (M = 4.53; SD = 0.11). Based on their observations, teachers also rated their students as having learned a significant amount from the presentation (M = 4.06; SD = 0.13) in addition to having enjoyed it (M = 4.66; SD = 0.10). Furthermore, teachers were very interested in participating in the project again in the future (M = 4.69; SD = 0.17), and many have been involved on multiple occasions. Data from a question added in Spring 2007 showed that teachers (n = 83) rated the undergraduate students as having a clear understanding of the presentation material (M = 4.66; SD = 0.09). In addition to the ratings, teachers consistently offered very useful feedback that was posted online for each group. Advice for improvement typically involved the amount of active student participation in the presentation and, less frequently, the age-level of the presentation.
Elementary student feedback showed that students greatly enjoyed the presentations (M = 4.20; SD = 0.11). Interpreting these results can be difficult, however, because alternative explanations for these ratings could be postulated (e.g., a small group of mischievous students choose the sad face just for “fun”). These ratings, therefore, were weighted less that the teachers’ assessment for grading purposes.

Peer Assessment
Students’ peer assessment ratings showed that 62% of the students (N = 774) contributed at least the amount expected (i.e., 100%) to their group’s presentation, with 91% of students contributing at least 90%. This suggests that most students took the presentation seriously enough to participate significantly in its planning and execution.

References:
Gray, P. (2006). Psychology (5th ed.). New York: Worth Publishers.