Introduction to Just-in-Time Teaching as part of the Professional Development Conference at MSU Denver.

1. Jeff Loats
Director, CTLD
Professor of Physics

2. The Evidence Standard
Teachers can feel bombarded…
I strive to be a scholarly teacher …
• Apply the rigor we bring to our academic disciplines to the
discipline of teaching.
• Choose teaching methods that are strongly informed by the
best empirical evidence available.

3. In your teaching do you have a method for holding students
accountable for preparing for class?
Previous anonymous poll results (compiled):
~19% → I don’t, but I ask/threaten really well
~46% → I use a paper method (quiz, journal…)
~11% → I use a digital method (clickers, etc.)
~4% → I use Just-in-Time Teaching
~19% → I have some other method
(N ~ 311)
A)
B)
C)
D)
E)

4. Overview
1. Motivation for change
2. Basics of Just-in-Time Teaching
3. Mock example
4. Evidence for effectiveness
5. Summaries

5. Technique & Technology
Technique:
Just-in-Time Teaching
Technology:
Online question & response tools
Learner Teacher

6. Just-in-Time Teaching
Online pre-class assignments – “WarmUps”
First half - Students
• Conceptual questions, answered in sentences
• Graded on thoughtful effort
Second half - Instructor
• Responses are read “just in time”
• Instructor modifies that day’s plan accordingly.
• Aggregate results and anonymous responses are displayed in class.
Learner Teacher

7. Suppose we hold one end of a slinky and let it hang
down, as shown. Think about what the bottom end of
the slinky will do once we release the top end.
In the few moments after the top is released, what
will the bottom of the slinky do?
A) Moves up B) Moves down C) Stays put
[On a real WarmUp, I would ask you to explain]
7

9. Consider a typical day in your class. What fraction of students did
their preparatory work before coming to class?
A) 0% - 20%
B) 20% - 40%
C) 40% - 60%
D) 60% - 80%
E) 80% - 100%
33%
34%
18%
12%
4%
(𝑁~398)

10. 0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
WMS 390Y (N = 19)
Avg. = 77%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
PSY 2850 (N = 23)
Avg. = 68%
WarmUps ~Daily WarmUps ~Weekly
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Day 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28
Physics 2711 (N = 24)
Avg. = 72%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Day 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28
Physics 1000 (N = 22)
Avg. = 63%

11. Which of these three aspects do students self-report as the most
positively impacted by WarmUps?
A) Helpfulness in preparing for class
B) Helpfulness in staying engaged in class
C) Helpfulness in learning the material
38%
13%
50%

12. Mean on 1-5 scale
Preparation
for class
4.06
Engagement
during class
3.93
Learning
the material
3.79
Student Survey Results
9% 10%
81%
10%
18%
73%
10%
22%
68%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Harmful Neutral Helpful
How did WarmUps affect your...
Preparation Engagement Learning
N = 781

13. Studied Effectiveness
Used at hundreds of institutions
Dozens of studies/articles, in many disciplines:
(Bio, Art Hist., Econ., Math, Psych., Chem., etc.)
– Increase in content knowledge
– Improved student preparation for class
– Improved use of out-of-class time
– Increased attendance & engagement in class
– Improvement in affective measures

14. WarmUp Questions
Minimal jargon, aside from new vocabulary
A few comprehension-level questions, mostly “higher level”
Any question is better than none (don’t be precious)
Connections to evidence:
Pre-class work reduces working memory load during class.
Multimodal practice (not learning styles):
JiTT brings reading, writing and discussion.

15. Metacognition
Two questions in every WarmUp:
First:“What aspect of the material did you find the most difficult
or interesting.”
Last: “How much time did you spend on the pre-class work for
tomorrow?”
Connections to evidence:
Metacognition practice: Students regularly evaluate their own
interaction with the material.

16. The JiTT Feedback Loop
Student responses:
• Graded on thoughtful effort
• Sampled and categorized for display
• Quoted anonymously
Closing the loop:
• Respond to some students digitally
• Class time shifts to active engagement.
Learner Teacher

17. Just-in-Time Teaching
A different student role:
• Actively prepare for class (not just passively)
• Actively engage in class
• Compare your progress & plan accordingly
A different instructor role:
• Prepare to engage with these specific learners
• Modify class accordingly
• Create interactive engagement opportunities
Learner Teacher

18. Summary Slides

19. A Possible Plan
Choose one course you will teach next term.
A. Write two questions for each class meeting:
1. One lower-level (maybe computer graded).
One higher-level (answered in 1-2 sentences).
2. Give yourself 10 minutes to write each one
B. Write a standard opening metacognitive question
C. Discuss one question at the top of class, and one in the middle.
Use the metacognitive responses as break points or highlights.

20. My Summary
Just-in-Time Teaching
• Solid grounding as a research-based instructional strategy
• Can be consistently integrated into nearly all other methods
• Addresses areas that evidence shows are often neglected
(metacognitive practice, writing across disciplines, open-ended
questions).
But, be prepared to find that students know less than we might
hope. (Though maybe this can be freeing?)

21. Your Summary
If you want to implement JiTT, what is your next concrete action?
Email: jloats1@msudenver.edu
Slides: www.slideshare.net/JeffLoats
Web: https://sites.msudenver.edu/jloats1/jitt/
(or search for “loats jitt”)

22. JiTT References & Resources
• Simkins, Scott and Maier, Mark (Eds.) (2010) Just in Time Teaching: Across the Disciplines, Across the Academy, Stylus
Publishing.
• Gregor M. Novak, Andrew Gavrini, Wolfgang Christian, Evelyn Patterson (1999) Just-in-Time Teaching: Blending Active
Learning with Web Technology. Prentice Hall. Upper Saddle River NJ.
• K. A. Marrs, and G. Novak. (2004). Just-in-Time Teaching in Biology: Creating an Active Learner Classroom Using the
Internet. Cell Biology Education, v. 3, p. 49-61.
• Jay R. Howard (2004). Just-in-Time Teaching in Sociology or How I Convinced My Students to Actually Read the
Assignment. Teaching Sociology, Vol. 32 (No. 4 ). pp. 385-390. Published by: American Sociological Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3649666
• S. Linneman, T. Plake (2006). Searching for the Difference: A Controlled Test of Just-in-Time Teaching for Large-Enrollment
Introductory Geology Courses. Journal of Geoscience Education, Vol. 54 (No. 1)
Stable URL:http://www.nagt.org/nagt/jge/abstracts/jan06.html#v54p18
ON-DEMAND SLIDES