Select and use only one of these discussion questions during one Brief Hybrid Workshop.  Consider using another one of these questions or a similar one of your own in a subsequent BHW.  You could also invite participants to recommend such topics or questions in advance of the BHW.

• Terminology?
  At this institution, does it matter much whether we call this set of important needs "Information Literacy" or "Information Fluency" or something else?  Does one of these labels seem quite appealing to some important constituencies while offensive or confusing to others?  If so, what is the label that is most likely to be helpful to the greatest number?  The label that will clearly indicate the major thrust of these efforts and will irritate the fewest number of people?

• Need for Undergraduate Students?
  Describe one or two ways in which too many undergraduates are misusing or missing out on information resources at your institution.

• Institutional Resources - Strengths?
  Describe one or two resources that your own college or university already has available and that will be especially valuable in any program that attempts to improve undergraduate information literacy.  Do you already have effective ways for people to communicate and collaborate across departmental, office, or divisional lines?  People, money, courses, departments, ....?

• Institutional Resources - Weaknesses?
  What will impede the progress of a program that attempts to improve undergraduate information literacy at your institution?  What is already doing so?  What are practical obstacles to developing collaborative efforts to improve undergraduate information literacy?  Are there institutionalized practices or conventions that impede collaboration across departmental, office, or divisional lines?  Describe one or two key resources that your own college or university lacks entirely or has only inadequately available.  People, mission, money, courses, departments, ....?

• Who?
  Identify individuals who will be especially important at your own institution to include as active participants in any program that attempts to improve undergraduate information literacy?  Individuals important because of their professional role, their personal commitment and expertise, their stature among colleagues, etc.  Individuals likely to be able to represent significant but disparate views about information literacy and who are likely to be able to do so constructively with a collaborative sprit?

• Case Studies or Model Programs?
  Describe some characteristics of a successful program that improves undergraduate information literacy at some other institution (or at some other division of your own institution).  How does this program depend on or take advantage of collaboration across departmental, office, or divisional lings?  How have you learned about this program?  How could you learn more? What else would be useful to learn about it?

Back to top of page

A. Think    B. Discuss    C. Report

Adjust the recommended timing as appropriate to your situation.

A.  1 Minute - Think

Think about these questions.
Jot some notes if you wish.  They will not be collected.

B.  2 Minutes - Discuss

Discuss your thoughts with one or two people sitting near you.  Were there some interesting similarities among your individual thoughts?  Any interesting differences?  Identify someone in your group willing to report a few of your conclusions.

Back to top of page

C.  2 Minutes - Report

Report one or two of your findings.  If someone from another group announces one of your findings, don't report that one.

Back to top of page

Additional history, discussion, recommendations about "Think-Pair-Share" - available via this link as of January 23, 2008 from the "Collaborative Learning" section of Website of the National Institute for Science Education, University of Wisconsin-Madison (Last Updated: May 05, 2003)

Also see:  "Managing—and Motivating!—Distance Learning Group Activities" by Barbara Millis for more general info about similar classroom activities that can easily and effectively be adapted for online, hybrid environments and used with a variety of "audiences" or learners.

Perspective on Using Think-Pair-Share
(A few brief thoughts)

Excerpt from Jim Eison, email to Steve Gilbert, Feb 6, 2008:
 

Think-Pair-Share is a widely used and highly effective form of informal group. It is a low-risk and high impact collaborative learning strategy that (1) can be used productively in very large classes, (2) encourages students to be reflective about course content, (3) allows students to privately formulate their thoughts before sharing them with others, and (4) can be used to develop specific higher-order thinking skills.

While described and used in various different ways throughout higher education, as I have come to use this technique, a brief think-pair-share exercise often begins with students having information that is initially provided through a reading assignment, a short lecture, a videotape, an electronic presentation, a prior life experiences, or personal opinion, etc.

The instructor then poses a single question and students are instructed to reflect (i.e., think) about the question and to individually note their response in writing. Needless to say, the specific question the instructor poses will influence the nature and quality of the responses his/her student will provide; instructor posed questions should always be designed purposefully and thoughtfully.

Educational benefits derived from having students first record their individual reactions/responses in writing include: (1) having to write causes all or most students to become engaged in personal reflection, (2) writing can stimulate productive thinking, (3) providing students who favor introversion with an opportunity to first look inward before being called upon to respond spontaneously in public, and (4) creating a set of notes or speaking points that can be used later both when talking to a partner and in large group discussion.

Students then turn to a partner and share their responses. This can end the sharing or the pair may turn to another pair and share again in groups of four. The specific discussion directions the instructor provides students with can focus students’ attention to specific thinking skills. For example, asking students’ to “Identify points of commonality and differences among your two replies” involves students in “comparing and contrasting; alternatively, asking students to “Select the best idea contained among the ideas found in both your lists and describe the criteria you used when making this selection” involves students in the process that B. Bloom labeled as “Evaluation”

Educational benefits derived from having students shares their written responses with a partner include (1) providing an non-threatening opportunity for each student to speak with a partner rather than in front of the whole group, (2) engaging half the class in speaking and half in focused listening during this period, (3) offering an opportunity for partners to offer one another confirmation and support (e.g., “That’s a good idea that I did not think of myself”) and (4) helping students come to see and believe in the merits of collaboration (i.e., that two or more heads can be better than one).

After providing sufficient time for participants to speak with their partners, the instructor may then select some pairs to each share a response with the whole class. After this segment of large group discussion, the instructor can then both provide additional noteworthy points as well as a concise summary/synthesis of this activity before moving on to the next class segment.

Jim Eison, Ph.D.
Professor of Higher Education
Department of Adult, Career & Higher Education
University of South Florida

Back to top of page