1. Teaching Mythbusters Dr. Donald Coffin Economics IU Northwest
Stela Pudar-Hozo Mathematics IU Northwest

2. CASE 1 It is clear that students’ attention does vary during lectures, but the literature does not support the perpetuation of the 10- to 15-min attention estimate. Perhaps the only valid use of this parameter is as a rhetorical device to encourage teachers to develop ways to maintain student interest in the classroom. If psychologists and other educators continue to promote such a parameter as an empirically based estimate, they need to support it with more controlled research. Beyond that, teachers must do as much as possible to increase students’ motivation to “pay attention” as well as try to understand what students are really thinking about during class.
Attention During Lectures: Beyond Ten Minutes.
Wilson, Karen, Saint Louis University Korn, James H. Saint Louis University
Teaching of Psychology; Spring2007, Vol. 34 Issue 2, p85-89, 5p

3. CASE 2 Student Attitudes Towards Group Work Among Undergraduates in Business Administration, Education and Mathematics. Gottschall, Holli University of North Carolina, Greensboro García-Bayonas, Mariche University of North Carolina, Greensboro Educational Research Quarterly; Sep2008, Vol. 32 Issue 1, p3-28, 26p
Analysis of the positive and negative aspects of group work revealed generally similar results across majors, but with some exceptions. Education majors had a more positive attitude toward group work than Business and Mathematics majors and Business majors selected more negative aspects than the Education and Mathematics majors. As may be anticipated, across majors "free riding" was sited as an obstacle to group work as was the difficulty in coordinating schedules.

4. CASE 3 Students' Performance and Satisfaction with Web vs
CASE 3 Students' Performance and Satisfaction with Web vs. Paper-Based Practice Quizzes and Lecture Notes Author(s): Macedo-Rouet, Monica; Ney, Muriel; Charles, Sandrine; Lallich-Boidin, Genevieve Computers & Education, v53 n2 p Sep pp. (Peer Reviewed Journal) ISSN:
The use of computers to deliver course-related materials is rapidly expanding in most universities. Yet the effects of computer vs. printed delivery modes on students' performance and motivation are not yet fully known. We compared the impacts of Web vs. paper to deliver practice quizzes that require information search in lecture notes. Hundred and twenty two undergraduate students used either a web site or printed documents to answer 18 mathematics questions during a tutored session. A revised Web site was designed based on ergonomic criteria, to test the hypothesis that improved usability would decrease time spent on the task, the number of pages consulted, and students' perceived cognitive load. The group working with printed documents had the highest performance. Furthermore, students perceived the paper materials as less effortful to read, and expressed preference for printing lecture notes and questions. However, students appreciated having a Web site available. No differences were found between the two sites. We conclude that Web delivery imposed higher perceived cognitive load due to the need to read lengthy documents. We suggest possible ways to improve Web-based practice materials, such as simultaneous display of questions and lecture notes. (Contains 3 tables and 2 figures.)

5. CASE 4 Are There Instructional Differences between Full-Time and Part-Time Faculty? Landrum, R. Eric College Teaching, v57 n1 p23-26 Win pp. (Peer Reviewed Journal) ISSN:
Using data from eight academic departments and 361 courses taught during a semester, the author examined differences between full-time and part-time faculty in the areas of general demographic variables, student evaluation of teaching outcomes, and the distribution of grades earned. The author expected full-time faculty to exhibit higher teaching evaluations and less lenient grade distributions, yet neither hypothesis was supported. However, substantial differences exist in the support mechanisms provided to part-time and full-time faculty.
There was not a significant difference between full-time faculty (M = 41.70, SD = 36.0) and part-time faculty (M = 40.55, SD = 33.8) in the average number of students enrolled per class, t(214) = –0.22, n.s.
There were no statistically significant differences between full-time and part-time faculty on any of the teaching evaluation items.
There was not a significant difference between full-time faculty (M = 2.71, SD = 0.6) and part-time faculty (M = 2.86, SD = 0.4) on course GPA, t(211) = 1.80, n.s.
There was not a significant difference between full-time faculty (M = 2.71, SD = 0.6) and part-time faculty (M = 2.86, SD = 0.4) on course GPA, t(211) = 1.80, n.s.

6. CASE 5
One example of this is for the lecturer to pause periodically and have students clarify their notes with a partner.
This can be done two or three times during an hour-long class.Because this pause procedure is so simple, it provides a baseline to study whether short, informal student activities can improve the effectiveness of lectures. Ruhl et al. [33] show some significant results of adopting this pause procedure. In a study involving 72 students over two courses in each of two semesters, the researchers examined the effect of interrupting a 45-minute lecture three times with two-minute breaks during which students worked in pairs to clarify their notes. In parallel with this approach, they taught a separate group using a straight lecture and then tested short and long-term retention of lecture material. Short-term retention was assessed by a free-recall exercise where students wrote down everything they could remember in three minutes after each lecture and results were scored by the number of correct facts recorded. Short-term recall with the pause procedure averaged 108 correct facts compared to 80 correct facts recalled in classes with straight lecture. Long-term retention was assessed with a 65 question multiple-choice exam given one and a half weeks after the last of five lectures used in the study. Test scores were 89.4 with the pause procedure compared to 80.9 without pause for one class, and 80.4 with the pause procedure compared to 72.6 with no pause in the other class. Further support for the effectiveness of pauses during the lecture is provided by Di Vesta [34].
[33] Ruhl, K., C. Hughes, and P. Schloss, “Using the Pause Procedure to Enhance Lecture Recall,” Teacher Education and Special Education, Vol. 10, Winter 1987, pp. 14–18.