Just-in-Time Teaching and Peer Instruction

Bryn Hughes, The University of Miami

We’ve all been there. Our students have just turned in a lengthy homework
assignment, or completed a difficult midterm exam. On the schedule for the day
is an entirely new topic. You’ve dutifully suggested a reading from the textbook
in preparation for the day’s lecture. You’ve carefully selected musical examples
and part-writing exercises that perfectly complement your lecture. Nevertheless,
your students view this as a “free day.” They come to class, sure, but they
haven’t read their textbooks. They’re not even planning to fully engage with
what you’re about to discuss until they try the homework assignment, which is
due two days from now.
Try as I might to be the most charismatic “Sage on the Stage” in my classroom,
I’ve come to realize that lecturing in this situation is a remarkably inefficient
way to facilitate my students’ learning of material (especially new material). I
began to incorporate flipped pedagogy in my teaching in an attempt to give my
students the opportunity to make the most efficient use of our time together in
class. Just-in-Time Teaching and Peer Instruction are two techniques that I’ve
used to achieve this.

Just-in-Time Teaching
Although laden with a title that sounds like business jargon, Just-in-Time
Teaching (JiTT) is simply a way of priming your students in preparation for an
upcoming class. Students are given an exercise, usually an online quiz,
pertaining to the topic to be discussed in the subsequent meeting. Prior to class,
the instructor reads through the students’ responses and tailors the lesson
according to any problems and/or questions raised on the quiz. This creates a
“positive feedback loop” between the teacher and the students, and it forces
students to become active learners.
How does Just-in-Time Teaching benefit students?

Students are more prepared

By engaging students outside of class, JiTT forces students to be more prepared
for an in-class lesson. As a result, students take more ownership of their
learning experience. When students complete JiTT tasks, they have a better idea
of what’s going to happen in class and will be more invested because they’ve
already invested their own time. Interestingly, even when students know they
are going to be quizzed immediately following a lecture, and therefore highly
motivated to pay attention, some studies have shown JiTT quizzes given before
class to have a greater impact on actively engaging students.
Cyclic reinforcement of concepts
When JiTT exercises are given routinely, students are given consistent practice
and conceptual reinforcement. This is particularly useful for subjects that
require cumulative knowledge and fluency with material, like music theory.
Student-teacher feedback is more efficient
A good teacher will use students’ homework as a means of guiding future
lessons. However, there are a few differences between JiTT exercises and
regularly assigned homework. Typically, homework is collected at the start of a
class and returned during the following class, at the earliest. While issues with
the homework may be addressed upon its return, this still leaves several days
between students’ initial attempts and the resolution of any difficulties
encountered in these attempts. Because JiTT exercises are submitted and graded
between classes, student-teacher feedback is much more efficient.

Students become exploratory learners

The nature of the material covered on JiTT exercises also tends to differ from
traditional homework. Most people who use JiTT use it as a way of introducing
a topic; the exercises are therefore exploratory and deal with things that students
have likely never encountered. Students are encouraged to make their best
attempt, but they are also reminded that it is OK to fail, because their difficulties
will be addressed in the upcoming class meeting.
How does Just-in-Time Teaching benefit teachers?
Lesson planning is more efficient and (eventually) takes less time
Carefully planned JiTT assignments allow the teacher to prioritize the most
difficult tasks and concepts based on student responses. Moreover, JiTT tasks
can free up time for more complex in-class tasks by moving simpler tasks
outside of class. If your JiTT exercise responses indicate that all of your
students are clearly fluent with the basics, you can design your lesson around
more challenging material.

Course and instructor assessment

Frequent JiTT exercises keep the teacher consistently abreast of how well
students understand the course material. Not only does this allow teachers to
tailor future lessons to specific student needs, it provides them with a
measurement of student preparation, and in turn a measurement of their
teaching effectiveness. Taking this further, some teachers will give the same
JiTT quiz twice: once before class, and once immediately following the lecture.
The difference in scores gives some indication of the success of the class on that
day. This kind of measurement could also be useful for coordinators of courses
that use multiple instructors to teach several sections of the same class. Course
coordinators could closely monitor section instructors and address problem
areas. With a constant stream of assessment data, instructors can more
accurately gauge the effectiveness of their course design and classroom
teaching.

What are JiTT’s drawbacks?

JiTT tasks don’t necessarily correlate with student learning
While JiTT seems to positively impact students’ class experiences and
enjoyment, as Kyle Beidler and Lauren Panton report in their summary of
empirical work done on this topic, its impact on students’ success on higher-
level, higher-stakes tasks such as tests and exams is less tangible. Studies by
David B. Daniel and John Broida, and Mark G. Urtel et al suggest that there is
no significant correlation between JiTT and exam scores. Conversely, studies by
Jonathan Kibble, John L. Dobson, and Kibble again, argue that there is a much
stronger link between JiTT-style quizzes and more formal types of assessment.
My experience, which corresponds with those reported by Scott Simkins and
Mark Maier, and many of the authors cited throughout this essay, suggests that
JiTT is worthwhile solely for its positive impact on students’ excitement and
interest, and its usefulness as a class organizing tool, regardless of its
measurable correlation with things like exam grades.

JiTT tasks aren’t necessarily well-suited for certain subjects

JiTT was born out of instructors becoming fed up with the antiquated pedagogy
used in large, lecture-driven classes. In my experience, very few music theory
classes are taught in this way; most good music theory teachers already
recognize the importance of an active classroom. Furthermore, JiTT tasks
typically involve relatively low-level assessment, such as multiple choice
questions and short prose responses. The music theory teacher may find that
these response modes lack sophistication and usefulness, especially those
without the ability to incorporate music notation and sound.
JiTT tasks need to be incentivized in order for students to take them seriously
JiTT’s linchpin is, of course, that students must complete their JiTT task in
order for it to be successful. Failure to do so could potentially make class even
less engaging for students than a traditional lecture, which could lead to a
decreased incentive to attend class at all. Since students are rarely motivated to
complete work without receiving credit, teachers implementing JiTT must
allocate a portion of the overall grade to JiTT tasks. Without receiving some
kind of “tangible” grade, students become increasingly apathetic t owards JiTT
tasks, perhaps even to the point of carelessly guessing answers. More open -
ended question formats, such as short prose responses, will prevent random
guessing, but these are more difficult to grade.
The problem is compounded by the fact that JiTT tasks are meant to be
exploratory. Often, the content covered on JiTT tasks has yet to be encountered
in class. Students are asked to make their best effort, and are not to be
discouraged if they can’t find “the right answers.” This makes it difficult t o
assign quantifiable grades to JiTT tasks. Students may find it unfair if JiTT
tasks are graded on accuracy, and justifiably so. Conversely, the teacher could
base grades on JiTT tasks entirely on effort; however, this may eventually also
lead to student apathy, or at least decreased focus during the process of
completing the tasks.
One solution to this problem is to include some drill-based review in addition to
exploratory questions on JiTT tasks. These questions could be graded for
accuracy, while other questions could be graded based on effort alone.
Alternatively, one could grade JiTT tasks on effort alone, but offer “bonus
credit” for correct answers. Another somewhat draconian possibility would be
to use JiTT tasks as “entry tickets” to class; if you don’t have a ticket, you’re
not given admission.
None of these solutions are perfect. In my classes, I differentiated JiTT tasks
from in-class quizzes, assignments, and projects when calculating the final
grade. The tasks were graded for accuracy automatically through our school’s
LMS. Acknowledging that this was mildly unfair, to compensate I allowed
students to retake the quizzes after the lesson, provided that they made an
honest first attempt before class. Thankfully, our LMS tracked every attempt, so
this was relatively easy to discern. I counted the highest grade, however, in the
future I may choose to average all attempts in order to further encourage
students to do their best on the first try.

Workload can potentially get out of control

JiTT is most successful if tasks are done routinely so that they can impact day -
to-day class preparation. Instructors must be careful, though, not to let JiTT
tasks grow into full-fledged homework assignments. This could potentially
cause both student and instructor workload to grow out of control. We can’t use
JiTT as a means of turning a class that meets three times per week into a class
that meets five times per week.
Using JiTT for teaching music theory
As I mentioned before, music theory doesn’t immediately seem like a subject
well-suited for implementing JiTT tasks that are restricted to the most basic of
response modes (multiple choice, short prose answer, etc.). I initially only used
JiTT tasks for simple conceptual questions that students could easily answer by
reading the textbook. As long as I put a considerable amount of thought into
how the questions were asked, the limited question formats were not restrictive.
The questions allowed students to get acquainted with a new topic so that we
could dive into more complicated, hands-on material in class sessions.
When my class started to deal with longer and more complex music, I found
that JiTT worked particularly well as a means of encouraging students to listen
closely to the pieces we planned to discuss in class. I am always hesitant to
allocate 10-15 minutes of class time solely for passive listening activities. When
students listen to and begin analyzing a piece outside of class, we can spend in -
class time focusing on close analysis of the most interesting and difficult
passages.
Peer Instruction (PI)
Like JiTT, Peer Instruction (PI) creates a “positive feedback loop” between
teacher and students; although unlike JiTT, PI occurs during class. PI is an
interactive in-class pedagogical method pioneered by Eric Mazur, a physics
professor at Harvard University. His presentation “Confessions of a Converted
Lecturer,” provides a history and overview of PI, much of which is discussed in
more detail in his 1996 book and on his work group’s website. Essentially, PI
hinges upon the notion that a new concept is most effectively explained by
someone who has recently assimilated that concept. PI classes are structured
around “ConcepTests”: brief, conceptual quizzes completed during class,
targeted to identify difficulties and promote student discussion.
Following a brief introduction, students in a PI class session are presented with
a question that they must answer relatively quickly (within 1-2 minutes) using a
“clicker” or other appropriate software. The instructor peruses the summary of
answers (provided by the clicker software) and moves the class forward in one
of three ways: if very few students answered the question correctly, the concept
is revisited in a mini-lecture; if most students answered correctly, the instructor
confirms the answer and moves on. If the results are mixed, students are told
to “turn to their neighbors,” explain their respective answers, and then re-submit
their responses. This cycle repeats until the instructor is confident that the
majority of students are ready to move forward.
PI and JiTT are often used in combination, with PI class sessions preceded by
JiTT tasks that are due before the class meeting. The JiTT tasks allow the
instructor to prepare appropriate ConcepTests that will be used for PI. Likewise,
the results drawn from a PI class session can inform the instructor’s decisions
about assigning out-of-class work.
Peer Instruction in the music theory classroom
Like JiTT, questions used for ConcepTests need to be very carefully
constructed. Music theory instructors must be especially prudent when
designing questions, given that the topic itself is not necessarily well-suited to
the response modes afforded by most clicker platforms. If ConcepTests are too
easy, too difficult, or simply involve the regurgitation of facts, students will
have little to talk about during class discussions, which are the central focus of
Peer Instruction.
Music theory topics such as cadences, phrase structure, and form are easily
delivered through PI, and in fact, I’m sure many of us have been using this
pedagogical method, perhaps without giving it a name, for many years.
Recently, Kris Shaffer has written about his experiences using PI while teaching
music theory and aural skills. Likewise, Philip Duker’s use of clickers for
teaching could also be adapted to use PI.
Conclusions
I am not overly concerned about demonstrable correlations between PI or JiTT
and exam scores. Exam scores are only one “piece of the puzzle,” and
ultimately, our means of assessment should not be the guiding force on our
pedagogy. JiTT and PI seem to encourage my students to have a more positive
attitude and active engagement with the class. I have a more consistent line of
communication open with my students, and I’m able to routinely evaluate my
own teaching and lesson planning. These reasons make JiTT and PI beneficial
enough for me.