I have been consciously reviewing the subject matter that I (and my students) found most complex. Where I used to painstakingly explain those concepts, I now present the facts as clearly as I can and ask the students to come up with explanations. Sometimes the issue is underscored by a clicker question that results in no class consensus. The student work begins with a version of “think pair share” although the groups can be more than 2. In response to the first attempts I provide clarifying comments about just what needs explaining and through several back and forths many in the class have something close to the solution and the rest at least grasp the problem. Only then will I take the students’ productive ideas and restate them into my version of an answer.
In no particular order of importance: a class that has intrinsic and instructor provided/supported interest in learning, learning objectives that invite/require active learning experiences to achieve and an instructor who is willing to improvise off of student responses both in the moment and with follow ups in later sessions.
The first quiz or test provides one kind of motivation, since as many questions as possible are about links between individual facts/concepts. To encourage the habit of expecting connections between ideas I have the students create what I call “micro-concept maps” where they are given 3-4 terms that have more and less obvious connections and the students draw maps incorporating as many links as they can describe.
What I was told was that first year college students can only handle concrete thinking, not higher levels on the Bloom ladder. I instinctively resisted this assertion. What I wish some had said is that for early career students it gives them some confidence that they are learning if they do get to continue the habits they are ready have. And further, learning most anything is a hunt up AND DOWN the Bloom’s taxonomy hierarchy. All elements have value.