MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1752345619 · doi:10.1177/104515951002100305

Breaking the Ice: Using Ice-breakers and Re-energizers with Adult Learners

2010· article· en· W1752345619 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAdult Learning · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation and Critical Thinking Development
Canadian institutionsEducation and Early Childhood Development
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyNothingMathematics educationPedagogyClass (philosophy)Experiential learningComputer scienceEpistemologyArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Over the past several years, a number of researchers have theorized that students vary significantly in how they approach classroom learning and that each learner has a distinct and definable way of engaging in the learning process (Conrad & Donaldson, 2004; Dunn and Dunn, 1978; Gardner, 1983; Gregorc, 1986; Kolb, 1984; Merriam, Caffarella, & Baumgartner, 2007; Palmer, 2007; Vella, 2002). Adult learners often arrive in our classrooms with preconceived notions of learning that are hard for them to let go. Additionally, teachers can and often do fall into this category as well, allowing a dynamic of opposition to develop. Almost all of us have faced the reluctant learner who refuses to participate in class, where nothing helps to draw him or her out of a protective shell. Educators will often seek out instructional strategies designed to build rapport, help students get to know one another, and create safe classrooms for learning where everyone feels comfortable participating. Individuals facilitating adult learning need a medley of teaching methods to be effective (Galbraith, 2004). This is when the instructional strategies of icebreakers and re-energizers can enter the learning environment. While much of the strategies for using icebreakers and re-energizers effectively focus on children, several techniques are applicable to adult learners as well (Collins, 2010; Ukens, 1997; Zike, 1992;). Icebreaker activities, as the name implies help break the ice in various ways. They help group members get acquainted and begin conversations, relieve inhibitions or tension between people, allowing those involved to build trust with and feel more open to one another. Icebreakers encourage participation by all, helping a sense of connection and shared focus to develop. Re-energizers can be used as transitions or a time to clear the mind encouraging vitality and enthusiasm (Boatman, 1991). Both activities also lead to a free exchange of information and enhanced communication between group members (Zwaagstra, 1997). In addition to simply helping to learn students' names, we have found using icebreakers brings humor into the class, establishes rapport, fosters a safe learning environment, and overall assists with content learning. Therefore, it would follow that implementation of icebreakers and re-energizers in the classroom might well contribute to improved student participation, increased student persistence, and ultimately enhanced student learning. This article centers on theories of adult learning methods and how they relate to the practice of using icebreakers in the adult classroom. While our language is geared toward the adult learning world, our experience has been that these practices also work well in a variety of classroom and group settings, both traditional and non-traditional, including professional development sessions, staff and faculty meetings or retreats, and with non-professional groups. This paper aims to support adult educators by developing their theoretical understanding of effectively implementing icebreakers and re-energizers in their classroom. While educators may inherently know the benefits of using icebreakers, this article is intended as a guide to assist practitioners in applying them to their daily instructional activities. We also hope this article will fill a gap as there is a lack of recent work on this topic in the adult education literature. A keyword search of ten library databases for articles published in the past five years revealed only three articles on the topic of icebreakers. One was a three paragraph book review of a book published in 2000, another was a list of icebreakers not to use, and the third was a relevant one page article on icebreakers appropriate for training and development seminars. It is our contention that icebreakers are not one-time events to be used solely on the first day of class. In fact, we use both icebreakers and re-energizers as needed at various times throughout a course. …

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.433
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.292 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it