One Minute Paper¶

Strategy · All strategies
Evidence · 3 claims (3 for) · 10 studies (6 quant-synthesis, 2 review, 1 causal, 1 theoretical), q2–q4 · 8 of 10 report an effect size

Description¶

The One Minute Paper (OMP) is a classroom assessment technique in which learners spend one to two minutes at the end of a session writing answers to two prompts: "What was the most important thing you learned today?" and "What question remains unanswered?" The instructor reviews responses before the next session and uses them to adjust instruction, close gaps, or open the next class by addressing common confusions.

Design Implications¶

The OMP operationalizes Assessment for Learning: it generates rapid, low-stakes evidence of understanding that feeds directly into instructional adjustment Formative assessment practices improve achievement when feedback is used to adapt teaching. [+S]. It also functions as retrieval practice and consolidation — summarizing the session's key idea strengthens memory for it Retrieval practice produces stronger long-term retention than restudying. [+S]. Its value depends on the feedback loop: papers collected and never acted upon lose most of their formative benefit.

Context¶

Requirements¶

• Two focused prompts, asked consistently so learners know what to expect
• A mechanism for the instructor to scan responses quickly (index cards, LMS survey, polling tool)
• Visible follow-through: addressing clustered confusions at the start of the next session, so learners see that their questions matter
• Two focused prompts, asked consistently (consistency lowers the cost of responding over time)
• A low-stakes collection mechanism (index cards, LMS survey, polling tool) that does not induce grade anxiety
• Instructor commitment to reviewing responses and opening the next session with clarification — an unread minute paper is a wasted one

Constraints¶

• Responses are shallow when learners have not had time to process the material; the OMP surfaces perceived gaps, which may not match actual misconceptions [~M]
• Effectiveness drops sharply if the instructor does not review and respond — learners disengage from a ritual with no visible consequence [-M]
• One to two minutes limits depth; it cannot diagnose complex procedural errors or assess higher-order skills
• In very large classes, reading volume forces sampling; unaddressed minority confusions can persist
• One to two minutes of writing produces shallow responses; it surfaces where confusion lies, not why — it cannot replace assessment that probes deeper understanding
• In very large classes, reading even a sample requires triage; random sampling or clustering tools are needed
• Learners may write what they think the instructor wants to hear if responses are attributable; anonymity preserves diagnostic honesty

Implementation Variability¶

• Muddiest Point — a single-prompt variant ("What was most confusing?") that narrows focus to gaps
• Start-of-class variant — used as an activation opener rather than a closing consolidation
• Digital/polling variants — tools like Top Hat or an LMS one-question survey enable aggregation and word-cloud display of responses in large enrollments
• Weekly rather than per-session cadence reduces fatigue in dense courses
• Muddiest Point only — a single-prompt variant (Mosteller, 1989) that cuts time further
• Digital/polling variants — tools like Poll Everywhere or an LMS one-question survey enable aggregation and word clouds for large enrollments
• Mid-class checkpoints — brief versions at transition points rather than session end, allowing same-session repair
• Course-long accumulation — learners keep their own papers as a running self-explanation log, connecting to 3-2-1 Reflection structures

Target Learners¶

• Learners in lecture-based courses where instructor awareness of comprehension is otherwise low Active-learning structures improve exam performance relative to uninterrupted lecturing. [+S]
• Novices, who often cannot judge their own understanding accurately and benefit from an external prompt to surface confusion
• Reluctant speakers — written anonymous responses surface questions that students will not ask aloud
• Large-enrollment lecture courses where individual check-ins are impractical; the paper is a scalable proxy for a check-in
• Novices who cannot yet judge what they do not understand; the forced summary exposes gaps they would otherwise miss
• Less useful for advanced seminars where discussion already surfaces confusion continuously

Target Learning Goals¶

• Metacognitive monitoring: prompting learners to evaluate what they do and do not understand
• Consolidation and retrieval of the session's central ideas
• Instructor-side formative assessment: diagnosing misconceptions to inform the next session
• Metacognitive monitoring: prompting learners to identify the limits of their own understanding
• Consolidation: brief retrieval of the session's key ideas strengthens memory
• Instructional calibration: adjusting pacing and re-teaching based on aggregated evidence

Instructions¶

1. Reserve the final 2–3 minutes of the session and display the two prompts.
2. Give learners one to two minutes of silent writing — no discussion, to ensure individual retrieval (Practice).
3. Collect responses (cards, LMS form, or polling tool); anonymity is acceptable and often increases candor.
4. Before the next session, skim and cluster responses into themes.
5. Open the next session by addressing the top one or two confusions, explicitly connecting back to what students wrote (Check-In).
6. Periodically tell the class how their feedback changed the plan, to sustain participation.

Related Strategies¶

• Muddiest Point — the single-question variant, focused purely on confusion
• 3-2-1 Reflection — a structured variant adding "things I want to know more about"
• Exit Ticket — the broader family of end-of-session written checks
• Use reflection assignments to check adult learners' understanding and participation change
• Use open-ended reflection questions as self-assessment in place of end-of-unit tests

Examples¶

• Originally described by Charles Schwartz at UC Berkeley for large physics lectures; responses were read before each next meeting and common questions answered at the start of class.
• Angelo & Cross's Classroom Assessment Techniques (1993) codified the OMP as one of the most widely adopted CATs across disciplines.
• Large-enrollment MOOCs (e.g., Coursera courses) use the equivalent end-of-video reflection prompt with aggregated response display.
• Harvard University, Dan Ariely's large statistics course — Charles Schwartz popularized the technique at Berkeley; Mosteller (1989) documented its use in a Harvard statistics course, where the instructor opened each class by answering the previous session's muddiest points.
• Large-enrollment introductory biology (LMS variant) — instructors deploy a one-question anonymous survey in Canvas during the last five minutes, then display an aggregated word cloud of muddy points at the start of the next lecture.

Key Sources¶

• Angelo, T. A., & Cross, K. P. (1993). Classroom assessment techniques: A handbook for college teachers (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass.
• Steadman, M. H. (1998). Using classroom assessment to change both teaching and learning. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 75, 23–35. doi:10.1002/tl.7503
• Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 7–74. doi:10.1080/0969595980050102
• Roediger, H. L., & Karpicke, J. D. (2006). Test-enhanced learning: Taking memory tests improves long-term retention. Psychological Science, 17(3), 249–255. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01693.x
• Mosteller, F. (1989). The "muddiest point in the lecture" as a feedback device. On Teaching and Learning, 3, 10–21.
• Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(23), 8410–8415. doi:10.1073/pnas.1319030111