ERIC ED467605: The Challenge of Teaching Biology 100: Can I Really Promote Active Learning in a Large Lecture?

10 Pages·0.17 MB·English

by  ERIC

DOCUMENT RESUME
ED 467 605
SE 066 622
Sokolove, Phillip G.
AUTHOR
The Challenge of Teaching Biology 100: Can I Really Promote
TITLE
Active Learning in a Large Lecture?
SPONS AGENCY
National Science Foundation, Arlington, VA. Div. of
Undergraduate Education.
PUB DATE 1998-01-00
9p.; In: Journeys of Transformation: A Statewide Effort by
NOTE
Mathematics and Science Professors To Improve Student
Understanding. Case Reports for Participants in the Maryland
Collaborative for Teacher Preparation; see SE 066 623.
CONTRACT DUE-9255745
For full text: http://www.towson.edu/csme/mctp/
AVAILABLE FROM
Journeys/toc.html.
PUB TYPE
Reports
Research (143)
EDRS PRICE
EDRS Price MFO1 /PCO1 Plus Postage.
DESCRIPTORS
*Active Learning; Biology; Constructivism (Learning); Group
Instruction; Higher Education; *Science Education; *Teaching
Methods
ABSTRACT
This document describes a study that implemented active
learning into a large introductory biology course. Five approaches were
employed to promote the active learning: name badges, cooperative learning
groups, large group discussion, in-class written responses, and written take-
home assignments. The active learning approach takes more time than a
traditional teaching approach and teachers who have tried this approach have
struggled whether they teach at the K-12 grade level or at the college level.
It is suggested that with either approach it is impossible to cover all
material in the textbooks.
(YDS)
Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made
from the original document.
--"\
7
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Office of Educational Research and Improvement
EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION
kCENTER (ERIC)
document has been reproduced as
r.bi.s
received from the person or organization
.
originating it.
Minor changes have been made to
improve reproduction quality.
Points of view or opinions stated in this
document do not necessarily represent
official OERI position or policy.
BIOLOGY 100:
THE CHALLENGE OF TEACHING
CAN I REALLY PROMOTE ACTIVE LEARNING
IN A LARGE LECTURE?
Phillip G. Sokolove
Department of Biological Sciences
University of Maryland Baltimore County
Baltimore, MD 21250
by students, and to use whatever means
after
WThen I returned to full-time teaching
possible to challenge students to take greater
nine years in academic administration, I
responsibility for their own learning.
spent a number of months reexamining my
teaching practice. I realized that the students in
The summer before I started my experiment, I
memorized a lot, but
my classes read a lot, and
Blunck,
was lucky enough to meet Dr. Susan
didn't always understand a lot. Often what I
who was being recruited as a science education
said in lecture was simply not sufficient to
specialist at UMBC. Her area of expertise is
connect similar concepts across seemingly
constructivist education. When I asked if she
different topics. Many students expected
would collaborate with me in the MCTP
lectures to follow the text closely, and did not
program, she enthusiastically agreed. Moreover,
easily absorb explanations and examples drawn
she agreed to participate actively as a colleague
from different chapters or from non-text
and on-site observer in the classroom in the
the end
sources. A typical student response at
fall. At MCTP meetings that summer, Dr.
of the semester was that my lectures had often
Blunck and I gathered ideas and information
been disorganized and difficult to follow.
from other MCTP faculty, and worked together
to develop a set of somewhat radical changes in
In the fall semester of 1995, I decided to see if
the way Biology 100 was finally taught that
associated with
any of the theory and practice
fall. Our goal was to employ a multiplicity of
constructivist teaching could be used to
approaches to see if we could promote active
advantage in a large lecture environment. I saw
(or participatory) learning in a large lecture
examples and read descriptions of how MCTP
environment.
students were learning actively in laboratory
settings and smaller classes, but I wondered
The Course and Grading
whether active learning could be encouraged in
with
a large lecture. I decided to experiment
Biology 100 ("Concepts of Biology") is a 4-
large, introductory
my teaching practice in a
credit, one-semester course designed primarily
biology course (Biology 100). I asked to be
for beginning biology and biochemistry majors.
given half of the class (approximately 240
It is traditionally offered by two, or
students) as a single section for which I would
occasionally three, tenure-track faculty
be solely responsible. I felt strongly that the
members who take turns lecturing three times
emphasis on a large body of factual knowledge
classes ranging
a week in 50-minute sessions to
did not provide students with the sense of
from 240 to over 400 students. Students also
wonder and excitement that scientists normally
meet in weekly, small-class discussion sections
experience. I resolved to place a greater
of 25 to 50 students led by graduate teaching
emphasis on questions, particularly those posed
121
BEST COPY AVAILABLE
/1(
assistants. The corresponding laboratory
of the semester from the official enrollment
list. I explained that each student should view
(Biology 100L) is taken as a separate course
either simultaneously or in a subsequent
him/herself as a member of a professional
semester. Students other than those majoring
community and that, like scientists attending a
in biology or biochemistry (or allied health
professional symposium, they should wear
students for whom Biology 100 and 100L are
their name badges whenever they were in class.
also required), can enroll in the lecture course
It was noted that wearing name badges was a
to meet a general education requirement in
non-verbal means of participating.
science without taking the associated
One of the most immediate effects of the
laboratory course.
badges was that both the students and I could
Traditionally, students in Biology 100 received a
identify people in the class by name. When
grade based entirely on their performance on
students raised their hand, they could be
four multiple choice exams consisting of 35-
recognized by name without the need for a
50 questions: the top scores earned on three
seating chart and assigned seating. This helped
out of four hourly exams, plus their score on
greatly to personalize the large lecture
the comprehensive final exam. In our new,
environment and encouraged more student
active learning course, multiple choice exams
questions and responses from a wider array of
were also administered, but these counted for
students than is typical in a large lecture
less than a third of the course grade. Students
course. Badges also helped me to learn
were given three hourly midterm exams of ten
students' names so that by the end of the
questions each and a comprehensive final of
semester I could recognize more than half of
twenty-five questions. All exams were open
the students on sight even outside of the
book. The top two midterm scores plus the
classroom.
score earned on the final exam determined 30
Many students initially resisted wearing their
percent of a student's grade. Students were told
name badges in class, but by the end of the
that the remaining 70 percent of their final
semester most had become accustomed to the
grade would be determined by their
practice. Surprisingly few comments about
performance on written, take-home
name badges were made on student
assignments (30 percent); by their participation
evaluations, and almost all were positive. One
both in the large class and in smaller, weekly
student wrote, "Name tags were a good idea. It
discussion sections led by graduate teaching
is good to know that at least one instructor is
assistants (35%); and by their scores on oral
interested in learning the names of his/her
and written quizzes administered during the
students!"
discussion sections (5%).
Research suggests
2. Cooperative learning groups.
that students learn higher order thinking skills
Approaches Used to Promote Active Learning
when they can discuss their ideas and actively
We employed five specific approaches that we
engage in dialog (Johnson, Johnson & Smith,
anticipated would make the large-lecture
1991). Therefore, randomly selected
environment more personal, student centered
cooperative learning groups, or teams, of up to
and interactive. These were: (1) name badges;
four students were used to foster dialogue in
(2) cooperative learning groups; (3) large-
Biology 100. In a class session at the start of
group discussion; (4) in-class written responses;
the semester, four sets of cards numbered 1
and (5) written, take-home assignments. An
through 70 were randomly distributed. One of
expanded description of each is given below:
the numbered sets was colored, and the 70
Large lecture halls and classes
students who received these colored cards
1. Name badges.
of more than 100 students seem impersonal
were asked to hold them up. Then all students
especially to freshmen. To help personalize
whose numbers matched were asked to move
Biology 100, we prepared individual, pin-on,
together so they could easily converse. Groups
name badges for each student at the beginning
were instructed to turn in the colored cards
122
student wrote on an end-of-semester
listing the members' names and one sentence
evaluation, "I love being able to do group work
describing something unusual or uncommon
because I am able to discuss my answers with
that they all had in common. Finally, they were
other people." Another noted that as a non-
invited (but not required) to agree upon a
native speaker of English she sometimes had
team name.
difficulty with concepts such as osmosis, but
Once formed, learning groups remained
could always turn to her group for help. When
remarkably stable throughout the semester.
asked to assess their own contribution to group
Few students asked to switch teams. When
discussions, almost all students rated their
given the opportunity at mid-semester to form
participation as moderate to high. In contrast,
new teams, the class overwhelmingly chose not
when asked to evaluate the contribution of the
to change partners. Team members were asked
other team members, students were typically
to sit near each other whenever they came to
quite candid and tended to be more
class, but sometimes individuals waited until I
discriminating in their assessments.
gave directions to start a small group activity
Students were
before moving to sit with their other team
3. Large group discussion.
encouraged to ask questions in class, to reply to
members.
questions posed by me or by other students,
Team activities were varied throughout the
and to respond to others' replies. In order to
semester as was the format of the response. All
assure that students could hear each other
team activities took place during class and
speak, my wireless
required either an oral or written response. In
microphone was
some cases I posed a short-answer question
passed to any student
Consistent with
related to the topic at hand, and teams were
who had a question or
asked to come to a consensus which would be
others who have used
who wanted to
reported to the class by a team spokesperson.
respond to a question
cooperative learning
At other times students were shown results of
or statement. In
methods, we found that
an experiment related to the day's topic, and
previous classes, when
then were asked to work together to develop a
students enjoyed
I called on students
written team response that described and
for recitation, they
working together in
interpreted the results displayed. On still other
were often reluctant
small groups and
occasions the class was presented with a
to speak into the
concept question, and students were asked to
reported that group
microphone I was
provide individual written responses after a
holding. However, in
work improved their
short period of team discussion.
the experimental
understanding of
section, such
For example, after a unit on cell respiration, the
the material.
reluctance was much
class might be asked to answer the following:
less evident, in part,
"Do plant cells have mitochondria? Explain
because I only called
why or why not." Or, following a discussion of
on students who
photosynthesis, I might ask: "How do plants
asked to be recognized. Perhaps more
that lose their leaves stay alive during the
important was the fact that in this class I gave
winter?" Or, as part of a unit on natural
the students the microphone to hold during
selection, students might be asked to respond
their responses. Thus, students easily and
to this question: "If an allele is recessive and is
naturally obtained control of the means of
harmful, can selection eliminate it entirely
communication with the entire class, and I
from the population? Explain your reasoning."
could assume the role of listener rather than
Consistent with others who have used
lecturer.
cooperative learning methods, we found that
Students were initially reluctant to speak out
students enjoyed working together in small
in a large lecture hall. Many who felt this way
groups and reported that group work improved
also resented the heavy weighting of
their understanding of the material. One
123
4
participation in the final course grade, since
wrote, "The interaction takes away from-the
they assumed that speaking out in the large
class. Straight lecture would be better. And
class was the only (or major) method of
[the instructor] should go over more chapters
participation. I tried to correct this impression
[in the textbook]." Another commented
by reminding students they could also
thoughtfully, "Although the discussions during
lecture were great, we need to perhaps set
participate in the smaller, weekly discussion
sections and by emphasizing that there were
aside [time for] a structured lecture in order to
other, non-verbal means of participation. At
cover more information
. .
.
about mid-semester, students who had become
4. In-class written responses. Some education
concerned about their participation grade
specialists have emphasized the need to get
complained that although they raised their
written feedback from students no matter the
hands in class, they were being recognized
size of the class. In Biology 100 students were
rarely or not at all.
required to bring to every class session a
I responded by providing a sign-up sheet at the
laboratory research notebook (published by
end of class for all students who had raised
Jones & Bartlett; Sudbury, MA) in which they
their hand during classwhether or not they
could write their responses and comments. The
had been recognized. Not only did the number
notebook had numbered, duplicate pages of
of complaints decline, but students did not
carbonless paper that allowed students to retain
abuse this unmonitored means of assessing
a permanent copy of everything they wrote. A
their participation. About the same number of
notebook page might be turned in to ask
students signed the participation sheet as raised
questions about the day's material, or to reply to
their hands in classtypically 20 to 30and,
a short-answer question. Other examples of
aside from those who were already known to
how the notebook was used include responding
us as "high-frequency responders," names on
to informal survey questions (such as "What
the list differed from one class period to the
would you suggest to improve this course?"),
next. I plan to continue this practice when the
and writing one-minute papers relating one
course is repeated.
main point that they learned in class that day
along with a question that they had about that
On the course evaluation, students were asked,
day's topic.
"What was the best part of the course and
why?" Many responded that they appreciated
The advantage of the notebook was that it
the open atmosphere of the class and liked
offered a vehicle for shy students to
being able to hear different points of view. One
communicate with the instructor without
student wrote, "The course involved lots of give
having to raise their hands and speak out, or to
and take between Dr. Sokolove and the pupils
remain after class to ask questions, or to make
during the lecture. This made the class more
an appointment to meet with the instructor.
dynamic. Also it provided an atmosphere
As the semester progressed, the notebook was
where questions and a variety of perspectives
used more and more frequently to facilitate
were encouraged." Another appreciated " .
non-verbal, in-class student input. When
. .
the open discussions during which everyone
students wrote down their questions, responses,
had an opportunity to participate and share
and comments, they were generally thoughtful
their ideas." A third commented, "I liked the
and explicit in expressing themselves.
fact that the students were able to give so
Reading and responding to one or more
much input. It made the class much more
excellent questions from students at the
interesting. It was better than listening to
beginning of class was sometimes used to
lectures every day."
provide positive feedback on student questions
On the other hand, a few felt that the
and to exemplify what I considered to be a good
discussions in the large lecture were too
question. Students' written responses were also
disorganized and that there were too many
helpful in identifying misconceptions,
people in class for participation. One student
misunderstandings, or confusion about the
124
5
reliability of the information they provide.
material so that these could be addressed in the
Students typically reached different
subsequent class period.
conclusions about the answer to the question
5. Written, take-home assignments. There were
posed in the assignment. These were aired in
three take-home assignments during the
class discussion to illustrate the importance of
semester, each of which focused on an
scientific discourse and to allow students to
application-oriented question. For example:
gain experience in defending the interpretation
"You are a track star scheduled to compete in a
of their research findings. Take-home questions
1,500 meter race next week. Your coach tells
related to
were assigned that could be readily
carbohydrates the day
you to 'load up' on
one or more biologically important concepts or
before the track meet so that your body will
topics. In the case of "carbo-loading," such
have plenty of energy in reserve for the race. Is
topics might include digestion, cellular
the coach correct in her advice? Why or why not?
respiration and muscle energetics. Students
Cite evidence to support your position."
could thereby learn key facts and concepts in
an applied context
For each assignment, students were asked to
with guidance from
provide a three-part response of up to five typed
the instructor, rather
Students could
describe what
pages: Part I asked students to
than feel they needed
research sources they had consulted and explain
learn key facts
. . .
to memorize them
why these had been chosen, and also to list any
and concepts in an
from lecture notes or
consulted and to explain
resources that were not
the textbook only
applied context with
why these had not been used. Part II asked for a
because "they might
been posed
response to the question that had
guidance from the
be on the next exam."
with appropriate citations. Part III asked
instructor, rather than
students to pose two questions of their own that
The response of
feel they needed to
resulted from the research they had done.
students to take-home
memorize them from
assignments was
All papers were read and graded either by me or
generally positive,
by graduate teaching assistants using a rubric
lecture notes or the
although one student
based upon the following grading approach. For
textbook only because
do
advised us to " .
each section of the paper that met a minimum
.
.
"they might be on the
away with those silly
level of acceptability, the student was guaranteed
research papers." Most
of 10 possible
next exam."
a "good" grade of B-(e.g., 8 out
felt that the
points). There were no correct or incorrect
assignments provided
acceptable, a paper
responses. To be minimally
a chance to engage in
had to demonstrate an honest effort by the
self-directed learning and to demonstrate what
student, and each part of the response had to be
they could do as opposed to what they could not
complete (all directions followed) and readable
do. One student commented that, "The take
(clearly organized with few spelling or syntax
home assignments were a help in the
errors). Additional points could be earned if a
understanding of certain topics." Another
student displayed extra effort and thoughtfulness
wrote, "The take home questions were a good
in his/her response; points could be lost if a
opportunity for students to demonstrate
student failed to follow fully the directions
knowledge without being in an exam
providedfor example, noting which research
situation." A third noted, "I learned the most
the library, my
sources were consulted (books in
from the take-home assignments, researching
high school track coach, etc.), but failing to
and discovering information on my own. I feel
explain why these were used and others (the
there should be twice as many take-home
World Wide Web, sports or nutrition journals,
assignments as there was [sic]? They are great
articles in the popular press, etc.) were not.
practice [for writing] and they are very helpful
Take-home assignments served to initiate
in learning on our own! I feel it is important to
discussion about the types of information
learn on your ownit really sinks in that way."
the
sources that are available and about
125
6
fewer are cases in which teaching practice is
What Have We Learned?
assessed by an experienced field evaluator on an
"He makes us think." This is how one student
ongoing basis. The model of continuous
in fall 1995 introductory biology responded to
improvement in teaching requires continual
the following question on the course
feedback. In reforming Biology 100, we have
evaluation questionnaire: "What personal
found that sharing the experience of a
qualities did this instructor have which
professional science education specialist (Dr.
hindered his/her teaching?" Another student
Blunck) and a scientist instructor (me) has
answered, "He doesn't answer questions
allowed us to meet common educational goals
directly and lets students find it for
that could not be achieved by relying on student
themselves." A third replied, "He openly stated
assessments alone. In the case of Biology 100,
he didn't know. Made opinions about him
regular, constructive input from Dr. Blunck was
skeptical about his abilities [as an instructor]."
instrumental in promoting rapid and effective
Dr. Blunck and I have learned a number of
changes in my teaching practice.
lessons that we hope will allow us to improve
Third, we have found it possible to implement
our efforts to promote active learning in
a variety of active learning approaches in a
introductory biology. First, we recognize that
large-lecture environment, but we cannot yet
students do, indeed, have different ways of
stipulate which of these has been more (or
learning, and we will continue to provide
less) effective in promoting understanding of
choices both within class and between classes
basic concepts. From the perspective of
for those with different learning styles. Within
students, it appears that cooperative learning
the class, we have used multiple teaching/
groups were the most helpful of the methods
learning approaches and will continue to do so.
employed. Virtually all students who
But we will emphasize at the outset that there
commented on small group discussion claimed
are many ways for students to succeed besides
that it significantly aided their understanding,
simply doing well on exams or speaking up in
and no student commented negatively about
lecture.
team learning. However, an approach such as
large group discussion that elicited positive
Based on our findings, we will refine some
responses from many students, was viewed by
approaches, modify others, and eliminate still
others (see examples of planned changes under
others as a distraction. While a large number
indicated that the best part of the course was
"Work in Progress" below). We may also add
class interaction and having input from the
new approaches such as "concept tests" that
show much promise (Mazur, 1995). We will students in the class during lectures, one
student commented, "Sometimes class seemed
also respect those students who feel they learn
like a talk show." A significant fraction of the
best in a more familiar lecture course. When
class felt that there should have been more
the course is repeated, such students will be
advised that they can enroll in a different
structure, less class participation, and more text
book related material on exams]. Clearly not
section of Biology 100 that is offered by the
all agreed with the student who wrote, "I loved
department using a more traditional approach.
this new teaching technique. I learned more in
Second, we have confirmed that cooperative
this class than I have in any science course.
learning is as fruitful in professional
Everybody could benefit from this change if
development as it is in the classroom. The
they don't resist it."
collaboration between Dr. Blunck and me was, I
think, essential for effective modification of my
Work in Progress
teaching. It has often been said that student
Dr. Blunck and I regard our efforts as a "work
evaluations are of limited use in assessing the
in progress" and not as a finished product.
quality of teaching. Nevertheless, there are few
Students who completed the semester did not
instances at the college level where other
necessarily appreciate being asked to
methods of assessment, such as peer review, are
participate in their own learning and a number
regularly and conscientiously employed. Even
126
7
continued to prefer traditional ways of learning
least challenging introductory textbook. Thus,
biology. Some of the changes we plan to make
it is always the case that regardless of who
when the course is repeated will be in response
teaches the course (or, perhaps, depending
on
to student input, while others will be new.
who teaches), some topics will be covered and
Among the changes we plan are the following:
some not. In our case, I tried to reduce the
number of topics to a core of essential
Students will be given more explicit
concepts. However, it will take many iterations
information about what they can do to
of teaching Biology 100 before I am
participate during class so that speaking out
comfortable with the choices. No doubt even
in front of the whole class is not viewed as
these choices will change with time and
the sole means of participating.
experienceand after many discussions with
other faculty members in my department.
Additional wireless microphones will be
purchased so that the instructor does not
National groups such as the American
have to race around the lecture hall in order
Association for the Advancement of Science and
to hand the microphone to a student.
the National Research Council have been
engaged in developing new guidelines for science
More effort will be made to provide
education. A
structure by providing a short list of the
major concept or concepts we hope to cover
consistent finding
expressed in these
each week together with a list of the
I recognized at
efforts is that students
relevant text chapters.
the outset that even in
learn best when
Cooperative learning groups will be
a traditional lecture
exposed to
employed more frequently during class using
environments that
course, it is impossible
a wider range of activities.
encourage reflection,
to cover within a
self-directed and
Peer evaluation of written take-home
single semester all the
inquiry-based learning,
assignments will be used in conjunction with
and higher order skills
a grading rubric that will be discussed (and
material contained
that go beyond
possibly modified) before assignments are
in even the least
memorizing items of
made.
challenging
information (AAAS,
Students will be given the option of
1993; NRC, 1996; see
introductory
purchasing a higher level textbook in lieu of
also, Yager, 1993).
textbook.
the "required" text, but those who choose
Content issues are not
this option will need to assume
ignored. Indeed,
responsibility for determining what sections
almost half of the
of that text relate to the concept list.
NRC's National Science Education Standards is
devoted to content standards. However, the
What About Content?
emphasis in these content standards is shifted in
important ways. One shift is from expecting
Virtually all of the teachers who have tried to
students to know scientific facts and information
promote active learning in their classrooms,
to expecting them to understand scientific
whether in grades K-12 or at the post-
concepts and develop abilities of inquiry.
secondary level, have had to struggle with the
Another major shift is from covering many
fact that active learning approaches take more
science topics to studying a few fundamental
time and consequently reduce the time
science concepts (Standards, p. 113).
available in class for "coverage" of material. I,
too, have had to struggle with the coverage
Still, there are many who continue to wonder,
issue in Biology 100. However, I recognized at
are there any "objective" data regarding student
the outset that even in a traditional lecture
learning when these standards are applied in
course, it is impossible to cover within a single
the college classroom? Can students really
semester all the material contained in even the
learn "enough" even though one covers less
127
8
BEST COPY AVAILABLE
References:
material? One way Dr. Blunck and I attempted
to determine whether students in our student-
American Association for the Advancement of
centered, active-learning version of Biology 100
Science. (1993). Project 2061, Benchmarks for
had been "short changed" was to examine their
Science Literacy. New York: Oxford University
performance on the same final exam questions
Press.
given to students in the traditional lecture
Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T. & Smith, K.A.
section taught that semester. Whether we
(1991). Active Learning: Cooperation in the
examined average performance on the entire
College Classroom. Edina, Minnesota:
set of questions or looked at the percentage of
Interaction Book Company.
the class that answered each question correctly,
we found that students in the active learning
Mazur, E. (1995). Concept Tests in Physics.
section performed as well as or better than the
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
students in the traditional lecture section. The
National Research Council. (1996). National
following student comment captures our
Science Education Standards. Washington, DC:
subjective impression of how well students
National Academy Press.
learned: "I liked the new format. I tried to take
this class a year ago and was confussed [sic]
Yager, R. (ed.) (1993) What Research Says to
and bored senseless. I picked up a lot this time
the Science Teacher, Volume 7: The Science,
and I enjoyed it!"
Technology, Society Movement. Washington,
DC: National Science Teachers Association.
128
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI)
National Library of Education (NLE)
Educational Resources [Mutation Center
Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC)
NOTICE
Reproduction Basis
This document is covered by a signed "Reproduction Release (Blanket)"
form (on file within the ERIC system), encompassing all or classes of
documents from its source organization and, therefore, does not require a
"Specific Document" Release form.
This document is Federally-funded, or carries its own permission to
reproduce, or is otherwise in the public domain and, therefore, may be
reproduced by ERIC without a signed Reproduction Release form (either
"Specific Document" or "Blanket").
EFF-089 (1/2003)