| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
||||||
|
||||||||
ARTICLES |
* Department of Cell Biology and Molecular
Genetics, College of Life Sciences,
Office of Information Technology, University
of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742
Submitted August 29, 2004; Accepted December 23, 2004
 |
ABSTRACT |
|---|
 TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTIONCOURSE DESIGNASSESSMENT AND EVALUATIONCONCLUSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
Key Words: active learning • case studies • introductory biology • undergraduate students • technology
|
INTRODUCTION |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONCOURSE DESIGNASSESSMENT AND EVALUATIONCONCLUSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
|
Our course redesign followed a detailed examination of its various components: the role of the instructors, the use of the lecture and lab periods, and the role of the textbook. We reviewed the published methods of active learning and many approaches to teaching large classes that appear at Web sites of many large research universities. We wanted to create a rich, multifaceted course that integrated active learning into every facet of the course. We wanted the activities to have meaning such that students would be engaged in activities similar to those of a practicing scientist. Such an effort, as proposed by Johnson and Malinowski (2001), required a complete shift in course philosophy.
Case studies and associated problems are effective in engaging the learner (Herreid, 1998). We chose case studies to serve as our core active-learning tool. In addition, we have included aspects of Just in Time Teaching (JITT; Marrs and Novak, 2004), Peer-Led Team Learning (PLTL; PLTL Workshop Project, 2004), techniques such as Think-Pair-Share (T-P-S; Allen and Tanner, 2002), Inquiry labs (Handelsman et al., 2004), and problem-based learning (PBL; Allen, 1996).
Over the past eight years, we have tested various combinations of active-learning strategies. To guide our path, we have relied on student satisfaction surveys, student focus groups, and feedback from our teaching assistants, as well as on our personal observations. This work began from an interest in better serving our students and has grown into a major science education project. The result of our work is a new course framework: the Active Learning Course Framework (ALCF). The ALCF has been in place in our course for two years, and we have begun implementing aspects of the framework in other introductory biology courses. Figure 1 shows the design of the ALCF. The animated version of the figure illustrates the layers of our course design. The original course had the traditional course structure with two distinct learning environments: lecture and lab. We added the online area to provide another nexus in space and time for learning and to serve as the communication and distribution center for the course. In large lecture courses, a major barrier to change is the difficulty associated with disseminating information, collecting student work, providing feedback to students, and supporting and monitoring teamwork. The use of technology provided a solution and allowed us to link lecture and lab, as well as online learning opportunities, in a cohesive manner. Students enter the online environment to find lab-oriented material (lab syllabus and lab manual) and lecture-oriented material (lecture syllabus and course Power-Point presentations). Technology serves as a first formal link between course environments. A second formal link is through the action of the instructors. We formed a team with the course lecturers, the lab instructor, and the teaching assistants. Each team member was aware of and supported the actions and roles of the others. The connections established form the structure of the course. These two formal links allowed us to add case studies. Case studies tie the course material together thematically. In Figure 1 the central circle represents our course emphasis: active learning. The first ring shows the goals of the research scientist, the second ring shows how we use case studies and associated problems (which we call participation/applied knowledge [PAK] problems—see Table 2) and other forms of engagement including aspects of the proven methods of JITT (Marrs and Novak, 2004), PLTL (PLTL Workshop Project, 2004), T-P-S (Allen and Tanner, 2002), PBL (Allen, 1996), and Inquiry labs (Handelsman et al., 2004).
|
To support case-based learning, we divide our one-semester course into three modules (Table 1). Each module is anchored by a case study; all lab, lecture, and active-learning experiences are connected to the case-study story. For example, consider the first module. The content covered in Module 1, "Bacterial structure/function, Bacterial metabolism and growth" is brought to light in a case study about a fictional space mission where the outer lycra covering of a space sample collector is degraded upon return from a fictional planet. Students investigate the possibility that microbes associated with the probe may be the cause of the degradation. Students must use information presented in lecture, in lab, and from their own research and reading of the text to answer case-study questions and to complete a group laboratory assignment. Linking material helps students build knowledge and improves retention (Lux, 2002). The ALCF serves to support connections between all aspects of the course: the people, the learning environments, and the pedagogy. Each course component that was modified in the redesign of the course is discussed in detail below.
|
|
COURSE DESIGN |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONCOURSE DESIGNASSESSMENT AND EVALUATIONCONCLUSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
In the teaching team, each faculty member provided a unique perspective. Although our team has varied somewhat over the last eight years as faculty members have rotated through the course, the group has always benefited from the diversity of perspectives that a team composed of full professors, associate and assistant professors, and instructors would provide. In the development phase of this project, the responsibility of the team was to prepare active-learning components for the course. The development benefited from the variety of expertise and experience of the faculty. Within the implementation phase of the ALCF, teamwork and diversity continues to be beneficial. Each faculty member finds a niche in the course when being part of the team. Research faculty members have been particularly interested in infusing case studies, case-study problems, and course assignments with data and data analysis. The instructors on our team have focused on technology and pedagogy. Even though the framework for the course has been established, assignments and case-study problems are altered each semester. This keeps the course fresh and current and restricts student sharing of information with graduates of the course. Working as a team provides a mechanism that ensures that all aspects of the course (for example, lab and lecture) will be linked and that the work involved in implementing active learning is shared.
On our team, faculty members are divided with respect to major responsibility: lecturer versus coordinator of laboratory and online environments. Within their major responsibility area, faculty members have the opportunity to add their own flavor to the course. Yet the faculty works together to run the course: defining learning goals, discussing and implementing active-learning strategies in the lab and in the lecture, setting the course syllabus, updating case studies and assignments, using and developing uses for technology in the course, as well as mentoring GTAs and UTAs. In addition, on our team we include on-campus professionals in education, policy and planning, and also in teaching and learning support from the Office of Information Technology (OIT). This broader team has allowed us greater support for design and implementation of active learning pedagogy and technology. During each semester we have a variety of team meetings. The complete team (faculty, GTAs, and UTAs) meets twice each semester for goal setting, team building, and reflecting on the success of the semester. In addition we have weekly UTA meetings and GTA meetings. (Due to the large numbers of UTAs and GTAs, as well as scheduling restrictions, one teaching assistant meeting was not feasible.) One of the faculty instructors attends the UTA meetings. This faculty representative reports on UTA activities at the weekly GTA meetings that are attended by GTAs and all course instructors. The faculty instructors meet alone or with education and OIT faculty team members once or twice a semester or on an as-needed basis.
The GTAs have nontraditional roles with regard to their participation in course development and planning. They bring their own science expertise, their recent experiences as students, and their role as liaison to the students. For facilitation of peer learning in student online discussions, we added UTAs to our team. They serve a role similar to students in PLTL (PLTL Workshop Project, 2004). Students eligible to serve as UTAs have completed our course with an "A" or "B" grade and receive course credit for their participation.
Content
The ALCF was designed to support a shift in student activity away from
memorization and toward activities that promote discovery of information
needed to solve problems. Along with others
(Cronin-Jones, 2003;
Wood, 2003), we feel that the
lecture presentation serves an important role in science education, but like
Weld (2002), we think that the
lecture is most appreciated by a student who is prepared. Scientists listen to
detailed research seminars (lectures) and appreciate the content because of
their prior knowledge of the field, their understanding of context, and their
interest in solving a research problem. In our framework, the lecture is
placed in the context of a research seminar given by an expert. The students
are put in the role of a scientific researcher through the use of three course
case studies. Formal lectures given in the lecture hall by faculty instructors
and shorter lectures given in lab by the GTAs are used to provide content and
opportunities to learn standard protocols that would be useful in addressing
case-study problems and course assignments. Thus the delivery of content still
occurs via the lecture format in the lecture and lab periods. However,
students are prepared for this delivery in a manner not found in the
traditional course design. They are armed with a context (from the case study)
and challenged with rich and interesting problems (associated with the case
study) that they will need content to address. In addition, students are
encouraged to seek content from the textbook and from their own research
(links to online databases are provided). The lecture thus becomes more
similar to the research seminar, where students are in the position of needing
to know information to address weekly assigned case-study problems. The ALCF
continues to include the lecture as a prominent course component, but it is
placed into perspective by linking the presentation to case studies and
associated learning goals (see Figure
1 and Table 1). The
role of the faculty in the lecture hall remains very similar to their role in
the traditional course format, but as a result of the linkage of the lecture
material to active-learning course components (see later examples), the
lecture experience is seen in a new light by faculty and students alike.
Relevance of Science
Case studies provide a tool to present context and rich problems and to
engage students in active learning (Camill,
2000). Each one of our case studies focuses on a major scientific
research area: Case 1, the search for microbial forms of extraterrestrial
life; Case 2, the use of biotechnology for the development of transgenic
crops; and Case 3, the microbiology/immunology of a common infectious disease
(see Table 1). The topics are
rich, not only in their science, but also in their broader social
implications. Each case study provides a story line for lectures, lab
experiments, problem sets, and assignments, and serves as a venue to highlight
research experiences and expertise of the faculty.
Textbook
When the emphasis of the course is shifted away from content delivery to
active student learning, the role of the textbook changes. As a general
microbiology course, the learning goals reflect the curriculum established by
the American Society for Microbiology (ASM,
1994). In our course design, students are required to buy a text
and reading assignments are given. However, the text does not serve to drive
the course syllabus and represents only one source of information. Students
also are encouraged to consider the lecture and their own research as sources
of information. They are directed to current papers and online journals via an
online course library page (BSCI 223 Course
Library Page, 2004). By encouraging students to seek information
from multiple sources, we hope to instill skills for lifelong learning.
Tools
Teamwork and technology are the major tools that drive the active learning
in the ALCF. The instructors work as a team to create linkages between all
course components. Students work in teams for various active learning
activities. Students participate in formal teams for lab work and for
structured team assignments (see examples of case-based learning, Tables
2 and
3). Students work with informal
teams for T-P-S discussions in lecture. Formal teams are set up within the lab
section. GTAs establish teams of three students in the lab. Students are
assigned to a team based upon their voluntary responses to various questions
about their background in science, knowledge of technology, experience in a
research lab, address, race, gender, and grade point average. The teams are
designed to be diverse, mimicking the structure of a team of scientists: each
member brings a unique perspective and a special expertise to the group
effort. For the report-writing portion of the online discussion mode of
case-study learning (Table 3),
student teams of three are re-sorted according to the Jigsaw method
(Tanner et al., 2003)
to provide teams of six students (see later discussion of the online
discussion mode and Table 3).
The teams of six students are randomly chosen, but within a lab section of 18
students, each team of six has one representative from each team of three. Our
rationale for incorporating teamwork into the student experience comes from
reports that teamwork increases student retention of knowledge and hones
critical thinking skills (McInerny and Fink, 2003). Also, we realize that when
scientists work, they collaborate with others. Our hope is that by working in
teams, students will learn social skills that will support their success as
practicing scientists.
|
We have described already how technology serves as a tool to link the learning environments, the people, and the pedagogical mission of the course. Further, technology is used to support course management, to provide opportunities for communication, to direct students to online resources, and to offer active-learning opportunities (Table 4). The password-protected course management system that is supported at the University of Maryland is WebCT (WebCT, 2004). All information posted in the online environment is available at all times of each day and evening. Faculty members add information and post timely announcements to the site at least once each week. Various course quizzes and surveys are programmed to become available and then to close at set dates. The calendar tool of WebCT alerts students to upcoming assignments. The open discussion is available to students at all times and is monitored by faculty, GTAs, and UTAs on a daily basis. Using technology to support course management provides us great flexibility. We may distribute materials at our convenience, and students may access the online environment at their convenience. There is an online record of all activity, and course materials can be updated easily. We also hope that by using the online environment, we are giving students practice in using technology, a tool that is becoming increasingly valuable to the practicing scientist.
|
Active Learning
In the ALCF, the case study serves as the anchor for all learning
activities. For each course module (see
Table 1), a case is presented
online. The lectures and the lab exercises for the module speak to problems
associated with the case study. We have designed two modes for students to
work with case studies. Table 2
describes the Case/PAK mode, which is the cornerstone method used in the ALCF.
In each course module, the Case/PAK mode of case-based learning engages
students in problem-solving, listening, research, discussion, and
presentation. Students are involved online (reading the case, reviewing
relevant course PowerPoint presentations, researching solutions to case
questions, and submitting those solutions for review by faculty). Students are
involved in lecture and in lab (listening for relevant information to apply to
case-study issues, and discussing case-study responses; see
Table 2). This mode requires
time in lecture and in lab for case-study discussion. With limited time for
formal lectures each week, there was concern that by using some of our lecture
period for discussion we would not have the time to cover the entire course
content. The Case/PAK mode addresses this. Some content coverage is shifted to
student learning. Some topics related to PAK problems are researched by
students without any prior introduction in lecture. Students relay their
understanding of the content in PAK solutions. Faculty, in reading students'
PAK responses, can determine what content needs further coverage in a formal
lecture and what content and concepts the students have learned through their
own work. Also, during PAK discussions in lecture and in lab, students are
encouraged to ask questions about any content that they did not fully
understand. Our hope is that by using this mode of teaching, we will instill
in our students a sense of responsibility for their own learning.
The use of technology to review PAK submissions is an excellent example that illustrates how technology supports active learning in a way that would not have been feasible in the absence of technology for a large-enrollment course such as ours. For PAK review, students individually submit solutions to PAK problems online by a set due date. The opportunity to submit is controlled by the technology. The PAK problems are available within the WebCT quiz tool. After the submission deadline, student submissions to an individual problem can be tabulated within WebCT or can be downloaded to a spreadsheet. The submissions (up to 300 in our class) then can be scanned by the faculty lecturer for accurate use of terms, understanding of major concepts, misconceptions, and use of references.
Table 3 describes our online discussion mode of case-study learning. The discussion of broad science, social, and economic issues that are current and controversial and pose a dilemma may be addressed using this mode. We use the online discussion mode for the assignment in Module 2 (Table 1). Our case, "The Farmer's Dilemma," poses issues relevant to the safety and marketability of genetically modified corn. Students are given the charge to research current information, to discuss and to assess the information critically, and then to craft a report that addresses a case-study dilemma. To allow for extended small group discussions without the requirement of a set time or meeting place (both of which are very difficult to arrange for a large class), this mode employs an online discussion space. The use of the online environment provides convenience to the students, easy access to online databases, a method for sharing of resource information (students provide links to reference sites), and a record of the conversation. Faculty and teaching assistants can observe the conversation unobtrusively and later review the record for evaluation purposes. When using the "Farmer's Dilemma" case study for this online discussion mode, students role-play as scientific consultants who have been hired by a set of farmers grappling with issues relating to the planting of transgenic crops. Any dilemma case would be appropriate for using this method of case-based learning. Many cases can be found in published databases such as the National Center for Case Study Teaching in Science (University of Buffalo, 2004). For our specific use of the online discussion mode, three issues relevant to the case dilemma are discussed. The number of issues is dictated by our lab enrollment of 18. For the online discussion, one student from each lab team of three participates in an online discussion team of six students. Each online discussion team investigates one case issue. After the online discussions are complete (Table 3), students return to the lab environment for an open face-to-face discussion of the case-study issues and for report writing. Lab teams of three write the final dilemma resolution reports. According to the Jigsaw method of group work (Tanner et al., 2003), after re-sorting the lab teams, each team has an expert on each of the three case issues. For the online discussion, students are expected to investigate and discuss relevant facts, controversies, and questions found in online resources. Students are encouraged to consider and to weigh information found in peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed sites. Our goal with this mode of case-study learning is that students will become engaged in learning course content as they see the relevance of the content to real-world problems. Further, we hope that by giving students roles and by providing students a context in the form of case studies, the class-related activities are much closer to those of a scientist operating in the real world, compared with activities required of students in the traditional lecture/lab/exam course structure.
|
ASSESSMENT AND EVALUATION |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONCOURSE DESIGNASSESSMENT AND EVALUATIONCONCLUSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
Student Participation in and Perception of Active-Learning Tasks
Our goal was to add active learning in a way that would be effective and
manageable for a large-enrollment class and that would introduce skills
valuable to a research scientist. We incorporated published active-learning
strategies into a construct that allowed a philosophical shift in the course
from passive lecture-centered to active student-centered learning. Prior to
our course transformation the activities of the students were listening in
lecture, writing notes, asking an occasional question, completing exams, and
working on labs that offered exercises mostly driven toward an expected
result. With the ALCF in place, activities available to the students have
increased dramatically (Table
4). Table 5 shows
student participation in the various course activities during the spring and
fall of 2004. Different faculty instructors served as course lecturers in the
spring of 2004, in the fall of 2004 Lecture 1, and in the fall of 2004 Lecture
2. An additional faculty instructor served as the lab and online environment
coordinator and was present in this role in the spring of 2004 and the fall of
2004. We noted a variance in student participation in the online open
discussion area and in the frequency with which the students accessed the
online learning environment (Table
5). Particularly in the fall of 2004, the frequency with which
students accessed the online environment was reported by 24% of the students
to be at least once every other day, compared with 93% and 91% reporting
access once every other day in the fall 2004 sections. The activity of the
course instructor in the WebCT space may affect the activity of the student
activity in that space. Also, in the spring of 2004, the calendar tool of
WebCT was used for major course deadlines such as exam dates. But in the fall
of 2004 the use of the calendar tool was increased such that every course
activity was announced. The increased use of the calendar tool in the fall may
explain the increase in student access to the online space in the fall of
2004.
|
Like Witham et al. (2002), we have received very positive feedback from our students regarding the addition of the online course management system to our course. In the fall of 2004, 340 students responded to a course survey. Students were asked what they liked about the use of WebCT in BSCI 223 General Microbiology. The majority of the students (209 responses) indicated that they liked the use of WebCT, because of the access that it provided to course materials. These students commented about the availability of course materials 24 h a day, seven d each week. There were 75 students who indicated that the option to communicate with other students and with the teaching team through the online environment was the most valuable aspect of our use of WebCT. Forty-one students commented on the ease of using the online environment, and 46 students noted that the use of the online environment to provide organization to the course was of great value. Only 14 students responded with negative comments about the use of WebCT. These students found the use of the online environment a hassle that made them a slave to the computer.
To determine how our students perceived the use of case studies in our course, students were asked, "How useful did you find case studies in helping you see the relevance of course material?" Of the 340 students in the combined lecture sections of fall 2004, 59 students chose "One of the most useful parts of the course," 178 students chose "Very helpful," 113 students chose "Somewhat helpful," 11 students chose "Not very helpful," and eight students chose "Not helpful at all." In the same survey, students were asked the open-ended question, "What do you like about the use of case studies in BSCI 223 (General Microbiology)?" Of the 339 students responding, 123 students indicated that they liked how cases helped them to learn/think about/apply course concepts, 128 students described how cases allowed them to see the real-world relevance of course concepts, and 79 students reported that the case studies made the course concepts more interesting or more engaging. Nine students indicated that the case studies had no value and that the case-study work was either busywork or too much work in general.
Student Performance
Student assessment for purposes of a course grade remains the role of the
course instructors and the GTAs. We have shifted from our previous grading
plan (three objective exams, lab quizzes, one lab report, and a final lab
practical) to a plan that reflects the new philosophy of the course. The
majority of the grade depends on the lecture exams, but the exam questions are
designed to follow the format of the PAK problems and require students to
demonstrate understanding of content, use of vocabulary, and ability to think
critically. Assignments 1, 2, and 3 are significant projects that require
students to work in teams, to respond to case-study challenges and to produce
group-authored reports (see Table
1). As in research presentations, these reports require that
student teams demonstrate understanding of concepts and appropriate use of
scientific terms, as well as present a cohesive response to a case-study
problem. Teamwork was added to encourage student discussion and learning and
to reduce the workload for the instructors. Our team projects use groups of
three, thus reducing the work of feedback and assessment by instructors by
two-thirds. Short lab reports and objective assessments (lab midterm and lab
final) that test understanding of lab protocols and ability to interpret lab
data make up a portion of the grade and keep students on task in the lab. PAK
responses are given points for participation. The course design emphasizes
that good student performance is linked to participation in the various modes
of active learning. Even though the novel course design is more demanding in
terms of effort and timely execution, there is no evidence that student grades
are lower than in the traditional version of the course. Also, although we
have taken time during the lecture period for active-learning activities, the
breadth of material included on lecture exams has not changed as a consequence
of our new course philosophy. The content covered continues to be similar to
that covered prior to our shift to ALCF. What has changed is that not all
content topics are covered in lecture, as once was the case. Some content
topics are covered as students read case-study problems and search for answers
on their own, or as students work through interactive labs. We assess the need
to explain topics that are not addressed in formal lecture by reading PAK
submissions and lab reports. Using the ALCF, one of our goals has been to
shift some of the responsibility for content coverage to the students. By
doing this we can include active-learning opportunities within our limited
lecture time without sacrificing course content goals.
University Course Evaluation
In the fall of 2002, our course (General Microbiology, BSCI 223) was
evaluated by the University of Maryland General Education (CORE) committee as
part of a periodic review process. In 1993, our course scored close to other
lecture/lab life science CORE courses taught at the university. After
implementation of the ALCF, we received significantly higher scores on the two
questions that assessed active learning and the understanding of the process
of science. The comparison was to all Life Sciences Lab courses reviewed over
time. Mean scores were compared. For the question, "To what extent has
this course helped you understand the method of study or observation,
collection, and analysis of data characteristic of this field?" BSCI 223
scored 11.26% higher than the score for all Life Science Lab courses. For the
question, "To what extent has this course given you opportunities to
participate actively in the learning process through discussions, small group
work, laboratories, etc.?" BSCI 223 scored 12.63% higher. Both values
are significant at the 5% level.
Retention of Course Learning
This teaching team is working on a Howard Hughes Medical
Institute-supported project with other colleagues from the Department of Cell
Biology and Molecular Genetics to investigate student-learning gains and
student ability to transfer knowledge gains from our introductory microbiology
course to advanced microbiology courses. This project involves the development
of a detailed pretest and post-test for major microbiology concepts. These
tests will be used to track the learning and retention patterns for groups of
students as they move from our introductory course to the advanced
microbiology courses. This new initiative will be a multi-year, multi-course
project that will help us assess the impact that the implementation of ALCF in
our introductory microbiology course has had on long-term student
learning.
|
CONCLUSION |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONCOURSE DESIGNASSESSMENT AND EVALUATIONCONCLUSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
The course faculty considers the institution of the ALCF in General Microbiology a success, but it has required considerable faculty time to build a library of teaching resources (e.g., case studies, PAK questions, linked laboratory experiences) and to put into place the mechanics for the transition. But the process has been rejuvenating for us. Working together as a team and reflecting on input from our students, GTAs, and UTAs have infused us with a new excitement for teaching. Incorporating case studies gave us opportunities to include in our teaching information about our research programs and current topics in our field. Although developing the framework required an increased time commitment, reflecting over the last few years, we feel that the outcome was worth the investment. By working together, we shared responsibility for the work required to reinvent our course. Because of the varied expertise within our team, the development phase and now the implementation phase of the ALCF benefit from our commitment to collaboration.
Another benefit of our redesigned course has been the evaluation of the roles of teaching assistants. In the pre-ALCF version of our course, graduate students acted primarily as lab supervisors. In the revised course, GTAs operate as partners with the faculty in carrying out the course goals. The enhanced role of the GTAs provides them with opportunities to learn about the theory and implementation of various education strategies and to see faculty members as teachers. We have encouraged our graduate students to take advantage of the University of Maryland-sponsored University Teaching and Learning Program (UTLP, 2004) to earn a citation in teaching as they work on course projects and consider how science education will be part of their future career. UTAs served to support the online discussion. Each UTA worked with three online discussion groups and coached the groups through the research and discussion process. The feedback from the UTAs has been very positive. They find their role very rewarding and appreciate the opportunity to see education from the faculty point of view.
Our goal with this work was to implement a structure that did not require additional significant or sustained funding. Our progress has been dependent upon the support readily available at our university. University grants have funded the purchase of computer software and attendance at meetings. Our OIT and the Center for Teaching Excellence have provided expert advice and support. A College of Life Sciences-funded program (Undergraduate Technology Apprentice Program [UTAP], 2004) has afforded us with two trained undergraduates each semester to help with our technology needs. Furthermore, our course development evolved though discussions with colleagues at education meetings supported by the ASM Board of Education, the NRC, the National Science Foundation, Project Kaleidoscope, and the National Center for Case Study Teaching in Science. To further ease the work of the teaching team and to ensure the success of our conceptual framework, collaboration between different institutions with the sharing of methods and teaching materials will be essential. Facilities for this sharing are already in place through the various digital libraries (for example, National Science Digital Library, MicrobeLibrary, Merlot, and Bioscience Education Network).
With the ALCF now in place within General Microbiology for three semesters, we can report on the commitment required for adoption of the plan. After the initial investment of learning the use of the course management system and of writing case studies or choosing case studies from a database such as the National Center for Case Study Teaching in Science, there is some cost to running an active-learning course that is dependent on teamwork and technology. Working as a team requires that faculty members relinquish some control over the course and requires that faculty members participate in weekly team meetings and collaborate on projects. In addition to meetings, to implement the ALCF, faculty time is spent on usual course activities such as lecture preparation and test design. In the traditional course design, lecture writing and test preparation are time-intensive endeavors. Often the challenge of preparing good lectures and test questions begs the identification of a story or example to provide context. We have found that the links to case studies intrinsic to the ALCF make these tasks easier. With lecture writing requiring less challenge, faculty time is available to prepare for in-lecture discussions. Faculty members review PAK responses and include the misunderstandings and misconceptions in the design of lecture preparation and in-lecture discussion questions. This is the most challenging aspect of adoption of the ALCF. Once each week, faculty members must spend time prior to the designated lecture period reviewing student responses. Although this step takes time, we feel that the information reaped from reading student responses well outweighs the added commitment. Because we are using a JITT method (Marrs and Novak, 2004) for discussion of case-study problems, like others using JITT, we truly can sense the pulse of the class in a manner not previously available to us. For the lecture discussion phase of the Case/PAK mode, providing feedback to students concerning their PAK responses and addressing students' misconceptions of course concepts revealed in PAK responses, faculty comfortable with lecturing to large groups must learn to promote discussion. Engaging students to speak in the lecture setting is a great hurdle for many faculty members. We have used the T-P-S method (Allen and Tanner, 2002) as one mode to encourage participation. A last requirement for faculty time comes from the use of technology in the course. Time is spent by faculty monitoring questions posted on the online environment or posting lecture and lab information to this site. The time requirement for the faculty, however, is variable and directly relates to faculty interest in technology. Students, UTAs, and graduate students can respond to the majority of questions posted, and GTAs or other technology support persons can be assigned the role of posting course information to the online course environment. We used undergraduate students trained in our UTAP (UTAP, 2004) for many technology-related tasks. However, data from a three-semester preliminary study (Table 5) suggest that faculty lecturer involvement within the WebCT space will affect student activity in that space.
Adapting the Framework to Other Courses
In the past year, one of our faculty team has been reassigned to the
teaching of one section of our large-lecture introductory biology course (BSCI
105). That course had been taught in the traditional manner: three 50-min
lectures and a separate lab. In her first semester teaching that course, she
began the adoption of the ALCF. WebCT was added, lecture content was linked to
lab topics, and case studies and PAK problems were instituted. Case studies
were used to cover the three basic modules of the class
(Table 6). After one semester,
the feedback has been positive from both students and faculty. Eighty percent
of the 250 students participated in all three Case/PAK modules, thus
significantly increasing the active-learning aspect of the course. This
success suggests that the ALCF developed using an introductory microbiology
course as the test case is indeed a flexible framework that can be adapted to
meet the needs of other large-enrollment science courses.
|
This Project Placed in a National Perspective
Science education research reported in the NRC publications "How
People Learn" (2000), Bio2010 (2003), as well as the Project
Kaleidoscope report "What Works, What Matters, What Lasts"
(Narum, 2004), calls us to
evaluate our teaching and to completely reformat our courses.
"Innovative introductory science courses address an important national
need," claimed Dr. George Langford, a key member of the National Science
Board, in the report "The Science and Engineering Workforce. Realizing
America's Potential" (National
Science Board, 2003). As Langford has pointed out, our
introductory science courses act more as filters than as pumps. More often
than not, students experience science as the dry memorization of facts without
any relevance to careers in which they wish to spend most of their working
lives. Our course design has given us the opportunity to add to our class
strategies that have already been demonstrated to be successful, but which
were previously out of our reach because of our large class enrollment, time
limitations, and course management needs. Technology and a teaching team
support our ALCF. By instituting the framework, we were able to shift the
focus of the course from didactic to student-learning centered. The use of
case studies and problem-solving as a platform for active learning gave
students the opportunity to conceptualize information and to practice skills
that will be useful in their future careers as practicing scientists.
|
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS |
|---|
The authors would like to thank UTAP students Anne Tsang, Karen Lew, Allyson Morman, Maria Panglao, Fasika Woreta, Kathy Shahrokh, and Sonia Sharma for hours of dedication put toward the establishment and maintenance of the BSCI 223 online space, and enthusiastic GTAs, UTAs, and BSCI 223 students whose feedback encouraged and guided us. Special thanks to University of Maryland librarian Bonnie Chojnacki for developing our course-specific library page, and Web designer Anne Tsang for expressing our course vision in the image displayed in Figure 1.
|
FOOTNOTES |
|---|
Address correspondence to: Ann C. Smith (asmith{at}umd.edu).
|
REFERENCES |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONCOURSE DESIGNASSESSMENT AND EVALUATIONCONCLUSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
Allen, D.E., and Tanner, K. (2002). Approaches in Cell Biology Teaching. Cell Biol. Educ. 1, 3-5. http://www.cellbioed.org/articles/vol1no1/article.cfm?articleID=2 (accessed 14 July 2004).
American Society for Microbiology (ASM). (1994). ASM's Curriculum Recommendations: Introductory Course in Microbiology. http://www.asm.org/Education/index.asp?bid=10051 (accessed 14 July 2004).
American Society for Microbiology (ASM). (2004). Microbe Library. http://www.microbelibrary.org (accessed 28 July 2004).
Bioscience Education Network (BEN). (2004). http://www.biosciednet.org (accessed 28 July 2004).
BSCI 223 Course Library Page. (2004). http://www.lib.umd.edu/MCK/bsci223.html (accessed 28 July 2004).
Camill, P. (2000). Using journal articles in an environmental biology course. J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 30(1),38 -43.
Cliff, W.H., and Curtin, L.N. (2000). The directed case method: teaching concept and process in a content-rich course. J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 30(1),64 -66.
Cronin-Jones, L.L. (2003). Are lectures a thing of the past? J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 32(7),453 -457.
Handelsman, J., Ebert-May, D., Beichner, R., Bruns, P., Chang, A.,
DeHaan, R., Gentile, J., Lauffer, A., Stewart, J., Tilghman, S.S., and Wood,
W.B. (2004). Scientific teaching. Science
304,521
-522.
Herreid, C.F. (1994). Case studies in science: a novel method for science education. J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 23(4), 221-229. Also available online at http://ublib.buffalo.edu/libraries/projects/cases/teaching/novel.html (accessed 28 July 2004).
Herreid, C.F. (1998). What makes a good case?The case study. J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 27(3),163 -165.
Herreid, C.F. (2001). Mom Always Liked You Best: Examining the Hypothesis of Parental Favoritism—Prologue: The Interrupted Case Method. ublib.buffalo.edu/libraries/projects/cases/coots/coots_prologue.html (accessed 28 July 2004).
Johnson, M.C., and Malinowski, J.C. (2001). Navigating the active learning swamp. J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 31(3),172 -177.
Lux, M.F. (2002). An Activity-Based Format Increased Student Retention in a Community College Microbiology. Microbiol. Educ. 3(1), 12-17. http://www.microbelibrary.org/FactSheet.asp?SubmissionID=1158 (accessed 28 July 2004).
McInerney, M.J., and Fink, L.D. (2003). Team-based learning enhances long term retention and critical thinking in an undergraduate microbial physiology course. Microbiol. Educ. 4, 3-12.
Marrs, K.A., and Novak, G. (2004). Just-in-time
teaching in biology: creating an active learner classroom using the Internet.Cell Biol. Educ.
3,49
-61.
Merlot. (2004). http://www.merlot.org (accessed 28 July 2004).
Narum, J. (2004). Project Kaleidoscope, Volume IV: What Works, What Matters, What Lasts. Considering How Students Learn: A PKAL Essay on The Learner Centered Environment. http://www.pkal.org/template2.cfm?c_id=992 (accessed 28 July 2004).
National Research Council. (2000). How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience and School, ed. J.D. Bransford, A.L. Brown, and R.R. Cocking. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. http://books.nap.edu/books/0309070368/html/index.html (accessed 28 July 2004).
National Research Council. (2003). Bio2010: Transforming Undergraduate Education for Future Research Biologists. Committee on Undergraduate Biology Education to Prepare Research Scientists for the 21st Century. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. http://www.nap.edu/books/0309085357/html (accessed 28 July 2004).
National Science Board. (2003). The Science and Engineering Workforce. Realizing America's Potential. NSB 0369. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation, Aug. 14, 2003.
National Science Digital Library. (2004). http://www.nsdl.org (accessed 28 July 2004).
Nester, E., Thomashow, L.S., Metz, M., and Gordon, M. (202). 100 Years of Bacillus thuringiensis: A Critical Scientific Assessment. American Academy of Microbiology Critical Issues Colloquia Reports. http://www.asm.org/Academy/index.asp?bid=2129 (accessed 28 July 2004).
The Peer-Led Team Learning (PLTL). (2004). Workshop Project. http://www.sci.ccny.cuny.edu/~chemwksp/index.html (accessed 28 July 2004).
Tanner, K., Liesl, S., Chatman, L.S., and Allen, D.E. (2003). Approaches to cell biology teaching: cooperative learning in the science classroom—beyond students working in groups. Cell Biol. Educ. 2, 1-5. http://www.cellbioed.org/articles/vol2no1/article.cfm?articleID=36 (accessed 28 July 2004).
Undergraduate Technology Apprentice Program (UTAP). (2004). University of Maryland College of Life Sciences/College of Agriculture. http://www.life.umd.edu/utap (accessed 28 July 2004).
University of Buffalo. (2004). National Center for Case Study Teaching in Science. http://ublib.buffalo.edu/libraries/projects/cases/case.html (accessed 30 July 2004).
University Teaching and Learning Program (UTLP). (2004). University of Maryland, Center for Teaching Excellence. http://www.cte.umd.edu/UTLPreqs.html (accessed 28 July 2004).
WebCT. (2004). http://www.webct.com/ (accessed 7 February 2005).
Weld, J. (2002). Save your lecture for someone who cares. J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 31(7),489 -490.
Witham, S.A., Krockover, G.H., Ridgeway, K.D., and Zinsmeister, W.J. (2002). Lessons online, educational technology for the undergraduate geology classroom. J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 32(4),265 -269.
Wood, W.B. (2003). Inquiry-based undergraduate teaching in the life sciences at large research universities: a perspective on the Boyer Commission Report. J. Cell Biol. Ed. 2, 112-116. http://www.cellbioed.org/articles/vol2no2/article.cfm?articleID=57 (accessed 28 July 2004).
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  D. Allen and K. Tanner Infusing Active Learning into the Large-enrollment Biology Class: Seven Strategies, from the Simple to Complex CBE Life Sci Educ, December 1, 2005; 4(4): 262 - 268. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
