Many thanks to the organizers of the SABER conference and all the speakers who shared their work.
Showing posts with label Biology Education. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Biology Education. Show all posts
Monday, August 3, 2015
Looking to 2016
Salutation
Many thanks to the organizers of the SABER conference and all the speakers who shared their work.
I have only shared a snapshot of the research being done in biology education,
but I think that it reveals how the biology education community is thinking
about transforming education. There are initiatives that range from those
designed to tackle operational aspects of a classroom and organizing local
education communities, to others intended to reshape the culture of
departments. If this is something you find interesting as an education
researcher, consider attending the SABER conference in 2016.
Many thanks to the organizers of the SABER conference and all the speakers who shared their work.
Short talks
The Active Learning Rooms
Imagine attending a lecture in Buffalo Wild Wings. That's what it felt like during the short talks portion of the SABER meeting. Presentations were projected on many screens throughout the room so that regardless of where an attendant was sitting, he/she could easily read the contents of a slide. Additionally, everyone sat at round tables that were equipped with microphones. Attendants would speak into the microphones and their voices would resonate from speakers that were also strategically housed all around the room. I'm told that many classes at the University of Minnesota take place in rooms like this one. Would this be thrilling or overwhelming to you?
Imagine attending a lecture in Buffalo Wild Wings. That's what it felt like during the short talks portion of the SABER meeting. Presentations were projected on many screens throughout the room so that regardless of where an attendant was sitting, he/she could easily read the contents of a slide. Additionally, everyone sat at round tables that were equipped with microphones. Attendants would speak into the microphones and their voices would resonate from speakers that were also strategically housed all around the room. I'm told that many classes at the University of Minnesota take place in rooms like this one. Would this be thrilling or overwhelming to you?
Saturday, August 1, 2015
Stupendous eigenvectors
Poster Presentations
Often at conferences, there is a wide range in the quality of work that constitutes the subject matter of a poster. During the SABER poster presentations, all the projects seemed to be very well thought out and were very well explained. Posters generally reflect incomplete work where some data has been gathered but there is still much to be done. In this way, posters reflect projects that are in an intermediate stage of completion. These intermediate projects are the eigenvectors of biology education research that compose what will eventually become principle projects. In other words, biology education research is relatively new and these incomplete projects show the direction of where the field is going as they represent the new initiatives that are just now getting off the ground. Eventually many of the poster presentations will become established projects that continue to impact how we think about biology education. Here are two of my favorites, the stupendous eigenvectors.
Development of an analytic rubric to evaluate undergraduate student graphs and diagnose difficulties in graph choice and construction - Stephanie Gardner from Purdue University has condensed the opinions from faculty and literature on how graphs should be made to represent data into a rubric. This rubric answers the question of what the education community thinks makes a better graph, where students fall short and how students with limited experience and training can be informed on how they can improve.
Evaluation of the pre-matriculation program at the University of Minnesota-Duluth Medical School - Abigail Whitney from the University of Minnesota-Duluth is interested in how social and study networks impact student self efficacy and persistence. 1st and 2nd year medical students were surveyed to identify the top three peers whom they socialize with and the top three peers whom they study with. The data was process using the Gephi program. Patterns emerged that were surprising. Students do not necessarily study with their friends, and the study groups are academically homogenous (top students study with top students, bottom with bottom). Therefore, some students exclude their friends from their study groups. Future study will be to monitor social and study network trends over the full four years of medical school, paying close attention to grades, gender and minority homogeneity.
Often at conferences, there is a wide range in the quality of work that constitutes the subject matter of a poster. During the SABER poster presentations, all the projects seemed to be very well thought out and were very well explained. Posters generally reflect incomplete work where some data has been gathered but there is still much to be done. In this way, posters reflect projects that are in an intermediate stage of completion. These intermediate projects are the eigenvectors of biology education research that compose what will eventually become principle projects. In other words, biology education research is relatively new and these incomplete projects show the direction of where the field is going as they represent the new initiatives that are just now getting off the ground. Eventually many of the poster presentations will become established projects that continue to impact how we think about biology education. Here are two of my favorites, the stupendous eigenvectors.
Development of an analytic rubric to evaluate undergraduate student graphs and diagnose difficulties in graph choice and construction - Stephanie Gardner from Purdue University has condensed the opinions from faculty and literature on how graphs should be made to represent data into a rubric. This rubric answers the question of what the education community thinks makes a better graph, where students fall short and how students with limited experience and training can be informed on how they can improve.
Evaluation of the pre-matriculation program at the University of Minnesota-Duluth Medical School - Abigail Whitney from the University of Minnesota-Duluth is interested in how social and study networks impact student self efficacy and persistence. 1st and 2nd year medical students were surveyed to identify the top three peers whom they socialize with and the top three peers whom they study with. The data was process using the Gephi program. Patterns emerged that were surprising. Students do not necessarily study with their friends, and the study groups are academically homogenous (top students study with top students, bottom with bottom). Therefore, some students exclude their friends from their study groups. Future study will be to monitor social and study network trends over the full four years of medical school, paying close attention to grades, gender and minority homogeneity.
Accepting evolution and believing in God: how religious persons perceive the theory of evolution
Religious Students Can Be Taught Scientific Principles
Katie Manwaring from BYU is interested in understanding the relationship between religious affiliation and the acceptance of the theory of evolution. This talk began with the recitation of statistics: 70% of Americans identify with Christianity, the US is second to last in terms of countries whose population generally accepts the theory of evolution. Of the world religions, Manwaring showed that most religions are not in direct conflict with evolution and that their official stance is either in support of or neutral to the acceptance of the theory of evolution. She also states that the Mormon church is neutral to evolution, so he research question has become, 'if Mormons are educated about how their religion does not oppose the theory of evolution, will they accept it?' 1000 BYU students were surveyed on their knowledge of evolution, their acceptance of evolution, their understanding of the Mormon official stance on evolution, demographics and religiosity. Manwaring then had some students in an experimental group attend workshops/lectures where they were informed about how Mormonism does not oppose evolution and then re-surveyed. Most students took a moderate stance, but as a result of the intervention, the percentage of students who were highly accepting of evolution increased from 12% to 22% while the percentage of students who were not accepting decreased from 22% to 9%. In other categories of the survey there was a small gain in evolutionary understanding while interestingly the opposite trend was seen in evolutionary knowledge. This subtly (although not explicit in the presentation) suggests that although students may have felt more understanding of evolution after the intervention, they may have just been confused since their knowledge of evolution was reduced. The next question Manwaring was interested in asking was whether religious commitment predicted poor scientific reasoning. In other words, if one is religious, does that mean that they lack reasoning skills? I felt that the implicit question was really are people religious because they lack reasoning skills? To answer this question, 724 adults nationwide from four religious groups (Jewish, Catholic, Mormon and Baptist) were surveyed to test their scientific reasoning skills and contextualize them with religiosity (i.e., what kind of clothes they wear, what type of food do they eat, who do they socialize with, how often do they read scriptures, how often do they attend church, what are their beliefs). The four religious groups were chosen because apparently Jewish and Catholic individuals are more accepting of evolution than Baptist and Mormons, while Baptists and Mormons have stronger creationist views than Catholic and Jewish individuals. The results indicated (1) religious individuals have strong reasoning skills, (2) religious affiliation and religiosity do not predict the likelihood of accepting the theory of evolution and (3) scientific reasoning ability does not predict the acceptance of the theory of evolution. Future work will be done in documenting the causes for resistance to accept the theory of evolution and how to overcome that resistance.
Katie Manwaring from BYU is interested in understanding the relationship between religious affiliation and the acceptance of the theory of evolution. This talk began with the recitation of statistics: 70% of Americans identify with Christianity, the US is second to last in terms of countries whose population generally accepts the theory of evolution. Of the world religions, Manwaring showed that most religions are not in direct conflict with evolution and that their official stance is either in support of or neutral to the acceptance of the theory of evolution. She also states that the Mormon church is neutral to evolution, so he research question has become, 'if Mormons are educated about how their religion does not oppose the theory of evolution, will they accept it?' 1000 BYU students were surveyed on their knowledge of evolution, their acceptance of evolution, their understanding of the Mormon official stance on evolution, demographics and religiosity. Manwaring then had some students in an experimental group attend workshops/lectures where they were informed about how Mormonism does not oppose evolution and then re-surveyed. Most students took a moderate stance, but as a result of the intervention, the percentage of students who were highly accepting of evolution increased from 12% to 22% while the percentage of students who were not accepting decreased from 22% to 9%. In other categories of the survey there was a small gain in evolutionary understanding while interestingly the opposite trend was seen in evolutionary knowledge. This subtly (although not explicit in the presentation) suggests that although students may have felt more understanding of evolution after the intervention, they may have just been confused since their knowledge of evolution was reduced. The next question Manwaring was interested in asking was whether religious commitment predicted poor scientific reasoning. In other words, if one is religious, does that mean that they lack reasoning skills? I felt that the implicit question was really are people religious because they lack reasoning skills? To answer this question, 724 adults nationwide from four religious groups (Jewish, Catholic, Mormon and Baptist) were surveyed to test their scientific reasoning skills and contextualize them with religiosity (i.e., what kind of clothes they wear, what type of food do they eat, who do they socialize with, how often do they read scriptures, how often do they attend church, what are their beliefs). The four religious groups were chosen because apparently Jewish and Catholic individuals are more accepting of evolution than Baptist and Mormons, while Baptists and Mormons have stronger creationist views than Catholic and Jewish individuals. The results indicated (1) religious individuals have strong reasoning skills, (2) religious affiliation and religiosity do not predict the likelihood of accepting the theory of evolution and (3) scientific reasoning ability does not predict the acceptance of the theory of evolution. Future work will be done in documenting the causes for resistance to accept the theory of evolution and how to overcome that resistance.
Closing the inquiry circle: open inquiry and problem finding in introductory biology laboratories
Think Before You Ask
Linda Fuselier from the University of Louisville asked the question, "how can we train students to ask better scientific questions?" Developing a question is a difficult topic to teach because the college focus is generally on problem solving instead of problem finding. Questioning is based on knowing what and knowing how, and to question effectively one needs declarative knowledge. A challenge with students is that they seem to lack the requisite knowledge of what and how, making open-ended inquiry nearly impossible in the classroom. Fuselier's experiment looked at a group of students (83% bio majors, 56% female, 95% Caucasian) over the course of an inquiry-based laboratory course. Backwards faded scaffolding was used where instead of jumping into teaching how to ask a question, the bulk of the semester was spend on activities in learning about literature, statistics, graph making, and lab briefs. Four weeks before the end of the semester students were finally tasked with designing a testable research question, and they were graded based on the following criteria: relevancy, originality, analysis, complexity and if the question was researchable. Student questions would frame experiments on zebrafish, looking at how they got their food. A major theme was whether zebrafish smelled chemical cues to guide them to food or if they watched they fellow tank mates to learn where food was. After crafting their questions, students used the skills they learned over the course of prior weeks to consult the literature and refine their question. The greatest improvement was seen in question complexity, demonstrating that students can be taught how to use scientific literature to inform a research question/project.
Linda Fuselier from the University of Louisville asked the question, "how can we train students to ask better scientific questions?" Developing a question is a difficult topic to teach because the college focus is generally on problem solving instead of problem finding. Questioning is based on knowing what and knowing how, and to question effectively one needs declarative knowledge. A challenge with students is that they seem to lack the requisite knowledge of what and how, making open-ended inquiry nearly impossible in the classroom. Fuselier's experiment looked at a group of students (83% bio majors, 56% female, 95% Caucasian) over the course of an inquiry-based laboratory course. Backwards faded scaffolding was used where instead of jumping into teaching how to ask a question, the bulk of the semester was spend on activities in learning about literature, statistics, graph making, and lab briefs. Four weeks before the end of the semester students were finally tasked with designing a testable research question, and they were graded based on the following criteria: relevancy, originality, analysis, complexity and if the question was researchable. Student questions would frame experiments on zebrafish, looking at how they got their food. A major theme was whether zebrafish smelled chemical cues to guide them to food or if they watched they fellow tank mates to learn where food was. After crafting their questions, students used the skills they learned over the course of prior weeks to consult the literature and refine their question. The greatest improvement was seen in question complexity, demonstrating that students can be taught how to use scientific literature to inform a research question/project.
Drawing to learn: a conceptual framework to guide research and teaching
A Picture Shows A Thousand Ideas
Kim Quillin from Salisbury University walked us through three basic questions that relate to drawing: what is drawing, why do we draw and how do we make our drawings better. To answer the what question, Quillin noted that drawing requires selection, organization and integration of ideas. It is interesting to think about how students draw pictures and how they perceive the pictures that are drawn by their instructors. Typically, if asked to draw a wolf, students will draw the tangible wolf resembling the wild animal that looks like man's best friend. Sometimes though, the tangible picture is not appropriate and a wolf should be represented in an abstract way. An example of this might be if a student is diagramming a food chain or food web. In these cases, a wolf may be represented as the letters W-O-L-F boxed in with arrows extending away from the box. The why question can be explained by the following 2x2 box:
Drawings that are formative and representational engage, enhance and improve thinking. Those that are representational and summative record and communicate thinking, while drawings that are abstract and summative reveal, communicate and facilitate thinking. Quillin values drawings that are abstract and formative because they engage, foster, reveal, promote and improve thinking. Further she says that these are the types of drawings in textbooks, so they represent the highest value category of intellectual drawing.
The how question is impacted by three factors: affect (attitude, value, self efficacy, interest), visual literacy (visual language, practice with translation, practice with medium), and model-based reasoning (drawing, using. evaluating and revising a model).
Drawing Is A Science Process Skill
Novice students appear to assume that pictures are precise, exact and what experts do to explain ideas, while experts seem to merely use drawings to represent an idea in an explainable way to facilitate a discussion. To help students approach drawing/communicating like a scientist requires similar practice to helping students think like a scientist - in-class practice and determining measurable weaknesses that can be improved. This idea of drawing as an important skill for communication is a subject of science education research as a blooms taxonomy has even been developed for drawing.
Kim Quillin from Salisbury University walked us through three basic questions that relate to drawing: what is drawing, why do we draw and how do we make our drawings better. To answer the what question, Quillin noted that drawing requires selection, organization and integration of ideas. It is interesting to think about how students draw pictures and how they perceive the pictures that are drawn by their instructors. Typically, if asked to draw a wolf, students will draw the tangible wolf resembling the wild animal that looks like man's best friend. Sometimes though, the tangible picture is not appropriate and a wolf should be represented in an abstract way. An example of this might be if a student is diagramming a food chain or food web. In these cases, a wolf may be represented as the letters W-O-L-F boxed in with arrows extending away from the box. The why question can be explained by the following 2x2 box:
representational
|
abstract
| |
formative
| ||
summative
|
Drawings that are formative and representational engage, enhance and improve thinking. Those that are representational and summative record and communicate thinking, while drawings that are abstract and summative reveal, communicate and facilitate thinking. Quillin values drawings that are abstract and formative because they engage, foster, reveal, promote and improve thinking. Further she says that these are the types of drawings in textbooks, so they represent the highest value category of intellectual drawing.
The how question is impacted by three factors: affect (attitude, value, self efficacy, interest), visual literacy (visual language, practice with translation, practice with medium), and model-based reasoning (drawing, using. evaluating and revising a model).
Drawing Is A Science Process Skill
Novice students appear to assume that pictures are precise, exact and what experts do to explain ideas, while experts seem to merely use drawings to represent an idea in an explainable way to facilitate a discussion. To help students approach drawing/communicating like a scientist requires similar practice to helping students think like a scientist - in-class practice and determining measurable weaknesses that can be improved. This idea of drawing as an important skill for communication is a subject of science education research as a blooms taxonomy has even been developed for drawing.
Using faculty learning communities to promote the development of student-centered biology instructors
Instructors Are Told By 3rd Party How They Can Improve
Jill McCourt from the University of Georgia presented about the AARC (automated analysis of constructed response) and the learning communities that are being established at different level 1 research institutions. It is important to note that the AARC is run by seasoned educators. Membership in one of these communities includes having an instructor's students submit open-ended responses to biology questions to the AARC who reviews responses and issues reports back to the instructors. These reports inform the instructors about their students' intellectual misconceptions and provides information about what needs to be fixed. Data on teaching is also collected through semistructured interviews, classroom observations, teaching inventories and teaching practices to contextualize any frustrations or problems instructors may have. This extra data enriches the report that the instructors receive and may assist in the implementation of the recommendations from the report. Currently, the incentive for instructors to participate is monetary ($1500/year). To support instructors, they have access to learning communities within the network of participants.
Teaching Coordinate Plane
Imagine a coordinate plane. In this plane, the -x represents instructor-centered priorities while the +x represents student-centered priorities. The +y represents the use of reformed practices of instruction while the -y represents the use of traditional practices. Traditional lecturers exist in quadrant 3 where students typically use memorization to succeed in their classes. Quadrant 2 is where instructors who are superficially interested in reformed practices would be, but they often struggle with motivating students. In quadrant 1, instructors who are fully committed to active learning consistently maintain student interest through activities in class. Quadrant 4 features instructors who consider student ideas but struggle in adjusting content due to the stress of needing to cover content while still incorporating active learning. AARC strives to drive all instructors into quadrant 1 of the coordinate plane.
Jill McCourt from the University of Georgia presented about the AARC (automated analysis of constructed response) and the learning communities that are being established at different level 1 research institutions. It is important to note that the AARC is run by seasoned educators. Membership in one of these communities includes having an instructor's students submit open-ended responses to biology questions to the AARC who reviews responses and issues reports back to the instructors. These reports inform the instructors about their students' intellectual misconceptions and provides information about what needs to be fixed. Data on teaching is also collected through semistructured interviews, classroom observations, teaching inventories and teaching practices to contextualize any frustrations or problems instructors may have. This extra data enriches the report that the instructors receive and may assist in the implementation of the recommendations from the report. Currently, the incentive for instructors to participate is monetary ($1500/year). To support instructors, they have access to learning communities within the network of participants.
Teaching Coordinate Plane
Imagine a coordinate plane. In this plane, the -x represents instructor-centered priorities while the +x represents student-centered priorities. The +y represents the use of reformed practices of instruction while the -y represents the use of traditional practices. Traditional lecturers exist in quadrant 3 where students typically use memorization to succeed in their classes. Quadrant 2 is where instructors who are superficially interested in reformed practices would be, but they often struggle with motivating students. In quadrant 1, instructors who are fully committed to active learning consistently maintain student interest through activities in class. Quadrant 4 features instructors who consider student ideas but struggle in adjusting content due to the stress of needing to cover content while still incorporating active learning. AARC strives to drive all instructors into quadrant 1 of the coordinate plane.
| reformed practice | |||||
| 2 | 1 | ||||
| instructor-centered priorities | student-centered priorities | ||||
| 3 | 4 | ||||
| traditional practice | |||||
Development and validation of a survey measuring student engagement in an active learning classroom
Students Know What Students Want
Alison Crowe from the University of Washington presented research on how she has been able to craft an assessment measuring student engagement. To understand student engagement, there are three aspects that must be considered: behavioral (are students on task), cognitive (what is the student's intellectual effort) and affective (what is the student's personal/emotional investment). These aspects are of particular research interest in active learning settings. Impacting these aspects are three interdependent variables (sociocultural factors, interest and task value) that must also impact student engagement and ultimately performance.
Hypothesis: If elements of interest and willingness can be identified, then an assessment developed around those elements can measure student engagement.
Phase 1 of Crowe's study used student focus groups to identify what influences student interest and willingness. The major themes from the focus groups included personal effort, value of activity, group effectiveness and instructor contribution. Phase 2 developed questions based on these themes and vetted the questions with other students. After multiple rounds of revision, a bodacious questionnaire full of open-ended questions was produced in phase 3 and administered to even more students. The responses to the questionnaire were analyzed for correlation and exploratory factors. The value of this student engagement assessment is in the ability to compare the implementation of different instances of active learning. Using this tool, it is possible to determine which active learning techniques are the most effective in engaging students.
Alison Crowe from the University of Washington presented research on how she has been able to craft an assessment measuring student engagement. To understand student engagement, there are three aspects that must be considered: behavioral (are students on task), cognitive (what is the student's intellectual effort) and affective (what is the student's personal/emotional investment). These aspects are of particular research interest in active learning settings. Impacting these aspects are three interdependent variables (sociocultural factors, interest and task value) that must also impact student engagement and ultimately performance.
Hypothesis: If elements of interest and willingness can be identified, then an assessment developed around those elements can measure student engagement.
Phase 1 of Crowe's study used student focus groups to identify what influences student interest and willingness. The major themes from the focus groups included personal effort, value of activity, group effectiveness and instructor contribution. Phase 2 developed questions based on these themes and vetted the questions with other students. After multiple rounds of revision, a bodacious questionnaire full of open-ended questions was produced in phase 3 and administered to even more students. The responses to the questionnaire were analyzed for correlation and exploratory factors. The value of this student engagement assessment is in the ability to compare the implementation of different instances of active learning. Using this tool, it is possible to determine which active learning techniques are the most effective in engaging students.
Exam characteristics exacerbate performance gaps between male and female students
Are Money And Gender Predictive Of Success In Biology Courses?
Christian Wright from Arizona State University presented on his work assessing the differences in performance between males and females, and students from high and low socioeconomic status (SES) backgrounds. Students who were compared were grouped based on their GPA prior to taking courses in a biology sequence with additional built-in controls for time, difficulty and blooms level of questions on an assessment, and instructors of each biology course. The questions from his assessment were written in two flavors: constructed (where students had to provide a response; can be harder) and restricted (where students had to select a response; can be easier). Wright is interested in promoting increased use of higher Blooms questions (an agenda that is supported by national calls for education reform). What he found when comparing students is that increasing the Bloom's level of a question on his assessment and using constructed-response questions favors male over female performance, and high over low SES background performance. His concern is that if too many courses and assessments were designed to challenge students by demanding higher order cognition, that the performance gap between males and females, and high and low SES backgrounds would grow. Wright also provided some possible explanations for why the gap exists:
-stereotype threat
-theories of intelligence
-active learning closes gaps but is unavailable at schools in areas of low SES due to lack of resources
These explanations warrant future study, and I look forward to his findings in future SABER meetings.
Limitations
Students were matched for comparison based on cumulative GPA as a metric, yet there was no evidence of looking at the courses that were taken prior to the bio courses. These courses taken prior could either have been preparative for these bio courses (i.e., test preparation courses, other science courses) or what the high school experience of each student looked like (i.e., AP courses). It is possible that higher GPAs could be artifacts of easier courses having been taken, where more ambitious students could end up being compared to less ambitious students and vice versa.
My opinion
Gender and SES background are two possible explanations for the gap in courses that are more potentially demanding (higher Blooms tasks/requiring higher cognition), but these are not the only explanations. Colleges and universities sponsor programs that are dedicated to closing the gap (i.e., BRIDGE programs) and equipping students with skills (i.e., study skills) that they may be lacking due to poor prior training. Although these are great, they are retroactive to some degree. It may be worthwhile for colleges and universities to be proactive and have a greater presence in struggling middle and high schools in their communities, assisting educators with resources and training to more effectively prepare students for matriculation. Regardless if a student is male, female, rich or poor, he/she has the possibility of becoming a statistic in the gap. The fault does not rest in gender or money though, it is with training and poor training does not have selector bias. This is why it is incredibly important to use effective techniques for education and adequate preparation, especially during the formative years.
Christian Wright from Arizona State University presented on his work assessing the differences in performance between males and females, and students from high and low socioeconomic status (SES) backgrounds. Students who were compared were grouped based on their GPA prior to taking courses in a biology sequence with additional built-in controls for time, difficulty and blooms level of questions on an assessment, and instructors of each biology course. The questions from his assessment were written in two flavors: constructed (where students had to provide a response; can be harder) and restricted (where students had to select a response; can be easier). Wright is interested in promoting increased use of higher Blooms questions (an agenda that is supported by national calls for education reform). What he found when comparing students is that increasing the Bloom's level of a question on his assessment and using constructed-response questions favors male over female performance, and high over low SES background performance. His concern is that if too many courses and assessments were designed to challenge students by demanding higher order cognition, that the performance gap between males and females, and high and low SES backgrounds would grow. Wright also provided some possible explanations for why the gap exists:
-stereotype threat
-theories of intelligence
-active learning closes gaps but is unavailable at schools in areas of low SES due to lack of resources
These explanations warrant future study, and I look forward to his findings in future SABER meetings.
Limitations
Students were matched for comparison based on cumulative GPA as a metric, yet there was no evidence of looking at the courses that were taken prior to the bio courses. These courses taken prior could either have been preparative for these bio courses (i.e., test preparation courses, other science courses) or what the high school experience of each student looked like (i.e., AP courses). It is possible that higher GPAs could be artifacts of easier courses having been taken, where more ambitious students could end up being compared to less ambitious students and vice versa.
My opinion
Gender and SES background are two possible explanations for the gap in courses that are more potentially demanding (higher Blooms tasks/requiring higher cognition), but these are not the only explanations. Colleges and universities sponsor programs that are dedicated to closing the gap (i.e., BRIDGE programs) and equipping students with skills (i.e., study skills) that they may be lacking due to poor prior training. Although these are great, they are retroactive to some degree. It may be worthwhile for colleges and universities to be proactive and have a greater presence in struggling middle and high schools in their communities, assisting educators with resources and training to more effectively prepare students for matriculation. Regardless if a student is male, female, rich or poor, he/she has the possibility of becoming a statistic in the gap. The fault does not rest in gender or money though, it is with training and poor training does not have selector bias. This is why it is incredibly important to use effective techniques for education and adequate preparation, especially during the formative years.
Assessing conceptual learning within undergraduate biology programs
True False Or Multiple Choice, What's The Better Question Type?
Dr Brian Couch from the University of Nebraska-Lincoln presented his work studying the most effective method of framing questions to test student understanding. Couch explained that there is an assessment triangle connecting observation, interpretation and cognition, and how the assessments that test these elements are often limited by the resources devoted to their creation. Instructors create assessments to evaluate preparation, training and justify their ascension to tenure but may often miss the mark in adequately measure understanding. Couch's study looked at students in a molecular biology capstone course that was taken at the end of 4 years of training. Knowledge was assessed to improve the quality of instruction and shift thinking to program-level thinking since the assessment theoretically reflected the outcome of a completed education. It is important to remember that there are many intermediate stages that exist along the progression from novice to expert and along the way, ideas may be internalized that are incoherent and/or only partially correct. To test knowledge, the most common question type is multiple choice, where a right answer is chosen but only true/false statements are detected (one answer is right and three answers are wrong). Couch believes that true/false questions are a stronger question type because it can detect misconceptions as statements that may be incoherent or only partially correct. Couch devised an experiment where the two question types were invertible for use to assess the same knowledge. After administration, he compared the outcomes. One note on grading: in a multiple choice question, credit for a right answer is all-or-nothing, but in a multiple true/false question, it is possible to award partial credit. Students scored ~67% on the multiple choice and ~72% on the multiple true/false. When looking at the types of questions there were answered incorrectly, Couch found that incorrect answers are not uniform or clustered but rather randomly distributed. This means that students' misconceptions are not fixed to one topic, but rather there are aspects of multiple topics that result in misconceptions that occur globally. Another way to say this is if you are making a sandwich, misconceptions of how to make the sandwich are not limited to what the components of the sandwich are. Instead, misconceptions can occur in what instruments are needed to make a sandwich (i.e., knife, spoon, scissors), whether the sandwich can be made on a plate or paper towel, and whether the sandwich can be stored in a bag or in a sock. Couch believes that multiple choice questions systematically underestimate students who correctly endorse correct/true statements or incorrectly endorse incorrect/false statements, conveying the false notion that students understand a topic and providing a poor estimation of topic mastery. It seems that a better way of distinguishing between picking the correct answer to a question and actually knowing something is using multiple true/false questions.
Dr Brian Couch from the University of Nebraska-Lincoln presented his work studying the most effective method of framing questions to test student understanding. Couch explained that there is an assessment triangle connecting observation, interpretation and cognition, and how the assessments that test these elements are often limited by the resources devoted to their creation. Instructors create assessments to evaluate preparation, training and justify their ascension to tenure but may often miss the mark in adequately measure understanding. Couch's study looked at students in a molecular biology capstone course that was taken at the end of 4 years of training. Knowledge was assessed to improve the quality of instruction and shift thinking to program-level thinking since the assessment theoretically reflected the outcome of a completed education. It is important to remember that there are many intermediate stages that exist along the progression from novice to expert and along the way, ideas may be internalized that are incoherent and/or only partially correct. To test knowledge, the most common question type is multiple choice, where a right answer is chosen but only true/false statements are detected (one answer is right and three answers are wrong). Couch believes that true/false questions are a stronger question type because it can detect misconceptions as statements that may be incoherent or only partially correct. Couch devised an experiment where the two question types were invertible for use to assess the same knowledge. After administration, he compared the outcomes. One note on grading: in a multiple choice question, credit for a right answer is all-or-nothing, but in a multiple true/false question, it is possible to award partial credit. Students scored ~67% on the multiple choice and ~72% on the multiple true/false. When looking at the types of questions there were answered incorrectly, Couch found that incorrect answers are not uniform or clustered but rather randomly distributed. This means that students' misconceptions are not fixed to one topic, but rather there are aspects of multiple topics that result in misconceptions that occur globally. Another way to say this is if you are making a sandwich, misconceptions of how to make the sandwich are not limited to what the components of the sandwich are. Instead, misconceptions can occur in what instruments are needed to make a sandwich (i.e., knife, spoon, scissors), whether the sandwich can be made on a plate or paper towel, and whether the sandwich can be stored in a bag or in a sock. Couch believes that multiple choice questions systematically underestimate students who correctly endorse correct/true statements or incorrectly endorse incorrect/false statements, conveying the false notion that students understand a topic and providing a poor estimation of topic mastery. It seems that a better way of distinguishing between picking the correct answer to a question and actually knowing something is using multiple true/false questions.
First Timers
Purple Tags And Orientation
The first time you attend SABER, you are given a purple ribbon to attach to your name tag and constantly declare that you are total SABER noob. This year there were many SABER noobs and all of us noobs were corralled into a room for orientation where we reviewed the itinerary for the meeting. Thankfully if you were a texting noob, snoozing noob or otherwise distracted noob, the itinerary was printed and included amongst the conference handouts. Each day begins at 8:00am and runs until 6:00pm, and if you interested and willing there are opportunities to extend the evening for networking, socializing and potentially finding opportunities for collaboration. Each morning there are rows of coffee canisters because these academicians understand that coffee is an essential component to any morning discussion. As a coffee connoisseur and addict, I am sure to fill up my cup multiple times throughout the morning. Recently an article was published documenting the therapeutic value of regularly drinking coffee, so that makes coffee addiction acceptable right?
The first time you attend SABER, you are given a purple ribbon to attach to your name tag and constantly declare that you are total SABER noob. This year there were many SABER noobs and all of us noobs were corralled into a room for orientation where we reviewed the itinerary for the meeting. Thankfully if you were a texting noob, snoozing noob or otherwise distracted noob, the itinerary was printed and included amongst the conference handouts. Each day begins at 8:00am and runs until 6:00pm, and if you interested and willing there are opportunities to extend the evening for networking, socializing and potentially finding opportunities for collaboration. Each morning there are rows of coffee canisters because these academicians understand that coffee is an essential component to any morning discussion. As a coffee connoisseur and addict, I am sure to fill up my cup multiple times throughout the morning. Recently an article was published documenting the therapeutic value of regularly drinking coffee, so that makes coffee addiction acceptable right?
Thursday, July 30, 2015
And so it begins...
Thursday’s Keynote Address
Day 1 of the SABER meeting convened as biology education champions and apprentices from all across the country packed into a large lecture room on the second floor of the Bruininks Building. Jetlag and the lack of seating were no match for the engagement and enthusiasm for today’s keynote speaker, Dr Andy Anderson, from Michigan State University. Dr Anderson specializes in training middle and high school educators in science education, and presented on learning progression – the steps of discourse, knowledge and practice that must be climbed to establish understanding. He interestingly noted that one of the confounding aspects of discourse (the first step in the learning progression) is that scientific and normal discourse can use similar language that contextually may carry entirely different meanings. I encounter the same struggle when advising my younger brothers – we use the same language and yet somehow end up with entirely different meanings. It is clear that when teaching, we must be vigilant in using words that students can comprehend and ensure that they understand the true definition of technical jargon that may be used outside the classroom.
Good Answers And Better Answers
Dr Anderson codes student responses to test questions into
four categories (1, 2, 3, and 4). These categories sequentially reflect the
enhancement of thinking and understanding. A level 1 response is capable of answering
basic questions like the 5 w’s (who, what, where, when, why), while a level 2
response can identify constraints or theoretical ceilings. Upping the ante of
sophistication would include a level 3 response, where systems and interconnections
can be recognized, and a level 4 response, where the intersections and interactions
of systems can be observed. One visualization that came to my mind during Dr
Anderson’s explanation of the responses was that of a spider web. Imagine the
following scenario: At level 1, the web itself is understood as a construct
that is made but little is known about how it gets made. At level 2 there is an
awareness of the limit to how large these constructs can be built because their
creators have physical limitations. Level 3 responses see that webs are made up
of threads that must be woven together, and level 4 responses observe the nodes
that connect the threads. As these levels approach higher peaks of understanding,
their sophistication enriches the appreciation for the content that is being
learned and hopefully is predictive of the likelihood of retention. Another way
to say this is that if students can demonstrate higher levels of understanding
of a given topic, then they should remember what they’ve learned longer and be
able to use that knowledge to inform future learning. Dr Anderson pointed out
that a great challenge is working with students whose responses are only
partially correct. The silver lining is that responses can be rescued and even
evolved to higher levels through leading questions from an educator.
High School Freshmen Can Understand Better Than College
Freshmen
Carbon TIME (CT) is a program for teaching biology concepts to
middle and high school students. Dr Anderson presented quantitative data that,
in a nutshell, indicated that the Carbon TIME program was able to increase the
capability of students to generate level 4 responses (at least in the context
of one of the modules of the program). Without CT, ~5% of middle school students,
~10% of high school freshmen and ~18% of college freshmen produced level 4
responses on an assessment. With CT, middle school students improved to ~14%
and high school freshmen improved to ~29%. The website of the CT program is: http://carbontime.bscs.org/. Check it
out.
Burning Questions
There were a few questions that lingered and were not really
answered because of time, complexity of the question or answer, or both. (1)
What’s the appropriate method of determining a student’s capabilities if they
give lower level responses but are higher level students? In other words, what
do you do when the student may be a lower level in a topic but not overall? (2)
What if a student’s low-level response is an artifact of the student not being
effectively/appropriately challenged because of the vagueness, poor wording or
basicness of a question? Can Bloom’s taxonomy be used to fix this problem?
The Reception
After listening to Dr Anderson’s talk, we migrated to
another U of M building for refreshments and informal discussions. Full
disclosure: I am a carnivore. The thought of a world without meat consumption
makes me want to get a hamburger. With that said, the h’orderves were vegetarian-friendly
and yet so delicious. There were cheeses, grapes, some kind of rice thing with
mushrooms but the biggest hit was, without a doubt, the cheesy black bean
tostadas. While loading plates and scarfing down tostadas, I had the
opportunity to chat with several fellow SABER-ites. The products of our
discussions was quite profound. One comment on Dr Anderson’s talk was on the
value of acknowledging the learning progression and reminding the education
community of some barriers to learning. Hopefully those in attendance can take
these obstacles home in mind and devise strategies for bringing their walls
down in 2015/2016. Another comment was made about the importance of this
conference in general, and becoming informed by the holes in some education
research projects to strengthen and inspire new studies. I wholeheartedly agree
and look forward to the comments from the round table discussion I’m
participating in on Saturday. I am in round table discussion S-6. Yes, this is
a plug for that!
Synesthesia
I knew a girl in college who was synesthetic (hearing
certain sounds induces visualization of certain colors). I remember her
explaining to me how some songs made her see and feel certain colors. I don’t
understand it, but perhaps it’s because I do not possess synesthesia. Synesthesia
came up during one of the discussions, and I feel that the idea that was raised
from it is worth its own section in this post. Here is the question: How do we
reach students with the appropriate analogies to make knowledge and level 4
responses available, particularly in non-biology majors? I think this is an
interesting question with important implications. In the classroom, especially
in the South, a go-to analogy for educators is usually football (could be any
sport, but it’s mostly football). This may be effective for many students, but
it also can alienate students who do not understand or follow American
Football, particularly international students. There creates a disservice for
students and we as educators must be more intentional with the examples and
analogies we use, just as we are careful with the words we use.Wednesday, July 29, 2015
Journey to Minneapolis
Scientific Meetings
Throughout my graduate study at the University of Alabama at Birmingham,
I have had the privilege of attending four scientific meetings and collected
meeting posters as mementos from each event. Meetings are important in the
science industry because they offer a venue to join researchers who may be
geographically or institutionally disconnected, and engage in the scholarly
discourse of new findings and ideas. I can corroborate this, as each new experience
has enriched my training with unique perspectives and encounters that have
given me inspiration and insight that may have otherwise been unattainable. Of
the meetings I’ve attended, there are two characteristics they all share in
common: they all occurred in the Southeast (mostly in Birmingham, AL), and they
were all related to my bench research.
What Happens At Meetings?
Scientific research is vital to advancing society through novel innovation and discovery in technology, medicine, materials and knowledge. It is from innovation and discovery that opportunities such as journeying to Mars, holographic communication and therapeutics for hard-to-beat diseases will become available. Often these advances are made possible through conversation and collaboration, and many of these conversations and collaborations happen at meetings.
Science And Education
Learning Science
The question of how to make science a more achievable course of study and improve learning outcomes is a complicated problem to solve as there are many factors, yet there are those who are daring to address this problem and find solutions. These are the educational scientists, where classrooms are their laboratories and teaching interventions are their experiments. Although they may be spread out all over the globe, these scientists meet to exchange ideas, discuss findings and collaborate to increase the knowledge of research-based methods of improving education. When education becomes accessible to and achievable by all students, regardless of prior training or academic discipline, students can impact and educate their communities with the knowledge they've gained. In this way, society can move a step forward in its scientific understanding.
SABER
SABER, or the Society for the Advancement of Biology Education Research, is holding their national meeting in Minneapolis, MN. The SABER meeting features education researchers who are at the forefront of addressing the learning question, career development and policy in the biology discipline. I will be attending this meeting of minds to pick the brains of seasoned biology education scientists, present my own education research and find out what's cooking in the pipeline of educational innovation. Stay tuned.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)