Many thanks to the organizers of the SABER conference and all the speakers who shared their work.
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 | |||||
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)