A Framework for Evidence-based Teaching in Developmental Biology Scott Freeman, Department of...
Preview:
Citation preview
- Slide 1
- A Framework for Evidence-based Teaching in Developmental
Biology Scott Freeman, Department of Biology University of
Washington srf991@u.washington.edu
- Slide 2
- Why are we still lecturing?
- Slide 3
- I dont believe that active learning can work in a large
lecture. (UW professor, 8/12) I just know that students.... (UW
professor, 3/09) Although it did not occur to us.... to collect
data, we consistently observed (Barzilai 2000) we feel that our
junior-senior cell biology course... works extraordinarily well
(Lodish et al. 2005) We think that our objective of teaching the
students to think was well-accomplished. (Miller & Cheetham
1990) We strongly believe that they lead to deeper
understanding.... (Rosenthal 1995)
- Slide 4
- I dont believe that active learning can work in a large
lecture. (UW professor, 8/12) I just know that students.... (UW
professor, 3/09) Although it did not occur to us.... to collect
data, we consistently observed (Barzilai 2000) we feel that our
junior-senior cell biology course... works extraordinarily well
(Lodish et al. 2005) We think that our objective of teaching the
students to think was well-accomplished. (Miller & Cheetham
1990) We strongly believe that they lead to deeper
understanding.... (Rosenthal 1995)
- Slide 5
- Slide 6
- Other changes to our mindset, as faculty: Id like to change my
lectures, but I dont have time. (or dont know how) If a new
technique is sweeping my research field, do I require release time
and other special support to learn it? Oh, I tried active learning
(or clickers, or group exercises)it doesnt work. The first PCR I
ever tried didnt work. Should I conclude that PCR doesnt work?
- Slide 7
- Why be concerned about the failure rate? Predicted grade
Average % EOP students in Bio180 Previous work on Biology 180 How
can we lower failure ratesand help capable but underprepared
studentsin introductory biology courses?
- Slide 8
- Spring 2002-2003 Course design Spr 02 < 1.518.2% <
2.544.8% 2002: Modified Socratic style Student performance (does
not include drops): Spr 02Spr 03 < 1.518.2%15.8% <
2.544.8%42.3% ; 2003: + ungraded active learning
- Slide 9
- Spring 2005, Fall 2005 Course design Spr 02Spr 03 <
1.518.2%15.8% < 2.544.8%42.3% Socratic lecturing; Cards or
clickers (daily multiple-choice questions in class); weekly,
peer-graded practice exam (short- answer) Spr 02Spr 03Spr 05Fall 05
< 1.518.2%15.8%10.9%11.7% < 2.544.8%42.3%37.9%39.3%
- Slide 10
- Slide 11
- Low structureMedium structureHigh structure Fall 2007, 2009
Course design Spr 02Spr 03Spr 05Fall 05Fall 07Fall 09 <
1.518.2%15.8%10.9%11.7%7.4%6.3% <
2.544.8%42.3%37.9%39.3%33.9%28.3% Lecture-free; clickers in peer
instruction format; weekly, peer-graded practice exam; daily
reading quiz; random-call ~15 students/class %As has increased from
14.5% to 24.3% Spr 02Spr 03Spr 05Fall 05 <
1.518.2%15.8%10.9%11.7% < 2.544.8%42.3%37.9%39.3%
- Slide 12
- Are exams equivalent across quarters? Approach #1: Predicted
exam score Spr 02Spr 03Spr 05Fall 05Fall 07Fall 09 Course Average
PES (100pt exam) 70.670.270.970.568.067.5 Approach #2: Weighted
Blooms Index Spr 02Spr 03Spr 05Fall 05Fall 07Fall 09 Course Average
(weighted Blooms index) 45.852.146.952.252.153.5
- Slide 13
- Are students equivalent across quarters? Spring 2002 Spring
2003 Spring 2005 Autumn 2005 Autumn 2007 Autumn 2009 Predicted
grade (mean) 2.462.572.642.672.852.70 n327338334328339691 Create a
general linear model to explain actual grade, based on predicted
grade and degree of structure in course. Regression model with UW
GPA (at time of entering) and SAT-V; R 2 0.63
- Slide 14
- 2002, 03 2005 2007,09 Course structure
- Slide 15
- Did we reduce the achievement gap? without spending a lot more
money? or maybe even less money? 2003-2008 (Aut/Win/Spr) averages:
EOP v non-EOP final grade differences in UW gateway STEM
courses
- Slide 16
- General linear mixed-effects modeling and MMI: Best models
include EOP as a fixed effect; likelihood-ratio test, p = 0.0027).
Bio180: lecturing vs. high-structure UW Regents Low structure High
structure
- Slide 17
- What could cause a disproportionate increase in performance by
disadvantaged students? The Carnegie Hall hypothesis: How do you
get to Carnegie Hall? and how you practice matters (deliberate
practice): 1)high-level questionsnew contexts/applications);
2)group workteach others/explain yourself, challenge and be
challengedwith instructor feedback; 3)daily/weekly basis.
PRACTICE!
- Slide 18
- Dave Parichys questions: Can PIs do this and still run their
labs? How do we balance the explosion of detail in developmental
biology with big-picture concepts, and help students integrate
facts into a cohesive framework? Does this approach transfer to
upper-division courses?
- Slide 19
- Broadening the research focus: From course design in
introductory biology to all of the STEM disciplines A meta-analysis
of 642 papers from across the STEM disciplines: studies that
compare any active-learning intervention to traditional lecturing.
1.Exam/concept inventory/quiz performance: controlling for
instructor, student, and assessment equivalence; n = 158 2.DFW
(failure) rates; n = 67
- Slide 20
- Exam performance data: Overall effect size = 0.47 In intro
STEM, 6% increase in exam scores; 0.3 increase in average grade.
Course levelnHedgess gs.e.95% C.I.: lower limit 95% C.I.: upper
limit Introductory1160.4890.0650.3610.616 Upper
division380.4800.1200.2450.715
- Slide 21
- Failure rate data: Overall odds ratio = 1.94 Biomed RCTs
stopped for benefit: mean relative risk of 0.53 (0.22-0.66) and/or
p < 0.001. Course levelnOdds ratio95% C.I.: lower limit 95%
C.I.: upper limit Introductory441.9941.7322.296 Upper
division171.7621.3722.263
- Slide 22
- Daves Second Question: The content problem
- Slide 23
- Apply: Can I use these ideas in a new situation? Understand:
Can I explain these ideas to someone else? Remember: Can I recall
key terms and ideas? Analyze: Can I recognize underlying patterns
and structure? Synthesize: Can I put ideas and information together
to create something new? Evaluate: Can I make judgments on the
relative value of ideas and information? Lower order thinking
Higher order thinking Blooms taxonomy as a conceptual framework:
and hierarchical
- Slide 24
- Coping strategies: State learning objectives; use backward
course design Reading quizzes or other flipping strategies
- Slide 25
- Daves Third Question: The 6-jobs problem Breaking the Research
vs. Teaching dichotomy with RICs Find a colleague/mentor to help
with new techniques Recruit grad students/post-docs who want to
teach Start small and expect to fail (the first time)
- Slide 26
- My all-time favorite line from a course evaluation: Keep
pushing uswe can do it!
- Slide 27
- Bill Hoese Anne Casper Kelly Hogan Clarissa Dirks Carol Pollack
Megan Rector Pam Pape-Lindstrom Ross Nehm Brian Casper Jenny Knight
Joan Sharp Michelle Smith Peter Shaffer Paula Heron Lillian
McDermott David Hodge Ferric Fang Emile Pitre Robert Harrington
Kevin Mihata Cathy Beyer Deb McGhee Michael Griego Mercedes
Converse Michael Fleming Iggy Chau Mikhail Koval Dozie Okoroafor
Roddy Theobald David Haak Micah Horwith Chris Gast Riley Brazil
Eunice Lau Hannah Jordt Eliza Heery Alan Sunada Chelsea Mann Dave
Hays Elli Jenkins Sara Brownell Sarah Eddy Jen Nemhauser Dave
Hurley Matt Cunningham Tom Daniel Alison Crowe Barbara Wakimoto
Janneke Hille Ris Lambers Eileen OConnor John Parks Mary Pat
Wenderoth Toby Bradshaw Ben Wiggins Mandy Schivell