An NSTA Press Journals Collection

INNOVATIVETECHNIQUES FOR

LARGE-GROUPINSTRUCTION

An NSTA PressJournals Collection

Arlington, Virginia

Copyright © 2002 NSTA. All rights reserved. For more information, go to www.nsta.org/permissions.

Claire Reinburg, DirectorJudy Cusick, Associate EditorCarol Duval, Associate EditorBetty Smith, Associate EditorLinda Olliver, Cover Design

NATIONAL SCIENCE TEACHERS ASSOCIATION

Gerald F. Wheeler, Executive DirectorDavid Beacom, Publisher

Innovative Techniques for Large-Group InstructionNSTA Stock Number: PB168XISBN: 0-87355-204-0Library of Congress Control Number: 2002101367Printed in the USA by IPC Communication ServicesPrinted on recycled paper

02 5 4 3 2 1

Copyright © 2002 by the National Science Teachers Association.

Permission is granted in advance for reproduction for purpose of classroom or workshop instruction. To request permission forother uses, send specific requests to:

NSTA PRESS1840 Wilson BoulevardArlington, Virginia 22201-3000www.nsta.org

NSTA is committed to publishing quality materials that promote the best in inquiry-based science education. However, conditions of actual use mayvary and the safety procedures and practices described in this book are intended to serve only as a guide. Additional precautionary measures may berequired. NSTA and the author(s) do not warrant or represent that the procedures and practices in this book meet any safety code or standard orfederal, state, or local regulations. NSTA and the author(s) disclaim any liability for personal injury or damage to property arising out of or relatingto the use of this book including any of the recommendations, instructions, or materials contained therein.

ART AND DESIGN Linda Olliver, DirectorNSTA WEB Tim Weber, WebmasterPERIODICALS PUBLISHING Shelley Carey, DirectorPRINTING AND PRODUCTION Catherine Lorrain-Hale, Director

Nguyet Tran, Assistant Production ManagerJack Parker, Desktop Publishing Specialist

PUBLICATIONS OPERATIONs Erin Miller, ManagersciLINKS Tyson Brown, Manager

Featuring sciLINKS®—a new way of connecting text and the Internet. Up-to-the-minute online content, classroomideas, and other materials are just a click away. Go to page x to learn more about this new educational resource.


CONTENTSvii Acknowledgments

viii Introduction

x sciLINKS

OVERVIEW

1 How Do College Students Best Learn Science: An Assessment of PopularTeaching Styles and Their EffectivenessWilliam H. Leonard (May 2000)

5 Are We Cultivating “Couch Potatoes” in Our College Science Lectures?Thomas R. Lord (September/October 1999)

ACTIVE LEARNING STRATEGIES

9 Getting There from Here: Making the Transition from Traditional TeachingPractices to Those That Are Student CenteredM. W. Caprio and Lynda B. Micikas (December 1997/January 1998)

13 Constructing Knowledge in the Lecture HallDaniel J. Klionsky (December 2001/January 2002)

19 Active Learning in the Lecture HallElaine J. Anderson (May 1997)

21 The Lecture Facilitator: Sorcerer’s ApprenticeDonald P. French and Connie P. Russell (October 2001)

27 Facilitating the Reading/Discussion Connection in the Interactive ClassroomBeverly C. Pestel (September/October 1997)

30 A Peer-Reviewed Research Assignment for Large ClassesLaRhee Henderson and Charisse Buising (October 2000)

35 An Interactive Lecture Notebook: Twelve Ways to Improve Students’ GradesJohn E. Stencel (March/April 1998)


MODERN INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY38 Using E-mail to Improve Communication in the Introductory

Science ClassroomKathryn Hedges and Barbara Mania-Farnell(December 1998/January 1999)

43 Using Internet Class Notes and PowerPoint in the PhysicalGeology LectureErwin J. Mantei (March/April 2000)

48 Creating Direct Channels of Communication:Fostering Interaction with E-mail and In-class NotesGili Marbach-Ad and Phillip G. Sokolove (November 2001)

ACTION RESEARCH AND ASSESSMENT

54 Using Action Research to Bring the Large Class Down to SizeJeffrey P. Adams and Timothy F. Slater (November 1998)

58 Gauging Students’ Learning in the Classroom:An Assessment Tool to Help Refine Instructors’ Teaching TechniquesJudith E. Heady (November 2001)


VIII nnova t i ve Te chn i ques f o r L a rge -G roup I n s t r u c t i on

AcknowledgmentsThe fourteen articles in Innovative Techniques for Large-Group Instruction were selected from the

Journal of College Science Teaching (1997–2002) by a committee of higher education science faculty.The committee was headed by Timothy M. Cooney, professor of Earth science and science educationat the University of Northern Iowa and chairperson and director of the National Science TeachersAssociation’s (NSTA) Committee on College Science Teaching. Also on the selection committee wereDaniel Brovey, director and professor of science and technology education, Queens College; Rita Hoots,professor at Woodland Community College; and Gerald Summers, associate professor of biological sci-ences at the University of Missouri.

At NSTA, Claudia Link, managing editor of the Journal of College Science Teaching, made the ini-tial contacts for the book, Judy Cusick acted as the project editor, Linda Olliver designed the cover,and Catherine Lorrain-Hale coordinated book layout, production, and printing.


Nat i ona l S c i en c e Tea che r s A s so c i a t i onVIII

IntroductionLarge college science classes, taught via the lecture method, still predominate across college campuses

in the United States. Administrators often favor these large, and mostly introductory, science classesbecause they appear to be financially efficient and generate large numbers of student credit hours. Adepartment with a limited number of faculty can handle many more students by having classes held inlarge lecture halls or auditoriums. Innovative Techniques for Large-Group Instruction presents effectiveways to stimulate active learning in classes with more than fifty students. Reviewers for this collectionselected articles from the Journal of College Science Teaching that tell us what research says about effec-tive large-group instruction and that show us how college science faculty have successfully modified theirlecture courses to stimulate active learning.

An assessment of popular teaching styles and their effectiveness are presented by Leonard in his ar-ticle, “How Do College Students Best Learn Science?” Leonard first presents research evidence that thedominant lecture method just does not seem to work as an effective tool for teaching. Then he dis-cusses the effectiveness of constructivist learning, followed by evidence that college students have vari-ous learning styles that college science faculty should take into consideration when preparing to teach.Leonard’s article concludes with recommendations that provide sound and proven ideas for enhancinglearning in college science.

In “Are We Cultivating ‘Couch Potatoes’ in Our College Science Lectures?” Lord tells about an invi-tation to sit in on a colleague’s large biology class at another university. He describes what he observedand how he was unable to admit to his colleague that the students didn’t pay much attention duringthe lecture and that they probably didn’t learn a great deal. The drive back to his own university pro-vided time for Lord to reflect on the lecture method and the reluctance of science professors to give upthat method.

The remaining articles in this compendium describe how college science professors instituted activelearning in their large classes. Many of these strategies align well with Leonard’s recommendations. Sometechniques incorporate the use of current information technology. We learn also, in many cases, howand why these professors gave up the “lecture only” method. For example, Caprio and Micikas describehow to make the transition from traditional teaching practices to those that are student centered intheir article “Getting There from Here.” They discuss two forms of barriers to this transition and presentarguments against these barriers. The article concludes with suggestions on how to use the many re-sources available to faculty members who want to move their classes away from the standard lectureformat to a more active learning environment.

Klionsky presents a quiz-based, group-learning approach that he adapted for very large sections ofintroductory biology. In “Constructing Knowledge in the Lecture Hall,” he describes a format for teachingthat encourages student preparation prior to class and uses problem solving instead of excessive lectur-ing. Klionsky follows his description with discussions about the concerns and benefits of this approach.

As presented in “Active Learning in the Lecture Hall,” Anderson tells how she modified course re-quirements and engaged students in a variety of active learning activities. In her nonlaboratory Prob-lems of the Environment course for nonscience majors, she used essays, special team presentations, agarden project, drawings, and concept mapping to challenge students to apply their knowledge in mean-ingful ways. Although she describes these techniques as successful, Anderson cautions that designing acourse to elicit active learning takes time to design and is challenging for faculty and students alike.

Some university professors, like French and Russell, enlist lecture facilitators to support students andteachers in large lecture classes. They discuss this technique in “The Lecture Facilitator: Sorcerer’s Ap-prentice.” The facilitators assist with group work, operate the classroom technology, and perform dem-onstrations. Survey results indicate that students benefited from the use of lecture facilitators. The au-thors conclude that the use of facilitators made the transition from traditional teaching styles to aninquiry-based style much easier for students and faculty.

Convinced that active learning is more effective than the traditional lecture, Pestel uses “discoveryquestions” to help develop independent learning in her classes. A description of this technique appearsin “Facilitating the Reading/Discussion Connection in the Interactive Classroom.” Pestel presents ex-amples of the types of discovery questions she uses. Each question is structured around a specific and


I XI nnova t i ve Te chn i ques f o r L a rge -G roup I n s t r u c t i on

limited reading assignment. These questions are distributed at the beginning of class and students are given 10–20minutes to work in groups to determine the answers.

Writing is a valuable learning tool, but it is difficult to include in many large classes. In their article, “A Peer-Reviewed Research Assignment for Large Classes,” Henderson and Buising report on a successful technique theyhave used to incorporate writing in their classes. They use active learning in collaborative groups to produce re-search papers on instructor-supplied topics in a biochemistry class. Peer groups evaluate first drafts, and final draftsare posted on a class website for additional evaluation and feedback. Students receive evaluation criteria in advanceso they know how to write their papers and how to provide helpful feedback to their peers.

Stencel provides a slightly different method to help make a transition from the didactic lecture approach. Hisarticle, “An Interactive Lecture Notebook—Twelve Ways to Improve Students’ Grades,” presents a strategy on howto draw students’ attention to what they need to know in a lecture. Students comment that the interactive note-book helped them get more involved in class and others felt the notebooks gave them time to learn and listeninstead of just trying to write notes in class.

A number of professors incorporate the use of modern information technology into their courses to make theclasses more interactive. E-mail communication is one of the leading ways to enhance communication betweenstudents and instructors. Hedges and Mania-Farnell describe how redirecting students’ work through e-mail helpedstudents identify misconceptions and helped the instructor identify areas that needed to be covered further in ahuman biology class. In “Using E-mail to Improve Communication in the Introductory Science Classroom,” theauthors describe how students were asked to read a variety of current articles and news briefs from journals andscience magazines, and then discuss the articles by e-mail. Besides increased student-instructor interaction, the au-thors discuss several other beneficial outcomes.

In “Using Internet Class Notes and PowerPoint in the Physical Geology Lecture,” Mantei explains how thesetechnologies lead to higher exam scores for students. He compares student performance in physical geology classesusing traditional lecture methods and those where lecture notes and practice examinations were placed on a classwebsite. Preliminary evaluation data show strong student acceptance for these techniques.

Marbach-Ad and Sokolove tell how students in a large mixed majors/nonmajors introductory biology class usede-mail and written notes for questions on class content or organization. Their article, “Creating Direct Channels ofCommunication: Fostering Interaction with E-mail and In-class Notes,” indicates that women and science majorswere most likely to communicate in this manner. For students who are reluctant to ask questions during class andthose having questions outside of class, this method is efficient and effective.

Action research provides a unique way to improve teaching practices. Adams and Slater present their findings inan article titled “Using Action Research to Bring the Large Class Down to Size.” They present four action researchstudies conducted in support of improving introductory astronomy, a course with more than 200 nonscience ma-jors in a single lecture. The article provides readers with evidence that the large-group learning environment can beimproved by making decisions based on data.

Another professor used an assessment tool to help refine teaching techniques. In “Gauging Student’s Learningin the Classroom: An Assessment Tool to Help Refine Instructors’ Teaching Techniques,” Heady reports that theuse of the Student Assessment of Learning Gains (SALG) in an introductory biology course is a more helpful in-strument than traditional course evaluations in obtaining data that can be used to improve course instruction.

In conclusion, professors whose articles are presented in this collection have used the most current research onteaching and learning, information technology, and research to improve large-group instruction at their collegesand universities. The strategies they present range from small-scale innovations to a complete revamping of teach-ing techniques. The desire to improve college science teaching and learning is the goal of each author. Their strate-gies provide excellent examples for others who wish to move away from the traditional lecture-only method.

Timothy M. CooneyNSTA College Division DirectorProfessor of Earth Science and Science EducationUniversity of Northern Iowa


Nat i ona l S c i en c e Tea che r s A s so c i a t i onX

Innovative Techniques for Large-Group Instruction brings you sciLINKS, a new project thatblends the two main delivery systems for curriculum—books and telecommunications—into a dynamic new educational tool for children, their parents, and their teachers.sciLINKS links specific science content with instructionally rich Internet resources.sciLINKS represents an enormous opportunity to create new pathways for learners, newopportunities for professional growth among teachers, and new modes of engagementfor parents.

In this sciLINKed text, you will find an icon near several of the concepts beingdiscussed. Under it, you will find the sciLINKS URL (www.scilinks.org) and a code. Goto the sciLINKS website, sign in, type the code from your text, and you will receive a listof URLs that are selected by science educators. Sites are chosen for accurate and age-appropriate content and good pedagogy. The underlying database changes constantly,eliminating dead or revised sites or simply replacing them with better selections. ThesciLINKS search team regularly reviews the materials to which this text points, so youcan always count on good content being available.

The selection process involves four review stages:

1. First, a cadre of undergraduate science education majors searches the WorldWide Web for interesting science resources. The undergraduates submit about 500sites a week for consideration.

2. Next, packets of these web pages are organized and sent to teacher-webwatcherswith expertise in given fields and grade levels. The teacher-webwatchers can alsosubmit web pages that they have found on their own. The teachers pick the jewelsfrom this selection and correlate them to the National Science Education Standards.These pages are submitted to the sciLINKS database.

3. Scientists review these correlated sites for accuracy.

4. NSTA staff approve the web pages and edit the information provided foraccuracy and consistent style.

sciLINKS is a free service for textbook and supplemental resource users, but obviouslysomeone must pay for it. Participating publishers pay a fee to NSTA for each book thatcontains sciLINKS. The program is also supported by a grant from the NationalAeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).


1I nnova t i ve Te chn i ques f o r L a rge -G roup I n s t r u c t i on

The vast majority of college stu-dents are not successfully learning

science. Lord summed it up, “Thepresent way we teach undergraduatescience at colleges and universities al-most everywhere simply does notstimulate active learning” (1994). Thedominant lecture method just does notseem to be doing the job (Leonard1992).

Our students entering and leavinghigh school are not scoring well ontests that measure understanding ofscience (and mathematics) relative toother developed countries, and thisappears to continue through college(National Center for Education Sta-tistics 1997). Moreover, college sci-ence courses are notorious for poorteaching (Lord 1994; Seymour 1995).In fact, Angelo (1990) has shown thatstudents remember only 20 percent ofwhat they hear in a traditional lecture.

Researchers and educators havesuggested that one major reason for

How Do College StudentsBest Learn Science?

An Assessment of Popular Teaching Stylesand Their Effectiveness

William H. Leonard

William H. Leonard, editor of JCST’s“Research and Teaching” department,is a professor of science education andbiology at Clemson University,Clemson, SC 29634-0708; e-mail:[email protected].

This paper is based on WilliamLeonard’s “How Do College StudentsLearn Science?” Chapter 1 in EffectiveTeaching and Course Management forUniversity and College Science Teach-ers, edited by E. Siebert, M. Caprio,and C. Lyda. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Co.

the lack of success of the lecturemethod is that students do not ex-pend much energy thinking aboutwhat is being discussed in a tradi-tional lecture presentation. On theother hand, a truly interactive lecture,interactive group learning, or experi-ential learning setting such as a labo-ratory or field work provides plenty ofopportunities for students to process,interpret, and internalize the conceptsthey experience.

The literature contains many testi-monials and experimental researchstudies that support the idea thatmeaningful learning is tied to experi-ence (Bodner 1986; Leonard 1989 aand b; Angelo 1990; Lorsch and Tobin1992; Bybee 1993; Caprio 1994;Lawson 1990, 1992, 1993; Lord 1994;Roth 1994 Seymour 1995). Cannon(1999) has suggested that a lack of ap-propriate learning strategies (especiallystudent-centered methods) is the larg-est variable contributing to attrition inscience majors.

CONSTRUCTIVIST LEARNINGA learning approach called

constructivism is receiving much atten-tion in the literature. Frequently citedas the source of this term, vonGlasserfeld (1987) states, “Construc-tivism is a theory which asserts thatknowledge is not primarily received,

but actively built and that the functionof cognition is adaptive and serves theorganization of the experiential world.”Rooted in Piagetian thought, informa-tion processing, and concept mapping,constructivism assumes that learnersbuild upon prior experiences. Thelearner has a neural network that or-ganizes and relates previously learnedknowledge. New understandings areconstructed by the learner as a resultof new experiences.

“Constructivists hold that learningis an interpretive process, as new infor-mation is given meaning in terms ofthe student’s prior knowledge. Eachlearner actively constructs and recon-structs his or her understanding ratherthan receiving it from a more authori-tative source such as a teacher or text-book” (Roth 1994).

Constructivist learning can be com-pared or contrasted to an objectivistapproach in which knowledge isviewed as something that can be im-parted. Objectivists like to use the lec-ture approach because they believe that


Nat i ona l S c i en c e Tea che r s A s so c i a t i on2

they can open up the student’s head,pour in knowledge, close the student’shead and then have the student take atest. Caprio (1994) believes that, “Theobjectivist teacher rewards studentswhen their understanding is more orless the same as that of the instructor.”This is a very dangerous learning ap-proach when viewed in terms of howscientists themselves discover new

Glasserfeld 1987; Lawson 1988;Braathen and Hewson 1988; Tobin1990; Leonard 1991; Yeany andBritton 1991; Harris and Marks 1992;Lawson 1988, 1992; Lorsbach andTobin 1992; Bybee 1993; Leonardand Penick 1993; Caprio 1994; Glynnand Lord 1994; Pressley, Harris, andMarks 1992; Seymour 1995; Leonardand Penick 1998; Leonard, Penick,

support in the literature forconstructivism is probably why boththe National Science Education Stan-dards and the Benchmarks for ScienceLiteracy endorse constructivist ap-proaches to learning.

STUDENTS LEARN IN DIFFERENT WAYSThere is also much evidence that

students learn in different ways. Theterm learning styles has been used ex-tensively in the literature to describethe possible means by which an indi-vidual student may best learn. Someresearch supports that individuals pre-fer to learn through one or more ofthe different senses (Jung 1970).Concrete learners rely more on touch,taste, and smell and more intuitiveand abstract learners prefer hearingand sight.

Meyers and Briggs (1958) believethat learning style preferences are re-lated to personality type. For example,sensory learners (S) depend on experi-ences taken in through their senses.Intuitive learners (I) benefit from dis-cussions of abstractions. Feeling learn-ers (F) tend to relate what they learnto their own personal and/or societalvalues. Thinking learners (T) benefitmost from a logical progression of or-ganized and related concepts.

There is also evidence to suggestthat the vast majority of learners donot sort entirely into any one of theabove categories but instead into fourcombinations of two of these catego-ries (Silver, Hansen, and Strong 1981;Krause 1996). Thus, ST (sensory-thinking) learners need a highly orga-nized and quiet environment, workbest alone, memorize well, benefitfrom repetitious drill and practice anddo well on recall exams.

Krause (1996) believes that STs arethe classic student for which Americanschools have been structured. The SF(sensory-feeling) is a verbal learner, ishighly interpersonal, and benefits fromstories and examples. Cooperativelearning works well for SFs. ST and SF

An experiential learning setting such as this laboratory at Clemson University pro-vides plenty of opportunities for students to process, interpret, and internalize theconcepts they learn.

knowledge. The objectivist approach isalso popular among university admin-istrators interested in the lowest pos-sible cost of getting a student througha course.

Constructivist learning has also gar-nered much support in the literatureranging from philosophical discussions,testimonials by instructors who haveseen constructivism work successfullywith their students, and experimentalstudies showing higher student perfor-mance in constructivist learning envi-ronments (Bodner 1986; von

and Speziale 1999; and Cannon1999).

Lord has suggested that having stu-dents work in collaborative groups iscentral to a constructivist learning en-vironment because it provides oppor-tunities for students to clarify their un-derstandings.

Constructivism warrants seriousconsideration in college science teach-ing. It is becoming clearer to manycollege science faculty thatconstructivism facilitates meaningfulunderstanding of science. The strong

PU

BLI

CA

TIO

NS

AN

D P

RO

MO

TIO

NS

, C

LEM

SO

N U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y


Documents

An NSTA Press Journals Collection