Upload
cedric
View
39
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Transforming tertiary education: overview of an AKO Aotearoa project involving a large 100-level Cell Biology class. . Rosie Bradshaw, Maggie H artnett, Gemma Cartwright, Natalie Burr, Ewen Cameron, Ben Kennedy & Zoe Jordens. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
Transforming tertiary education: overview of an AKO Aotearoa project involving a large 100-level Cell Biology
class.
Rosie Bradshaw, Maggie Hartnett, Gemma Cartwright, Natalie Burr, Ewen Cameron, Ben Kennedy & Zoe Jordens
Applying the Carl Wieman Science Education Initiative (CWSEI) Model within the New Zealand Tertiary Environment
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 20110
100
200
300
400
500
600
162101 Biology of Cells
PNALB
Year
Stud
ent
num
bers
Students have diverse aims, background and abilities
BVScBScBMLSB Vet TechB Food TechB EngSchoolOther
The team
• Six science classes: four in Geology at Canterbury and two in biology at Massey
• Mixed team- Education specialists, motivated science lecturers and research assistants.
The aim• Improve student engagement and learning by:
- implementing ‘interventions’- measuring the effects on engagement & learning
based on
The methodInterventions:
• Improved learning goals and alignment• Emphasis on relevance• Interaction in lectures: activities and ‘clickers’
Measuring effects:• classroom observations engagement• attitude survey• ‘knowledge’ survey
learning
The cell shown here is a human diploid cell destined to undergo meiosis to make an egg cell. The cell is heterozygous for genes A and D. Assuming no crossing over occurs, choose the diagram that best represents what this cell would look like in metaphase of Meiosis I.
D D
d d
A A
a a
D dA aBD d
A a
Ca d
A
A D
D Dd d
A Aa a
D E
The method162101 Biology of Cells
PRE POSTsemester 1 2011
1 2 3surveys
162212 Microbial World
PRE POSTsemester 2 2010 semester 2 2011
1 2 surveys
1 2 surveys
Results: Classroom observations • Observe lecture material and teaching style• Measure students engagement through observation
• Observe lecture material and teaching style• Measure students engagement through observation
Results: Classroom observations
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
8.00
9.00
10.00 Pre-intervention Post-intervention
Results: Classroom observations
0 2 3 5 6 6 7 11 11 13 14 14 16 17 20 22 24 25 27 28 30 34 35 36 40 41 44 45 470
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Observation 2
Stu
dent
Eng
agem
ent (
out o
f 10)
Tour of the Cell Lecture: Pre-Intervention
Skimmedcontent
Overview
Movienear end oflecture
enthusiasm
Time (mins)
Results: Classroom observations
0 5 10 14 15 17 19 21 23 23 24 25 27 29 30 31 32 36 38 40 41 41 42 430
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Observation 14
Time (min)
Stu
dent
Eng
agem
ent (
out o
f 10)
Analogy
QuestionQuestion
Lecture Lecture Overview Learning
objectivesDrawingactivity
Analogy
Next sessionand vote
whether to persevere with
clickersProkaryotic gene expression lecture (post-intervention)
Lecture Link to lab
Results: Attitude surveySignificant shifts compared to ‘expert-like attitudes’ (for all of the example Qs ‘strongly agree’ is expert-like and therefore favourable)
Category(4 of 7 shown)
Favourable Unfavourable Example of question(8 – 10 Qs in each category)
Real World Connection
ns To understand biology, I sometimes think about my personal experiences and relate them to the topic being analyzed.
Enjoyment ns If I had plenty of time, I would take a biology class outside of my major requirements just for fun.
Problem-solving effort
ns I actively try to relate what is presented in biology to what I have learnt in other courses.
Reasoning ns When not pressed for time, I will continue to work on a biology problem until I understand why something works the way it does.
shifts in attitude over the whole semester :ns not significant; got worse (less ‘favourable’); got better (less ‘unfavourable’)
Results: Knowledge survey
Questions based on:
Survey 1 Survey 2 Survey 3 Mean gain
PRE10 Qs
21.4 ± 14.3 32.7 ± 16.0 39.3 ± 18.5 11.3 ± 16.1
POST10 Qs
20.9 ± 15.2 27.1 ± 14.6 41.6 ± 19.1 14.5 ± 19.8
PRE POSTsemester 1 2011
1 2 3
Values are % test scores: mean ± SD for 161 matched surveys(questions were designed to be difficult!)
Two-tailed paired T-test of significant difference between pre and post mean gains shows no significant difference (P = 0.103)
Results: Knowledge survey
Values are means of matched % test scores
Questions based on:
Mean % gain
final exam >80%
Mean % gain
final exam 60-79%
Mean % gain
final exam 40-59%
Mean % gain
final exam 20-39%
Mean % gain
final exam <20%
Mean % gain ALL
students
PRE10 Qs
20.0 15.8 8.6 1.7 -1.7 11.3
POST10 Qs
32.9 15.9 13.6 2.2 1.7 14.5
P (paired T-test) (n)
0.007(14)
0.964 (64)
0.424 (59)
0.941 (18)
0.788 (6)
0.103 (161)
Conclusions: Most of the ‘post’ (interventions) gain was in the top student groupMore needs to be done to facilitate learning in other groups!BUT - there are many limitations to this survey.
- deleting toughest 2 Qs from each survey only 40-59% show sig gain
To assist my learning in lectures, I would prefer:
A) 'Traditional style' information delivery lectures
B) Mixture of clickers/interactive questions and 'traditional style', with some recommended reading prior to lecture.
C) Completely interactive (clickers/activities/discussion) with mandatory pre-reading and on-line pre-lecture quiz.
Results: A 5%, B 70%, C 25% (n=207)
But what do students think?Clicker-vote at end of 162101 2011:
ConclusionsNo increase shown in student engagementBUT - engagement declines over the semester - positive feedback on use of clickers
Significant increase in knowledge gain after interventionsBUT - only with top performing students (final exam >80%) - mid students (40-59% FE) gained when toughest Qs removed.
Mixture of attitude shiftsBUT - some attitudes change over the semester anyway (eg. enjoyment)
So – was it worth it?Overall I think my teaching has improved- Better learning goals, etc- Improved style of interactive questions& many ideas of how to improve more…
AcknowledgementsZoe Jordens – Massey Project Leader Maggie Hartnett – Education Consultant Gemma Cartwright, Natalie Burr – Research AssistantsEwen Cameron – T&L director, MUHEC approvalBen Kennedy - Canterbury Uni. and overall project leader
Applying the Carl Wieman Science Education Initiative (CWSEI) Model within the New Zealand Tertiary Environment