At my undergraduate university, Appalachian State, every science class had two parts: the lecture and the laboratory section. Looking back and reflecting, it seems the lecture part of the class missed the mark when it came to addressing the 7 Principles. Basic courses had 100+ students in them. With this class size, many principles fell by the wayside. For example:
1) Larger class size often does not encourage student-faculty contact. In my larger science classes, it was up to individual students to seek professor interaction rather than the professor initiating the contact. Most of the interactions involved asking a question in class.
2 and 3) The lectures mainly consisted of powerpoints; while the assignments came in the form of multiple choice, short answers, and essay tests that were purely memorization. There was no cooperation among students or active learning.
7) Because most professors only used powerpoint, different styles of teaching were not presented in order to engage students who have different ways of learning.
To sum up, the lecture part of the course only employed 3 of the 7 Principles. Those 3 that were addressed in the class, could in some form be linked to the syllabus. Needless to say, the lecture part missed the mark!
The lab section is a different story...
It addresses 6 out of the 7 Principles. Here are the ones it addresses:
1) Because the lab is hands-on, students have many questions. Therefore, professors are present in the lab, walking around, answering questions, and would show hands-on examples in class.
2) Labs were performed with partners. Therefore, students were forced to interact with each other and to interact with a group sitting next to them, especially if reagents were shared.
3) A hands-on laboratory is active learning. The student must complete an experiment in order to get a final answer. The labs often relate to the lecture. Therefore, a lecture they had received solely by powerpoint earlier in the week, they now get to apply the lecture to a "real world" example.
4, 5, and 6) Good laboratory practices involve taking excellent notes and keeping a well organized notebook. Laboratory classes required notebooks to be graded by the professors. 4) Professors would grade and give feedback on the quality of the notebook. 5) Because the notebook was used each week during lab, students were required to turn them in on time, and professors had to grade them and return them before the next class. 6) From the start, professors emphasize a good, meticulously kept notebook because the validity of the experiments come from what is written in the notebook. Therefore, high expectations in how a notebook was kept was always emphasized and enforced.
However, the 7th Principle is not addressed. Because the lab is solely hands-on, it does not reach the students who might perform well at hands-on tasks.
In conclusion (sorry this has been so long), I think that lecture science classes need to be improved. As a future educator in science, I need to start thinking about how to make scientific lectures more engaging, more relatable, and present the material in a method to reach all types of learners in the audience.
Neat differentiation between the lecture and lab components. I agree with your assessment, and I am not sure that all seven have to be present in every situation...but from your analysis, I would suspect that learning might be more enhanced through the labs than through the lectures.
ReplyDeleteThe question for me is - if you were using the 7 Principles as a lens, might you design both the lecture and the lab differently? And if you decided to incorporate digital technology into your teaching, would the 7 Principles help with that decision?
Using the 7 Principles as a lens, I would definitely design the class lecture different. However, I think the lab employs enough of the principles that I feel that it is a good design and layout for teaching the class. For the lectures, powerpoints lacking animation were often used. If a class didn't sure powerpoint, the professor would just lecture without writing on the board for 50 minutes. Science presented in this manner can be extremely dry and boring to those not interested in the subject. Therefore, I would use technology to make science come alive. Videos can make a process that seems so hard to comprehend easier for the visual learners. I think employing more technology in science classes would facilitate more active learning and help students grasp the concepts easier.
DeleteI think the biggest take-away I got from your post was that large class sizes can severely hinder student engagement, and that is a very valid point. I think large classes require even more work from the educator (besides just shear volume of tests/assignments to grade) due to having to go even more out of the way to engage students. Now while the lab itself tends to enhance engagement based on the fact it is by definition active learning I think some of the lab advantages tend to be because the large lecture class was most likely broken into smaller subsections for laboratory exercises.
ReplyDeleteSo could the lecture engage students better if the class was broken into small subsections and the educator gave multiple copies of the same lecture to smaller groups? I would bet students would ask more questions in class for instance, being less afraid to speak up in front of a smaller crowd.
Another point is just that the setup of the lectures or the lecturers were just plain bad. I think some of 7 principles that were missing in your undergrad lectures could actually be incorporated in a better lecture (e.g. engaging different styles of learning by presenting information in different ways or encouraging student cooperation by getting them to talk to each other in small groups to break up the lecture). I think it just takes more work to encourage student engagement in a lecture-centric class, but it can be done. You could make the argument that in some senses part of the problem could be solved by training better lecturers as is hinted at in this article... Is The Lecture Dead?
Just some things that struck me when reading your post...I think your comment on the effects of class size is certainly important!
I think you are correct when you say that the volume of the class size effects the quality of the lecture. When I got into the upper level biology classes at my undergraduate university, which had about 25-30 students in them, there was more active learning and student-faculty engagement. Those same professors were teaching both the introductory to biology courses and upper level biology courses to majors; however, they were using different teaching styles between the two classes. Therefore, I don't think it was that the professors were just plain bad. It is not uncommon at larger universities to have classes of 100 or more especially in the intro level courses. What bothers me is that maybe a student is really interested in science but because they are a more hands-on learner vs. a learner which can listen to powerpoint lessons they essentially "fall through the cracks". Maybe they don't make the best grades to warrant studying biology further, but rather than it being the student's problem maybe it is in fact the way in which the subject matter was presented to them. I think your point on breaking down the larger classes is a valid one and could potentially solve the problem. Also incorporating technology could also alleviate some of the dry lectures and get students involved. Regardless which way the lecture is changed, getting more students excited about science and helping them succeed could potentially foster the next creative and future scientists of this world.
DeleteI love this post and dialogue! Everything you say about class size and lecture halls rings so true...right back to my own undergrad biology days. As I learned from reading books for my program design class, lecture halls are brutal for anyone attempting student-centered learning. I mean, think about how they are set up...everyone focused on the teacher at the front...fixed chairs, no way to swivel around for groupings...That being said, some of the newer lecture hall archetecture is getting better--I've seen lecture halls with swivel chairs and other amenities that make group work easier.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I'm not sure how well this would work in some of the content-loaded science courses, some educational experts have done creative things to make giant lecture halls work for them. Jane Vella knows how to work a crowd--she has people break into small groups around where they are seated, work on a problem (discussion or otherwise) and then has a member of groups (not all--maybe two or three) report out to the whole. There are ways to work that lecture hall, it's just really hard. Can you think of other ways you've seen people work a hall? There's the pollster websites...you know, where you can put a question up on the screen (like a multiple choice--think survey questions) and then ask your class to text in their answer. The poll data is available immediately--so suddenly, as the lecturer, you have access to what your students think the answer is...you can use it to check understanding...and think, it's giving you more accurate info than calling on one person AND it's anonymous so you aren't torturing anyone AND as a student, it's just plain compelling fun. Can you think of anything else people could do in a lecture hall to spice it up?
So I know in many professional schools they use clickers as the polling tool, but for instances without clickers there is software like PollAnywhere that uses texts from cellphones as you mentioned. Another method I have seen used for large lectures is the use of 'minute papers' at the end of class. Students may write down the biggest concept they took away from the day and also a concept from the day that was still fuzzy or unclear to them. Another small way to gauge what information is getting across or not...but not as instant on the feedback as clickers or text polls.
DeleteThanks! I like these ideas of how to get students involved! Great examples!
DeleteLaura, I completely agree with you. I think the design of a lecture hall deters student-faculty and student-student contact and discussions. I would have to say that there probably needs to be a change in both lecture hall design and the way in which the lectures themselves are designed. There is this new concept called Upside Down Teaching (http://www.npr.org/2012/12/07/166748835/more-teachers-flipping-the-school-day-upside-down). Basically, it allows students to watch a lecture at home (via youTube) and do group work in class in order to apply it to the previous night's lecture. This is an interesting concept in that it promotes students working together in a group in order to understand the material. Also, it promotes student-faculty interactions because clearly students will have questions about concepts. However, there is a draw back to this set-up. It relies heavily on student initiative. If a student doesn't want to listen to the lecture at night, then they probably won't be prepared for class. However, being in small groups takes away the anonymity from a larger lecture hall. Maybe that will encourage students to prepare ahead.
ReplyDeleteI like the upside-down class idea you mentioned and your critique is very relevant about student initiative. I guess I am wondering at what point in their education or even age students take on enough initiative for it to be effective (high school, undergrad, grad school)? I think this also gets to the point Laura mentions often about pedagogy vs. andragogy. In the upside-down class students are more responsible for their learning and motivation (andragogical) than in the traditional class set-up where the teacher is responsible for the instruction/passing on the required information (pedagogical). I also think the upside-down class is the same as the flipped class (which has been around for alittle while) in theory/practice...just two different names for the same thing.
DeleteYou know, I think student initiative is a very personal thing. Some students take initiative early on, even in elementary school. While others, don't have initiative even in undergrad or graduate school. I think it depends on the student. With that said, I think another role of the teacher is to inspire the student. Present material in a exciting way that peaks their interest and makes them want to learn more, stay involved in the conversation, and ask questions. Incorporating technology, various teaching practices to engage students with different learning styles, and following the 7 Principles should help teachers reach those unmotivated students in order to get them excited about a particular subject.
DeleteI agree that the teacher holds some responsibility for making the material exciting. However, if teaching an undergraduate science course (say Bio 101) to non-majors, I feel no matter how exciting/interesting you may make it some of them just will not care or want more than the minimal passing grade. I guess for that you just have to understand that as the educator you can only control so much.
Delete