Is Peer Interaction Necessary for Optimal Active Learning?

Meta-analyses of active-learning research consistently show that active-learning techniques result in greater student performance than traditional lecture-based courses. However, some individual studies show no effect of active-learning interventions. This may be due to inexperienced implementation of active learning. To minimize the effect of inexperience, we should try to provide more explicit implementation recommendations based on research into the key components of effective active learning. We investigated the optimal implementation of active-learning exercises within a “lecture” course. Two sections of nonmajors biology were taught by the same instructor, in the same semester, using the same instructional materials and assessments. Students in one section completed in-class active-learning exercises in cooperative groups, while students in the other section completed the same activities individually. Performance on low-level, multiple-choice assessments was not significantly different between sections. However, students who worked in cooperative groups on the in-class activities significantly outperformed students who completed the activities individually on the higher-level, extended-response questions. Our results provide additional evidence that group processing of activities should be the recommended mode of implementation for in-class active-learning exercises.     

“What if students revolt?”—Considering Student Resistance: Origins,Options, and Opportunities for Investigation

Instructors attempting new teaching methods may have concerns that students will resist nontraditional teaching methods. The authors provide an overview of research characterizing the nature of student resistance and exploring its origins. Additionally, they provide potential strategies for avoiding or addressing resistance and pose questions about resistance that may be ripe for research study.

“What if the students revolt?” “What if I ask them to talk to a neighbor, and they simply refuse?” “What if they do not see active learning as teaching?” “What if they just want me to lecture?” “What if my teaching evaluation scores plummet?” “Even if I am excited about innovative teaching and learning, what if I encounter student resistance?”

These are genuine concerns of committed and thoughtful instructors who aspire to respond to the repeated national calls to fundamentally change the way biology is taught in colleges and universities across the United States. No doubt most individuals involved in promoting innovative teaching in undergraduate biology education have heard these or variations on these fears and concerns. While some biology instructors may be at a point where they are still skeptical of innovative teaching from more theoretical perspectives (“Is it really any better than lecturing?”), the concerns expressed by the individuals above come from a deeply committed and practical place. These are instructors who have already passed the point where they have become dissatisfied with traditional teaching methods. They have already internally decided to try new approaches and have perhaps been learning new teaching techniques themselves. They are on the precipice of actually implementing formerly theoretical ideas in the real, messy space that is a classroom, with dozens, if not hundreds, of students watching them. Potential rejection by students as they are practicing these new pedagogical skills represents a real and significant roadblock. A change may be even more difficult for those earning high marks from their students for their lectures. If we were to think about a learning progression for faculty moving toward requiring more active class participation on the part of students, the voices above are from those individuals who are progressing along this continuum and who could easily become stuck or turn back in the face of student resistance.Unfortunately, it appears that little systematic attention or research effort has been focused on understanding the origins of student resistance in biology classrooms or the options for preventing and addressing such resistance. As always, this Feature aims to gather research evidence from a variety of fields to support innovations in undergraduate biology education. Below, we attempt to provide an overview of the types of student resistance one might encounter in a classroom, as well as share hypotheses from other disciplines about the potential origins of student resistance. In addition, we offer examples of classroom strategies that have been proposed as potentially useful for either preventing student resistance from happening altogether or addressing student resistance after it occurs, some of which align well with findings from research on the origins of student resistance. Finally, we explore how ready the field of student resistance may be for research study, particularly in undergraduate biology education.     

Writing Assignments with a Metacognitive Component Enhance Learning in a Large Introductory Biology Course

Writing assignments, including note taking and written recall, should enhance retention of knowledge, whereas analytical writing tasks with metacognitive aspects should enhance higher-order thinking. In this study, we assessed how certain writing-intensive “interventions,” such as written exam corrections and peer-reviewed writing assignments using Calibrated Peer Review and including a metacognitive component, improve student learning. We designed and tested the possible benefits of these approaches using control and experimental variables across and between our three-section introductory biology course. Based on assessment, students who corrected exam questions showed significant improvement on postexam assessment compared with their nonparticipating peers. Differences were also observed between students participating in written and discussion-based exercises. Students with low ACT scores benefited equally from written and discussion-based exam corrections, whereas students with midrange to high ACT scores benefited more from written than discussion-based exam corrections. Students scored higher on topics learned via peer-reviewed writing assignments relative to learning in an active classroom discussion or traditional lecture. However, students with low ACT scores (17–23) did not show the same benefit from peer-reviewed written essays as the other students. These changes offer significant student learning benefits with minimal additional effort by the instructors.     

College classroom interaction as a function of teacher- and student-centered instruction

Regional campus college students participated in traditionally or nontraditionally taught sections of undergraduate introductory educational psychology. The nontraditional sections were student centered, involving personal goal setting and monitoring conferences, and informal group discussion tests. The traditional sections were teacher centered, involving a lecture format, formal tests and assignments, and comparative grades. An event sampling behavioral assessment procedure was used to record student and teacher behaviors according to the following verbal interaction response categories: positive, negative, questions, answers, presents, solicits, shares, generates, impedes. The course sections were analyzed and found to be comparable with regard to teachers' positive responses and information presented, as well as content acquisition and final grades. However, students in the nontraditional course section asked significantly more questions, shared more information, and generated more ideas than students in the more traditional teacher-centered course. Replication analyses supported the initial findings regarding learning and attitudinal differences favoring student centered course sections over teacher centered sections.     

Using a Physics Experiment in a Lecture Setting to Engage Biology Students with the Concepts of Poiseuille's Law

Biology students enrolled in a typical undergraduate physiology course encounter Poiseuille''s law, a physics equation that describes the properties governing the flow of blood through the circulation. According to the equation, a small change in vessel radius has an exponential effect on resistance, resulting in a larger than expected change in blood flow. To help engage students in this important concept, we performed a physics experiment as a lecture demonstration to mimic the original research by the 19th-century French scientist. We tested its impact as a research project and found that students who viewed the demonstration reacted very positively and showed an immediate increase in test performance, while the control group was able to independently “catch up” at the fourth week posttest. We further examined whether students’ math skills mapped to learning gains. The students with lower math scores who viewed the demonstration had slightly more improvement in test performance than those students who did not view the demonstration. Our data suggest that watching a lecture demonstration may be of even greater benefit to biology students with lower math achievement.     

Understanding by Design: A Framework for Effecting Curricular Development and Assessment

Successful learning outcomes require the integration of content and meaningful assessment with effective pedagogy. However, development of coherent and cohesive curriculum is seemingly overwhelming even to experienced teachers. Obviously this creates a barrier to successful student learning. Understanding by Design (UbD) overcomes this impasse by providing concise and practical guidance for experienced and inexperienced teachers. In programs sponsored by the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health, teams composed of University of Wyoming graduate students and science teachers from grades 6 to 9 designed motivating, inquiry-based lesson plans intended to get students to think and act like scientists. In this process, teams utilized principles outlined in UbD with great success. UbD describes a practical and useful “backward” design process in which anticipated results are first identified; acceptable evidence for learning outcomes is established and, only then, are specific learning experiences and instruction planned. Additionally, UbD provides procedures to avoid content overload by focusing on “enduring principles.” WHERE, the UbD sieve for activities, was used effectively to develop tasks that are engaging, that are consistent with state educational standards, and that promote self-directed, life-long learning.     

A Pioneer of Hands-On Education

This biography of the physicist and science educator Frank Oppenheimer uses his crowning achievement, San Francisco''s Exploratorium, as the lens through which to explore his life and work.This book is a timely read, coinciding as it does with the moving of the renowned Exploratorium from the Palace of Fine Arts at the foot of the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco, where it was established in 1969, to its new and larger location at Pier 15 on the Embarcadero. This institution continues to embody the vision of its founder, Frank Oppenheimer, the subject of this highly personal yet well-documented biography. The author, K. C. Cole, worked with Oppenheimer at the Exploratorium from 1972 until 1985 and in a subsequent voluminous correspondence. Together, they wrote magazine articles, prepared exhibit labels, developed applications for funding, and worked on a book project. The author herself is an ideal narrator, representing the target audience for the Exploratorium itself: the intelligent, curious, nonscientist. She brings the reader along on her voyage of discovery of the process of science through interactions with her enthusiastic and thoughtful guide.The book''s title, Something Incredibly Wonderful Happens, is drawn from a piece called “Adult Play,” which Oppenheimer wrote for the Exploratorium magazine in 1980 (Oppenheimer, 1980) . He describes play as activity without a particular goal, just noticing how something works or does not, combining things on a whim and often ending up with nothing in particular, throwing it out, and playing in a different way. “But a research physicist gets paid for this ‘waste of time’ and so do the people who develop exhibits in the Exploratorium. Occasionally though, something incredibly wonderful happens.” As the embodiment of the ease and freedom of play using exhibits designed to stimulate curiosity and challenge perception, the Exploratorium is precisely the sort of place where such exciting revelations can occur. The originality of the Exploratorium concept, a science museum without rules, encouraging experimentation and hands-on interaction with the exhibits, an environment where it is impossible to fail, grew organically from Oppenheimer''s own experiences of science and science teaching and was further informed by his rich background in art and music and his commitment to democracy in access to the riches of the intellectual life. The book thus provides a model for current life sciences educators, a particular view of the style of instruction that is now widely understood to be the most effective way to engage students in the processes of science. In this review, I will focus on those aspects of Oppenheimer''s life that most directly led to his approach to informal science education.The first six chapters describe Oppenheimer''s childhood, education, early work as an atomic physicist (including the Manhattan Project, which he worked on with his brother, Robert Oppenheimer), his difficulties during the McCarthy era, and a period of more than a decade in Pagosa Spring, Colorado, where he became a self-taught rancher and science teacher at the local high school. Blacklisted from university employment, he turned to the local community, who welcomed him and shared with him their agricultural expertise while valuing his contributions to the education of their children. A typical event was recalled by his son Michael, in which he and his father dissected a pig''s head after the pig had been slaughtered (p. 110). His teaching portfolio included general science, biology, chemistry, and physics. The students were not eager to learn at first, so Oppenheimer came up with intriguing experiments to capture their attention. They took apart machinery, dissected various organisms, explored the rural area and the junkyard, and asked questions. Sports were the preoccupation of most students, but they could involve relatively few students directly, and the emphasis on wins and losses took away much of the fun. Science fairs became a more democratic activity, and the students were unusually successful, bringing notice to Pagosa Springs and further opportunities for its students. In all his dealings with students, Oppenheimer took pains to answer their questions with honesty and rigor while adjusting his approaches to their intellectual maturity. He was not limited by age-appropriate curricula or preconceptions as to what a young teenager could understand. He also began working with teachers to help them develop similarly engaging curricula, a new concept for many of them, for whom science teaching was a threatening challenge. Oppenheimer understood that only excited and engaged teachers could adequately excite their students.At the end of his time in Colorado, he worked at the University of Colorado, where he undertook a revision of the physics teaching laboratories. In doing so, he developed and improvised instruments to conduct experiments on a wide range of physical phenomena. In this period, he became convinced that grades, particularly the grade of “F,” were pernicious and inhibited full creativity and curiosity in students, particularly those whose background was not that of the traditional academic culture. He worked hard to include opportunities for minority students in his courses and noticed how somewhat arbitrary “rules” tended to perpetuate the division between those who were “in” and those who were “out.” He also recognized the role of the physical setting in fostering excitement about science; he insisted on open laboratories surrounding lecture space, so the artificial distinction between the two modes of learning was blurred, and cooperation and conversation could be part of learning. The experiments became a sort of “library,” accessible all day long with the same freedom as a library of books.The first half of the book ends with Oppenheimer''s visits to science museums in Europe as a Guggenheim Fellow in 1965. He realized that the context of the science museum, particularly as a means to reach underserved members of the public, would be the best venue for his educational ideas. In the second half of the book, we learn of the development of the Exploratorium itself, designed in every aspect to encourage visitors to play and to be comfortable in their enjoyment of the exhibits, and to help them satisfy their curiosity. Analogous to a walk in the woods during which you notice various aspects of the environment, some large, some small, and take delight in them, the Exploratorium provided a “woods” of natural phenomena, through which visitors could walk, dallying here or there to try out one or another of the exhibits. Though all principles of science were important, an emphasis was placed on those involving direct perception. Aesthetics were important in all the exhibits, and artists were invited to prepare works and installations placed side by side with more traditionally “scientific” exhibits, thus blurring that somewhat artificial distinction. In fact, Oppenheimer was a proficient flautist and grew up in a home rich in art. He, more than most, was acutely aware of the beauty of science and the rigor of art, both ways of probing the human spirit. He is quoted as saying that artists and scientists are the official “noticers” of society (p. 191), an intriguing idea.A particularly innovative aspect of the Exploratorium was the hiring of students to be Explainers. Not as stuffy or formal as a typical docent, the Explainer''s job was to help others use the exhibits, perhaps suggesting ways the apparatus could be manipulated or what important principles it demonstrated. We now call this practice “peer-assisted learning,” and recent work has documented its advantages to both the explainer and the explainee.Another firmly held principle, at least during Oppenheimer''s life, was that admission to the Exploratorium should be free of charge. Despite a perennial shortage of funds, this principle was adhered to, guaranteeing that people could drop in from time to time as they might visit a favorite park, for a brief refreshing break or for a longer jaunt. Not only did such practice encourage regular visits, it democratized the institution by removing barriers to participation by those otherwise lacking means.Ultimately, Oppenheimer''s attitude toward science teaching and learning, as embodied in the Exploratorium, was to address two fundamental human needs: curiosity and confidence in one''s ability to understand things. It is a teacher''s job to get a student “unstuck” (p. 220), to intrigue the student and then to discover what the student already understands and build on it. Throughout, the teacher must reassure students that their brains are working just fine. No one ever fails a science museum.A final remark for readers of this journal is Oppenheimer''s attitude toward assessment. He said, “Why do we insist that there must always be a measure for the quality of learning? … By thus insisting we have limited our teaching to only those aspects of learning for which we have devised a ready measure. … If we prematurely insist on a quantitative measure for the effectiveness of museums, we will have to abandon the possibility of making them important” (p. 274). The criterion for evaluation of the exhibits at the Exploratorium was that they not be boring!In each of the 12 chapters of this book, subheadings are accompanied by pithy quotations from Oppenheimer himself or one of his colleagues. The scholarly apparatus of the book is contained in notes and a bibliography at the end, so it does not distract from a highly entertaining and edifying read. I recommend this book.     

Mutation-Based Learning to Improve Student Autonomy and Scientific Inquiry Skills in a Large Genetics Laboratory Course

Laboratory education can play a vital role in developing a learner''s autonomy and scientific inquiry skills. In an innovative, mutation-based learning (MBL) approach, students were instructed to redesign a teacher-designed standard experimental protocol by a “mutation” method in a molecular genetics laboratory course. Students could choose to delete, add, reverse, or replace certain steps of the standard protocol to explore questions of interest to them in a given experimental scenario. They wrote experimental proposals to address their rationales and hypotheses for the “mutations”; conducted experiments in parallel, according to both standard and mutated protocols; and then compared and analyzed results to write individual lab reports. Various autonomy-supportive measures were provided in the entire experimental process. Analyses of student work and feedback suggest that students using the MBL approach 1) spend more time discussing experiments, 2) use more scientific inquiry skills, and 3) find the increased autonomy afforded by MBL more enjoyable than do students following regimented instructions in a conventional “cookbook”-style laboratory. Furthermore, the MBL approach does not incur an obvious increase in labor and financial costs, which makes it feasible for easy adaptation and implementation in a large class.     

A Deliberate Practice Approach to Teaching Phylogenetic Analysis

One goal of postsecondary education is to assist students in developing expert-level understanding. Previous attempts to encourage expert-level understanding of phylogenetic analysis in college science classrooms have largely focused on isolated, or “one-shot,” in-class activities. Using a deliberate practice instructional approach, we designed a set of five assignments for a 300-level plant systematics course that incrementally introduces the concepts and skills used in phylogenetic analysis. In our assignments, students learned the process of constructing phylogenetic trees through a series of increasingly difficult tasks; thus, skill development served as a framework for building content knowledge. We present results from 5 yr of final exam scores, pre- and postconcept assessments, and student surveys to assess the impact of our new pedagogical materials on student performance related to constructing and interpreting phylogenetic trees. Students improved in their ability to interpret relationships within trees and improved in several aspects related to between-tree comparisons and tree construction skills. Student feedback indicated that most students believed our approach prepared them to engage in tree construction and gave them confidence in their abilities. Overall, our data confirm that instructional approaches implementing deliberate practice address student misconceptions, improve student experiences, and foster deeper understanding of difficult scientific concepts.     

Flipping the Math Classroom for Non-Math Majors to Enrich Their Learning Experience

Students’ learning experiences in an introductory statistics course for non-math majors are compared between two different instructional approaches under controlled conditions. Two sections of the course (n = 52) are taught using a flipped classroom approach and one section (n = 30) is taught using a traditional lecture approach. All sections are taught by the same instructor in the same semester. General perceptions as well as students’ understanding and retention of the course material are measured and compared. The flipped classroom students outperform their traditional lecture peers on exams, especially in terms of their mathematical problem-solving skills. The flipped classroom students are also more confident than their traditional lecture peers about their abilities and their understanding of the course material, crediting their understanding primarily to the in-class activities, which are made possible because the flipped classroom design promotes an experiential, active-learning environment without compromising content.     

The University of Alabama at Birmingham Center for Community OutReach Development Summer Science Institute Program: A 3-Yr Laboratory Research Experience for Inner-City Secondary-Level Students

This article describes and assesses the effectiveness of a 3-yr, laboratory-based summer science program to improve the academic performance of inner-city high school students. The program was designed to gradually introduce such students to increasingly more rigorous laboratory experiences in an attempt to interest them in and model what “real” science is like. The students are also exposed to scientific seminars and university tours as well as English and mathematics workshops designed to help them analyze their laboratory data and prepare for their closing ceremony presentations. Qualitative and quantitative analysis of student performance in these programs indicates that participants not only learn the vocabulary, facts, and concepts of science, but also develop a better appreciation of what it is like to be a “real” scientist. In addition, the college-bound 3-yr graduates of this program appear to be better prepared to successfully academically compete with graduates of other high schools; they also report learning useful job-related life skills. Finally, the critical conceptual components of this program are discussed so that science educators interested in using this model can modify it to fit the individual resources and strengths of their particular setting.     

Biology Intensive Orientation for Students (BIOS): a biology "boot camp"

The Biology Intensive Orientation for Students (BIOS) Program was designed to assess the impact of a 5-d intensive prefreshman program on success and retention of biological science majors at Louisiana State University. The 2005 pilot program combined content lectures and examinations for BIOL 1201, Introductory Biology for Science Majors, as well as learning styles assessments and informational sessions to provide the students with a preview of the requirements of biology and the pace of college. Students were tracked after their BIOS participation, and their progress was compared with a control group composed of students on the BIOS waiting list and a group of BIOL 1201 students who were identified as the academic matches to the BIOS participants (high school GPA, ACT score, and gender). The BIOS participants performed significantly better on the first and second exams, they had a higher course average, and they had a higher final grade than the control group. These students also had higher success rates (grade of “A,” “B,” or “C”) during both the fall and spring semesters and remained on track through the first semester of their sophomore year to graduate in 4 yr at a significantly higher rate than the control group.     

Assessment of Student Learning Associated with Tree Thinking in an Undergraduate Introductory Organismal Biology Course

Phylogenetic trees provide visual representations of ancestor–descendant relationships, a core concept of evolutionary theory. We introduced “tree thinking” into our introductory organismal biology course (freshman/sophomore majors) to help teach organismal diversity within an evolutionary framework. Our instructional strategy consisted of designing and implementing a set of experiences to help students learn to read, interpret, and manipulate phylogenetic trees, with a particular emphasis on using data to evaluate alternative phylogenetic hypotheses (trees). To assess the outcomes of these learning experiences, we designed and implemented a Phylogeny Assessment Tool (PhAT), an open-ended response instrument that asked students to: 1) map characters on phylogenetic trees; 2) apply an objective criterion to decide which of two trees (alternative hypotheses) is “better”; and 3) demonstrate understanding of phylogenetic trees as depictions of ancestor–descendant relationships. A pre–post test design was used with the PhAT to collect data from students in two consecutive Fall semesters. Students in both semesters made significant gains in their abilities to map characters onto phylogenetic trees and to choose between two alternative hypotheses of relationship (trees) by applying the principle of parsimony (Occam''s razor). However, learning gains were much lower in the area of student interpretation of phylogenetic trees as representations of ancestor–descendant relationships.     

Recent Research in Science Teaching and Learning

This feature is designed to point CBE---Life Sciences Education readers to current articles of interest in life sciences education as well as more general and noteworthy publications in education research.This feature is designed to point CBE—Life Sciences Education readers to current articles of interest in life sciences education as well as more general and noteworthy publications in education research. URLs are provided for the abstracts or full text of articles. For articles listed as “Abstract available,” full text may be accessible at the indicated URL for readers whose institutions subscribe to the corresponding journal.

• 1. Freeman S, Eddy SL, McDonough M, Smith MK, Okoroafor N, Jordt H, Wenderoth MP (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 111, 8410–8415. [Abstract available at www.pnas.org/content/111/23/8410.abstract]

Online publication of this meta-analysis last spring no doubt launched a legion of local and national conversations about how science is best taught—as the authors state the essential issue, “Should we ask or should we tell?” To assess the relative effectiveness of active-learning (asking) versus lecture-based (telling) methods in college-level science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) classes, the authors scoured the published and unpublished literature for studies that performed a side-by-side comparison of the two general types of methods. Using five predetermined criteria for admission to the study (described fully in the materials and methods section), at least two independent coders examined each potentially eligible paper to winnow down the number of eligible studies from 642 to 225. The working definition of what constitutes active learning (used to determine potential eligibility) was obtained from distilling definitions written by 338 seminar attendees; what constitutes lecture was defined as “continuous exposition by the teacher” (quoted from Bligh, 2000 ). The eligible studies were situated in introductory and upper-division courses from a full range of enrollment sizes and multiple STEM disciplines and included majors and nonmajors as participants. The frequency of use and types of active-learning methodologies described in the 225 eligible studies varied widely.Quantitative analysis of the eligible studies focused on comparison of two outcome variables: 1) scores on identical or formally equivalent examinations and 2) failure rates (receipt of a “D” or “F” grade or withdrawal from the course). Major findings were that student performance on exams and other assessments (such as concept inventories) was nearly half an SD higher in active-learning versus lecture courses, with an effect size (standardized mean weighted difference) of 0.47. Analyses also revealed that average failure rates were 55% higher for students in the lecture courses than in courses with active learning. Heterogeneity analyses indicated that 1) there were no statistically significant differences in outcomes with respect to disciplines; 2) effect sizes were lower when instructor-generated exams were used versus concept inventories with both types of courses (perhaps because concept inventories tend to require more higher-order thinking skills); 3) effect sizes were not significantly different in nonmajors versus majors courses or in lower versus upper-division courses; and 4) although active learning had the greatest positive effect in smaller-enrollment courses, effect sizes were higher with active learning at all enrollment sizes. Two types of analyses, calculation of fail-safe numbers and funnel plots, supported a lack of publication bias (tendency to not publish studies with low effect sizes). Finally, the authors demonstrated that there were no statistically significant differences in effect sizes despite variation in the quality of the controls on instructor and student equivalence, supporting the important conclusion that the differences in effectiveness between the two methods were not instructor dependent.In one of the more compelling sections of this meta-analysis, the authors translated the relatively dry numbers resulting from statistical comparisons to potential impacts on the lives of the students taking STEM courses. For example, for the 29,300 students reported for the lecture treatments across all students, the average difference in failure rates (21.8% in active learning vs. 33.8% with lecture) suggests that 3516 fewer students would have failed if enrolled in an active-learning course. This and other implications for the more beneficial impact of active learning on STEM students led the authors to state, “If the experiments analyzed here had been conducted as randomized controlled trials of medical interventions, they may have been stopped for benefit.” That is, the control group condition would have been halted because of the clear, beneficial effects of the treatment. The authors conclude by suggesting additional important implications for future undergraduate STEM education research. It may no longer be justified to conduct more “first-generation” research comparing active-learning approaches with traditional lecture; rather, for greater impact on course design, second-generation researchers should focus on what types and intensities of exposure to active learning are most effective for different students, instructors, and topics.

• 2. Weiman CE (2014). Large-scale comparison of science teaching methods sends clear message. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA Early Edition, published ahead of print 22 May 2014. [Available at www.pnas.org/content/early/2014/05/21/1407304111.full.pdf+html]

This provocative commentary by Carl Weiman highlights the major findings reported in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences by Freeman et al. (2014) and underscores the implications. The graphical representations displaying the key data on effect sizes and failure rates presented in the Freeman et al. meta-analysis are redrawn in the commentary in a way that is likely to be more familiar to the typical reader, making the differences in outcomes for active learning versus lecture appear more striking. Weiman concludes by elaborating on the important implications of the meta-analysis for college-level STEM educators and administrators, suggesting that it “makes a powerful case that any college or university that is teaching its STEM courses by traditional lectures is providing an inferior education to its students. One hopes that it will inspire administrators to start paying attention to the teaching methods used in their classrooms … establishing accountability for using active-learning methods.”

• 3. Yadav A, Shaver GM, Meckl P, Firebaugh S (2014). Case-based instruction: improving students’ conceptual understanding through cases in a mechanical engineering course. J Res Sci Teach 51, 659–677.[Abstract available: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/tea.21149/full]

National societies, committee reports, and accrediting bodies recommend that engineering curricula be designed to prepare future engineers for the complex interdisciplinary nature of the field and for the multitude of skills and perspectives they will need to be successful practitioners. The authors posit that case-based instruction, with its emphasis on honing skills in solving authentic, interdisciplinary, and ill-defined problems, aligns well with these recommendations. However, the methodology is still relatively underutilized, and its effectiveness is underexamined. This article describes a study designed to advance these issues by comparing lecture- and case-based methods within the same offering of a 72-student, upper-level, required course in mechanical engineering.The study used a within-subjects, posttest only, A-B-A-B research design across four key course topics. That is, two lecture-based modules (the A or baseline phases) alternated with case-based modules (the B or treatment phases). Following each module, students responded to open-response quiz questions and a survey about learning and engagement (adapted from the Student Assessment of Learning Gains instrument). The quiz questions assessed ability to apply knowledge to problem solving (so-called “traditional” questions) and ability to explain the concepts that were used (“conceptual” questions). This study design had the advantage that the same students experienced both the baseline and treatment conditions twice. The authors describe in detail the pedagogical approaches used in both sets of the A and B phases.The quizzes were scored by independent raters (with high interrater reliability) on a 0–3 scale; scores were analyzed using appropriate statistical methods. Survey items were analyzed using a principal-components factor analysis; composite scores were generated for a learning confidence factor and an engagement–connections factor. Analyses revealed that the two pedagogical approaches had similar outcomes with respect to the traditional questions, but conceptual understanding scores (indicating better understanding of the concepts that were applied to problem solving) were significantly higher for the case-based modules. Students reported that they appreciated how cases were better than lecture in helping them make connections to real-world concerns and see the relevance of what they were learning, but there were no significant differences in students’ perceptions of their learning gains in the case-based versus the lecture modules. The authors note that many studies have likewise demonstrated that students’ perceptions of their learning gains in more learner-centered courses are often not accurate reflections of the actual learning outcomes.The authors conclude that while these results are promising indications of the effectiveness of case-based instruction in engineering curricula, the studies need to be replicated across a number of semesters and in different engineering disciplines and extended to assess the long-term effect of case-based instruction on students’ ability to remember and apply their knowledge.Although this study was limited to an engineering context, the case-based methodologies and research design seem well-suited for use in action research in other disciplines.

• 4. Heddy BC, Sinatra GM (2013). Transforming misconceptions: using transformative experience to promote positive affect and conceptual change in students’ learning about biological evolution. Sci Educ 97, 723–744.[Abstract available: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/sce.21072/abstract]

Well-documented challenges to conceptual change faced by students of evolution include the necessity of unseating existing naïve theories (such as natural selection having purposiveness), having the ability to view the complex and emergent nature of evolutionary processes through systems-type thinking, and being able to see the connections between evolutionary content learned in the classroom and everyday life events that can facilitate appreciation of its importance and motivate learning. To help students meet these challenges, the authors adapted a pedagogical model called Teaching for Transformative Experiences in Science (TTES) in the course of instruction on six major concepts in evolutionary biology. This article reports on a comparison of the effectiveness of TTES approaches in fostering conceptual change and positive affect with that of instruction enhanced with use of refutational texts (RT). Use of RTs to promote conceptual change, a strategy with documented effectiveness, entails first stating a misconception (the term used by the authors), then explicitly refuting it by elaborating on a scientific explanation. By contrast, the TTES model promotes teaching that fosters transformative learning experiences—teaching in which instructors 1) place the content in a context allows the students to see its utility or experiential value; 2) model their own transformative experiences in learning course concepts; and 3) scaffold a process that allows students to rethink or “resee” a concept from the perspective of their previous, related life experiences.The authors designed the study to address three questions relevant to the comparison of the two approaches: would the TTES group (vs. the RT group) demonstrate or report 1) greater conceptual change, 2) higher levels of transformative experience, and 3) differences in topic emotions (more positive affect) related to learning about evolution? The study used three survey instruments, one that measured the types and depth of students’ transformative experiences (the Transformative Experience Survey, adapted from Pugh et al., 2010 ), another that assessed conceptual knowledge (Evolutionary Reasoning Scale; Shulman, 2006 ), and a third that evaluated the emotional reactions of students to the evolution content they were learning (Evolution Emotions Survey, derived from Broughton et al., 2011 ). In addition to Likert-scale items, the Transformative Experience Survey contained three open-ended response questions; the responses were scored by two independent raters using a coding scheme for degree of out-of-school engagement. The authors provide additional detail about the nuances of what these instruments were designed to measure and their scoring schemes and include the instruments in the appendices. The Evolutionary Reasoning Scale and the Evolution Emotions survey were administered as both pre- and posttests, and the Transformative Experience survey was administered only at the end of the intervention. The treatment (TTES, n = 28) and comparison (RT, n = 27) groups were not significantly different with respect to all measured demographic variables and the number of high school or college-level science courses taken.Briefly, the evolutionary biology learning experience that participants were exposed to was 3 d in duration for both the treatment and comparison groups. On day 1, the instructor (the same person for both groups) gave a PowerPoint lecture on the same six evolutionary concepts, with illustrative examples. For the treatment group only, the instructor drew from his own transformative experiences in connection with the illustrative examples, describing how he used the concepts, what their value was to him, and how each had expanded his understanding and perception of evolution. On days 2 and 3 for the treatment group, the students and instructor engaged in whole-class discussions about their everyday experiences with evolution concepts (and related misconceptions) and their usefulness; the instructor scaffolded various “reseeing” experiences throughout the discussions. For the comparison group, misconceptions and refutations were addressed in the course of the day 1 lecture, and on days 2 and 3, the participants read refutational texts and then took part in discussions of the texts led by the instructor.Survey results and accompanying statistical analyses indicated that both groups exhibited gains (with significant t statistics) in understanding of the evolution concepts as measured by the Evolutionary Reasoning Scale (Shulman, 2006 ). However, the gains were greater for the treatment (TTES) group: effect size, reported as a value for eta-squared, η², equaled 0.29. The authors point out by way of context for this outcome that use of RTs, along with follow-up discussions that contrast misconceptions with scientific explanations, has been previously shown to be effective in promoting conceptual change; thus, the comparison was with a well-regarded methodology. Additionally, the Transformation Experience survey findings indicated higher levels of transformative experience for the TTES group participants; they more extensively reported that the concepts had everyday value and meaning and expanded their perspectives. The TTES group alone showed pre- to posttest gains in enjoyment while learning about evolution, a positive emotion that may have classroom implications in terms of receptivity to learning about evolution and willingness to continue study in this and related fields.The authors conclude that the TTES model can effectively engage students in transformative experiences in ways that can facilitate conceptual change in content areas in which that change is difficult to achieve. In discussing possible limitations of the study, they note in particular that the predominance of female study participants (71% of the total) argues for its replication with a more diverse sample.I invite readers to suggest current themes or articles of interest in life sciences education, as well as influential papers published in the more distant past or in the broader field of education research, to be featured in Current Insights. Please send any suggestions to Deborah Allen (ude.ledu@nellaed).     

Effective Antenatal Education: Strategies Recommended by Expectant and New Parents

Antenatal education is a crucial component of antenatal care, yet practice and research demonstrate that women and men now seek far more than the traditional approach of a birth and parenting program attended in the final weeks of pregnancy. Indeed, women and men participating in this study recommended a range of strategies to be provided during the childbearing year, comparable to a “menu in a restaurant.” Their strategies included three program types: “Hearing Detail and Asking Questions,” “Learning and Discussing,” and “Sharing and Supporting Each Other.” The characteristics of each type of program are identified in this article. The actual learning methods the study participants recommended to be incorporated into the programs were “Time to Catch Up and Focus,” “Seeing and Hearing the Real Experience,” “Practicing,” and “Discovering.”     

A Web Application for Generation of Random DNA Sequences with a Single Open Reading Frame: Exemplars for Genetics and Bioinformatics Education

A standard genetic/bioinformatic activity in the genomics era is the identification within DNA sequences of an "open reading frame" (ORF) that encodes a polypeptide sequence. As an educational introduction to such a search, we provide a webapp that composes, displays for solution, and then solves short DNA exemplars with a single ORFTo the Editor: We wish to bring a new Web resource to the attention of CBE—Life Sciences Education readers.When being introduced to the central dogma of nucleic acid transactions, students are often required to identify the 5′→3′ DNA template strand in a double-stranded DNA (dsDNA) molecule; transcribe an antiparallel, complementary 5′→3′ mRNA; and then translate the mRNA codons 5′→3′ into an amino acid polypeptide by means of the genetic code table. Although this algorithm replicates the molecular genetic process of protein synthesis, experience shows that the series of left/right, antiparallel, and/or 5′→3′ reversals is confusing to many students when worked by hand. Students may also obtain the “right” answer for the “wrong” reasons, as when the “wrong” DNA strand is transcribed in the “wrong” 3′→5′ direction, so as to produce a string of letters that “translates correctly.”In genetics and bioinformatics education, we have found it more intuitively appealing to demonstrate and emphasize the equivalence of the mRNA to the DNA sense strand complement of the template strand. The sense strand is oriented in the same 5′→3′ direction and has a sequence identical to the mRNA, except for substitution of thymidine in the DNA for uracil in the mRNA. It is thus more computationally efficient to “read” the polypeptide sequence directly from this strand, with mental substitution of thymidine in the triplets of the genetic code table. (By definition, “codons” occur only in mRNA: the equivalent three-letter words in the DNA sense strand may be designated “triplets.”) This is the same logic used in DNA “translation” software programs.A further constraint often imposed on dsDNA teaching exemplars is that five of the six possible reading frames are “closed” by the occurrence of one or more “stop” triplets, and only one is an open reading frame (ORF) that encodes an uninterrupted polypeptide. We designate this the “5&1” condition. The task for the student is to identify the ORF and “translate” it correctly. Other considerations include correct labeling of the sense and template DNA strands, their 5′ and 3′ ends (and of the mRNA as required), and the amino (N) and carboxyl (C) termini of the polypeptide.Thus, instructors face the logistical challenge of creating dsDNA sequences that satisfy the “5&1” condition for homework and exam questions. Instructors must compose sequences with one or more “stops” in the three overlapping read frames of one strand, while simultaneously creating two “stopped” frames and one ORF in the other. We have explored these constraints as an algorithmic and computational challenge (Carr et al., 2014 ). There are no “5&1” exemplars of length L ≤ 10, and the proportion of exemplars of length L ≥ 11 is very small relative to the 4^L possible sequences (e.g., 0.0023% for L = 11, 0.048% for L = 15, 0.89% for L = 25). This makes random exploration for such exemplars inefficient.We therefore developed a two-stage recursive search algorithm that samples 4^L space randomly to generate “5&1” exemplars of any specified length L from 11 ≤ L ≤ 100. The algorithm has been implemented as a Web application (“RandomORF,” available at www.ucs.mun.ca/~donald/orf/randomorf). Figure 1 shows a screen capture of the successive stages of the presentation. The application requires JavaScript on the computer used to run the Web browser.Open in a separate windowFigure 1.Successive screen captures of the webapp RandomORF. First panel: the Length parameter is the desired number of base pairs. Second panel: Clicking the “Generate dsDNA” button shows the dsDNA sequence to be solved, with labeled 5′ and 3′ ends. The button changes to “Show ORF.” Third panel: A second click shows the six reading frames, with the ORF highlighted. Here, the ORF is in the sixth reading frame on the bottom (sense) strand. The polypeptide sequence, read right to left, is N–EITHLRL–C, where N and C are the amino and carboxyl termini, respectively. The conventional IUPAC single-letter abbreviations for amino acids are centered over the middle base of the triplet; stop triplets are indicated by asterisks (*).The webapp provides a means for students to practice identifying ORFs by efficiently generating many examples with unique solutions (Supplemental Material); this can take the place of the more standard offering of a small number of set examples with an answer key. The two-stage display makes it possible for problems to be worked “cold,” with the correct ORF identified only afterward. For examinations, any exemplar may be presented in any of four ways, by transposing the top and bottom strands and/or reversing the direction of the strands left to right. Presentation of the 5′ end of the sense strand at the lower left or upper or lower right tests student recognition that sense strands are always read in the 5′→3′ direction, irrespective of the “natural” left-to-right and/or top-then-bottom order. We intend to modify the webapp to include other features of pedagogical value, including constraints on [G+C] composition and the type, number, and distribution of stop triplets. We welcome suggestions from readers.     

Developing and Assessing Curriculum on the Physics of Medical Instruments

Undergraduate educational settings often struggle to provide students with authentic biologically or medically relevant situations and problems that simultaneously improve their understanding of physics. Through exercises and laboratory activities developed in an elective Physics in Biomedicine course for upper-level biology or pre–health majors at Portland State University, we aim to teach fundamental physical concepts, such as light absorption and emission and atomic energy levels, through analysis of biological systems and medical devices. The activities address the properties of electromagnetic waves as they relate to the interaction with biological tissue and make links between physics and biomedical applications such as microscopy or laser eye surgery. We report on the effect that engaging students in tasks with actual medical equipment has had on their conceptual understanding of light and spectroscopy. These initial assessments indicate that students’ understanding improves in some areas as a result of taking the course, but gains are not uniform and are relatively low for other topics. We also find a promising “nonshift” in student attitudes toward learning science as a result of taking the course. A long-term goal of this work is to develop these materials to the extent that they can eventually be imported into an introductory curriculum for life sciences majors.     

Getting Under the Hood: How and for Whom Does Increasing Course Structure Work?

At the college level, the effectiveness of active-learning interventions is typically measured at the broadest scales: the achievement or retention of all students in a course. Coarse-grained measures like these cannot inform instructors about an intervention''s relative effectiveness for the different student populations in their classrooms or about the proximate factors responsible for the observed changes in student achievement. In this study, we disaggregate student data by racial/ethnic groups and first-generation status to identify whether a particular intervention—increased course structure—works better for particular populations of students. We also explore possible factors that may mediate the observed changes in student achievement. We found that a “moderate-structure” intervention increased course performance for all student populations, but worked disproportionately well for black students—halving the black–white achievement gap—and first-generation students—closing the achievement gap with continuing-generation students. We also found that students consistently reported completing the assigned readings more frequently, spending more time studying for class, and feeling an increased sense of community in the moderate-structure course. These changes imply that increased course structure improves student achievement at least partially through increasing student use of distributed learning and creating a more interdependent classroom community.     

Timing of Homework Completion vs. Performance in General Chemistry

The goal of this study was to investigate the timing of online homework completion and its effects on student performance. Data was collected from two large, first-semester general chemistry sections at a southwestern university. Specifically, this study aims to explore the link between when students complete their homework relative to the date the material was covered in lecture and student performance in that class. Topics covered in the study included VSEPR, Lewis structures, and molecular geometry. Performance was measured by different variables, namely in-class clicker scores (short-term) and exam grade (long-term). Students were divided into three groups: students who completed the relevant homework within 2 days after the lecture (before the next lecture), those who completed the homework 2 to 4 days after the lecture, and students who completed the homework more than 4 days after the material was covered in lecture. The study also took into consideration student reasoning abilities, as measured by the Test of Logical Thinking (TOLT), with a focus on at-risk students (low TOLT students). Results showed promising findings for low TOLT students. Instructors can employ results from this study to help their students better utilize the online homework resources.