Kristen Short Assistant Professor of Biology Manchester University

1. Strategies for engaging learners in a large-enrollment biology course: addressing diverse approaches to learning Kristen Short Assistant Professor of Biology Manchester University

2. Overview • Background information and rationale • Defining and measuring diversity • Results of data collected in my classroom • Implications for pedagogy • Conclusions

3. What is diversity? • Age (traditional vs. non-traditional) • Race/ethnicity • Gender • First generation college students • Learning modalities • Approach to learning, motivation

4. Motivations for learning(Martin & Saljo 1976, Ramsden 1988, Biggs 1987 & 1993, Entwistle 1981) • Deep learners: learn for the sake of learning • Intrinsically motivated • Tend to embrace and enjoy challenge • Surface learners: avoid failure • Extrinsically motivated • Avoid challenge at all cost • Strategic learners: earn good grades • Extrinsically motivated • Organized form of surface learning • Tend to avoid challenge, especially if it is incompatible with good grades

5. Connects concepts within/between courses Relates learning to everyday experiences Finds meaning in learning Sees concepts as isolated pieces of information Does not relate learning to experience Memorizes meaningless information A deep learner… A surface learner…

6. Deep vs. surface learning • Not really a learner attribute • Approach to learning • May be driven by • Learner preferences • Past learning experiences • Classroom environment • Pedagogy

7. Why I care… • AAAS in Vision and Change has called for more deep learning in science courses • Deficiencies of surface approaches recognized in medical, pharmacy, law school • PBL and case studies now promote deep learning in those contexts • Does a student’s approach to learning affect how he/she responds to my teaching methods?

8. Main questions • Is there a relationship between approach to learning and learning gains? • Is there a relationship between approach to learning and response to teaching strategies?

9. My molecular biology class profile: 52 students All science majors

10. Assessing approach to learning • Study process questionnaire sometimes used (Biggs 1987, 2001) • My assessment for this course: 6 questions • Students rated: • Learning in this course • Response to challenge • Questioning techniques • Views of learning • Students given score 8-24 points • Lower third = surface; upper third = deep

11. How would you describe your learning in this course? • I have memorized information that never really made sense and was meaningless to me • I have memorized information that made sense at the time, but have quickly forgotten it • I have understood information, but could never apply it to new situations • I have understood and been able to apply my knowledge to new situations

12. In this course I • Asked lots of questions that helped me to see connections between real life and course content • Asked lots of questions to try to further understand course content • Asked lots of questions about what would be on the test • Did not ask questions

13. My view of learning is • I love learning just for the sake of learning • I learn enough to get the grade I want to earn • I learn the bare minimum to scrape by

14. When I encountered challenge in this course, I typically • Felt invigorated; this motivates me to learn • Felt excited but also nervous about how it would affect my grades • Felt annoyed; I would rather not deal with it • Felt defeated; challenge shakes my confidence and makes me less motivated to learn

15. Classifying learners • Approach to learning: • Deep N = 11 • Strategic N = 32 • Surface N = 4 • Effort: • 3 questions about hours spent preparing, effort during class, and studying for tests • deeper learners are harder workers, with some exceptions (Spearman r = 0.43, P = 0.0012) • Confidence: • 2 questions about confidence in biology, and confidence in this course

16. Assessing Learning Gains • 38 content questions • Multiple choice • Answer choices equally represented • Tested low to high levels of thinking • Asked on first and last day of class • No studying

17. Results: learning gains • On both pre- and post-tests, students knew significantly more than expected by random guessing (9.5) • Pre-test mean = 13.5 (t51 = 10.5; P < 0.001) • Post-test mean = 22 (t48= 13.9; P < 0.001) • Significant increase in content knowledge over time (t48 = 9.36; P <0.001)

18. Were learning gains correlated with other factors? • Learner approach score not correlated with learning gains (change pre-post), despite correlation with content knowledge at both time points individually (Pre: Spearman r = 0.29, P = 0.04; Post: Spearman r = 0.33, P = 0.02)

19. Were learning gains correlated with other factors? • Effort? No (Spearman r = -0.03) • Confidence at the end of the course? Yes (Spearman r = 0.38, P = 0.007) • Lower confidence, lower learning gains

20. Results: confidence Significant decrease over time (t51 = -4.29; P<0.0001) Significant correlation between learner approach score and change in confidence (Spearman r = 0.43; P = 0.0014) Significant correlation between learner approach score and confidence at end of course (Spearman r = 0.47, P = 0.0004)

21. Teaching strategies • Does a student’s approach to learning affect how he/she responds to teaching methods? • Do surface/strategic learners prefer passive learning? • Are some methods better than others for engaging surface/strategic learners?

22. Active learning: Student-centered Students are talking Students construct knowledge Passive learning: Teacher-centered Teacher is talking Students receive knowledge Active versus passive learning

23. The learning activity that… • Deep learners had relatively even distribution for both • Strategic learners showed large shift from lecture (45%) to more even distribution, with case studies being slightly preferred (32%) • Surface learners showed no difference (preferred lecture for both)

24. When we did XXX in class, I • Really enjoyed this because it gave me the chance to engage in my own learning • Enjoyed this but would have been just as happy to have Dr. Short do it for us/hear a lecture • Did not see the relevance of this activity

25. Concept mapping • Construct a concept map using the following terms: • Helicase • Telomerase • Primase • Hydrogen bonds • Phosphodiester bonds • …

26. Concept Mapping • 50% of students enjoyed increased engagement • Correlation with learner approach (Spearman r = 0.53, P = 0.0002)

27. Case Studies • A form of PBL • Collection of cases: http://sciencecases.lib.buffalo.edu/cs/about/ • Used DNP case study to teach cellular respiration

28. Case Studies • 51% of students enjoyed increased engagement • No correlation with learner approach

29. Peer Discussion

30. Peer Discussion • 69% of students enjoyed increased engagement • No correlation with learner approach

31. Clickers • Real-time assessment • Low-stakes opportunity for engagement • Practice questions

32. Clickers • 89% of students enjoyed increased engagement • Correlation with learner approach (Spearman r = 0.30, P = 0.04)

33. Active/passive score correlated with learner approach: deep learners more receptive to active learning (Spearman r = 0.40, P = 0.0058)

34. Conclusions: student diversity • Surface/strategic learners are losing confidence • More confidence-building activities • More formative assessment • Deeper learners are more receptive to active learning, but most realize some benefit • More case studies, PBL • More explicit teaching philosophy • Of methods I tested, clickers were highly successful with all groups

35. Remaining questions • Learning retention differences? • Approach to learning • Teaching strategies • Do approaches to learning change from first day to last day? • Are changes in approach to learning influenced by grouping strategies?