Welcome to Bio 201, blended learning style

1. Welcome to Bio 201, blended learning style! Instructor: Kerry Henrickson

2. Why the blended format? Convenience for students Better performance than students in face-to-face (f2f) classes Pew Grant study Fairfield University, second-year biology (88% vs. 79% on exam questions) University of Massachusetts, Amherst, intro biology (73% vs. 61% on exams) Increases student activity and interactivity inside and outside the classroom Promotes a stronger learning community Continuous assessment and feedback Use technology to our advantage and face-to-face to our advantage Fairfield University Improved Learning Students in the redesigned course performed significantly better on benchmark exam questions. The questions on the new exams were designed to test higher order thinking and allow students to synthesize material from the basic concepts. In addition, specific exam questions incorporated in the second year genetics course (required of all biology majors) were used to measure the retention of key concepts and compare the performance of traditional students and redesign students. Students from the redesigned course performed significantly better on this set of questions than did students from the traditional course (88% correct vs. 79% correct, respectively). Improved Retention After the first semester of full-scale implementation, the DFW rate dropped. Only 3% of the students in the redesign decided to drop the course compared to an average of close to 8% in previous years. There was no significant change in the failure or withdrawal rates. Furthermore, the number of students who decided to enroll in the second semester of the course approached 85% compared to less than 75% in previous years. There was a 4% increase in the number of declared majors between freshman and sophomore years after implementing the redesigned course. Other Impacts on Students Instructors observed that students were more likely to work through problems when working in teams. Interactive online labs where students worked in teams on inquiry-based tasks facilitated sophisticated and in-depth discussions that were extremely rare in the traditional course. Instructors observed improvement in the data analysis skills students learned from the computer-based activities as well as their ability to represent and present their data in a clear and concise manner. University of Massachusetts, Amherst Improved Learning In the traditional course, exam scores averaged 61%, while in the redesigned course, exam scores averaged 73%, a significant increase. Furthermore, careful analysis revealed a profound shift in the focus and difficulty of exam questions. In the traditional course, the vast majority of questions were designed to test recall of factual material or definitions of terms, and only a minority of questions (23%) required reasoning or problem solving skills. In the redesigned course, 67% of the questions required problem-solving skills. These results are consistent with the nature and intent of the redesign. Online resources were created to help students learn basic content and class time was modified to allow students to practice problem solving and receive real time feedback on specific challenges they experienced. Students not only learned considerable detailed content but also learned to apply that content to solve rich problems addressing a wide range of biological questions. To test whether students could generalize the problem-solving skills they developed to solve novel problems involving content not specifically covered in the course, the faculty developed a pair of scientific reasoning and problem solving tests in collaboration with a group of cognitive science faculty. The matched tests were administered in a pre/post format with students taking the pre-test the first week of classes and the post-test the last week. The tests were a hybrid multiple choice/short answer design in which students were presented with models of a biological systems, asked to solve problems that required use of the models, and then asked to explain their reasoning. In the redesign, student performance on the post-test improved significantly, a full standard deviation higher than the pre-test. These results strongly reinforced positive results from course exams. Improved Retention Student success rates (C or higher in the course) were 63.2% in the traditional course, 65.2% in the partial redesign and 68.1% in the full redesign, a reassuring but statistically insignificant increase. Other Impacts on Students The course redesign had a strong positive effect on student attendance. In the full redesign, attendance averaged 89.9% for the entire semester compared to 67% in the traditional course, which correlated significantly to performance on exams. When student exam data were split into two groups, the one with attendance higher than 90% had average exam scores of 78.4%, and the other with attendance lower than 90% had average exam scores of 63.6%. These attendance data reinforce the interpretation that the redesigned course not only encourages students to come to class, but also presents a classroom environment that has a significant positive effect on student learning. These results are in sharp contrast to observations from other introductory courses where a weak or non-existent effect of attendance on course performance has been noted.Fairfield University Improved Learning Students in the redesigned course performed significantly better on benchmark exam questions. The questions on the new exams were designed to test higher order thinking and allow students to synthesize material from the basic concepts. In addition, specific exam questions incorporated in the second year genetics course (required of all biology majors) were used to measure the retention of key concepts and compare the performance of traditional students and redesign students. Students from the redesigned course performed significantly better on this set of questions than did students from the traditional course (88% correct vs. 79% correct, respectively). Improved Retention After the first semester of full-scale implementation, the DFW rate dropped. Only 3% of the students in the redesign decided to drop the course compared to an average of close to 8% in previous years. There was no significant change in the failure or withdrawal rates. Furthermore, the number of students who decided to enroll in the second semester of the course approached 85% compared to less than 75% in previous years. There was a 4% increase in the number of declared majors between freshman and sophomore years after implementing the redesigned course. Other Impacts on Students Instructors observed that students were more likely to work through problems when working in teams. Interactive online labs where students worked in teams on inquiry-based tasks facilitated sophisticated and in-depth discussions that were extremely rare in the traditional course. Instructors observed improvement in the data analysis skills students learned from the computer-based activities as well as their ability to represent and present their data in a clear and concise manner. University of Massachusetts, Amherst Improved Learning In the traditional course, exam scores averaged 61%, while in the redesigned course, exam scores averaged 73%, a significant increase. Furthermore, careful analysis revealed a profound shift in the focus and difficulty of exam questions. In the traditional course, the vast majority of questions were designed to test recall of factual material or definitions of terms, and only a minority of questions (23%) required reasoning or problem solving skills. In the redesigned course, 67% of the questions required problem-solving skills. These results are consistent with the nature and intent of the redesign. Online resources were created to help students learn basic content and class time was modified to allow students to practice problem solving and receive real time feedback on specific challenges they experienced. Students not only learned considerable detailed content but also learned to apply that content to solve rich problems addressing a wide range of biological questions. To test whether students could generalize the problem-solving skills they developed to solve novel problems involving content not specifically covered in the course, the faculty developed a pair of scientific reasoning and problem solving tests in collaboration with a group of cognitive science faculty. The matched tests were administered in a pre/post format with students taking the pre-test the first week of classes and the post-test the last week. The tests were a hybrid multiple choice/short answer design in which students were presented with models of a biological systems, asked to solve problems that required use of the models, and then asked to explain their reasoning. In the redesign, student performance on the post-test improved significantly, a full standard deviation higher than the pre-test. These results strongly reinforced positive results from course exams. Improved Retention Student success rates (C or higher in the course) were 63.2% in the traditional course, 65.2% in the partial redesign and 68.1% in the full redesign, a reassuring but statistically insignificant increase. Other Impacts on Students The course redesign had a strong positive effect on student attendance. In the full redesign, attendance averaged 89.9% for the entire semester compared to 67% in the traditional course, which correlated significantly to performance on exams. When student exam data were split into two groups, the one with attendance higher than 90% had average exam scores of 78.4%, and the other with attendance lower than 90% had average exam scores of 63.6%. These attendance data reinforce the interpretation that the redesigned course not only encourages students to come to class, but also presents a classroom environment that has a significant positive effect on student learning. These results are in sharp contrast to observations from other introductory courses where a weak or non-existent effect of attendance on course performance has been noted.

3. How will I learn in this class? F2F lectures F2F activities Weekly discussion questions online Online lectures ilinc Online assignments Online activities with other learners Online office hours with Kerry

4. What do I need for Bio 201? Lecture packet Print out before coming to class; no exceptions! Three- ring binder Textbook Clicker Registered before next class Computer and internet access Including an email account by next class; no exceptions! Three-prong, two pocket folder Other items 3X5 note cards Colored pencils (not required, but a very good idea) Adequate study time each week

5. How much time is enough? 4 credits = _______ hours per week study groups Don�t procrastinate! Weekly quizzes will help prevent procrastination Massed practice vs. distributed practice�

6. What are the advantages of distributed practice? Opportunity for review and reinforcement Better retention of information Longer retention of information Remember: this class is CUMULATIVE! From: http://www.aft.org/pubs-reports/american_educator/summer2002/askcognitivescientist.html, accessed 11/22/05 Geoffrey Keppel (1967) had college students learn pairs of nonsense syllables and adjectives (e.g., lum-happy). They were to learn the list so that when they saw the syllable, they could provide the matching adjective. All subjects studied the list eight times, but for half of the subjects, all eight trials occurred on the same day (massed practice) and the other subjects studied the list two times on each of four successive days (distributed practice). Keppel tested their memory of the list either 24 hours after the final study session, or a week later. From: http://www.aft.org/pubs-reports/american_educator/summer2002/askcognitivescientist.html, accessed 11/22/05 Geoffrey Keppel (1967) had college students learn pairs of nonsense syllables and adjectives (e.g., lum-happy). They were to learn the list so that when they saw the syllable, they could provide the matching adjective. All subjects studied the list eight times, but for half of the subjects, all eight trials occurred on the same day (massed practice) and the other subjects studied the list two times on each of four successive days (distributed practice). Keppel tested their memory of the list either 24 hours after the final study session, or a week later.

7. How should I prepare for tests? 5 exams, 6 lab practicals Think about an activity/sport in which you have competed in the past How did you prepare for that tournament/ race/challenge/ presentation?

8. What�s the best approach for studying? That depends on you! Bio 201 first assignment Find out what kind of learner you are at www.vark-learn.com ! Due for initials next class

9. What else do I need to know about class? Expect to actively learn Three modalities for learning Hands-on discovery, drawing, clay sculpting, prep-work before lecture The learning pyramid We tend to comprehend: 10% of what we READ 20% of what we HEAR 30% of what we SEE 50% of what we both HEAR and SEE 70% of what we SAY 90% of what we both SAY and DO

10. What else do I need to know about class? Test corrections Syllabus Exploration--also due next class Go to Kerry�s Bio 201 blackboard website (http://solo.cochise.edu/) Follow the instructions in the syllabus exploration for what to do next on Blackboard

11. Anything else before we get started? Humor helps! Get to know each other Exchange phone numbers with three other students (see syllabus) Something no one else knows about me is�

12. What is anatomy and physiology? Anatomy= study of _______________ Physiology= study of ______________ Both can be studied at many levels (from organismal to microscopic) Studying together allows for greater understanding The two go hand in hand, but which came first?

13. What is the structural hierarchy of the body? From simple to complex: Chemical level: sub-atomic particles, atoms, molecules, organelles Cells Tissues Organs Organ systems Organism

14. What are the 11 organ systems? Integumentary Muscular Skeletal Circulatory Lymphatic Respiratory Urinary Digestive Reproductive Nervous Endocrine

15. How are body systems interdependent? Homeostasis maintains stability Internal set points maintained Stable, though not static Negative feedback loops promote homeostasis Nearly all feedback loops in the body are negative feedback loops

16. What are negative feedback loops? Response to problem state in the reverse or opposite direction If you�re hot Sweating, vasodilation If you�re cold Shivering, vasoconstriction

17. What are positive feedback loops? Rare, explosive Response to problem state is in the same direction Heightens problem state instead of dissipating it

18. Childbirth Pressure on cervix stimulates pituitary gland P. gland releases oxytocin Contractions promoted Others: orgasm, fever, blood clotting

19. What organelles do I have to know? Plasma membrane Nucleus Nucleolus Nuclear envelope Cytoplasm (and cytosol) Cytoskeleton Microtubules Microfilaments Intermediate filaments Ribosomes Endoplasmic reticulum Rough Smooth Golgi apparatus Lysosome Peroxisomes Microvilli Cilia Flagellum Centriole Mitochondria