Does the digital need to divide us?

The presence and use of digital devices in our classrooms prompts polarizing discussions and debates among educators. The vast majority of our students carry at least one web-enabled device, providing endless options for distraction of themselves and others. At the same time, applications for this technology also provide the means to support practises known to help learning, such as increasing engagement, providing opportunities for frequent formative/low-stakes feedback, and collaborative/peer learning. Feelings are strong about both the pros and cons of technology in the classroom. Some educators have opted for differing approaches to this issue: some banning laptops, tablets and cell phones in the classroom while others deliberately engage such devices in classroom activities. We will explore the recent literature/evidence relating to the impact of student device use in the classroom, concerns regarding note-taking, and benefits of bring your own device (BYOD) educational technology. Participant discussion will explore approaches that could be used in our own classes, keeping in mind major research findings

A Tale of Two Classes: Student and Instructor Perceptions of Two-Stage Tutorials in Introductory Genetics Classes

Two-stage exams are those in which students first write a test independently and then, immediately after, write the same, or similar, exam as small groups, effectively teaching and learning from each other. This approach has been reported to improve students’ performance on subsequent individual tests, encourages a collaborative approach to problem solving, and turns exams into learning experiences (e.g., Gilley & Clarkston, 2014). To enhance genetics problem solving skills of undergraduate students, the second year genetics classes at the University of Toronto Mississauga (n=440) and York University (n=250) were redesigned to incorporate not only two-stage exams, but also a two-stage model adapted for both our in-class activities (i.e., Peer Instruction) and course-associated tutorials. Here we report on our studies on repurposing of the two-stage exam approach for tutorials to encourage collaborative learning and problem solving. In tutorials, students completed a short problem set assignment (2 to 3 questions, related to the previous week’s material) on their own, followed by completion of the same, or a more challenging problem set, in groups of 3 to 4. In this session, we will provide a discussion of the relevant research on two-stage exams, describe and model the set-up of these tutorials at our respective institutions, and explore student* and instructor perceptions, including those of TAs, as well as lessons learned. We welcome participants’ input, discussion, and feedback to help improve the use of two-stage tutorials in future. *IRB-approval to collect and share perceptions of this implementation. References: Gilley BH and Clarkston B. 2014. Collaborative testing: evidence of learning in a controlled in-class study of undergraduate students. Journal of College Science Teaching 43(3): 83-91

Science Education Mythbusters: Challenging the idea of expected grade distributions and “anomalous grades”

As we know with students, unseating misconceptions and deeply held personal myths is a challenging but necessary part of learning. As scientists, we are accustomed to questioning hypotheses and evaluating evidence. However, as science educators, it can be difficult to recognize our own assumptions about teaching/learning, and how they may be affecting our practise.In this session, we will review the literature, weigh the evidence, and discuss misconceptions surrounding grade distributions in science courses. (In a course, is there an expected or ideal grade distribution? An ideal average? Are deviations from expected grade distributions indicative of problems? Are science courses harder than non-science courses, which should be reflected in grade distributions?) Recent cases in Canadian universities have highlighted the controversy surrounding grade distribution policies (Petz, 2010). Approaches to teaching and assessment (and, potentially, tenure and promotion) of science educators may be impacted by university/faculty/departmental grading expectations. A brief overview of the literature will be followed by directed discussion.Possible questions for debate/discussion:1. What are the current practises/policies at our own institutions/departments?2. What effects do the misconceptions have on science students? Faculty members?3. How can improvements in teaching/learning be assessed (i.e., do improvements in grades indicate improved teaching/learning)?4. Is grade inflation actually occurring in science courses? (And, if so, is this a major concern?)5. What strategies are most effective for exploring the topic with colleagues (faculty/TAs)?Reference:Petz, S. 2010. Alberta prof asked to resign over grades dispute. Maclean’s Magazine Blog: http://oncampus.macleans.ca/education/2010/12/31/alberta-prof-asked-to-resign-over-grades-dispute/ Retrieved May 31, 2011

Science Education Mythbusters: Challenging “Learning styles”

As we know with students, unseating misconceptions and deeply held personal myths is a challenging but necessary part of learning. As scientists, we are accustomed to questioning hypotheses and evaluating evidence. However, as science educators, it can be difficult to recognize our own assumptions about teaching/learning, and how they may be affecting our practise. In this session, we review the literature, weigh the evidence, and have a directed discussion of misconceptions surrounding learning styles (i.e., the idea that some students learn significantly better visually vs. kinaesthetically, etc.) This idea is prevalent not only among faculty, but also graduate students and undergraduates, and students may feel that their needs are not being met. However, the concept of preferred learning styles (as defined above) is not supported by empirical research. Possible questions for debate/discussion: 1. What’s the harm in propagating the idea of ‘learning styles’? How does the idea of Learning Styles shape faculty approaches to teaching? Evaluation of teaching for tenure/promotion? Would the time and effort of faculty who try to accommodate preferred learning styles be better put towards more effective strategies known to promote increased student learning? How do these misconceptions shape student expectations and affect student perceptions of teaching (which often surface on evaluations)? 2. What strategies are most effective for exploring the topic with colleagues (faculty/TAs)? Students? Attendees will gain knowledge of the literature surrounding learning styles. As well, attendees will be able to respond to individuals who persist in promoting the idea of learning styles

Does group composition impact group scores in two-stage collaborative exams?

Recently, two-stage exams were introduced in two large second year genetic courses (\u3e250 students) at two different universities. The courses follow similar formats and use course learning outcomes, activities, and materials developed by the two instructors. Two-stage exams are those in which students first write an exam individually, followed immediately by a second stage in which they write the same, or similar, exam as part of a small group. Student exam grades comprised 85% individual score and 15% group score. Typically, exam scores improved in the group portion, however, the extent of the improvement varied between groups, and for several group scores were lower than the average of members’ individual scores. The goal of this project is to identify factors that may influence learning and student performance gains (Group Score – Average of Members’ Individual Scores) in the collaborative component. To determine group-composition factors that impact group scores, we compared individual and group scores from midterm and final exams, of fixed (group members stayed the same throughout all 3 exams) and dynamic (composition of group members changed in at least one exam) groups. Preliminary results show that while group composition does not have a significant effect on predicting group score, the average individual performance of students in a group impact student gains (the difference between a group’s score and the average of the members’ individual scores). We hope to use this opportunity to discuss different approaches to assess factors impacting performance on collaborative exams

Adjusting teaching loads to recognize the new reality of teaching

Teaching science courses seems to take more time these days. Contributing factors include an explosion of cognitive science and discipline-based education research, an increased awareness of student health and wellness, and lessons learned from pandemic teaching, which increased student support and technology use. Underpinning current and ongoing innovation is a commitment to ensure all students feel they belong in and can learn science. Investing time in teaching science more effectively also contributes to our own sense of belonging in a professional community of post-secondary educators. Evidence-informed teaching typically involves developing and delivering multiple low stakes assignments—including in-class activities—incorporating flexibility to create inclusive classrooms, and more complex course websites. These can require more preparation and administrative time and increased communication with students. Even if available, TA teams require training and often flexibility to accommodate graduate student needs. These responsibilities seem greater than what was expected years ago when a midterm and three lecture hours were sufficient. What seems to have been missed, or perhaps strategically ignored, by administrators is the negative impact on faculty workload and mental health. Here we’ll explore the impact of changing teaching strategies on the time it takes to deliver a course, and collaboratively generate a “how to” guide looking at ways of measuring and monitoring the impact of changes in science teaching on workload, as well as strategies for effectively advocating for updates to teaching workloads. Just as our teaching should create inclusive environments that are sensitive to mental health and wellbeing, so too should our work environments. Please bring an internet enabled device (e.g., smartphone) so that you can participate in polls and share ideas with online participants

Team teaching as an agent for change

While the traditional image of the university or college course is often one professor delivering lectures and other course elements alone to a relatively small class, the modern course can be quite different. Large multi-sectioned courses may have a different instructor for each section, often with one instructor serving as coordinator. In other cases two or more faculty members may be involved in delivering a single course section. Courses with labs typically include a lab coordinator as well. These groups form different types of “teaching teams”, and the dynamics of these teams often stimulate change – in pedagogy, teaching philosophy, curriculum, student experience, scholarship and other elements. This panel will explore the ways in which team teaching can act as an agent of change. Panel members will reflect on their own experiences as members of different types of teaching teams, and hope to stimulate a broad and lively exchange with the audience, gathering and synthesizing different perspectives towards building a collective understanding of the potential impact of this teaching format. The session outcome will be an enhanced appreciation for the power and promise of collaborative teaching in generating transformation and change

Nutrition Professionals’ Knowledge, Consumption and Recommendations of Whole Grains

Project of Merit Winner Research outcome: To determine the relationship between nutrition professionals’ knowledge, consumption, and recommendations of whole grains. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted with nutrition professionals (n=480). Participants were recruited via email and social media from October 2020-February 2021. The participants completed a validated 21-question survey about whole grain knowledge, consumption, and recommendations. Analysis: The analyses included descriptive statistics and Pearson correlation tests. Results: Survey respondents included 72.5% Registered Dietitians Nutritionists (RD/RDN) and 27.5% RD in training (e.g. dietetic intern, student). Nutrition professionals felt whole grains were important in their own diet (93%) and their patient/clients’ diet (75%). A slight majority of nutrition professionals (58%) strongly or somewhat agreed that “personal grain preference influences the grains that you recommend to patients/clients”, despite 67% agreeing to the statement, “client income/background influences the types of grains you recommend to patients/clients.” Nutrition professionals correctly classified 14.9±3.2 of the 23 food classification questions and 9.6±1.8 for the 11 whole grain knowledge statements. Nutrition professionals with direct patient care (n=373) have personally consumed 15.9±3.74 different grains and recommended 9±4.15, the correlation being r=0.29, indicating a significant positive correlation. Conclusions: Nutrition professionals were able to identify whole grain foods and demonstrated knowledge of whole grain benefits; however, there was a disconnect between knowledge and recommendations. Future research should further investigate nutrition professionals’ knowledge, beliefs, and attitudes towards whole grains. To align nutrition professionals’ whole grain knowledge and recommendation practices, there is a need for enhanced training and education on whole grain varieties

Intestinal antimicrobial gene expression: impact of micronutrients in malnourished adults during a randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Because both micronutrients and antimicrobial peptides protect against diarrhea, we looked for an effect on intestinal antimicrobial peptide gene expression during a randomized controlled trial of multiple micronutrient (MM) supplementation. METHODS: Consenting adults (n=287) in Lusaka, Zambia, were randomized to receive a daily MM supplement or placebo and were followed up for 3.3 years, with a crossover after 2 years. Intestinal biopsy samples were obtained at annual intervals, and messenger RNA of the intestinal antimicrobial peptides human alpha defensin (HD) 5, HD6, human beta-defensin (hBD) 1, hBD2, and LL-37 were quantified by real-time reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction. Samples were also obtained during diarrhea episodes and after convalescence. RESULTS: There was no effect overall of treatment allocation. However, in malnourished adults (body mass index < or =18.5), HD5 mRNA was increased by 0.8 log transcripts/microg total RNA in MM recipients, compared with HD5 mRNA in placebo recipients (P=.007). During diarrhea, HD5 expression was reduced by 0.8 log transcripts in placebo recipients (P=.02) but was not reduced in MM recipients, nor was it reduced after the crossover. Correlations between HD5 and nutritional status were found that were sex-specific but not explained by serum leptin or adiponectin concentrations. CONCLUSIONS: Micronutrient supplementation was associated with up-regulation of HD5 only in malnourished adults. Interactions between antimicrobial gene expression and nutritional status may help to explain the increased risk of infection in individuals with malnutrition