Introduction:
The Illinois Mathematics and Science Academy (IMSA), located in Aurora Illinois, is a public, three- year residential high school for students who are academically talented in mathematics and/or science. Students apply in their freshman year and are chosen based on test scores and grades as well as other accomplishments, such as extracurricular projects or performances. About 10-15% of the sophomore class enters IMSA from the eighth grade.
The sophomore program consists of three content- based, one-semester core courses in biology, chemistry, and physics, and one methods-in- science course. Sophomores take two science classes per semester. About 80% of the sophomores have had a previous biology course. We offer a placement test and approximately 9% place into a biology elective and the other 91% are enrolled in the Scientific Inquiries - Biology (SIB) course (Scheppler, Dosch, Styer, & Rogg, 2005)

O\u27Leary-Driscoll, Sarah

Styer, Susan C

English

Illinois Mathematics and Science Academy: DigitalCommons@IMSA

Spring 2010    17Assessing Differences in Students’Experiences in Traditional versusScientific Teaching-Based Biology Course By Sarah O’Leary and Susan C. Styer, Illinois Mathematics and Science AcademySarah O’Leary and Susan C.Styer are members of theBiology Faculty at the IllinoisMathematics and ScienceAcademy. They invite yourcomments on ScientificTeaching.Introduction The Illinois Mathematics and Science Academy(IMSA), located in Aurora Illinois, is a public, three-year residential high school for students who areacademically talented in mathematics and/or science.Students apply in their freshman year and arechosen based on test scores and grades as well asother accomplishments, such as extracurricularprojects or performances. About 10-15% of thesophomore class enters IMSA from the eighth grade. The sophomore program consists of three content-based, one-semester core courses in biology,chemistry, and physics, and one methods-in-science course. Sophomores take two scienceclasses per semester. About 80% of thesophomores have had a previous biology course.We offer a placement test and approximately 9%place into a biology elective and the other 91% areenrolled in the Scientific Inquiries - Biology (SIB)course (Scheppler, Dosch, Styer, & Rogg, 2005).  The mission statement of IMSA is to “ignite andnurture creative, ethical, scientific minds thatadvance the human condition.” This correspondswith the recent reform movements in scienceeducation that emphasize the development ofscientific habits of mind through studentengagement in the process of science (NRC, 1996).  One program that focuses on developing scientifichabits of mind is Scientific Teaching (ST),developed by the Wisconsin Program for ScientificTeaching (Handelsman, Miller, & Pfund, 2007).Students learning science through ST parallel thepractice of science. They are active in questioning,investigating, analyzing, and discovering. When teaching focuses on scientific practicesrather than facts, student learning and knowledgeretention increases. ST also models the collabora-tive process of science by including a diversity ofstudent perspectives and experiences that aid insolving problems. Engaging all students in theclassroom produces better-educated graduateswith more highly developed cognitive skills.Regular feedback is another tenet of ST. Built intothe lesson, teachers continually assess whetherlearning goals are achieved and if changes areneeded to improve instruction. This feedback alsoallows students to gauge their own progress on aregular basis.To replicate the practice of science in a classroom,an ST course is designed to give students an activepart in their learning. Active leaning can take manyforms, but ultimately requires students to beengaged through inquiry-based learning, cooperativelearning, and student-centered learning. Whethertaking a few minutes or an entire class period,learners develop new knowledge and understandingbased on something they worked on.  This constructivist approach requires that studentsgain understanding by building their ownknowledge (Treagust, Duit, & Fraser, 1996) andnot merely acting as passive recipients. Forexample, instead of a class period focused onlecture only, students can be provided with someinformation and then asked to come up withquestions, investigate by means of a lab oractivity, or analyze data.  In a biology class, then, students might includepuzzle through case studies and pedigrees,hypothesize about bacterial growth on differentmedia, put complex cell processes in sequence,examine data to determine a causal relationship ingene regulation, or draw a concept map aboutdiseases and their underlying causes. Active learning can be done individually, inactivities where students work alone and then putSarah O’Leary(soleary@imsa.edu)Susan C. Styer(sstyer@imsa.edu)18   NCSSSMST Journaltheir ideas together, or in groups, all of which takeadvantage of the benefits of the diversity ofexperience and perspective of their classmates.Immediate feedback from each other and theteacher then help both the teacher and the studentsdetermine their progress and understanding.One of our goals for the SIB course was toincorporate ST - active learning, diversity, andassessment - as much as possible. Students oftensay that the SIB course is different from any otherclass they were enrolled in before coming toIMSA. In addition, in the first semester, they areadjusting to the challenges of living away fromhome, having more homework, and beingencouraged to learn more and think differently inclass than they are used to. We therefore wanted to take a closer look at whatspecific differences exist between students’experiences in previous science classes at their homeschools and SIB at IMSA in order to identify factorsthat make SIB unique and to identify areas forchange so that we can help make transitions easier.Materials and MethodsTo make our survey we chose 34 questions thatwere applicable to ST from the ConstructivistLearning Environment Survey (CLES) (Fraser,1998) and the Individualized ClassroomEnvironment Questionnaire (ICEQ) (Fraser, 1990).The questions specifically examine active learning,diversity, assessment, and classroom environmentand use Likert scale response categories from 1 to5 (1 = never; 2 = almost never; 3 = sometimes; 4= often; 5 = always). We categorized the 34questions into four subsets: Active Learning,Assessment, Diversity, and ClassroomEnvironment; some questions fell into two of thesecategories and those results are reported in bothsubsets. See Table 1 for the survey questions.IMSA’s Human and Animal Subjects ReviewCommittee approved the survey process before itwas administered to students. At the beginning ofthe fall semester, 126 sophomores enrolled in SIBcompleted the survey with respect to their lastyear’s science course. At the end of the semester,115 students responded with reference to SIB,with numbers differing due to attrition.For analysis, we combined response categories 1-2and 3-5, corresponding generally to rare vs. frequentoccurrences, because we were looking for broaddifferences in the students’ classroom experiences intheir previous schools as compared to SIB.  Results and Discussion   A one-tailed Mann-Whitney U test was performedon the survey data. As shown in Table 1,responses for 31 questions about students’previous science courses were significantlydifferent from their responses regarding SIB (p <0.05), demonstrating that SIB has significantlymore active learning, assessment, diversity, andstudent-centered classroom environment thanwhat they had experienced before.The differences in responses to questions onActive Learning in Table 1a show that the STapproach in our course is significantly differentfrom students’ previous experiences for all but oneof the items. Students are asked to work closelywith their peers and to use each other asresources for questions and explanations. Since STputs some students out of their comfort zones, itmay explain why some are reluctant to try con-structing their own understanding or working withother students. When comparing the results between “Studentsfind out answers to questions from the text bookrather than from investigations” and “Studentsdiscuss their work in class,” we see that manystudents are experienced in discussing their workin class, but that fewer have used investigationsto answer questions.Assessments are a useful tool for teachers andstudents to determine if the necessary understand-ings have been acquired. As shown in Table 1b,there were significant differences between previousscience courses and SIB. For example, studentsidentified that they were asked questions andexpected to explain meanings of statements anddata more often in SIB than in their previousschools. Also, students responded that they moreoften helped the teacher assess their learning in SIB. While many of our students come from demograph-ically diverse classrooms, the questions in Table1c were directed towards diversity of appreciationSpring 2010    19and inclusion of varied perspectives, ideas,questions, and learning styles through the activitiesand general environment of the classroom, as issuggested in Scientific Teaching. Significant differences were found in how oftenstudent ideas and suggestions were used in class,how often students talked with others, and howoften they were told exactly how to do their work.Encouraging students to share their perspectivescan contribute to a better understanding of thematerial for all learners involved. Students will bemore likely to share their ideas and take risks toengage in discussion or unfamiliar activities if theyfeel their contributions are valued.Questions related to student experiences in theclassroom environment are shown in Table 1d.Students were less likely to be expected to do thesame work at the same time in SIB compared totheir previous experience. They were also lesslikely to choose their own seats or partners. Because students are expected to construct theirown knowledge in SIB, for example by workingwith data to draw conclusions, there is moreflexibility in the pace and direction they take toaccomplish the content goals. ST not only requires redesigning the approach towhat is done in the classroom but also redefiningthe interactions between class participants.Students reported that teachers in previouscourses remained at the front of the room whilethis rarely happened in SIB. Also, students feltmore comfortable complaining when activities wereconfusing and asking for the rationale behindlearning certain material. Implications for Our Teaching The survey results have implications for ourteaching since understanding the previousclassroom experiences of our students helps usfacilitate their transition and adjustment. Ourresults show that our students were accustomedto discussing their work in class but that they hadlittle experience in drawing conclusions from data.Thus, if we find students are not communicatingwell, we know we need to help them make theirconversations more productive.P valueStudents discuss their work in class <0.0001**Students work at their own speed 0.1131Students choose their partners for group work <0.0001**Most students take part in discussions 0.0001*Students are told exactly how to do their work <0.0001**Difference students do different work <0.0001**Students’ ideas and suggestions are used during classroom discussions <0.0001**Students talk with other students about how to solve problems <0.0001**Students explain their understanding to other students <0.0001**As a student you are asked by other students to explain your ideas <0.0001**As a student you ask other students to explain their thoughts <0.0001**P valueStudents choose their own partners for group work <0.0001**Students are told exactly how to do their work <0.0001**Students feel it’s ok to complain about anything that prevents them from learning 0.0307*The teacher decides where students sit <0.0001**The teacher talks to each student <0.0001**The teacher talks rather than listens <0.0001**The teacher helps each student who is having trouble with the work 0.0516The teacher remains at the front of the class rather than moving about andtalking with the students<0.0001**As a student, it is ok to ask the teacher “why do I have to learn this?” 0.0001**As a student, it is ok for you to complain about teaching activities that are 0.0002**P valueStudents discuss their work in class <0.0001**Students find out answers to questions from the textbooks rather than investigations <0.0001**Students draw conclusions from information <0.0001**Students carry out investigations to test ideas <0.0001**Students find out the answers to questions and problems from the teacher ratherthan investigations<0.0001**Students are asked to think about the evidence behind statements <0.0001**Students are asked questions <0.0001**Students carry out investigations to answer questions from class discussions <0.0001**Students sit and listen to the teacher <0.0001**Students explain the meaning of statements, diagrams, and graphs <0.0001**Students learn that science cannot provide perfect answers to problems <0.0001**Students learn that science has changed over time 0.4761Students talk with other students about how to solve problems <0.0001**Students explain their understanding to other students <0.0001**As a student, you ask other students to explain their thoughts <0.0001**As a student, you ask by other students to explain your ideas .002*The teacher lectures without students asking or answering questions <0.0001**P valueStudents are asked questions <0.0001**Students explain the meaning of statements, diagrams, and graphs <0.0001**The teacher uses tests to find out where each student needs help 0.0001*As a student, you help the teacher to assess your learning <0.0001**a. Questions on Active Learningb. Questions on Assessmentc. Questions on DiversityQuestions modified from the ICEQ and CLES. Questions have been divided into four categories: a. Active Learning, b. Assessment, c. Diversity, and d. Classroom Environment. P values and significance are shown comparing two administrations of the survey. d. Questions on Classroom EnvironmentTable 120   NCSSSMST JournalThe pre-survey showed us that students wereunfamiliar with explaining meaning and assessingtheir own understanding, activities which occurfrequently in SIB. This suggests we need todevelop ways to encourage ownership of learningin SIB, taking responsibility to connect with theirteachers, peers, and others for help as needed.  One SIB strategy is to have students to writedown their understanding of a process and then towork with a partner to improve their work. Bothstudents are actively engaged with the material,evaluating their current level of understanding andcreating more meaningful explanations. Whileinitially challenging, students soon take ownershipof their progress. These types of formativeassessments have been beneficial to the studentsand teachers to identify the level of understandingof the class, to correct misconceptions, and topromote different approaches to the material.   Some responses indicated that SIB offers morefreedom and flexibility than students were used to– choosing seats, working with others, and con-tributing suggestions, and more likely to be toldexactly how to do their work. Some students havetrouble with this kind of freedom since they areresponsible for what they contribute, how theywork with a group, and even just what to do first.Guidelines and checkpoints can help studentsmanage these processes. Allowing students towork in groups for 5 to 10 minutes and thenbringing their conclusions and questions into alarge class discussion helps keep groups on task.  Students indicated in that they interact with theirteacher in SIB more than in their previous classes.This interaction is very important in an STclassroom, so students need guidance on thecourse content and on the transition andadjustment to our teaching style.  The knowledge we gained from these surveys andobservations we and other teachers made inspiredus to put explicit steps in place to help studentsstruggling with the transition to SIB in terms ofactive learning, collaboration, and reflection. Thesestudents were identified by their grades on thefirst exam and through their work and activities inand outside of class. We developed a Biology Progress Plan outliningspecific steps that students were to follow:writing up current approaches to the class andstudying, recording their analyses about what wassuccessful and what was not, and creating a planfor future success. They were encouraged to writeout explanations of material after each classperiod, do all available practice problems andactivities, gain feedback on their explanations andpractices, work with other students at helpsessions, and see their teachers on a regular basisfor questions and discussion. Full participation alsoincluded turning in practice writing and problemsconsistently, seeing the teacher frequently,attending all help sessions, and following throughwith all suggestions made. In general, students who fully participated in theplan improved their subsequent quiz scores bybetter than 10%. This was larger than theincrease (and sometimes decreases) of studentswho were encouraged to do the plan but did notparticipate fully. Even those who were notstruggling were inspired by these improvementsand decided to follow the plan as well. In latersemesters we have presented the Progress Plan toall students at the beginning of SIB. While not allstudents follow through, it is now understood thatthese are steps to take to learn and do well withthe material, and are not reserved as a “fix”intended for those who are struggling. Since we believe even small changes in pedagogyand class design can help students be moreengaged, we will continue to use the surveyinformation to help our students benefit from ourST-based SIB course. These changes encouragestudents to be more invested in and excited aboutscience because their experiences better reflectthe inquiry, problem solving, and collaboration withdiverse perspectives that represent science.Student interest and excitement, in addition to theaccumulation of facts and knowledge, may evenmake them more likely to pursue science in thefuture (Handelsman et al. 2007). AcknowledgementsWe thank Judy Scheppler and Don Dosch for theirfeedback and encouragement in this project. ReferencesFraser, B. J. (1990).Individualised classroom learningenvironment questionnaire.Hawthorn, VIC: AustralianCouncil for Educational Research.Fraser, B. J. (1998). Sciencelearning environments:Assessment, effects and deter-minants. In B. J. Fraser & K. G.Tobin, (Eds.), Internationalhandbook of science education(pp. 527-564). Boston: KluwerAcademic Publishers. Handelsman, J., Miller, S., & Pfund,C. (2007). Scientific teaching. NewYork: W. H. Freeman and Co. National Research Council (1996).National science educationstandards. Washington, D.C.:National Academy Press.Retrieved from: http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=4962&page=R1Scheppler, J. A., Dosch, D., Styer,S., & Rogg, S. (2005). Studentinquiry at the Illinois Mathematicsand Science Academy. In R.EYager (Ed.), Exemplary science ingrades 9-12 (113-124). Arlington,VA: NSTA Press. Treagust, D.F., Duit, R., & Fraser,B. J. (1996). Overview: Researchon students’ preinstructionalconceptions - The driving force forimproving teaching and learning inscience and mathematics.  In D. F.Treagust, R. Duit, & B.J. Fraser(Eds.), Improving teaching andlearning in science andmathematics (pp. 1-14). NY:Teachers College Press. The Wisconsin Program forScientific Teaching. http://scientificteaching.wisc.edu/   

Assessing Differences in Students\u27 Experiences in Traditional versus Scientific Teaching-Based Biology Course

https://digitalcommons.imsa.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1002&context=sci_pr

Assessing Differences in Students\u27 Experiences in Traditional versus Scientific Teaching-Based Biology Course

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Illinois Mathematics and Science Academy: DigitalCommons@IMSA