Carole Davis Educational Inquiry, Interpretation & Criticism Instructor: Dr. Mark Conley

TE891

Fall 2005

Course Description: The purpose of this course was to provide students with a broad ranging introduction to educational inquiry and to issues involved in interpreting the findings of inquiry. It began with students writing a brief personal and professional autobiography and using their life's experiences to identify a research question. Then, working in on-line study groups, students designed and completed an action research project on their professional practice. Finally, problems of interpreting what their findings meant were addressed.

Selected Coursework:

Action Research Report for TE 891: Getting Personal in a College Science Classroom

by Carole J. Davis Purpose: The intent of my action research was to look for correlations between personal sharing in instructor/student interactions in the college science classroom and the benefit it may offer to foster learning and understanding for my students. Questions Explored: -

the level of relationship between the students‟ retention of scientific concepts when they are presented with everyday, real world examples from the instructor‟s personal experience.

-

the ability of students to relate such examples from the instructor to examples in their own personal experience, and thus reinforce their own learning.

-

the level of improvement personal sharing in the classroom makes in the instructor/student relationship, especially as it relates to improvement in the students‟ learning experience. Some aspects to explore were the impact that personal sharing has on: o the approachability/ accessibility of the instructor to the student o the level of „trust‟ the student has in the instructors knowledge

o

the confidence the student has in the instructor‟s believability when presenting challenging science concepts (Ex: the scientific method, evolution)

The idea of personal sharing in the classroom was also investigated for its possible negative impacts on the students‟ learning experience. These included: -

the comfort level of individual students in the sharing of personal information in the classroom

-

the willingness of individual students to participate in personal sharing in the science classroom

-

the level of distraction personal sharing has on classroom learning

Action Research Report on Getting Personal in the College Classroom Introduction: Trying to make new connections with students in science My research question focused on how student learning in a college science course is strengthened by relating science concepts to personal information and first-hand experience from the instructor. As our world becomes more scientifically complex, there is great concern that the general public does not have the scientific foundation to properly use or analyze information that is so deeply relevant to their everyday lives. In the past decade, there has been deliberate effort to redesign science education so that its primary goal is to increase scientific literacy, defined as the ability of the general public to understand and relate basic science concepts to the world around them (NSTA Scope, Sequence and Coordination, 1996). However, science education has often failed to teach students scientific understanding that can be applied to the world around them and that „students simply wall off the concepts that do not fit their natural way of thinking…it can be retrieved on special occasions, such as a school exam, but in everyday life it has no effect.‟ (Cobern, 1994) There has been widespread criticism of the inflexible nature of approaches to science, that „the essence of science is that the rest of the natural world is without intelligence and knowledge and operates primarily as if it were a machine‟ (Deloria, 1992) Traditionally college science courses are taught with little personal interaction during lecture and a rigid focus on facts and operations, which have little appeal for most students as shown by the fact that the college-educated avoid science in significant numbers (Tobias,1999).

Research has consistently shown that student retention and understanding of information can be strengthened by basic learning strategies such as doing something active with the information or by connecting it to the real world (Felder, 1988). There are methods that have been developed to integrate these strategies into science education, such as Lived Science Curriculum which is personally and socially oriented to make sense of science in everyday life (Hurd, 2000). Inquiry-oriented class discussions and students‟ active involvement in the learning process has shown benefits in large and small undergraduate science courses, but the problem is those methods can be very limited by time constraint of the course material (Zoller,1999). Therefore this research project explored the possibility of how an instructor can use his or her own everyday, personal experiences to augment learning in a college entrylevel science classroom. The underlying strategy is to not just present real world examples to students, but to humanize the science classroom by establishing personal connections for the students to the material through the instructor‟s own experiences. It is hoped that this approach will make science less intimidating to students who do not have a strong science background and to present the course material in a way that students can directly apply to their everyday lives. An example of this approach is using medical history to explain the mechanisms of high blood cholesterol or a humorous family incident to explain how a gas expands when its temperature is raised. If it‟s true that “the best teachers are good story tellers” (Wiggins and McTighe, 2005) it only makes sense that an instructor use their own real world stories to help make science concepts more relevant and memorable for the students. A strategy of „getting personal‟ also allows the instructor to be more emotionally accessible to their students. It‟s strongly supported that frequent interaction with faculty is more strongly related to satisfaction with college (Astin, 1999) and that positive student motivation and learning has been correlated with the student‟s perception that the instructor is available and welcoming (Wilson,2001). However, there may be a danger in overusing such a strategy and crossing the boundaries of professionalism. There are some suggestions that some students may be uncomfortable by a lack of personal distance between the instructor and the classroom, though there has been little research in this area except in „over the line‟ areas like sexual harassment (Ei, 2002).

Lastly, there‟s also the problem of spending too much time on discussion and off-topic material and not covering essential course concepts. Methods: The analysis was done during a 12-week introductory college biology course of mostly non-traditional adult students. The course began with 14 students, but dropped to 12 by the end of the term. The first 4 weeks of the course were an overview of scientific principles and some basic chemistry, all done with real world relevant examples but minimal input of personal information from the instructor. At the end of this interval the students were given their first exam and anonymous baseline surveys to assess their attitudes toward science and the instructor. During the next 4-week interval, where the course material was cell and molecular biology, the students were given examples from the instructor‟s personal experience in order to help students relate science concepts to the real world. Additional questions from the students were allowed, especially as the subject related to their own personal lives, and ensuing whole class discussions were allowed to continue for up to five minutes. The same strategy of „personal sharing‟ was continued through the final 4week unit of anatomy and general macro biology, although this unit involved more rote memorization and was not as conceptual. The students were given an end of the term survey comparable to the survey at the beginning of the term, along with additional questions assessing their comfort level and student feelings on the effectiveness of personal information being shared during class time. Field notes were also kept by the instructor over the course of the term to document any outstanding discussions, remarks, or correlations. Data: The impact of personal sharing by the instructor on student performance was striking. Perhaps the most obvious was an over 7% increase in test scores from the nonpersonal class sessions, barely a B- (80.7%) in Unit 1, to a B+ (87.8%) in Unit 2 where personal examples and discussion were used. Both Units covered equally challenging science material. Unit 1 was an introduction to the Scientific Method, basic principles of

the atom and chemical bonding presented with real world relevant information given but with no personal input. Unit 2 also covered rigorous science concepts, such as macromolecules and cell metabolism, but instructor „stories‟ were included once or twice a class period and any ensuing class discussion was encouraged for up to 5 minutes. An example of personal sharing was during the lecture on lipid macromolecules, which are fatty, oily biological molecules that are defined by their inability to mix with water (hydrophobic). I used the example of my step-father with high blood cholesterol (which is a lipid) who has had repeated heart attacks since his 50s due to blood vessel blockage. In simple terms, this is because the „fatty‟ cholesterol does not like to mix with the watery blood, so it sticks to the vessel walls and builds up plaques that eventually block off the blood flow. This is really an oversimplification of the process, but it is easy to explain in under a minute and led to further discussion of good vs. bad cholesterol, saturated vs. unsaturated fat and some of the students‟ family histories (which is great material to come back to when we discuss cell membrane receptors and genetics!) The end of the term survey also showed a much greater than expected acceptance and tolerance for personal input from the instructor and other students. The survey was given on a scale of 1-5, as follows: 1 = not at all/none

2= just a little

3= some

4= a lot

Table 1: Average Survey Results

Student Survey Responses to Instructor-Initated Personal Sharing helped to pay attention

3.8

helped with learning

4.2

annoyance and discomfort

1.1

poor use of class time

1.0 0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

Scale from 1 (not at all) to 5 (tons!)

5.0

5= tons!

When students were asked if this personal input strategy caused annoyance or discomfort, the response was an overwhelming „not at all‟, with the rock bottom average of 1.0 for instructor personal information and a low average of 1.2 for other students sharing personal information. Students gave strong value to using personal examples to relate science concepts. Whether it was the instructor‟s or the students, personal input, they responded that it helped their learning more than a lot (4.1 for the instructor to 4.3 for themselves or other students). When asked if the students felt too much class time in general was used in these discussions, again the response was a strong „not at all‟ rating of 1.0 and they felt the time was somewhat to well spent even if some course material was not covered (average score 3.6). To a little more degree, students also indicated this strategy helped them to pay attention in class during the 1 ½ hour lecture (average 3.8 rating) As a sub-question, it was investigated if students developed a more relaxed and/or positive attitude toward science as the result of the course. Again, the goal was to see if „humanizing‟ science with personal sharing made science as a whole more enjoyable and less intimidating. The overall attitude of students upon entering this course was mixed, according to the baseline survey. A total of 13 students completed this survey, and when asked how nervous they were at the start of the term about taking a science course, the class was divided. Although the average rating was 2.92, most students answered in the outlying parameters of the scale. 5 students rated their nervousness in the not at all (1.0) to just a little (2.0) while 6 students rated their nervousness a lot (4.0) or tons! (5.0). Only 2 students actually rated their nervousness as just some (3.0). The end of term survey showed that there were still a couple of students who remained nervous about taking another science course, with 2 students rating their nervousness as a lot or tons!, while 6 students responded not at all. The overall rating was 2.25, or just above a little. Another question I attempted to address was the student‟s attitude toward science in general, particularly the „scientific establishment‟. There is often negative press of the medical community, pharmaceutical industry and government health agencies and some backlash from the general public to reject these authorities as reliable sources of information. I wondered if humanizing the science classroom would increase

their acceptance of established scientific principles. Overall though, students coming into the class had a somewhat good amount of trust in the scientific establishment (rating 3.54), and an even higher amount in the text book and instructor (4.23 and 4.46 respectively). These numbers did not change appreciably in the end of term survey, although fewer students listed TV and the internet as their primary source of scientific information. Discussion and Conclusion: I‟ll go ahead and express the exuberance I felt when I analyzed my end of term surveys. I was surprised not only by the amount of positive feedback students gave on the class, but their widespread acceptance of using personal information as a teaching tool. Of course, it is much easier to use this type of strategy in a college classroom where there are fewer barriers in student-teacher relationships, but it strongly supports the need for all teachers to connect with their students in a personal way. Afterall, it‟s always inspiring to see anxious students relax their guard, connect to the learning process and become invested in their own success. The fact that students expressed such little discomfort and annoyance with „getting personal‟ was very reassuring. I did, however, find myself putting unconscious restrictions on using this technique. For instance, students may sometimes open up to subjects that are very personal or outside the scope of the class such as wanting answers and advice to specific health questions or even seeking one on one counseling after class. My approach was to always speak to the general, established science concepts as they related to our curriculum and, if needed, tell the student they had to see a professional for any personal advice. Another restriction I found myself using was limiting the use of my own personal examples to only 2 or 3 a lecture. I had a palpable feeling that using personal references more often than that was a distraction to the learning environment and made the lecture more about the instructor than the lecture material. Also, if there were follow up questions by the students, I tried to limit the discussions to 3 to 5 minutes and to only two sessions per lecture. When the discussion became too long or involved, I could visibly see that some students were losing interest. I also noticed that on particular days sideline discussions usually involved the same students while the other students with

less of an interest were apt to start looking annoyed with the interruptions to the core material they were trying to learn . However, overall, I believe all students joined into a discussion at one or several points during the term. I also made an effort to clarify to students at the end of the discussion or lecture what discussion material was part of their required learning for the course and what was not. Some of the sideline material that was not directly part of the curriculum, but if we had spent more time on it or had an overall class interest in it, I would use that material for extra credit on quizzes or tests. TABLE 2: Some of my general guidelines for getting personal in the classroom Use only stories and personal references directly relevant to the principles being covered Do not use names and only mention people the students can‟t possibly know or identify Make sure stories and references are in a positive attitude Keep stories short in length, from 15-60 seconds Limit instructor stories to only 1-3 per lecture Limit follow up discussions to 3-5 minutes to keep to the curriculum Avoid getting too personal about yourself or about the students. This should not be a forum for complaints or emotional catharsis Use a more conversational tone in the story telling, save most of the technical terminology for more intensive coverage As instructors, especially in science, it is easy to maintain a comfortable personal distance from the class and just stick to the facts that are required to be covered in the curriculum. While storytelling techniques are often associated with helping students to find meaning and make connections in their learning in disciplines such as history, literature and the arts (Wiggins and McTighe, 2005), it is difficult to find mention of their use in the science classroom. However, there is a widespread call for new approaches to science teaching that will directly relate classroom learning to real world contexts as well as promote the communication and thinking skills that students will need in the 21st century (NRC, 1996; 2002) and first-person, real world experiences from the instructor could help fulfill this goal . Content-based personal sharing is also consistent with theories of adult learning, which distinguish it from childhood learning,

and emphasize the rich reservoir of experience more mature learners bring with them to the learning process, their increased need to see the relevance of what they are learning, and their desire for a spirit of mutuality and “adultness” to engage and motivate them (Knowles, 1980).

Diagram 1: Advantages of getting personal in the classroom

Establish rapport and collaboration in the classroom instructor and science Make connections to student’s own everyday experiences

Increase opportunities for on-going assessment

Personal Sharing of Real World Experience

Foster classroom engagement and student interest

Make connections with students of diverse backgrounds

To use personal information to demonstrate pertinent concepts requires a bit of vulnerability on the instructor‟s part and has often been seen as taboo. Some instructors may have reservations that such a “getting personal” approach would cut into too much class-time and for more rigorous or technical courses, this may not be a viable option. Also, it may not be in the personality of the instructor to comfortably share personal information with students. However, I have seen immense returns in taking the chance to trust my students with a piece of who I am. When the instructor and student become more personally in touch, the classroom becomes much more dynamic, positive and interesting with the ultimate effect being a stronger learning experience.

References: Cobern, William W.(1994)Worldview Theory and Conceptual Change in Science Education Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching Deloria, J.V. (1992). Ethnoscience and Indian realities. Winds of change: A magazine for American Indians, 7(3), p.12 Ei, Sue; Bowen, Anne.(2002) College Students‟ Perceptions of Student-Instructor Relationship Ethics and Behavior Vol.12 no2 p177-190 Hurd, Paul DeHart (2000) Transforming Middle School Education . Mahwah, New Jersey, London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers Knowles, M.S. (1980). The modern practice of adult education: From pedagogy to andragogy (2 nd ed.) New York: Cambridge Books. National Research Council (NRC). 2002. Bio 2010: Transforming undergraduate education for future research biologists. Washington DC: National Academies Press Tobias, S.(1990) They‟re not dumb, they‟re different: Stalking the second tier. Tucson,AZ: Research Corporation Wiggins, G. P. and J. McTighe. 2005. Understanding by design. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Zoller, Uri (1999) Scaling-up of higher-order cognitive skills-oriented college chemistry teaching: An action-oriented research J Res Sci Teach 36: 583-596