Date and Location / Friday, February 18, 2011 12:00 PM - 1:00 PM, DB-106
Attendees / Amanda Chapman, Robin Cotter, Seth Goodman, Christine Lewis, Ana Marti-Subirana, Kerry Mitchell, John Schampel
Outcomes
- Bioscience PLC will focus on "process of labs."
Notes
- The group looked at the handout on completion rates by course for the past three years. BIO201 had the lowest rate, around 54%.
- Amanda showed an abbreviated PowerPoint presentation on PLCs and explained that the course-level PLC precedes vertical integration of courses/PLCs within a discipline, which precedes horizontal integration between disciplines. She noted that course-level PLCs take about three years to become established.
- The participants discussed their strengths as instructors and potential areas for the PLC to explore (i.e., challenges)
- Strengths:
- Able to make students feel comfortable (which can also be a negative)
- Transmit passion
- Act as a simplifier of complex content for the student
- Very personable; sometimes more than the students
- Some noted that passion is important and that students can tell if a teacher doesn't have it; they discussed engagement as a variation of entertainment, which is also important.
- Challenges:
- Class is not homogenous, difference in student knowledge can be dramatic
- Many students drop out within the first 4-5 weeks because they don't have the background or they don't have the time; therefore, this problem "corrects" itself.
- After the first wave of drop outs, the challenges included how do you keep the better prepared students challenged? Sometimes they come in with an high school AP biology background and sometimes they've taken the more advanced classes and now take an easier course out of sequence.
- Putting advanced students with "needy" students is not always successful because the advanced students become resentful and the needy students are clingy or reject the learning experience, riding the coattails of their knowledgeable peers. Grouping like-level students together has been effective for some teachers.
- The group settled on two focal areas: scaffolding (critical knowledge at the start) and differentiation (of skill levels).
- Scaffolding areas: critical reading, information literacy, study skills, time management skills. For instructors: knowing which students (or tables of students) require the additional time and energy from the instructor.
- Differentiation areas: holding community college students accountable for doing their homework; deficiencies in chemistry background (either no previous course or taking chemistry concurrently with BIO); difficulty with abstraction; differences in writing skill (as demonstrated in preparing lab reports). For instructors: how can the lesson be conveyed in the limited time available; must student engagement be sacrificed for expediency?
- The group discussed the use of whiteboard activities and notebooks (especially, John and Amanda). In their case, one or more research questions drive the lab and students move through the scientific method using this tool, ultimately presenting their understanding of the lab concepts as small groups. Christine noted the similarities to Montessori. John explained that the strategy does not always work as the instructor expects but it does work.
- The group discussed redesign or modifications to lab processes (whether all at once or gradually) and student expectations that the process maybe shouldn't change from lab to lab.
- The group identified 4-5 labs worth considering for redesign (e.g., photosynthesis, mitosis, etc.) and decided that they would, as a group, focus on process of labs. At the next meeting, in two weeks, participants will bring labs they want to consider for redesign.
- Robin noted that she would like to explore taking the themes (and case studies) approach they are applying to labs and applying them to lectures, with a focus on process but not at the sacrifice of content.
- Next meeting is Friday, March 4 at noon in Room DB-106.