1 / 18

Bjørn Wolter, Mary Lundeberg, & Mark Bergland

WHAT MAKES SCIENCE RELEVANT?: STUDENT PERCEPTIONS OF MULTIMEDIA CASE LEARNING EXPERIENCES IN ECOLOGY AND HEALTH. Bjørn Wolter, Mary Lundeberg, & Mark Bergland. Overview. Research on relevance in science Research questions Methodology Wolf telemetry project Case It! genetic assays Results

duscha
Download Presentation

Bjørn Wolter, Mary Lundeberg, & Mark Bergland

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. WHAT MAKES SCIENCE RELEVANT?:STUDENT PERCEPTIONS OF MULTIMEDIA CASE LEARNING EXPERIENCES IN ECOLOGY AND HEALTH Bjørn Wolter, Mary Lundeberg, & Mark Bergland

  2. Overview • Research on relevance in science • Research questions • Methodology • Wolf telemetry project • Case It! genetic assays • Results • Discussion

  3. Previous work “Why are we studying this?” • Students often find science hard to relate to (e.g. McManus, 2001; Schreiner & Sjøberg, 2004) • For students to find science relevant, the methods of instruction must become more culturally relevant and authentic • Mayoh & Knutton (1997) assert that there are two dimensions of relevancy that must be considered in any form of education: • Relevant to whom? • Relevant to what?

  4. Aikenhead’s 7 categories of relevance

  5. Research questions • What do non-majors students in an introductory biology class think is relevant to learn? • What reasons do students cite for their ideas of relevance?

  6. Methodology • Conducted focus group interviews with 32 (20 women, 12 men) • Questions centered on experiences in: • Lecture • Wolf telemetry case project • Case It! – a health related case-based project • 4 focus groups (5-10 participants each)

  7. Methods Wolf Tracking Project • Hybrid lab focused on tracking gray wolves in the Superior National Forest • Objectives: • Introduce students to observational data collection in biological settings • Introduce students to the scientific method • Help students understand wolf protection programs • Utilized pre-existing dataset at www.wolf.org • Used Google earth to map individual’s and pack movements

  8. Methods Case It! • Multimedia, case-based learning environment • Students work in teams of 2-3, and research genetic or infectious diseases presented as real-life case studies • 3 parts: • Wet lab simulations • Online poster creation and presentation • Role-playing interaction with other students

  9. Methods Case It! • 27 teams were assigned to research genetic and infectious disorders (e.g. breast cancer, fragile X syndrome) • After viewing a case, students role-play as researchers testing blood and DNA samples • Results are presented to “patients” as an online poster, where the researchers answer questions posed by fellow students acting as the patient

  10. Results • What do students find relevant? • What are student views of relevance?

  11. What do students find relevant? • We identified 19 categories of relevance

  12. Need-to-Know Science • Linked to current or potential need • Over 30% of all student comments fell into this category • Includes comments related to effective communication and self-efficacy [Case It!] may be our only exposure to these diseases until one of us has to face it later. If you were in a situation where you were presented the results for a friend or family member, [one can] compare and interpret it. ...It is useful to have the experience and diagnostic information to help make decisions.

  13. Enticed-to-Know Science • Majority of comments (14.4% of 19%) coded as role-playing and self-motivated learning Conferencing is where I personally learned the most just because...I was essentially forced to go look for [answers]...once I got into [role-playing]...I actually forgot what I was doing...I got really into it. ...We had to do a lot of research in helping explain to [patients] what their question was about and what we knew, even if we didn’t know it, we had to research it.

  14. Science-as-Culture • 9.5% of all codes were about global issues • Complex topic …Its important to study both [local and global issues], but for this project it was more important to study local things People tune out more with global issues, but still think it’s important... What is local?…Global issues affect me locally.

  15. Value systems in Science • Created a new category of relevance to encompass comments related to human connections in science • Altruistic Science • Moral & ethical issues • Social cynicism • Humanistic Science ...I think by doing this...its bringing up our awareness at an age group where we can do something about it still....[and] we can go out and act together or something. I don’t think a lot of diseases are portrayed in the media.

  16. Personal curiosity Science • Personal relevance and curiosity were important factors to students • About 13% of all student comments Focus on things more related to you personally. When it comes to crops, I don’t care. I didn’t feel as close to [the wolf project] as I would have it were a child or parent or family member.

  17. Discussion • Students preferred cases over lecture • Interaction between content and pedagogy • MMLE (Caseit!) created need to know science, enticed students to learn science, personal curiosity. Value systems new category missing from Aikenhead.

  18. Discussion • Limitations • Areas for future research

More Related