1 / 25

Redesign of Biology 101 at Salisbury University

Redesign of Biology 101 at Salisbury University. Maryland Course Redesign Workshop 30 May 2008. SU Redesign Team. Clem Counts Mark Frana Sam Geleta Ron Gutberlet Mark Holland Wanda Kelly Joan Maloof Claudia Morrison-Parker Wanda Perkins Betty Lou Smith Bob Tardiff Melissa Thomas

pbarker
Download Presentation

Redesign of Biology 101 at Salisbury University

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. Redesign of Biology 101 at Salisbury University Maryland Course Redesign Workshop 30 May 2008

  2. SU Redesign Team • Clem Counts • Mark Frana • Sam Geleta • Ron Gutberlet • Mark Holland • Wanda Kelly • Joan Maloof • Claudia Morrison-Parker • Wanda Perkins • Betty Lou Smith • Bob Tardiff • Melissa Thomas • McGraw-Hill • Heidi Freund, Meghan Moreau, Matt Swinand • Enhancement of online learning in Biology 210 • Kim Hunter, Richard Hunter Dr. Les Erickson, learning technology guru (left)

  3. Selected Goals of Biology 101 • Improve biological literacy of our students • Demonstrate relevance of biological science to all citizens • Create a positive experience of biology, doing justice to the amazing natural world • Distinguish science from non-science • Share practical information about personal and environmental health

  4. Traditional Course • Three hours of lecture and two hours of lab per week • Large lecture sections (72-96 students) • Small lab sections (24 students) • Common lab syllabus • Course drift and duplication of effort in lecture • Engagement could be improved • Clicker use recently begun in some sections

  5. Redesigned Course • One hour of “lecture” and two hours of lab per week • Large “lecture” sections (96 students) • Small lab sections (24 students) • Shared online component • Engagement will be improved • Use of WebCT, clickers, eBook option

  6. Pilot of Redesigned Course • 1 hour 15 minutes of “lecture” and two hours of lab per week • Will decrease to a single 50-minute meeting per week for “lecture” • Time for lab/discussion will remain the same • Use of WebCT to deliver online content that partially replaces traditional lectures • Weekly instructions • Study guide • Online lesson from McGraw-Hill • Practice activities from McGraw-Hill • Additional links • Online quiz • eBook • Maximized use of lab time for activities, discussion, team contests • Use of clickers to engage more students, to initiate discussions, and to automate some grading

  7. Evaluation and Assessment • Three surveys • Midsemester survey • End-of-semester survey • Course evaluations • Embedded exam questions • Same instructor, different semesters • Same semester, different instructors • DFW rates • Same instructor, different semesters

  8. Impact of Redesign on Student Engagement and Learning—The Good • “I liked the online style of the course.” • “Online quizzes were helpful.” • “I usually do not like bio but it quickly became my favorite this semester.”

  9. Impact of Redesign on Student Engagement and Learning—The Good • “…easy to want to come to class every time and not fall asleep.” • “This was my favorite course this semester.” • “I like the way this class is conducted better than my friend’s bio classes.”

  10. Impact of Redesign on Student Engagement and Learning—The Good • “I really like the mix between online work and class time.” • “It is new and a little hard to get used to, but I like it!” • “I never really liked bio until now.” • “I like the online material…it makes class easier to attend.” • “The breakdown of DNA and protein synthesis is interesting and never taught in my high school.”

  11. Impact of Redesign on Student Engagement and Learning—The Bad • “I would prefer a hard covered textbook.” • “YouTube usually doesn’t work on my computer.” • “The only thing I don’t like about the lessons is it goes into a great detail and covers things we don’t need to know for the exam.”

  12. Impact of Redesign on Student Engagement and Learning—The Ugly • “Hybrid class sucked b/c I didn’t learn anything from e-book or learning modules, time consuming or annoying.” • “If you taught as much as you were supposed to, I’d understand the topics better.”

  13. Impact of Redesign on Student Learning—Exam Performance Embedded Questions—Same Semester Number of questions answered correctly by a higher percentage of students.

  14. Impact of Redesign on Student Learning—Exam Performance Embedded Questions—Same Instructor Number of questions answered correctly by a higher percentage of students.

  15. Impact of Redesign on Student Learning—Selected Survey Results • Approximately how many hours per week do you spend working on the online lesson? • less than 1 hour 10 (24%) • 1-2 hours 27 (64%) • 2-5 hours 5 (12%) • more than 5 hours 0 (0%) • The online lesson helps me understand the material and is important in my preparation for quizzes and exams. • Strongly agree 12 (29%) • Agree 30 (71%) • Disagree 0 (0%) • Strongly disagree 0 (0%)

  16. Impact of Redesign on Student Learning—Selected Survey Results • Approximately how many hours per week do you spend working on the study guide? • less than 1 hour 7 (17%) • 1-2 hours 24 (57%) • 2-5 hours 11 (26%) • more than 5 hours 0 (0%) • The study guide helps me understand the material and is important in my preparation for quizzes and exams. • Strongly agree 30 (71%) • Agree 12 (29%) • Disagree 0 (0%) • Strongly disagree 0 (0%)

  17. Impact of Redesign on Student Learning—Selected Survey Results • I understand the material that we have covered so far in Biology 101. • Strongly agree 11 (26%) • Agree 32 (74%) • Disagree 2 (5%) • Strongly disagree 0 (0%) • I have learned new things about biology this semester. • Strongly agree 21 (51%) • Agree 20 (49%) • Disagree 0 (0%) • Strongly disagree 0 (0%)

  18. Impact of Redesign on Student Learning—Selected Survey Results • I can see how the topics we are covering are relevant to my life and my education. • Strongly agree 9 (21%) • Agree 30 (70%) • Disagree 4 (9%) • Strongly disagree 0 (0%) • Which of these best matches your feelings about the course? • I’d prefer a traditional lecture with no online component. 5 (13%) • I like having a mix of online work and class time. 33 (83%) • I’d prefer to have more online work and less class time. 2 (5%)

  19. Impact of Redesign on Student Retention—DFW Rates

  20. Did the course work better for some students? • “In class is my favorite way of learning, but the online is like homework and reinforces what I’ve learned.” • Only 1 or 2 of 48 students had a strong negative reaction to the course format. • 5 students changed their major to Biology • Concerns and questions: • What do we do for students who don’t like the hybrid format? • Perhaps it is good for these students to be “forced” to do more independent work. • Students who prefer to avoid online work altogether could take a different course to meet their gen ed science requirement; are we ok with that?

  21. Implementation Issues • Adequate coverage of course content • No major problems; in fact, coverage may have improved for pilot instructor • Technology • Browser compatibility with publisher materials • Clicker glitches (batteries, participant list, students forget) • Faculty development and support (very good) • Assigned time • WebCT training sessions • Student attitudes and reactions • Mostly very positive • Some (limited) perception that redesign’s purpose is for the instructor to get out of work • eBook was not popular

  22. Colleague Reactions to the Redesign • Objections or reservations • Use of clickers and some other technology • Decreased classroom time and the uneasy feeling of not telling students information directly and in person • Concern that workload could increase • What are they excited about? • Engagement of students • Revision of course content to make science and biology relevant to nonmajors • What evidence of success seems to be most convincing? • Embedded questions • DFW rate • Independent evaluation of course through classroom visit by tenured faculty • Student comments on surveys and evaluations

  23. Support from Department, Institution, and McGraw-Hill • Assigned time to prepare and implement the pilot; workload discussion ongoing • Department faculty and university administration supportive and encouraging • Good advice from redesign team and other colleagues • Excellent support (advice, implementation, etc.) from our Instructional Technology group • Free online course and eBook from McGraw-Hill for students in the pilot section

  24. Changes in Redesign Goals • Some traditional lecture (enhanced with clickers and short activities) should probably be part of the redesigned course. • Online work “primes” students for lectures. • Students seemed to appreciate additional explanation after they had completed online work. • We are still evaluating the possibility of using undergraduate learning assistants.

  25. Scaling Redesign for Full Implementation • Course Coordinator • Lab Coordinator • Figuring out appropriate workload • Orientation workshop for 101 instructors in early August

More Related