Facilitating active learning in introductory science classes

The persistence of didactic teaching, where students are forced to adopt a largely passive role in the learning process, remains a feature of most introductory university science classes despite increasing evidence as to its ineffectiveness. Numerous studies have shown that students neither retain much of the information they are presented with nor, more significantly, change the way they view the world. Just as important, it is not clear that this learning environment either fosters an interest in science or the cultivation of those thinking skills that are considered to characterise the process of science.

The reluctance of many university teachers to adopt alternative teaching strategies is no doubt due to many factors. However, any discussion of these issues takes place in the context of a dominant view that first year science courses must cover a standard curriculum which, by any criteria, must be considered overwhelming. Students are marched past topics in rapid succession with little time or opportunity to think, reflect or develop meaning and are forced to adopt a surface approach to their learning. This situation is usually compounded by very large class sizes, an increasing proportion of underprepared students, professional curriculum requirements, laboratory classes that do not cultivate inquiry and assessment tasks that reward memorisation at the expense of higher level cognitive skills.

Some of the problems of student learning can be overcome within the traditional introductory science curriculum framework using alternative teaching approaches and this paper discusses the results of an approach to teaching a traditional introductory biology course based on interactive small group activities within the large class lecture setting. While the results of this innovation have been very encouraging they do raise the fundamental question of whether we need to reconsider the very rationale of the introductory science course. There are compelling reasons to do so. Aside from the basic issue of facilitating effective learning, the need to develop in students a feeling for science as a way of thinking, the need to open science to a broader range of students and the need to connect science to the concerns of both students and society all argue for a fundamental rethink of how we teach introductory university science.

.... science teaching has suffered because science has been so frequently presented just as so much ready-made knowledge, so much subject-matter of fact and law, rather as the effective method of inquiry into any subject-matter. Dewey (1910)

Introduction

Blaming students for this state of affairs is easy. While not to deny the role that life outside the classroom has on student learning, a more rewarding approach is to examine the learning environment we create for our students since it is the teaching staff that typically have the major role in determining the curriculum, teaching methods, student interactions, academic resources and assessment methods.

The learning environment in science classes, particularly in those large first year classes that seem so common in our universities, is of particular concern since it is here that so many factors seem to impede the opportunity for meaningful learning. Almost exclusive reliance on didactic teaching, a curriculum that is rigid, overloaded and remote from student interests, and assessment methods that seem to reward rote memorisation combine to make learning science a less satisfying experience for many student than it could otherwise be. The consequences of this are profound. Not only do many students fail to achieve their potential in science but learning about science has become disconnected from other areas of knowledge.

In this paper I will focus on what we know about effective learning and contrast this with the typical learning environment in our universities, present a case study based on a project at the University of Canberra where an attempt is being made to change the way introductory biology is taught, then discuss some of the issues that emerge when considering how teaching, particularly in the area of introductory science, can be improved.

Effective learning

Students learn when they are motivated to ask questions that they perceive of value and relevant to their goals. Learning in university science classes rarely begins with questions that students have asked, and even the questions that underlie the material being examined are not usually addressed. Information is simply presented to be learnt for its own sake, not as a response to satisfy a deeply felt curiosity. Moreover, even if the underlying investigative framework of the ideas is addressed, this is rarely connected explicitly to questions that students themselves perceive of value and interest. This implies, of course, that there should be some attempt made to find out what students do in fact find interesting and relevant to their lives, something that cannot easily be done in the context of traditional didactic teaching. However, making connections to the world of students is perhaps the most important thing we can do as teachers.

Students construct knowledge while they are engaged in authentic tasks. In order to learn students need to apply their knowledge and gain confidence in using it. Knowledge that is not put to use will not be learnt and students need to be engaged with practicing rather than studying, which is usually equates with memorising. Like the knowledge itself, the contexts in which students apply their new knowledge need to be perceived as being authentic - that is of perceived value and appropriate to the learning being engaged in. All too often in science classes, the amount of new knowledge that is being presented is so great that students have little option other than to resort to memorisation and no opportunity to explore the new ideas and apply them to problems. The usual rationalisation given by teaching staff is learn it now because you will need it later, but unless students see why they need the information now and gain experience in using it, little meaningful learning will take place.

Students learn when their learning acknowledges, build on and extends what they already know. This is, of course, one of the great principles of any form of learning yet it is so often ignored in university science teaching - perhaps because of the consequences of taking it seriously. When it has been examined it appears that student's conceptual understanding is far below that which had been assumed by the teaching staff. Leaving aside the very real practical issues that would emerge from attempting to ascertain what our students actually know and their underlying beliefs and values, the existence of a high level of student diversity means that for many students in our large introductory science classes the new knowledge either does not challenge them or is beyond their capacity to assimilate it.

Students learn when they have the opportunity to discuss, explain, write and reflect on the new knowledge. Traditional university teaching is overwhelmingly lecture driven and students are usually forced to adopt a passive role in their learning. However, simply listening to somebody else talking about something will not in itself lead to meaningful learning and students need to be actively involved through activities such as discussing, writing, explaining and reflecting. While we might assume that this is what will happen outside of the traditional lecture there is little evidence that this actually happens and studying for most students usually takes the form of memorising just before an exam. It is probably mistaken to assume that students know how to learn effectively or to conduct discourse at a level considered appropriate for higher education. Such activities need to be openly discussed and modelled, supported and facilitated. Moreover, the social and work life of many students is such that opportunities for discussion and collaboration need to be structured into the teaching environment and not left simply to student initiative.

Students learn when they have some control over what, when and how they are learning. Of all the principles of learning, this one is clearly the most challenging to address, especially in introductory science classes. In most classes students are simply presented with a predetermined syllabus, assessment tasks and timetable. Apart from fundamental issues related to power and responsibility, there are practical problems in meeting the needs of individual students when teaching very large classes with limited resources while at the same time meeting the demands of other courses or professional bodies. Nevertheless, if we are to develop autonomous, self-directed and life-long learners who are capable of determining and managing and assessing their own learning, then this is an issue we cannot simply ignore.

Students learn when they have an opportunity to fail in their initial attempts at learning something new. The way we expect students to learn at university is in marked contrast with the way students learn in other areas such as foreign languages, music or sport. People learn through a process of trial and error and students encountering new ideas for the first time cannot be expected to immediately use the terminology appropriately or automatically understand the implication of new concepts. Attempts at coming to understand new areas of knowledge will inevitably result in "mistakes" or "errors" but if these are characterised as "failures" and seen in a negative light students will have little incentive to continue learning. Creating a classroom climate where making mistakes is an accepted part of the learning process, but where high level learning outcomes are expected, is clearly a challenge, but it is something we must strive for.

Students need to believe they can learn. The affective domain is often neglected in traditional teaching, and perhaps this is particularly true of science. However, it is know that learning is affected by both the perceived difficulty of the learning task and expectations about being able to perform well. Many students come to science with negative feelings about the difficulty of the subject and their ability to succeed and we must consider that fostering a positive attitude about learning science and achieving academic success is at least as important as teaching a particular area of knowledge.

Students learn when assessment tasks are consistent with the learning objectives. Teaching staff continually complain about the fact that their students seem to be doing little more than superficially memorising information and do not seem to be striving to understand the new ideas and concepts they are being introduced to, or reading widely beyond the textbook. Yet even a cursory glance at the assessment tasks commonly used in large introductory science classes indicates that that little more is usually required than recall of basic information. Given the enormous time constraints and other pressures most of our students live under, it is not surprising that they strategically adopt a surface approach to learning. It is known that perceptions of assessment tasks have a major role in determining how students approach a particular learning task. If academic staff want students to demonstrate those higher levels of thinking such as those described in Bloom's well known framework, that is demonstrate an ability to do things like evaluate and synthesise ideas, then assessment tasks must be given that require these types of thinking.

Students learn when they receive feedback on their learning. Receiving feedback is central to effective learning and lack of feedback is one of the most commonly cited criticisms of university teaching made by students. Being able to self-assess one's learning is, of course, an essential attribute of the life-long learner and one we must seek to foster in our students. However, we cannot assume that students entering higher education for the first time will know what constitutes acceptable performance. Feedback is most important during those vital first months of university study yet it is here that it usually most infrequent, sometimes coming only through a final examination when it is too late to affect learning. Despite some fundamental misgivings held by many academic staff about the appropriateness of computer mediated learning, computer programs do at least allow for immediate feedback and in this sense can greatly facilitate certain types of learning. The practical problems in providing appropriate feedback to very large numbers of students could perhaps be better addressed through the creation of learning tasks which embody feedback as an integral part of the activity, something that rote memorisation of facts will clearly not do. Closely related to the issue of providing feedback is the perception of whether teaching staff actually care about students and their academic progress, again a common concern of students.

Facilitating active learning

Within the limitations of the traditional 50 minute lecture and the standard syllabus, what can be done to foster deep and meaningful learning? This problem has led me to attempt some innovations in the way I teach a large first year biology subject at the University of Canberra. Central to my approach has been me giving up (well, almost giving up) the traditional three lectures a week. Rather than using this time to give presentations on the course material, I have based the subject on a particular text book and assume that students have read the prescribed sections before the beginning of any week's work using a reading guide I have written. All too often teaching staff say that they require that students have read some material before the lecture and then proceed to present the same material as if the students had not read it. It is not surprising, therefore, that students quickly decide there is little point in them investing their valuable time reading. At a deeper level, the traditional didactic lecture format results in the lecturer doing the synthesising and integrating of ideas, the very activities we should be requiring our students to engage in.

In my "lecture" sessions students are presented with short searching questions based on the reading, two at a time, on overheads. Working in pairs they are first required to reflect on the questions on their own and if necessary use their textbook. They then take it in turns to explain their answers to their partner in their own words without the use of notes or their textbook. During this time I wander the lecture theatre (a mobile microphone is a prerequisite for this type of teaching) and at an appropriate time give a short response to the questions with explanations of any key concepts. This approach has the advantage that my explanations are given after students have been working on the problems themselves and hence the students are more receptive to what I am saying since it is in response to a perceived need. In addition, my comments can reflect the difficulties and questions I have just heard expressed by students. The main advantage, however, is that students have the opportunity to be actively involved in thinking about the questions and are verbalising their explanations to their partner - a highly effective form of learning. Moreover, they receive immediate feedback on their learning rather than waiting for a test or exam perhaps some months later.

These, and some of the other advantages of this approach are reflected in comments made by the students at the end of the subject, which were overwhelmingly positive.

Questions on the board help me think. It seems to be an effective tool for understanding the material presented.

It is extremely useful. It allows you to asses your knowledge of the topic. More lecturers should do it.

Definitely worthwhile. Instantly shows the student if they understand as much as they thought they did (rather than discovering this in exam situations).

They are a very good way of assisting in a better understanding of the topic - they help us obtain different perspectives on certain topics.

Keeps everyone thinking and questioning their understanding. Very, beneficial, a great way to learn.

Questions were great; gave us an idea of how to approach it. Group work effective way of learning material by explanation or listening.

It helped to hear how other people solved their questions and telling others your opinions on the answers helped reinforce what you know.

By explaining out aloud you have to organise your thoughts into good English, it helps you learn.

Great change to routine. John Dearn becomes Phil Donahue. It's great.

I realise what I do and don't know by verbalising instead of thinking "Oh yeah, I know that". (I also met a very nice girl).

Changing the role of the university teacher

Apart from the willingness to step down from the podium, this approach to teaching carries with it other implications. There is no doubt that the process requires more energy and emotional involvement than didactic lecturing. It also requires a high level of communication skills. It can be argued that these are essential skills for any teacher, but they have not been a feature of university teaching.

As students become less dependent on lecturers to lecture them due to developments in information technology (it can be argued that this actually happened at the time of Gutenberg), the role of the university teacher is changing. University teachers have to be subject experts but in addition need to understand the context of their discipline and its connections to other areas of knowledge, and, in addition, understand something about how people learn and communicate. This view of what should characterise a university teacher has significant implications for the profession, in particular the training of teaching staff and the rewards and promotion system within universities. This is not an issue we can avoid since many of the problems that have emerged with university teaching can be seen to arise from the lack of application of basic principles of teaching and learning. The prevailing reward system in science faculties which favours people who focus on narrow highly specialised research does not necessarily foster those attributes needed for good undergraduate teaching, especially in introductory classes.

The curriculum

The traditional view that introductory students do not yet know enough to engage in problem-based learning fails to recognise the role of questions in motivating students and fostering an investigative approach to learning. The view that case studies will not "cover" the curriculum is even more curious. If case studies relevant to a particular field do not require students to use a particular area of knowledge perhaps we should question why we require students to understand that area of knowledge in the first place. Case studies can provide a powerful filter for designing curriculum and deciding what knowledge is useful and what is not.

Typically, students in introductory science classes are introduced to a new topic in one week, together with its complex set of terminology and underlying ideas, but by the end of the week they have left the topic and moved onto another area which might be seem, from the perspective of the student, as quite unrelated. Studies on how students learn science have shown the necessity for students to have time to reflect and discuss the new ideas, make connections to their existing knowledge, and practice applying the new knowledge in different contexts. In the absence of this, students are forced to simply memorise the terms, a strategy that ironically may serve them very well in typical assessment tasks but does little to foster deep learning or interest in the subject.

Implications for teaching

The argument for reducing content coverage becomes even stronger when it is realised that the perceived need to cover content is not only at the expense of deep learning but also does not help students develop those habitats of mind that we think should characterise scientific thinking. However, bringing about such a change in the way we teach science in our universities challenges many deep seated ideas and values, not only about the nature of science itself but about what constitutes effective learning. Changing the way we teach within the existing curriculum framework can result in some improvement in student learning but to go further than this will require us to fundamentally rethink just what it is we want students to learn at university. If we are serious about wanting our students to develop attributes such as an inquiring mind, an ability to critically evaluate information, the possession of high level interpersonal and communication skills and an understanding of contemporary problems and issues, then the traditional undergraduate science degree, with its emphasis on covering a large and evergrowing body of knowledge, may have a limited future.

Reference

Author: John M. Dearn, Faculty of Applied Science University of Canberra, Belconnen ACT 2616, Australia Please cite as: Dearn, J. M. (1996). Facilitating active learning in introductory science classes. Different Approaches: Theory and Practice in Higher Education. Proceedings HERDSA Conference 1996. Perth, Western Australia, 8-12 July. http://www.herdsa.org.au/confs/1996/dearn.html