1887

First-Year and Non-First-Year Student Expectations Regarding In-Class and Out-of-Class Learning Activities in Introductory Biology

    Authors: Tanya L. Brown1, Kathleen R. Brazeal2, Brian A. Couch2,*
    VIEW AFFILIATIONS HIDE AFFILIATIONS
    Affiliations: 1: Department of Cell and Developmental Biology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO 80045; 2: School of Biological Sciences, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE 68588
    AUTHOR AND ARTICLE INFORMATION AUTHOR AND ARTICLE INFORMATION
    Source: J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. April 2017 vol. 18 no. 1 doi:10.1128/jmbe.v18i1.1241
MyBook is a cheap paperback edition of the original book and will be sold at uniform, low price.
  • HTML
    65.75 Kb
  • PDF
    1.61 MB
  • XML
    77.09 Kb

    Abstract:

    National calls for teaching transformation build on a constructivist learning theory and propose that students learn by actively engaging in course activities and interacting with other students. While interactive pedagogies can improve learning, they also have the potential to challenge traditional norms regarding class participation and learning strategies. To better understand the potential openness of students to interactive teaching practices, we administered a survey during the first week of two sections of an introductory biology course to characterize how students envisioned spending time during class as well as what activities they expected to complete outside of class during non-exam weeks and in preparation for exams. Additionally, we sought to test the hypothesis that the expectations of first-year students differed from those of non-first-year students. Analyses of closed-ended and open-ended questions revealed that students held a wide range of expectations and that most students expressed expectations consistent with some degree of transformed teaching. Furthermore, first-year students expected more active learning in class, more out-of-class coursework during non-exam weeks, and more social learning strategies than non-first-year students. We discuss how instructor awareness of incoming student expectations might be used to promote success in introductory science courses.

Key Concept Ranking

Stems
0.7793763
Transformation
0.72499996
Slides
0.5833333
0.7793763

References & Citations

1. National Research Council (NRC)2011Expanding underrepresented minority participation: America’s science and technology talent at the crossroadsThe National Academies PressWashington, DC
2. President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST)2012Engage to excel: producing one million additional college graduates with degrees in science, technology, engineering, and mathematicsExecutive Office of the PresidentWashington, DC
3. Seymour E2000Talking about leaving: why undergraduates leave the sciencesWestview PressBoulder, CO
4. American Association for the Advancement of Science2011Vision and Change in Undergraduate Biology Education: A Call to Action: a summary of recommendations made at a national conference organized by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, July 15–17, 2009Washington, DC
5. National Research Council (NRC)1999Transforming undergraduate education in science, mathematics, engineering, and technologyThe National Academies PressWashington, DC
6. Ambrose SA, Bridges MW, DiPietro M, Lovett MC, Norman MK, Mayer RE2010How learning works: Seven research-based principles for smart teaching1st editionJossey-BassSan Francisco, CA
7. National Research Council (NRC)2000How people learn: brain, mind, experience, and schoolThe National Academies PressWashington, DC
8. Eagan K, Stolzenberg EB, Lozano JB, Aragon MC, Suchard MR, Hurtado S2014Undergraduate teaching faculty: the 2013–2014 HERI faculty surveyHigher Education Research Institute, UCLALos Angeles, CA
9. Freeman S, Eddy SL, McDonough M, Smith MK, Okoroafor N, Jordt H, Wenderoth MP2014Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematicsProc Natl Acad Sci1118410841510.1073/pnas.1319030111248217564060654 http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319030111
10. Eddy SL, Hogan KA2014Getting under the hood: how and for whom does increasing course structure work?CBE Life Sci Educ1345346810.1187/cbe.14-03-0050251852294152207 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.14-03-0050
11. Freeman S, O’Connor E, Parks JW, Cunningham M, Hurley D, Haak D, Dirks C, Wenderoth MP2007Prescribed active learning increases performance in introductory biologyCBE Life Sci Educ613213910.1187/cbe.06-09-0194175488751885904 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.06-09-0194
12. Haak DC, HilleRisLambers J, Pitre E, Freeman S2011Increased structure and active learning reduce the achievement gap in introductory biologyScience3321213121610.1126/science.120482021636776 http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1204820
13. Gross D, Pietri ES, Anderson G, Moyano-Camihort K, Graham MJ2015Increased preclass preparation underlies student outcome improvement in the flipped classroomCBE Life Sci Educ14ar3610.1187/cbe.15-02-0040263961514710397 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.15-02-0040
14. Burgoon JK1978A communication model of personal space violations: explication and an initial testHum Commun Res412914210.1111/j.1468-2958.1978.tb00603.x http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1978.tb00603.x
15. Brazeal KR, Brown TL, Couch BACharacterizing student perceptions and buy-in toward common formative assessment techniquesCBE Life Sci Educin press
16. Keeley SM, Shemberg KM, Cowell BS, Zinnbauer BJ1995Coping with student resistance to critical thinking: what the psychotherapy literature can tell usColl Teach4314014510.1080/87567555.1995.9925537 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/87567555.1995.9925537
17. Seidel SB, Tanner KD2013“What if students revolt?”— Considering student resistance: origins, options, and opportunities for investigationCBE Life Sci Educ1258659510.1187/cbe-13-09-0190242972863846509 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe-13-09-0190
18. Stanger-Hall KF2012Multiple-choice exams: an obstacle for higher-level thinking in introductory science classesCBE Life Sci Educ1129430610.1187/cbe.11-11-0100229494263433302 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.11-11-0100
19. McInnis C2001Researching the first year experience: where to from here?High Educ Res Dev2010511410.1080/07294360125188 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07294360125188
20. Brinkworth R, McCann B, Matthews C, Nordström K2009First year expectations and experiences: student and teacher perspectivesHigh Educ5815717310.1007/s10734-008-9188-3 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10734-008-9188-3
21. Crisp G, Palmer E, Turnbull D, Nettelbeck T, Ward L, LeCouteur A, Sarris A, Strelan P, Schneider L2009First year student expectations: results from a university-wide student surveyJ Univ Teach Learn Pract61126
22. Smith JS, Wertlieb EC2005Do first-year college students’ expectations align with their first-year experiences?NASPA J4215317410.2202/0027-6014.1470 http://dx.doi.org/10.2202/0027-6014.1470
23. Lund TJ, Pilarz M, Velasco JB, Chakraverty D, Rosploch K, Undersander M, Stains M2015The best of both worlds: building on the COPUS and RTOP observation protocols to easily and reliably measure various levels of reformed instructional practiceCBE Life Sci Educ14ar1810.1187/cbe.14-10-0168259766544477734 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.14-10-0168
24. Smith MK, Vinson EL, Smith JA, Lewin JD, Stetzer MR2014A campus-wide study of STEM courses: new perspectives on teaching practices and perceptionsCBE Life Sci Educ1362463510.1187/cbe.14-06-0108254524854255349 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.14-06-0108
25. Sander P, Stevenson K, King M, Coates D2000University students’ expectations of teachingStud High Educ2530932310.1080/03075070050193433 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03075070050193433
26. Gillespie DF, Rosamond S, Thomas E2006Grouped out? Undergraduates’ default strategies for participating in multiple small groupsJ Gen Educ558110210.1353/jge.2006.0022 http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/jge.2006.0022
27. Phipps M, Phipps C, Kask S, Higgins S2001University students’ perceptions of cooperative learning: implications for administrators and instructorsJ Exp Educ241422
28. Gortner Lahmers A, Zulauf CR2000Factors associated with academic time use and academic performance of college students: a recursive approachJ Coll Stud Dev
29. Krohn GA, O’Connor CM2005Student effort and performance over the semesterJ Econ Educ3632810.3200/JECE.36.1.3-28 http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/JECE.36.1.3-28
30. Benford R, Gess-Newsome J2006Factors affecting student academic success in gateway courses at Northern Arizona UniversityCent Sci Teach Learn North Ariz Univ. ERIC Document No ED495693
31. Nonis SA, Hudson GI2010Performance of college students: impact of study time and study habitsJ Educ Bus8522923810.1080/08832320903449550 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08832320903449550
32. Kitsantas A, Winsler A, Huie F2008Self-regulation and ability predictors of academic success during college: a predictive validity studyJ Adv Acad204268
33. Credé M, Kuncel NR2008Study habits, skills, and attitudes: the third pillar supporting collegiate academic performancePerspect Psychol Sci342545310.1111/j.1745-6924.2008.00089.x26158971 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6924.2008.00089.x
34. Gurung RA, Weidert J, Jeske A2010Focusing on how students studyJ Scholarsh Teach Learn102835
35. Ames R, Lau S1982An attributional analysis of student help-seeking in academic settingsJ Educ Psychol7441410.1037/0022-0663.74.3.414 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.74.3.414
36. Preszler RW, Dawe A, Shuster CB, Shuster M2007Assessment of the effects of student response systems on student learning and attitudes over a broad range of biology coursesCBE Life Sci Educ6294110.1187/cbe.06-09-0190173393921854854 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.06-09-0190
37. Trees AR, Jackson MH2007The learning environment in clicker classrooms: student processes of learning and involvement in large university-level courses using student response systemsLearn Media Technol32214010.1080/17439880601141179 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17439880601141179
38. Welsh AJ2012Exploring undergraduates’ perceptions of the use of active learning techniques in science lecturesJ Coll Sci Teach428087
39. Wolter BH, Lundeberg MA, Kang H, Herreid CF2011Students’ perceptions of using personal response systems (“clickers”) with cases in scienceJ Coll Sci Teach401419
40. Hora MT2015Toward a descriptive science of teaching: how the TDOP illuminates the multidimensional nature of active learning in postsecondary classroomsSci Educ9978381810.1002/sce.21175 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sce.21175
jmbe.v18i1.1241.citations
jmbe/18/1
content/journal/jmbe/10.1128/jmbe.v18i1.1241
Loading

Citations loading...

Supplemental Material

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journal/jmbe/10.1128/jmbe.v18i1.1241
2017-04-21
2017-12-13

Abstract:

National calls for teaching transformation build on a constructivist learning theory and propose that students learn by actively engaging in course activities and interacting with other students. While interactive pedagogies can improve learning, they also have the potential to challenge traditional norms regarding class participation and learning strategies. To better understand the potential openness of students to interactive teaching practices, we administered a survey during the first week of two sections of an introductory biology course to characterize how students envisioned spending time during class as well as what activities they expected to complete outside of class during non-exam weeks and in preparation for exams. Additionally, we sought to test the hypothesis that the expectations of first-year students differed from those of non-first-year students. Analyses of closed-ended and open-ended questions revealed that students held a wide range of expectations and that most students expressed expectations consistent with some degree of transformed teaching. Furthermore, first-year students expected more active learning in class, more out-of-class coursework during non-exam weeks, and more social learning strategies than non-first-year students. We discuss how instructor awareness of incoming student expectations might be used to promote success in introductory science courses.

Highlighted Text: Show | Hide
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/jmbe/18/1/jmbe-18-7.html?itemId=/content/journal/jmbe/10.1128/jmbe.v18i1.1241&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Figures

Image of FIGURE 1

Click to view

FIGURE 1

Student expectations regarding the percentage of class time they expect to spend completing activities and working in small groups or listening to lecture and taking notes. Student responses to both questions were required to total 100%. Response distributions are shown for first-year and non-first-year students. Central bars represent medians, boxes represent inner quartiles, and whiskers represent the 5 and 95 percentiles. General linear model, *** < 0.001, see Appendix 4 .

Source: J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. April 2017 vol. 18 no. 1 doi:10.1128/jmbe.v18i1.1241
Download as Powerpoint
Image of FIGURE 2

Click to view

FIGURE 2

Open-ended student perceptions regarding the best use of class time. Bars represent the percentage of first-year and non-first-year students who indicated each category at least once in their response. Fisher’s exact test, * < 0.05.

Source: J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. April 2017 vol. 18 no. 1 doi:10.1128/jmbe.v18i1.1241
Download as Powerpoint
Image of FIGURE 3

Click to view

FIGURE 3

Student expectations regarding the amount of time they expect to spend on required and non-required work outside of class time. Response distributions are shown for first-year and non-first-year students. Central bars represent medians, boxes represent inner quartiles, and whiskers represent the 5 and 95 percentiles. General linear models, * < 0.05, *** < 0.001, see Appendix 4 .

Source: J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. April 2017 vol. 18 no. 1 doi:10.1128/jmbe.v18i1.1241
Download as Powerpoint
Image of FIGURE 4

Click to view

FIGURE 4

Open-ended student expectations regarding out-of-class activities during non-exam weeks. Bars represent the percentage of first-year and non-first-year students who indicated each category at least once in their response. Fisher’s exact test, * < 0.05.

Source: J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. April 2017 vol. 18 no. 1 doi:10.1128/jmbe.v18i1.1241
Download as Powerpoint
Image of FIGURE 5

Click to view

FIGURE 5

Student expectations regarding the amount of time they expect to spend preparing for exams. Response distributions are shown for first-year and non-first-year students. Central bars represent medians, boxes represent inner quartiles, and whiskers represent the 5 and 95 percentiles. General linear model, * < 0.05, see Appendix 4 .

Source: J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. April 2017 vol. 18 no. 1 doi:10.1128/jmbe.v18i1.1241
Download as Powerpoint
Image of FIGURE 6

Click to view

FIGURE 6

Open-ended student expectations regarding exam preparation. Bars represent the percentage of first-year and non-first-year students who indicated each category at least once in their response. Fisher’s exact test, * < 0.05.

Source: J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. April 2017 vol. 18 no. 1 doi:10.1128/jmbe.v18i1.1241
Download as Powerpoint

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Please check the format of the address you have entered.
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error