1887

Improving Teaching through Triadic Course Alignment

    Authors: Dana A. Pape-Zambito1,*, Alison M. Mostrom1
    VIEW AFFILIATIONS HIDE AFFILIATIONS
    Affiliations: 1: Department of Biological Sciences, University of the Sciences, Philadelphia, PA 19104
    AUTHOR AND ARTICLE INFORMATION AUTHOR AND ARTICLE INFORMATION
    Source: J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. October 2018 vol. 19 no. 3 doi:10.1128/jmbe.v19i3.1642
MyBook is a cheap paperback edition of the original book and will be sold at uniform, low price.
  • XML
    52.23 Kb
  • HTML
    48.00 Kb
  • PDF
    364.44 Kb

    Abstract:

    Triadic alignment is a pedagogical technique that instructors can use to improve their teaching and students’ learning. It involves offering the course learning objectives, teaching and learning activities, and assessments at the same cognitive process level. Though it represents a best practice, few instructors have assessed the efficacy of triadic alignment. Previous research has demonstrated that General Biology courses are commonly misaligned relative to the objectives and assessments. However, little emphasis has been placed on assessing the teaching and learning activities as the third component of triadic alignment. In this article, we describe how a General Biology course was initially misaligned, the process that was taken to align it, and the improved student outcomes that resulted from triadic alignment. We expand our discussion to include types of misalignment and the benefits of triadic alignment for both the students and the faculty member.

References & Citations

1. Baiduc RR, Linsenmeier RA, Ruggeri N 2016 Mentored discussions of teaching: an introductory teaching development program for future STEM faculty Innov High Educ 41 237 254 10.1007/s10755-015-9348-1 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10755-015-9348-1
2. Ebert-May D, Batzli J, Lim H 2003 Disciplinary research strategies for assessment of learning AIBS Bull 53 1221 1228
3. Adams KA 2002 What colleges and universities want in new faculty Preparing Future Faculty Occasional Paper Series ERIC
4. Boyle P, Boice B 1998 Systematic mentoring for new faculty teachers and graduate teaching assistants Innov Higher Educ 22 157 179 10.1023/A:1025183225886 http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1025183225886
5. Fayne HR, Ortquist-Ahrens L 2006 Entry-year teachers inside and outside of the academy Coll Teach 54 320 323 10.3200/CTCH.54.4.320-323 http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/CTCH.54.4.320-323
6. Anderson LW, Krathwohl DR, Airasian PW, Cruikshank KA, Mayer RE, Pintrich PR, Raths J, Wittrock MC 2001 A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: a revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives, abridged edition Longman White Plains, NY
7. American Association for the Advancement of Science 2011 Vision 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, 2009 Washington, DC
8. Handelsman J, Ebert-May D, Beichner R, Bruns P, Chang A, DeHaan R, Gentile J, Lauffer S, Stewart J, Tilghman SM 2004 Scientific teaching American Association for the Advancement of Science Washington, DC
9. Kuit T, Fildes K 2014 Changing curriculum design to engage students to develop lifelong learning skills in biology Int J Innov Sci Math Educ 22 2 19 34
10. Momsen JL, Long TM, Wyse SA, Ebert-May D 2010 Just the facts? Introductory undergraduate biology courses focus on low-level cognitive skills CBE Life Sci Educ 9 435 440 10.1187/cbe.10-01-0001 21123690 2995761 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.10-01-0001
11. Gormally C, Evans M, Brickman P 2014 Feedback about teaching in higher ed: neglected opportunities to promote change CBE Life Sci Educ 13 187 199 10.1187/cbe.13-12-0235 4041498 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.13-12-0235
12. Weimer M 2003 Focus on learning, transform teaching Change Mag High Learn 35 48 54 10.1080/00091380309604119 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00091380309604119
13. Fink LD 2003 A self-directed guide to designing courses for significant learning University of Oklahoma 27 p11
14. Fink LD 2013 Creating significant learning experiences: an integrated approach to designing college courses John Wiley & Sons San Francisco, CA
15. Biggs J 1999 What the student does: teaching for enhanced learning High Educ Res Dev 18 57 75 10.1080/0729436990180105 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0729436990180105
16. Crowe A, Dirks C, Wenderoth MP 2008 Biology in bloom: implementing Bloom’s taxonomy to enhance student learning in biology CBE Life Sci Educ 7 368 381 10.1187/cbe.08-05-0024 19047424 2592046 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.08-05-0024
17. Tachibana C 2015 Effective teaching: to be an effective educator, get active Science 349 1362 1366
18. Wieman C, Gilbert S 2015 Taking a scientific approach to science education, part I—research Microbe 10
19. Blumberg P 2009 Maximizing learning through course alignment and experience with different types of knowledge Innov High Educ 34 93 103 10.1007/s10755-009-9095-2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10755-009-9095-2
20. Wiggins GP, Wiggins G, McTighe J 2005 Understanding by design ASCD Alexandria, VA
21. Biggs J 1996 Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment High Educ 32 347 364 10.1007/BF00138871 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00138871
22. Holt EA, Young C, Keetch J, Larsen S, Mollner B 2015 The greatest learning return on your pedagogical investment: alignment, assessment or in-class instruction? PLOS One 10 e0137446 10.1371/journal.pone.0137446 26340659 4560386 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0137446
23. Reeves TC 2006 How do you know they are learning? The importance of alignment in higher education Int J Learn Technol 2 294 309 10.1504/IJLT.2006.011336 http://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJLT.2006.011336
24. O’Neill A, Birol G, Pollock C 2010 A report on the implementation of the Blooming Biology Tool: aligning course learning outcomes with assessments and promoting consistency in a large multi-section first-year biology course Can J Scholarsh Teach Learn 1 8
25. Bloom B 1956 Taxonomy of educational objectives. 1 cognitive domain McKay New York 20 24
26. Porter JA, Wolbach KC, Purzycki CB, Bowman LA, Agbada E, Mostrom AM 2010 Integration of information and scientific literacy: promoting literacy in undergraduates CBE Life Sci Educ 9 536 542 10.1187/cbe.10-01-0006 21123700 2995771 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.10-01-0006
27. Jensen JL, McDaniel MA, Woodard SM, Kummer TA 2014 Teaching to the test… or testing to teach: exams requiring higher order thinking skills encourage greater conceptual understanding Educ Psychol Rev 26 307 329 10.1007/s10648-013-9248-9 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10648-013-9248-9
28. Wang X, Su Y, Cheung S, Wong E, Kwong T 2013 An exploration of Biggs’ constructive alignment in course design and its impact on students’ learning approaches Assess Eval High Educ 38 477 491 10.1080/02602938.2012.658018 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2012.658018

Supplemental Material

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journal/jmbe/10.1128/jmbe.v19i3.1642
2018-10-31
2021-04-13

Abstract:

Triadic alignment is a pedagogical technique that instructors can use to improve their teaching and students’ learning. It involves offering the course learning objectives, teaching and learning activities, and assessments at the same cognitive process level. Though it represents a best practice, few instructors have assessed the efficacy of triadic alignment. Previous research has demonstrated that General Biology courses are commonly misaligned relative to the objectives and assessments. However, little emphasis has been placed on assessing the teaching and learning activities as the third component of triadic alignment. In this article, we describe how a General Biology course was initially misaligned, the process that was taken to align it, and the improved student outcomes that resulted from triadic alignment. We expand our discussion to include types of misalignment and the benefits of triadic alignment for both the students and the faculty member.

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

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/jmbe/19/3/jmbe-19-93.html?itemId=/content/journal/jmbe/10.1128/jmbe.v19i3.1642&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Author and Article Information

Figures

Improving Teaching through Triadic Course Alignment
[com.pub2web.rdf.cci.facet.ContentItem[id=http://asm.metastore.ingenta.com/content/author/jmbe/10.1128/jmbe.v19i3.1642-1,webId=/content/author/jmbe/10.1128/jmbe.v19i3.1642-1,properties={foaf_givenname=Dana A., foaf_name=Dana A. Pape-Zambito, foaf_surname=Pape-Zambito, pub_correspondenceLink=*, pub_isAffiliatedWith=[com.pub2web.rdf.cci.facet.ContentItem[id=http://asm.metastore.ingenta.com/content/affiliation/jmbe/10.1128/jmbe.v19i3.1642-aff1]]}], com.pub2web.rdf.cci.facet.ContentItem[id=http://asm.metastore.ingenta.com/content/author/jmbe/10.1128/jmbe.v19i3.1642-2,webId=/content/author/jmbe/10.1128/jmbe.v19i3.1642-2,properties={foaf_givenname=Alison M., foaf_name=Alison M. Mostrom, foaf_surname=Mostrom, pub_isAffiliatedWith=[com.pub2web.rdf.cci.facet.ContentItem[id=http://asm.metastore.ingenta.com/content/affiliation/jmbe/10.1128/jmbe.v19i3.1642-aff1]]}]]
Citation: Pape-Zambito D, Mostrom A. 2018. Improving teaching through triadic course alignment . J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. 19(3): doi:10.1128/jmbe.v19i3.1642
/content/jmbe/10.1128/jmbe.v19i3.1642.f1-jmbe-19-93
FIGURE 1
The average exam scores over three successive years of a new instructor’s teaching. Data were analyzed by one-way ANOVA comparing exam scores in years 1, 2, and 3. Individual exams were then compared with one another using Bonferoni’s -tests. Statistical comparisons are displayed within the exam number across years. “Overall” represents the mean of all exams within a particular year. Within the exam number, bars with different superscripts are statistically different from one another ( < 0.05). = 109, 80, and 67 for Years 1, 2, and 3, respectively.
jmbe/19/3/jmbe-19-93f1_thmb.gif
jmbe/19/3/jmbe-19-93f1.gif
Image of FIGURE 1

Click to view

FIGURE 1

The average exam scores over three successive years of a new instructor’s teaching. Data were analyzed by one-way ANOVA comparing exam scores in years 1, 2, and 3. Individual exams were then compared with one another using Bonferoni’s -tests. Statistical comparisons are displayed within the exam number across years. “Overall” represents the mean of all exams within a particular year. Within the exam number, bars with different superscripts are statistically different from one another ( < 0.05). = 109, 80, and 67 for Years 1, 2, and 3, respectively.

Source: J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. October 2018 vol. 19 no. 3 doi:10.1128/jmbe.v19i3.1642
Download as Powerpoint
/content/jmbe/10.1128/jmbe.v19i3.1642.f2-jmbe-19-93
FIGURE 2
Students’ responses to the end-of-semester evaluation statement “Exams and assignments related to course content” in three successive years. A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was performed to determine whether the distribution of students’ attitude responses differed between the three years. Bars with different superscripts are statistically different (<0.05 ) from one another.
jmbe/19/3/jmbe-19-93f2_thmb.gif
jmbe/19/3/jmbe-19-93f2.gif
Image of FIGURE 2

Click to view

FIGURE 2

Students’ responses to the end-of-semester evaluation statement “Exams and assignments related to course content” in three successive years. A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was performed to determine whether the distribution of students’ attitude responses differed between the three years. Bars with different superscripts are statistically different (<0.05 ) from one another.

Source: J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. October 2018 vol. 19 no. 3 doi:10.1128/jmbe.v19i3.1642
Download as Powerpoint
/content/jmbe/10.1128/jmbe.v19i3.1642.f3-jmbe-19-93
FIGURE 3
Students’ responses to the end-of-semester evaluation statement “Learned a lot from this course” in three successive years. A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was performed to determine whether the distribution of students’ attitude responses differed between the three years. Bars with different superscripts are statistically different ( < 0.05) from one another. (Data provided from the evaluation system were rounded to the nearest whole number; therefore, not all sums total 100%.)
jmbe/19/3/jmbe-19-93f3_thmb.gif
jmbe/19/3/jmbe-19-93f3.gif
Image of FIGURE 3

Click to view

FIGURE 3

Students’ responses to the end-of-semester evaluation statement “Learned a lot from this course” in three successive years. A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was performed to determine whether the distribution of students’ attitude responses differed between the three years. Bars with different superscripts are statistically different ( < 0.05) from one another. (Data provided from the evaluation system were rounded to the nearest whole number; therefore, not all sums total 100%.)

Source: J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. October 2018 vol. 19 no. 3 doi:10.1128/jmbe.v19i3.1642
Download as Powerpoint

Back to top
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