Just joined your advisor’s lab and don’t want to admit you don’t know how to use a fume hood?   Teaching a laboratory class, and want to provide a resource for your students?  Or are you needing to replicate another researcher’s protocol for removing mice mammaries?  The Journal of Visualized Experiments (JOVE) is a very interesting repository (and well-produced) of video procedures, from the introductory to the advanced.

The advanced techniques are the bread and butter of the site, which is actually a peer-reviewed scientific video journal (Pub Med indexed), with posts from researchers on carbon nanotube fabrication to specialized mouse dissections.

However, they just launched a new science education video database, which is probably of more interest to the audience of this blog. From their press release:

 The new Science Education database features collections of instructional videos designed to help teachers provide visual examples of basic laboratory techniques and to help students learn through clear demonstrations that they may review as often as necessary throughout their course and subsequent classes.

The Science Education database has launched with two collections, General Laboratory Techniques and Basic Methods in Cellular and Molecular Biology.

Says Moshe Pritsker, CEO of JoVE. “Instead of a single demonstration during class, students will be able to view the instruction repeatedly and learn at their own pace. This will not only increase their speed of learning and depth of knowledge, but also decrease the waste of laboratory and educational resources for universities and colleges”

The Science Education database is now available at www.jove.com/science-education-collection

The Chronicle of Higher Education recently published an open letter from San Jose State University (Philosophy Department) indicating why they refused to teach a Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) offered through EdX.  It’s incredibly thoughtful and powerful, foretelling a future where university education is simply the facilitation of such pre-packaged courses by a glorified teaching assistant, losing the local character, context, and expertise of the hosting institution and individual academics.  Here is a summary article by the Chronicle about the letter, which has some rather unsatisfying comments by San Jose State officials, and the professor who provided the original MOOC, but I found the letter much more interesting.

I hadn’t realized that these recorded MOOC lectures were being contracted by other universities as course material — I thought that MOOC’s were primarily used by individuals.  This is a troublesome trend to me.  While such online lectures could feasibly be used in a “flipped classroom” style approach, the more likely use is to replace local expertise with national “superstar” lecturers.  It feels quite counter to the aim of a university education, to develop deep expertise in contact with experts in your field of study.

A very nice article about me was just published in the Spring issue of the Newsletter of the Committee on the Status of Women in Physics.  I think it’s a nice summary of what I’ve been focusing on in my career, and my philosophies of finding one’s path, so I am posting it here.

Here is the original article (PDF), and the full Spring issue (PDF).

Envisioning & Implementing Effective Educational Programs

Specialization is useful in many careers, but in Stephanie Chasteen’s case, diversification has played a key role. Dr. Chasteen works as a consultant and contractor on various projects aimed at improving science education through research, evaluation, writing, and creating educational activities.

While a physics graduate student at the University of California – Santa Cruz, Chasteen started considering a career in science journalism and was awarded a prestigious fellowship with the AAAS Mass Media Science & Engineering Fellows program. She was placed at the science desk at National Public Radio in Washington, DC, and here, Dr. Chasteen notes she “learned the high standards of excellence of national science reporting and developed a deep love for audio production.”

Upon graduation, Chasteen diversified her portfolio even more and took a departure from traditional science journalism by joining the Exploratorium Museum of Science, Art, and Human Perception as a postdoctoral fellow. She created hands-on activities and workshops for K-12 teachers, and the opportunity helped her discover her passion for science education. Her experience in writing was not in vain, however, as she notes “writing is one of the tools I carry in my kit toward creating effective education programs.”

Dr. Chasteen then joined the Science Education Initiative (colorado.edu/sei) at the University of Colorado at Boulder to work on transforming undergraduate science classes using research available on effective science education. Chasteen brought her experience in journalism to the physics education research group creating videos and podcasts for teachers about effective educational techniques, and in return, she received training in the methods and literature of science education.

Today, Dr. Chasteen still works with the Science Education Initiative as their outreach director, helping to spread the word through videos and workshops about research-based teaching techniques. She has also started her own consulting business (www.sciencegeekgirl.com). Through her business, she works on a variety of projects including directing videos to highlight the best use of the PhET Interactive Simulations (phet.colorado.edu/), reviewing K-12 student activity booklets, serving as an external evaluator for educational programs, and writing press releases about physics education research results to promote the field in the popular media.

She notes that her networking and volunteer work helped get her to this point, and for those interested in getting involved in science education and outreach, she advises them to approach networking “with a sense of genuine curiosity and interest in people.” Opportunities such as presenting at a science book club, auditing a writing course, and judging science fairs have led to job opportunities and helped shaped Chasteen’s career path.

Chasteen also credits her interest in diverse areas with leading her to create the specialization that she is now known for within the physics education research community. She notes that she was never sure of where her interests would lead her, but she just continued to follow what sparked her passion. “I think it’s so important to explore the things that we find fascinating, because that exploration can lead to great things.”

Clickers are a natural fit for use in the physical sciences, where there is typically one right, or “best” answer to a question, and common errors in conceptual understanding or reasoning can lead to a wrong answer choice.  But what about in other disciplines, such as the humanities and social sciences?

Beyond concept-tests…

I’m continuing my series of posts on the literature related to clickers and the use of Peer Instruction.  Catching up on some good articles!

This post regards an article from 2003, “Peer Instruction vs Class-wide Discussion in Large Classes:  A comparison of two interaction methods in the wired classroom,” D. J. Nichol and J. T. Boyle, Studies in Higher Education, 28(4), 2003.

This study addresses the fact that instructors are using clickers in a wide variety of ways.  This has been documented before by Henderson and Dancy (PDF) in the physics community, when instructors who indicated that they used peer instruction often dropped what are considered critical components of the method, such as the use of conceptual questions or peer discussion.

This project  asked mechanical engineering students about their opinions and experiences regarding two of the core aspects of peer instruction — the peer-peer discussion portion of clicker questions, and the whole-class wrap-up after the votes are in.  The lecture hall is modified to accommodate interactive teaching methods (i.e., students sit in groups of four), and clicker groups remained the same during the course.  Students were introduced to peer instruction early in the semester, with some good attention paid to motivating them to participate in the process.  Questions were quite conceptual, and based on common student difficulties.  Students voted on their own, discussed in groups, and then re-voted.  The student vote on these questions was used as a trigger for peer group discussions as well as teacher-facilitated whole class discussions, resulting in what seems to be quite a flexible teaching arrangement.

The Comparison:  Mazur vs PERG sequences

The researchers attempted to compare student perceptions of two possible sequences, one dubbed the “Mazur” method, popularized by Eric Mazur in his book Peer Instruction.  The other, the PERG sequence, is that used by the University of Maryland group.    I’ve highlighted the places where the two sequences differ

Mazur sequence (Used in weeks 9 and 10)

1. Pose question
2. Individual reflection and individual vote
3. Show individual vote histogram
4. Peer discussion
5. Students re-vote
6. Show histogram of re-vote
7. Instructor summarizes and explains

PERG (Used in weeks 6 and 7)

1. Pose question
2. Peer discussion
3. Students vote
4. Show histogram of vote
5. Class-wide discussion facilitated by instructor
6. Instructor summarizes and explains

So, the Mazur method includes an individual vote, but not a whole-class discussion, at least typically.  (Note that here at the University of Colorado Boulder I would say we typically follow the PERG method).

Survey and Interviews

The researchers used a survey as well as student focus groups (25% of the class) to examine student perceptions.  Focus groups were separated by gender, and the class lecturer did not take part in the interviews or analysis.  The survey was developed based on the outcomes of the focus group interviews, and were intended to determine how widespread some of the ideas from interviews were across the class population.  Lastly, they used a “critical incident questionnaire,” where students were asked to reflect on a recent interactive session, and indicate where they felt most engaged.  I really like the mixed-methods used in this study!

Results

As in previous studies, students said that they learned from these teaching methods.  (The authors report on these results in more detail elsewhere).

With respect to the peer discussion portion of the methods, students indicated that hearing the arguments put forward by other students helped them to change their conceptions of the material.  Many comments indicated that they also felt more comfortable telling a peer that they didn’t understand something, and that it was easier to understand an explanation from a peer than from an instructor, since the peer was closer to their level of understanding and used more accessible language.

On the “critical incident questionnaire,” students reported that they felt most engaged when they were interacting and discussing problems with other students.  So, there is ample evidence that student/student discussion is a powerful force for learning and engagement.

Here are some of the most interesting findings from the survey:

• It is better to answer the concept question individually before discussing the same question in small groups:  82% agree
• Group discussion after making an individual response leads to deeper thinking about the topic:  90% agree
• It is better to start with a small group discussion before making an individual response:  13% agree
• The best interaction method depends on the difficulty of the question:  43% agree
• A class discussion using a microphone is an important aspect of the class:  40% agree
• I like having to explain answers to the questions using the microphone:  10% agree
• It is important that the teacher clearly explains which is the right answer and why after a class discussion using the microphone:  100% agree

So, some of the important take-home messages are:

1.  Students prefer to think about a question individually first.

Students felt they’d be more likely to be passive, and influenced by confident peers, if they haven’t had time to think about it on their own first.  They also felt they got more out of peer discussion if they had already determined what they thought about the question.

This is interesting, and matches with what I’ve often thought might be the case.  However, at Colorado, we often drop this individual vote in the interest of time.  Perhaps it’s OK to not sacrifice the good to the perfect, however?

2.  Students were mixed about class-wide discussions

Students preferred the peer discussion to the whole-class discussion.  While students liked hearing explanations from students outside their group, they were mixed on how important they thought this was (only 40% agreed).  Some also indicated that they were more attentive if they knew they might be called upon to share their response.  However, they felt there were many drawbacks to the class wide discussion.  It took too much time, it was easy to get off topic, and sometimes the discussion and unclear arguments caused further confusion.  Students also found it anxiety-provoking to be called to the microphone.   At CU, our classes are small enough that no microphone is required, and we ask for student volunteers — so I wonder how these results might be different in that format.

However, students did indicate that it was most helpful to use this whole class discussion when the histogram showed that the class was clearly divided between two or more answers.  Indeed, this is when we advocate using whole class discussion — when it has the most potential to clarify the reasoning behind different popular answers.

Note that students were unanimous that it is important for the instructor to clarify the correct answer and reasoning — a finding that mirrors that found in Smith and Knight on the importance of combining peer discussion with instructor explanation.

The authors have an interesting suggestion why the whole-class discussion might be of less value:  In these discussions, students are not generating their own mental models, and so there is less conceptual conflict to resolve during this discussion.

Take-home messages

So, based on the results of this study, it is best to:

1. Have students vote individually prior to peer discussion (unless the question is likely to be too difficult for students to think productively about it on their own
2. Use peer discussion
3. Use whole-class discussion only when there is more than one popular answer
4. Keep the whole-class discussion focused and within a reasonable time limit, and
5. Clarify the correct answer and reasoning at the end

The authors remark on a fact that continues to be heartening to me — in these sorts of studies, over and over, students and instructors both provide ideas about learning which dovetail remarkably well with the research literature.