Active learning in college science

Joel J. Mintzes

Emily M. Walter  Editors

Active

Learning

in College

Science

The Case for Evidence-Based Practice

Active Learning in College Science

Joel J. Mintzes • Emily M. Walter

Editors

Active Learning in College

Science

The Case for Evidence-Based Practice

ISBN 978-3-030-33599-1 ISBN 978-3-030-33600-4 (eBook)

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-33600-4

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of

the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation,

broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information

storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology

now known or hereafter developed.

The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication

does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant

protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.

The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book

are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the

editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any

errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional

claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG.

The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

Editors

Joel J. Mintzes

Departments of Biological Sciences and

Science Education

California State University

Chico, CA, USA

Science Learning Associates

Wrightsville Beach, NC, USA

Emily M. Walter

Department of Biological Sciences and

Center for STEM Education

California State University

Fresno, CA, USA

v

The Medieval Lecture Bologna 1350 (Laurentius de Voltolina)

vii

Distinguished Editorial Advisory Board

Lori Breslow, Ph.D, Founding Director (STEM)

MIT Teaching and Learning Laboratory

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Brian Coppola, Ph.D. (Chemistry)

Arthur F. Thurnau Professor of Chemistry

University of Michigan, Ann Arbor

Diane Ebert-May, Ph.D. (Biology)

University Distinguished Professor of Plant Biology

Michigan State University

Eugenia Etkina, Ph.D., Recipient (Physics)

Robert A. Millikan Award for Excellence in Physics Education

Professor of Science Education, Rutgers University, NJ

Eric Mazur, Ph.D. Balkonski Professor (Physics)

Department of Physics and Applied Physics

Harvard University

Joseph D. Novak, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus (Biology)

Science Education and Biological Sciences

Cornell University

Timothy F. Slater, Ph.D. (Earth and Space Sciences)

Endowed Professor for Excellence in Higher Education

University of Wyoming

Mary Pat Wenderoth, Ph.D. Principal Lecturer (Biology)

Department of Biology

University of Washington

ix

Preface

If a new antibiotic is being tested for effectiveness, its effectiveness at curing patients is

compared with the best current antibiotics, and not with treatment by bloodletting. However,

in undergraduate STEM education, we have the curious situation that, although more effec￾tive teaching methods have been overwhelmingly demonstrated, most STEM courses are

still taught by lectures—the pedagogical equivalent of bloodletting. (Wieman 2014)

Nobel prize-winning Physicist and Stanford University Professor Carl E. Wieman

succinctly summarizes the findings from a recent meta-analysis of over 200 studies

that compared active learning approaches to standard lectures in college-level sci￾ence courses (Freeman et  al. 2014). Those studies found substantially enhanced

learning and significantly less failure in courses that encourage “asking rather than

telling” and “doing rather than sitting.” The most successful practices were those

that asked students to apply their knowledge rather than merely to absorb it. And yet

in an age of instantly accessible knowledge, the majority of college science faculty

continue to rely on teaching methods perfected in a medieval academy where the

written word was the coveted possession of the fortunate few and where crumbs of

insight were selectively dispensed to the masses in carefully measured doses.

This book is dedicated to an exploration of evidence-based practice in college

science teaching. It is grounded in disciplinary education research by practicing

scientists who have chosen to take Wieman’s challenge seriously and to investigate

claims about the efficacy of alternative strategies in college science teaching. In

editing this book, we have chosen to showcase outstanding cases of exemplary prac￾tice supported by solid evidence and to give wider voice to practitioners who offer

models of teaching and learning that meet the high standards of the scientific disci￾plines. Our intention is to let these scientists speak for themselves and to offer

authentic guidance to those who seek models of excellence. Our primary audience

is made up of the thousands of dedicated faculty and graduate students who teach

undergraduate science at community and technical colleges, 4- year liberal arts

institutions, comprehensive regional campuses, and flagship research universities.

In keeping with Wieman’s challenge, our primary focus has been to uncover

classroom practices that encourage and support meaningful learning and conceptual

understanding in the natural sciences. Our own review of published work in the field

x

suggests a useful way of classifying these classroom practices which provides a

structural framework for this book. Following an introduction based on constructiv￾ist learning theory (Part I), the practices we explore are Eliciting Ideas and

Encouraging Reflection (Part II), Using Clickers to Engage Students (Part III),

Supporting Peer Interaction with Small Group Activities (Part IV); Restructuring

Curriculum and Instruction (Part V), Rethinking the Physical Environment (Part

VI), Enhancing Understanding with Technology (Part VII), and Assessing

Understanding (Part VIII). The final part (IX) of the book is devoted to professional

issues facing college and university faculty who choose to adopt active learning in

their courses.

The common feature underlying all of the strategies described in this book is

their emphasis on actively engaging students who seek to make sense of natural

objects and events. Many of the strategies we highlight emerge from a constructivist

view of learning that has gained widespread acceptance in recent years (Mintzes

et al. 2005a, b). To constructivists, learners make sense of the world by forging con￾nections between new ideas and those that are part of their existing knowledge base.

For most students, that knowledge base is riddled with a host of naïve ideas, miscon￾ceptions, and alternative conceptions they have acquired throughout their lives. In

large part, the job of the teacher is to elicit these ideas, to help students understand

how their ideas differ from the scientifically accepted view, to assist as students

restructure and reconcile their newly acquired knowledge, and to provide opportu￾nities for students to evaluate what they have learned and apply it in novel circum￾stances. Clearly, this prescription demands far more than most college and university

scientists have been prepared for.

The authors of this book are a diverse group of scientists who have experienced

frustration with conventional practices and in turn have chosen to implement active

learning strategies in their classrooms on an experimental basis. Many of them have

extensive preparation in their discipline (e.g., biology, chemistry, earth and space

sciences, physics) but little formal training in pedagogy or learning theory beyond

the traditional graduate teaching assistantship. Here, they share the hard-won

insights they have gained through daily practice and the results of well-designed

studies to document their effectiveness. The chapters they write are authentic, first￾hand accounts of instructional and curricular innovation supported by thousands of

studies published in a range of widely read sources, including Journal of College

Science Teaching, CBE—Life Sciences Education, Journal of Chemical Education,

Journal of Geoscience Education, American Journal of Physics, and others.

But why would a college or university scientist read this book? Although many

college and university faculty claim familiarity with one or more active learning

strategies (e.g., clickers), few are conversant with the wide range of potential tech￾niques, and fewer yet have implemented even one. Many reasons have been given

for this failure (e.g., “I am a great lecturer. Why should I change?”), but one endur￾ing obstacle is that adopting active learning strategies involves risk: risk of losing

control, risk from lacking the needed skills to succeed, risk of being out of step with

colleagues, and risk that students will reject the approach or fail to perform at

expected levels. This book provides models of innovation by credible colleagues

Preface

xi

from a wide range of scientific disciplines who offer advice, support, and tangible

evidence that active learning works and that it can be implemented with reasonable

success and acceptable risk.

In this book, we bring together in one place the best advice by the most authorita￾tive voices in this rapidly emerging enterprise. For the first time, this book offers

strong, evidence-based work on active learning practices from across disparate sci￾entific disciplines in a single volume that speaks to the common concerns of all

college science faculty. We purposefully eschew much educational jargon and com￾plex statistical treatment (which obfuscate rather than illuminate) in favor of a com￾mon sense-scientific approach that appeals to a skeptical but open-minded reader.

Our hope is that the readers will choose to try some of the strategies described in

these pages and to investigate their effectiveness. We invite and encourage the read￾ers to share their experiences with us ([email protected];

[email protected]).

Chico, CA, USA Joel J. Mintzes

Fresno, CA, USA Emily M. Walter

References

Wieman, C. (2014). Large-scale comparison of science teaching methods sends clear message.

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111(23),

8319–8320.

Freeman, S., Eddy, S., McDonough, M., Smith, M., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P.

(2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathemat￾ics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111(23),

8412–8413.

Mintzes, J., Wandersee, J., & Novak, J., (Eds). (2005a). Assessing science understanding: A human

constructivist view. Burlington: Elsevier.

Mintzes, J., Wandersee, J., & Novak, J., (Eds). (2005b). Teaching science for understanding: A

human constructivist view. Burlington: Elsevier.

Preface

xiii

30 Active Learning Concepts

This list defines several commonly used concepts encountered in the discussion of

active learning in college science. It is followed by a figure that guides the reader to

specific chapters addressing each of these concepts within several scientific

disciplines.

Active Learning: A model of instruction that encourages meaningful learning and

knowledge construction through collaborative activities that support thinking

and doing; “hands-on, minds-on teaching”

Assessment: Tools or methods used to evaluate, measure, and document the out￾comes of instruction; may be formative (low stakes, in-course) or summative

(high stakes, end-of-course)

Augmented Reality: An interactive computer-enhanced depiction of real-world

objects or events which may include pictures, sounds, or texts; superimposing or

overlaying real objects with digital information

Clicker: A hand-held device used by students to respond to questions posed by an

instructor; responses are recorded and tallied by a combination of software and

hardware to display visual feedback

Collaborative Learning: A generic umbrella term to describe any of a number of

instructional approaches in which small groups of students work together to

solve a problem, complete a task, or create a product

Concept Mapping: A technique for creating two-dimensional, hierarchical, node￾link diagrams depicting the most important concepts and relationships in a

knowledge domain

Constructivism: An epistemological position based on the idea that learning is a

product of “mental construction”; learners construct their own understanding by

relating new knowledge with what they already know; may include radical, cog￾nitive, and/or social elements

xiv

Cooperative Learning: A form of collaborative learning in which teams are com￾posed of students of heterogeneous ability; an instructor typically assigns a

structured activity, and individuals are accountable for their own work and that

of the group as a whole

CURE (course-based undergraduate research experiences): Laboratory-based

investigations that engage a whole class of students in addressing a research

question of interest to the scientific community through asking and answering

scientific questions, analyzing relevant data, and making and defending

arguments.

Engagement: The extent to which students express interest, curiosity, attention,

and/or passion when involved in a learning episode

Error Discovery Learning: A Web-based active learning method that engages stu￾dents in solving fast challenge problems through their own thinking and then

assessing competing conceptual arguments and identifying specific conceptual

errors

Evidence-Based Practices: Instructional practices that are guided by research find￾ings, as opposed to intuition, unsubstantiated beliefs, common experience, or

personal preference

Flipped Instruction: An instructional strategy that reverses the traditional class￾room environment by introducing concepts outside of the classroom in the form

of readings, videos, and/or computer-enhanced methods and moving traditional

homework into the classroom often engaging collaborative activities

Gamification: An instructional approach that seeks to motivate students by using

video game design and game elements in learning environments with the goal to

engage learners by capturing their interest and inspiring them to continue

learning

Meaningful vs. Rote Learning: In meaningful learning, new concepts are linked to

existing concepts in the learner’s knowledge structure, whereas in rote learning,

new concepts are stored in a verbatim, non-substantive, and arbitrary way in

cognitive structure (D.P. Ausubel); understanding vs. memorizing

Metacognition: Awareness, understanding, and control of one’s own thinking or

learning processes; executive control; thinking about thinking, learning about

learning

MOOC (massive open online course): A Web-based course with unlimited partici￾pation that is openly accessible to all who wish to enroll and often tuition-free

Online Learning: Instruction that is mediated by the Internet; interactions between

students and instructor may be synchronous (live) or asynchronous (recorded)

and may be enhanced with a wide range of instructional materials

Peer-Led Team Learning: A complement to the lecture and an alternative to the

traditional recitation section, replacing it with a team of students who collaborate

to develop their problem-solving skills and conceptual understanding by work￾ing on faculty-developed exercises and featuring an undergraduate leader who is

strategically trained for his or her role

30 Active Learning Concepts

xv

Problem-Based Learning: An instructional strategy in which small teams of stu￾dents attempt to understand a messy, real-life, authentic problem, activating prior

knowledge, generating and testing hypotheses, defining learning objectives,

researching necessary information or data, finding solutions, reporting, and

reflecting on their own learning

Project-Based Learning: Similar to problem-based learning but students working

as a team are given a “driving question” to answer and are then directed to create

an artifact to present their knowledge. Artifacts may include a variety of media

such as writings, art, drawings, three-dimensional representations, videos, pho￾tography, or technology-based presentations.

Reflective Writing: A metacognitive strategy in which students consciously think

about and analyze a concept and record the changes in their thinking about it. It

may involve critically evaluating an experience and linking it with what has been

learned from coursework.

Resistance: Refusal to accept or comply with a novel instructional approach; oppo￾sition or aversion to the instructor’s efforts

Self-Efficacy: Beliefs about one’s ability to perform a task or engage in a process;

self-confidence

Social Media: Types of Internet-based communication in which the users create

online communities to share information, ideas, personal messages, and other

content; examples are Facebook, Twitter, and blogs

Studio Classrooms: Flexible learning spaces that replace conventional lecture halls

and teaching laboratories that are equipped with multiple projection screens,

white boards, one or more overhead projectors, round tables that seat small

groups of student collaborators, and technology and scientific equipment avail￾able for student use

Team-Based Learning: A structured system of collaborative engagement charac￾terized by individual pre-work, readiness testing, clarification sessions, applica￾tion exercises, and peer evaluation

3D Printing: The process of making a physical object from a three-dimensional

digital model, typically by laying down many thin layers of a material in

succession

Video Vignettes: Web-based assignments that combine online video with video

analysis and interactivity, each addressing a known learning difficulty informed

by discipline-based education research; invites students to make predictions, per￾form observations, and draw conclusions about a single phenomenon

Virtual Learning: Enhancements that offer Web-based presentation of resources,

activities, and interactions within a course structure and provide for different

stages of assessment and/or report on participation; may have some integration

with other instructional components

30 Active Learning Concepts

xvi

Acve Learning Concept Chapters by Discipline

Astronomy Biology Chem Engineer Geology Math/Phys STEM

Acve Learning

(General) 49, 50 4,19,20,61 14,22, 24 53, 58 42, 43, 44 23, 26, 31, 37 1, 19, 36, 54, 60

Assessment 49, 50 48, 52 39, 53 51 48, 51

Augmented Reality 46 46 46 43, 44 46 46

Clicker 49 10 11 9 9, 12, 59

Collaborave Learning 49, 50 13, 15, 16 17 39 25, 51 1

Concept Mapping 8 8

Construcvism 1

Cooperave Learning 15, 20 1

CURE 29

Engagement 19, 28 1,3

Error Discovery Learning 47 47 47

Evidence Based Pracce 2, 19, 20 17 58 31 1

Flipped Instrucon 34 35 33

Gamificaon 27

Meaningful vs Rote 8 1

Metacognion 8 6 1

MOOC 39 37

Online Learning 38 38 38 42, 43, 44 37 38 36

Peer Interacon 13, 15, 16 14, 17 39 1

Problem-Based Learning 21

Project-Based Learning 22 39, 53

Reflecve Wring 7 6 6, 7

Resistance 57 58 5, 57, 58

Self-Efficacy 7 54, 55, 56

Social Media 40 38 36

Studio Classroom 30 30 32 31

Team-Based Learning 15 14

3D Prinng 45 45

Video Vignees 41 41

Virtual Learning 42, 43, 44

30 Active Learning Concepts

xvii

Contents

Part I Introduction: Chaps. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5

1 From Constructivism to Active Learning in College Science . . . . . . . 3

Joel J. Mintzes

2 Evidence-Based Practices for the Active Learning Classroom . . . . . . 13

Robert Idsardi

3 Student Engagement in Active Learning Classes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Linda C. Hodges

4 Active Learning and Conceptual Understanding in Biology . . . . . . . 43

Jeffrey T. Olimpo and David Esparza

5 Navigating the Barriers to Adoption and Sustained Use

of Active Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

Emily M. Walter, Lillian Senn, and Evelin E. Munoz

Part II Eliciting Ideas and Encouraging Reflection with Written

Inscriptions: Chaps. 6, 7 and 8

6 Reflective Writing in Active Learning Classrooms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

Calvin S. Kalman

7 Using Writing in Science Class to Understand and Activate

Student Engagement and Self-Efficacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

Eileen Kogl Camfield, Laura Beaster-Jones, Alex D. Miller,

and Kirkwood M. Land

8 Enhancing the Quality of Concept Mapping Interventions

in Undergraduate Science . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107

Ian M. Kinchin

xviii

Part III Using Clickers to Engage Students: Chaps. 9, 10, 11 and 12

9 Personal Response Systems: Making an Informed Choice . . . . . . . . . 123

Kathleen M. Koenig

10 Clickers in the Biology Classroom: Strategies for Writing

and Effectively Implementing Clicker Questions That Maximize

Student Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141

Michelle K. Smith and Jennifer K. Knight

11 Click-on-Diagram Questions: Using Clickers to Engage Students

in Visual-Spatial Reasoning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159

Nicole D. LaDue and Thomas F. Shipley

12 Clicker Implementation Styles in STEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173

Angela Fink and Regina F. Frey

Part IV Supporting Peer Interaction with Small Group Activities:

Chaps. 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17

13 Peer Interaction in Active Learning Biology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191

Debra Linton

14 Peer-Led Team Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205

Pratibha Varma-Nelson and Mark S. Cracolice

15 Team-Based Learning in STEM and the Health Sciences . . . . . . . . . . 219

Sarah Leupen

16 Collaborative Learning in College Science: Evoking Positive

Interdependence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233

Karin Scager, Johannes Boonstra, Ton Peeters, Jonne Vulperhorst,

and Fred Wiegant

17 Silent Students in the Active Learning Classroom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249

Carrie A. Obenland, Ashlyn H. Munson, and John S. Hutchinson

Part V Restructuring Curriculum and Instruction: Chaps. 18, 19, 20,

21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 and 29

18 Why Traditional Labs Fail…and What We Can Do About It . . . . . . . 271

N. G. Holmes

19 Redesigning Science Courses to Enhance Student Engagement

and Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 291

Xiufeng Liu, Chris Rates, Anne Showers, Lara Hutson,

and Tilman Baumstark

Contents