Less teaching, more learning: 10-yr study supports increasing student learning through less coverage and more inquiry

Abstract

In this study, we compared gains in student content learning over a 10-yr period in which the introductory biology laboratory curriculum was changed in two ways: an increase of inquiry and a reduction of content. Three laboratory formats were tested: traditional 1-wk-long cookbook laboratories, two 7-wk-long inquiry laboratories, and one 14-wk-long inquiry laboratory. As the level of inquiry increased, student learning gains on content exams trended upward even while traditional content coverage taught decreased. In a quantitative assessment of content knowledge, students who participated in the 14-wk-long inquiry laboratory format outscored their peers in both 7- and 1-wk-long lab formats on Medical College Admissions Test exam questions (scores of 64.73%, 61.97%, and 53.48%, respectively, P < 0.01). In a qualitative study of student opinions, surveys conducted at the end of semesters where traditional 1-wk laboratories (n = 167 students) were used had low response rates and predominately negative opinions (only 20% of responses were positive), whereas those who participated in 7-wk (n = 543) or 14-wk (n = 308) inquiry laboratories had high response rates and 71% and 96% positive reviews, respectively. In an assessment of traditional content coverage in courses, three indexes were averaged to calculate traditional forms of coverage and showed a decrease by 44% over the study period. We believe that the quantitative and qualitative data support greater student-driven inquiry in the classroom laboratory, which leads to deeper learning in fewer topic areas (less teaching) and can reap gains in scientific thinking and fundamental understanding applicable to a broader range of topic areas (more learning) in introductory biology.

Situated instructional coaching: a case study of faculty professional development

“…Examples of these practices include peer instruction (Crouch and Mazur 2001), lecture tutorials (Kortz et al 2008;LoPresto and Murrell 2009), and a variety of other in-class, student-centered activities (Knight and Wood 2005;McConnell et al 2003;NRC 2015). These practices have been demonstrated to improve student learning in a variety of instructional settings from smaller laboratory courses (Luckie et al 2012) to large lecture courses (Crouch and Mazur 2001;Deslauriers et al 2011;Freeman et al 2014;Kortz et al 2008;Walker and Cotner 2008). STEM programs that incorporate reformed teaching practices into introductory courses have also been shown to retain majors (Graham et al 2013).…”

Process-Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning Strategy Enhances Students’ Higher Level Thinking Skills in a Pharmaceutical Sciences Course

“…Critical to achieving this goal is the use of teaching and learning strategies that engage students and promote development of the process skills of application, analysis, and evaluation. Yet, despite a growing body of evidence demonstrating the efficacy and superiority of active-learning strategies and national reports calling for the adoption of these methods, [1][2][3][4] instructional strategies in science and math disciplines tend to be passive, leading to student disengagement and contributing to the "leaky pipeline" of science. [5][6][7][8][9] The reasons science faculty members give for being reluctant to adopt active-learning strategies include the significant amount of time needed to prepare materials, the reluctance to reduce the amount of material covered, and the perception that students are unwilling to engage in or prepare for these types of classroom activities.…”

Examining the Role of Leadership in an Undergraduate Biology Institutional Reform Initiative

“…Despite high levels of funding and publicity for STEM education, systemic reform across the disciplines at the undergraduate level has been slow (Dancy and Henderson, 2008; Fairweather, 2008; Austin, 2011; Marbach-Ad et al ., 2014). Breadth of coverage continues to dominate depth of coverage in many introductory, gateway science courses (Daempfle, 2006; Momsen et al ., 2010; Alberts, 2012; Luckie et al ., 2012), student attrition in STEM fields continues at a high rate (Chen, 2013; King, 2015), and a gap between men and women and between majority and minority students persists in in-class participation, overall course grades, and degree attainment (Madsen et al ., 2013; Eddy et al ., 2014; Gayles and Ampaw, 2014; Brown et al ., 2016), although some conflicting evidence shows that the gender gap is closing (Ceci et al ., 2014; Miller and Wai, 2015). …”