Activity 3 - Reading Reflections
Ana Maria Barral
Of the many statements that jumped at me during the reading of the
materials, one by Randy Bass was particularly relevant for me: “the discourse
surrounding the scholarship of teaching...will be (a discourse) based on disciplinary
protocols of investigative practice calibrated to the idioms of particular campus and
institutional cultures.”
This quote touches on several aspects of my “problems”: they are not only
related to the teaching of biological sciences, but also reside within a rather unique,
accelerated method of instruction that is one of the defining characteristics of my
university and hence of my teaching. This compressed but very focused method of
instruction is a necessary context when I discuss my scholarship. Moreover, it
becomes part of my “problem” and by embracing it as part of the research it
provides additional potential to enhance the knowledge of learning. My main
problem, therefore, could be summarized as: “How to achieve deep learning of
basic biological concepts and skills in accelerated undergraduate courses?”
These problems originated from the “what works” question perspective (per
Pat Hutchings’ taxonomy). Similar to Randy Bass, I have struggled with unhappy
students (both in courses taught by me or by instructors I supervise), and tried to
implement novel approaches that would result in better student learning. Here of
course, enters the next issue: how do we know what works? And what does “to
work,” mean in the learning process? I come from a laboratory research background
where variables are easy to control, and experiments could be repeated multiple
times in identical settings, Education research is very different for its personal and
ethical aspects as well as its relative lack of control. To learn more about research
methodologies in the scholarship of teaching is one of my main goals of this
residency.
“What works” has however slowly started to move towards “what is.” The
defining moment for this took place in the summer of 2013. I had been teaching a
course of anatomy-physiology, and emboldened by new knowledge and resources,
I included a number of hands-on in-class activities to practice difficult concepts. In
the pursuit of deep understanding of physiological concepts I drove some of my
students literally to tears. I was mystified. A week later I was fortunate to participate
in a bioinformatics workshop that supposedly did not require previous bioinformatics
knowledge. However, I was not familiar with the system of reference (fruit flies), and
was overrun with a deluge of information I could not absorb. I had several “deer in
the headlights” moments, struggled mightily to follow the lectures and practice
sessions, and finally understood what my students had gone through.
“What is” not something I have addressed as an action item in my
scholarship yet. It is something I think about a lot, reflect on, and discuss with my
colleagues. Carl Wieman talks about the “curse of knowledge” and how hard it is for
experts to understand the thinking of novices. Eric Mazur started on his peerlearning journey when he realized how shallow the physics knowledge of many
students was in a traditional classroom. After that summer of 2013 I followed some
of the tenets in Bass’ writing (without having read him), such as focusing on the
aspects I considered most important for longer time, and being more intentional with
my teaching. I also decided to prune the course content, removing information that
“has always been taught” but did not add much to the important aspects of the
class.
But for now my main interest is still how to assess student learning and
evaluate teaching effectiveness as the two sides of the same coin. The former is
subject to many uncontrolled parameters, from student previous knowledge to
personalities and learning styles, resulting in the same intervention having variable
effects. Yes, there are times I miss the uniform nature of cell lines or inbred mouse
strains! As for the second, I feel this is where larger data sets and statistics may
provide answers beyond the realm of anecdotal evidence.
When reading articles about new teaching approaches I am sometimes
reminded of clinical trials of new drugs. A small pilot with a carefully selected patient
population and under heavy monitoring results in statistically significant benefits.
The same drug, used in large multi-institutional trials in the general population,
struggles to replicate the effect. This aspect is something I would like to discuss
during the residency. While teaching scholarship can be done at small case, and as
an ongoing, iterative process, has a positive and enriching effect on teaching per
se, how to expand (shall we say “scale up”) so we achieve convincing data for
publication and grant purposes?