Redesign of Biology 101 at
Salisbury University
Maryland Course Redesign Workshop
30 May 2008
SU Redesign Team
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Clem Counts
Mark Frana
Sam Geleta
Ron Gutberlet
Mark Holland
Wanda Kelly
Joan Maloof
Claudia Morrison-Parker
Wanda Perkins
Betty Lou Smith
Bob Tardiff
Melissa Thomas
McGraw-Hill
Dr. Les Erickson, learning technology guru (left)
– Heidi Freund, Meghan Moreau, Matt Swinand
•
Enhancement of online learning in Biology 210
– Kim Hunter, Richard Hunter
Selected Goals of Biology 101
• Improve biological literacy of our students
• Demonstrate relevance of biological
science to all citizens
• Create a positive experience of biology,
doing justice to the amazing natural world
• Distinguish science from non-science
• Share practical information about personal
and environmental health
Traditional Course
• Three hours of lecture and two hours of lab per
week
• Large lecture sections (72-96 students)
• Small lab sections (24 students)
• Common lab syllabus
• Course drift and duplication of effort in lecture
• Engagement could be improved
• Clicker use recently begun in some sections
Redesigned Course
• One hour of “lecture” and two hours of lab
per week
• Large “lecture” sections (96 students)
• Small lab sections (24 students)
• Shared online component
• Engagement will be improved
• Use of WebCT, clickers, eBook option
Pilot of Redesigned Course
• 1 hour 15 minutes of “lecture” and two hours of lab per week
– Will decrease to a single 50-minute meeting per week for “lecture”
– Time for lab/discussion will remain the same
• Use of WebCT to deliver online content that partially replaces
traditional lectures
–
–
–
–
–
–
Weekly instructions
Study guide
Online lesson from McGraw-Hill
Practice activities from McGraw-Hill
Additional links
Online quiz
• eBook
• Maximized use of lab time for activities, discussion, team contests
• Use of clickers to engage more students, to initiate discussions, and
to automate some grading
Evaluation and Assessment
• Three surveys
– Midsemester survey
– End-of-semester survey
– Course evaluations
• Embedded exam questions
– Same instructor, different semesters
– Same semester, different instructors
• DFW rates
– Same instructor, different semesters
Impact of Redesign on Student Engagement
and Learning—The Good
• “I liked the online style of the course.”
• “Online quizzes were helpful.”
• “I usually do not like bio but it quickly became
my favorite this semester.”
Impact of Redesign on Student Engagement
and Learning—The Good
• “…easy to want to come to class every time and
not fall asleep.”
• “This was my favorite course this semester.”
• “I like the way this class is conducted better than
my friend’s bio classes.”
Impact of Redesign on Student Engagement
and Learning—The Good
• “I really like the mix between online work and
class time.”
• “It is new and a little hard to get used to, but I
like it!”
• “I never really liked bio until now.”
• “I like the online material…it makes class easier
to attend.”
• “The breakdown of DNA and protein synthesis is
interesting and never taught in my high school.”
Impact of Redesign on Student Engagement
and Learning—The Bad
• “I would prefer a hard covered textbook.”
• “YouTube usually doesn’t work on my
computer.”
• “The only thing I don’t like about the
lessons is it goes into a great detail and
covers things we don’t need to know for
the exam.”
Impact of Redesign on Student Engagement
and Learning—The Ugly
• “Hybrid class sucked b/c I didn’t learn
anything from e-book or learning modules,
time consuming or annoying.”
• “If you taught as much as you were
supposed to, I’d understand the topics
better.”
Impact of Redesign on Student
Learning—Exam Performance
Embedded Questions—Same Semester
Number of questions answered correctly by a higher
percentage of students.
Pilot
Tie (± 5%)
Traditional
Exam 1
5
2
2
Exam 2
2
5
2
Impact of Redesign on Student
Learning—Exam Performance
Embedded Questions—Same Instructor
Number of questions answered correctly by a higher
percentage of students.
Pilot
Tie (± 5%)
Previous
Semester
Exam 1
5
3
1
Exam 2
4
4
1
Impact of Redesign on Student
Learning—Selected Survey Results
• Approximately how many hours per week do you spend
working on the online lesson?
–
–
–
–
less than 1 hour
1-2 hours
2-5 hours
more than 5 hours
10 (24%)
27 (64%)
5 (12%)
0 (0%)
• The online lesson helps me understand the material and
is important in my preparation for quizzes and exams.
–
–
–
–
Strongly agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
12 (29%)
30 (71%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
Impact of Redesign on Student
Learning—Selected Survey Results
• Approximately how many hours per week do you spend
working on the study guide?
–
–
–
–
less than 1 hour
1-2 hours
2-5 hours
more than 5 hours
7 (17%)
24 (57%)
11 (26%)
0 (0%)
• The study guide helps me understand the material and is
important in my preparation for quizzes and exams.
–
–
–
–
Strongly agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
30 (71%)
12 (29%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
Impact of Redesign on Student
Learning—Selected Survey Results
• I understand the material that we have covered so far in
Biology 101.
–
–
–
–
Strongly agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
11 (26%)
32 (74%)
2 (5%)
0 (0%)
• I have learned new things about biology this semester.
–
–
–
–
Strongly agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
21 (51%)
20 (49%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
Impact of Redesign on Student
Learning—Selected Survey Results
• I can see how the topics we are covering are relevant to
my life and my education.
–
–
–
–
Strongly agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
9 (21%)
30 (70%)
4 (9%)
0 (0%)
• Which of these best matches your feelings about the
course?
– I’d prefer a traditional lecture with no online component. 5 (13%)
– I like having a mix of online work and class time. 33 (83%)
– I’d prefer to have more online work and less class time. 2 (5%)
Impact of Redesign on Student
Retention—DFW Rates
Pilot
Previous
Semester
Withdrawals
0/48
4/87
F’s
0/48
1/87
D’s
3/48
5/87
Did the course work better for
some students?
• “In class is my favorite way of learning, but the online is
like homework and reinforces what I’ve learned.”
• Only 1 or 2 of 48 students had a strong negative reaction
to the course format.
• 5 students changed their major to Biology
• Concerns and questions:
– What do we do for students who don’t like the hybrid format?
– Perhaps it is good for these students to be “forced” to do more
independent work.
– Students who prefer to avoid online work altogether could take a
different course to meet their gen ed science requirement; are
we ok with that?
Implementation Issues
• Adequate coverage of course content
– No major problems; in fact, coverage may have improved for
pilot instructor
• Technology
– Browser compatibility with publisher materials
– Clicker glitches (batteries, participant list, students forget)
• Faculty development and support (very good)
– Assigned time
– WebCT training sessions
• Student attitudes and reactions
– Mostly very positive
– Some (limited) perception that redesign’s purpose is for the
instructor to get out of work
– eBook was not popular
Colleague Reactions to the
Redesign
•
Objections or reservations
– Use of clickers and some other technology
– Decreased classroom time and the uneasy feeling of not telling students
information directly and in person
– Concern that workload could increase
•
What are they excited about?
– Engagement of students
– Revision of course content to make science and biology relevant to nonmajors
•
What evidence of success seems to be most convincing?
–
–
–
–
Embedded questions
DFW rate
Independent evaluation of course through classroom visit by tenured faculty
Student comments on surveys and evaluations
Support from Department,
Institution, and McGraw-Hill
• Assigned time to prepare and implement the
pilot; workload discussion ongoing
• Department faculty and university administration
supportive and encouraging
• Good advice from redesign team and other
colleagues
• Excellent support (advice, implementation, etc.)
from our Instructional Technology group
• Free online course and eBook from McGraw-Hill
for students in the pilot section
Changes in Redesign Goals
• Some traditional lecture (enhanced with
clickers and short activities) should
probably be part of the redesigned course.
– Online work “primes” students for lectures.
– Students seemed to appreciate additional
explanation after they had completed online
work.
• We are still evaluating the possibility of
using undergraduate learning assistants.
Scaling Redesign for Full
Implementation
•
•
•
•
Course Coordinator
Lab Coordinator
Figuring out appropriate workload
Orientation workshop for 101 instructors in
early August