Academic & Social Impacts of White Boarding in a General Botany Course
Martin Kelly (Biology), Daniel MacIsaac (Physics), & Kathleen Falconer (Elementary Education & Reading)
DATA & ANALYSIS
RESEARCH BACKGROUND
Group learning is a critical component of teaching and learning about science. white boarding is a student
centered, cooperative learning, instructional technique that can be incorporated into larger lecture based classes to
foster an atmosphere where ideas are student-generated, and students construct their own evidence-based knowledge.
From the collected final exams, the performance of each graded question was recorded.
A statistical comparison (paired t-test) of the academic characteristics of General Botany (Lecture & White Boarding) was made to a previous General Botany course that only experienced lecture.
While known in physics classrooms, we present the results of the 1st application of white boarding to a college
biology course.
We characterize the use of white boards to supplement the traditional lecture approach in General Botany.
We describe the benefits of this instructional method in an introductory biology course.
Lastly, linear regression was used to estimate the relationship between student performance (female and male) on the final
exam with the number of points earned over the semester through white boarding.
Relation between Final Exam & White Boarding (Female Students)
Relation between Final Exam & White Boarding (Male Students)
180
200
WHY WHITE BOARD?
white boards facilitate discussion in small groups of 3-4 students.
At the beginning of a unit of learning, this establishes students’ prior knowledge.
After an experiment, or set of lectures, white boards can help students draw more reliable conclusions.
As an assessment tool, white boards give the professor an opportunity to see and hear students explain
their thinking.
General Botany
Fall 2001
General Botany
Fall 2003
Lecture Only
Lecture & White
Boarding
62.5
Exam 2 (100 P)
Exam 3 (100 P)
59.4
59.8
66.7*
66.7
Final Exam (200 P)
135.4
121.8*
White Board (100 P)
no data
69.3
Laboratory Notebook (42 P)
40.0
36.6*
Laboratory Quizzes (54 P)
41.0
41.4
Laboratory Participation (42 P)
40.4
38.1*
Student Group
Freshman
Sophomore
General Botany
Fall 2001
Lecture Only
General Botany
Fall 2003
Lecture & White
Boarding
18%
39%
15
16
Junior
40
26
Senior
18
10
Other
Female
Male
5
10
30 students
24 students
19
24
140
120
100
80
120
100
80
60
60
20
20
0
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
0
100
FINAL EXAM
Definitions (subtotal)
Concepts (subtotal)
General Botany
Fall 2003
Lecture Only
Lecture & White Boarding
67.1
56.4
45.5
33.5
Long Answer (subtotal)
23.3
24.9
Exam (total)
135.6
114.8
Final Exam
ARE THERE DIFFERENCES IN AVERAGE PERFORMANCE?
Lecture Only (Fall 2001) Vs. Lecture & White Boarding (Fall 2003)
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
The number of points earned by a male
student on the final exam was not
dependent on the number of points he had
earned through white boarding.
R2 = 0.053
•expected Final Exam score = 79.4 + 0.377
(white board points)
The number of points earned by a female student
on the final exam was dependent on the number
of points she had earned through white boarding.
R2 = 0.219
•expected Final Exam score = 43.6 + 0.952 (white
board points)
General Botany
Fall 2001
10
White Boarding (total points)
White Boarding (total points)
Lastly, the same comprehensive, final exam was given in both years.
The comprehensive final exam had three sections.
1. The 1st section presented 7 terms for the students to define.
2. The 2nd section offered 3 concepts for the students to explain.
3. The 3rd section was a 4-part question that students answered in essay form.
140
SUMMARY OF DATA ANALYSIS
* p<0.05
white boarding was investigated for its academic impact in a General Botany lecture (BIO 115, Fall 2003).
Both courses (Fall 2003 vs. Fall 2001) were taught
 by the same instructor
 using the same textbook
 following the same order of topics in lecture and laboratory
 using the same point distribution was for each graded component of the course
160
40
67.4
•While known in physics classrooms, we present the results of the 1st application of white boarding to a
college biology course.
•We report and characterize the use of white boards to supplement the traditional lecture approach.
•We compare the use and benefits of this method in biology and physics.
There are two broad areas of questions being answered
1. Did white boarding affect the academic performance of students (Fall 2003 vs. Fall 2001)?
2. Did students benefit most from this student centered, cooperative learning, teaching technique?
160
40
WHY IS THIS TEACHING EXPERIMENT IMPORTANT?
THE EXPERIMENT
180
Final Exam (total points)
•The white board is a 24”x 32” dry-erase board.
•In General Botany, each group used a large white board to record their thinking in response to the instructor’s
POINT SOURCES
concept directed question.
•While white boarding, students shared their thinking with each other and came to a consensus solution in
response to the instructor’s question or sample problem.
Exam 1 (100 Points)
Final Exam (total points)
WHAT IS A WHITE BOARD & HOW IS IT USED?
8 summary measures of student academic performance were collected
from each component of the course, Lecture & Laboratory.
Final Exam
Definitions (subtotal)
Concepts (subtotal)
Long Answer (subtotal)
Exam (total)
ARE THERE DIFFERENCES IN AVERAGE PERFORMANCE?
Female Students & Male Students
YES (p < 0.0931)
NO
NO
NO
The Fall 2001 class of General Botany differed significantly from the Fall
2003 class.
•Differences were observed in terms of class composition (Freshmen,
Sophomores, …, & other).
•Students in the Fall 2001 course on General Botany had higher average
grades on the Final Exam, on laboratory notebooks, and in laboratory
participation.
•Students in the Fall 2003 course on General Botany had a higher average
grade on the 2nd lecture exam.
On the comprehensive Final Exam, students from the 2001 General Botany
class scored higher, on average, on the 1st part (Definitions) and 2nd part
(Concepts) of the exam.
However, there was a reversal in expected student performance on the 3rd part
(Essay) of the final exam. The essay stresses the kinds of critical thinking and
analysis skills developed through white boarding. Here, students from the
Fall 2003 course on General Botany achieved a higher score, on average.
There were no statistical differences between the number of female and males
students enrolled in General Botany (Fall 2001 vs. Fall 2003).
In addition, there were no differences in the average scores achieved by
female and male students on the 2nd lecture exam or the final lecture exam.
CONCLUSIONS
Definitions (subtotal)
YES (p < 0.0001)
Concepts (subtotal)
YES (p < 0.0001)
Long Answer (subtotal)
NO
Exam (total)
YES (p < 0.0001)
In General Botany, female students realized real and significant gains on the final exam
through knowledge and experience gained through white boarding
Regression Analysis revealed that female students gained 2.5x more points on the final exam
for every point earned through white boarding than did male students
In 2003, white boarding resulted in equivalent academic performance of Female students
with Male students in General Botany
This result replicates findings from introductory college physics where white boarding was
shown to result in equivalent performance on standardized conceptual achievement
instruments
This study supports the use of white boarding in college science lecture courses which have
traditionally demonstrated gender-based gaps in academic performance
REFERENCES
Falconer, K.A. & DeGioia-Eastwood, K. (2001). Physical Science 101 - Integrating Astronomy into an Introductory Physical Science Course Poster presented to
American Association of Physics Teachers, 2001 Summer Meeting Rochester, New York.
Lawson, A., Benford, R., Bloom, I., Carlson, M., Falconer, K., Hestenes, D., Judson, E., Piburn, M., Sawada, D., Turley, J. & Wyckoff, S. (2002). Evaluating college
science and mathematics instruction: A reform effort that improves teaching skills, Journal of College Science Teaching, 31 (6) 388-393.
MacIsaac, D.L. & Falconer, K.A. (2002). Reform your teaching via the Reformed Teaching Observation Protocol (RTOP). The Physics Teacher., 40 (8).479-485.
Sackey, S., MacIsaac, D., Falconer, K.A. & DeGioia-Eastwood, K. (2002). Student conceptual gain analysis for PHS 101: Physical science for everyday life. American
Association of Physics Teachers Announcer, 32(2) 129 Paper presented at 2002 Summer Meeting Boise, Idaho.