Search for: All records

Abstract Biology faculty have consensus-based guidelines based on Vision and Change principles about what to teach introductory biology majors. In contrast, faculty have not reached a consensus concerning the learning goals for introductory non-majors courses. Yet, more than 8 out of 10 undergraduates are not science majors. The goal of this study was to develop and evaluate learning objectives for non-majors introductory biology courses. We performed a modified-Delphi study of learning objectives (LOs) for non-majors biology. We engaged a total of 38 biology faculty experts from institutions across the US in three iterative rounds to identify, rate, discuss, and re-rate >300 LOs for non-majors biology courses. Faculty provided feedback to determine whether the LOs are critical for students to learn and if the LOs encompass what students need to learn about this issue, as well as if anything is missing. As a result of expert evaluation, 60.7% of LOs (164) were deemed critical. Experts also suggested 22 additional new LOs. 

We relied on change theory to design a 3-year intervention with STEM department heads to provide space for busy heads to focus on research-based change in teaching evaluation practices. The impact on departmental practices was variable and department head readiness for change mattered. 

In this essay, we present a roadmap to help faculty who wish to learn how to use LOs to transform courses. We highlight the challenges faced when planning and undergoing a course transformation and present the lessons learned and common roadblocks that are reported in the literature. 

Most science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) departments inadequately evaluate teaching, which means they are not equipped to recognize or reward effective teaching. As part of a project at one institution, we observed that departmental chairs needed help recognizing the decisions they would need to make to improve teaching evaluation practices. To meet this need, we developed the Guides to Advance Teaching Evaluation (GATEs), using an iterative development process. The GATEs are designed to be a planning tool that outlines concrete goals to guide reform in teaching evaluation practices in STEM departments at research-intensive institutions. The GATEs are grounded in the available scholarly literature and guided by existing reform efforts and have been vetted with STEM departmental chairs. The GATEs steer departments to draw on three voices to evaluate teaching: trained peers, students, and the instructor. This research-based resource includes three components for each voice: 1) a list of departmental target practices to serve as goals; 2) a characterization of common starting places to prompt reflection; and 3) ideas for getting started. We provide anecdotal examples of potential uses of the GATEs for reform efforts in STEM departments and as a research tool to document departmental practices at different time points. 

Past studies on the differential effects of active learning based on students’ prior preparation and knowledge have been mixed. The purpose of the present study was to ask whether students with different levels of prior preparation responded differently to laboratory courses in which a guided-inquiry module was implemented. In the first study, we assessed student scientific reasoning skills, and in the second we assessed student experimental design skills. In each course in which the studies were conducted, student gains were analyzed by pretest quartiles, a measure of their prior preparation. Overall, student scientific reasoning skills and experimental design skills did not improve pretest to posttest. However, when divided into quartiles based on pretest score within each course, students in the lowest quartile experienced significant gains in both studies. Despite the significant gains observed among students in the lowest quartile, significant posttest differences between lowest and highest quartiles were observed in both scientific reasoning skills and experimental design skills. Nonetheless, these findings suggest that courses with guided-inquiry laboratory activities can foster the development of basic scientific reasoning and experimental design skills for students who are least prepared across a range of course levels and institution types.