|
|
7.391/7.931 Concept-Centered Teaching Link to the Mentor's Page
Course Description: Do you like teaching, but find yourself frustrated by how little students seem to learn? Would you like to try teaching, but are nervous about whether you will be any good at it? Are you interested in new research on science education? If so, 7.391 is the course for you! 7.391 is a weekly seminar on science education open to both graduate and undergraduate students. Participants will read primary literature on science education, uncover basic concepts often overlooked when teaching biology, and lead a small weekly discussion session for students in 7.014 or 7.02. Students will be encouraged to review lecture material posted on the web for 7.014 or attend review sessions for 7.02 to obtain a first-hand view of the material being covered. Current students will be paired with mentors from last semester’s course. Research in science education shows that the greatest obstacle to student learning is the failure to identify and confront the misconceptions with which the students enter the class or those that they acquire during their studies. This course focuses on developing the participants’ ability to uncover and confront student misconceptions and to foster student understanding and retention of key concepts. Participants are encouraged to remain in the program as mentors for the fall semester. Course Format: The course will have three components, reading primary literature in science education, discussing key concepts in select areas of biology, and leading a discussion group for the students taking Introductory Biology lab or lecture (7.014 or 7.02). We will discuss at least one original paper each week. The papers must be read in advance of the class. Our goal will be to critically analyze these papers. To help us achieve that goal, each of you will be expected to email to the instructor two discussion questions for the article covered that day by the morning of the class. In discussing the papers, we will focus on articulating the main points of the paper, identifying conditions under which the data was collected and assumptions used in interpreting the data, and discussing how the results could be applied to the teaching environment at MIT. Starting in the third week of class, seminar participants will lead a small (no more than 5 students) discussion groups for students enrolled in 7.014 or 7.02. There will be one session of each discussion group a week and each session will last approximately an hour. A mentor from last semester’s class will be partnered with you to help facilitate the discussion. Students leading discussions for 7.02 will be required to attend bi-weekly meetings with the 7.02 staff to orient themselves with the material to be presented. Students leading discussions for 7.014 will be asked to attend lecture if possible or review old lecture material posted on the web. Attendance: This is a discussion class, so attendance is mandatory. You are allowed to miss one of the 15 sessions of the class, but please notify the instructors ahead of time. You will also need to arrange to pick up the paper for the next week from Julia. If you need to miss a second class, you must talk to the instructors ahead of time so we can arrange an appropriate make-up assignment. Written Assignments: You will be asked to keep a list of discussion questions you prepared for and used in the discussion sessions with some notes on how well each question worked. We will also ask you to keep a list of any misconceptions you uncover in the discussion sessions. These are not formal papers, but notes from which you can ask questions and draw conclusions. We ask that you keep the notes with a minimal degree of organization, such that they can be shared with the instructors and the rest of the class. Oral Presentations: 1. Several times through the semester, you will be asked to give a short formal introduction to the paper discussed in class that day. Your introduction should include what you think the main point of the paper was, what you thought was particularly interesting about the paper, and any part or idea in the paper that deserves scrutiny, if any. These should be low-stress assignments. 2. As we proceed through the semester, you will be required to be principally in charge of running the concept discussion in the second hour of the seminar. Grading: The course is pass/fail. Participation in class discussion, completion of the assignments above, and satisfactory attendance will result in a passing grade.
|
|
|
Discussion Section Information: Spring 2006 7.02 Discussion Groups Requirements: If you wish to be involved in the 7.02 discussion groups, we ask that you prepare by doing the following: 1. Attend material review sessions run by Michelle Mischke for several topics covered throughout the semester. 2/14, 2/15 about 3:00 PM What is RNA and How are We Using It in the Development Lab? 2/23, 2/14 about 3:00 PM Tertratogeneisis vs. Mutagenesis 2/23, 2/14 about 3:00 PM Troubleshooting Northern Blots 3/14, 3/15 about 2:00 PM Designing a Protein Purification Technique 3/21, 3/22 about 3:00 PM TBA 4/4, 4/5 about 3:00 PM, What do You Expect on Indicator Plates? 4/11, 4/12 about 3:00 PM, TBA 4/20, 4/21 about 3:00 PM, TBA 5/4, 5/5 about 3:00 PM, TBA 5/11, 5/12 about 2:00 PM, TBA 2. Facilitate a weekly discussion group for students enrolled in the class beginning the week of February 22. Discussion Group Schedules and Times: TBA 7.014 Discussion Groups Requirements: If you wish to be involved in the 7.02 discussion groups, we ask that you prepare by doing the following: 1. Review web-based course materials (including watching taped lectures) to familiarize yourself with topics covered during the semester. 2. Facilitate a weekly discussion group for students enrolled in the class beginning the week of February 22. Discussion Group Schedules and Times: TBA
|
|
|
Syllabus: February 8: Introduction-The Importance of Scientific Teaching and Mentoring Room: 68-180 We will begin by introducing ourselves and talking about what each of us hopes to get out of the class, our backgrounds and sources of interest in the subject of the seminar. We will discuss the importance of being a good teacher/mentor in the biological sciences and will read the “Scientific Teaching" article. By doing so we will set out the overall goals of the class. We will go over the discussion class options between 7.014 or 7.02. You will be required to choose one of the two classes by Friday, February 10 and email Melissa your decision. Handelsman, J., Ebert-May, D., Beichner, R., Bruns, P., Chang, A., Dehaan, R., Gentile, J., Lauffer, S., Stewart, J., Tilghman, S.M., and Wood, W.B. (2004) Scientific Teaching. Science. 304: 521-522. February 15: Reforming Undergraduate Biology Education Room: 68-180 It is widely recognized that current undergraduate curricula do not adequately prepare our students for successful research careers in the biomedical sciences. The National Academy of Sciences issued a report in 2003 that called for major reform in the overall training and preparation of our students. We talk about the recommendations of the reform committee and how they may be implemented in the college classroom. Bio2010: Transforming Undergraduate Education for Future Research Biologists (2003) National Academy of Sciences. This is a 208 page report which you are encouraged to read. In light of the length of the report, however, please read the report summary and the recommendations of the committee by this class. February 22: Confronting student misconceptions 68-180 Whether it is our every day experience with falling objects, or our intuitive knowledge of heredity (“it’s in his blood"), we all enter classroom with pre-conceived notions of the concepts at the core of the subject. Some of these pre-conceived notions are in fact misconceptions. Students who learn “over" the misconceptions tend to revert to their original, wrong, ideas after the course is over. It is increasingly becoming an accepted notion that effective teaching identifies and confronts student misconceptions. Alparslan,C., Tekkaya, C., Geban, O. (2003) Using the conceptual change instruction to improve learning. Journal of Biological Education. 37: 133-7. Tanner, K. and Allen, D. (2005) Approached to Biology Teaching and Learning: Understanding the Wrong Answers-Teaching Towards Conceptual Change. Cell Biology Education. 4: 112-117. Discussion groups start this week. March 1: Teaching Complex Material as a Series of Basic Concepts 68-180 As experts, we often lose site of the fact that we only understand a complex fact because we truly understand the multiple concepts behind it. We will perform an exercise that will demonstrate just how complex biology can be and we will look at a paper that works to break-down MIT introductory biology into smaller concepts. Khodor, J., Halme, D.G., and Walker, G.C. (2004) A Hierarchical Biology Concept Framework. Cell Biology Education. 3: 111-112. March 8: Multiple Intelligences 68-180 In 1983 Howard Gardner formulated his theory of Multiple Intelligences. Since then, many books and articles have been written on the subject of MI itself, and, more recently, on how it applies to the educational endeavor. Our discussion will focus on how to apply the principles of MI in the college environment, where large lecture-based courses are the norm. Mbuva, James (2003). Implementation of the Multiple Intelligences Theory in the 21st Century Teaching and Learning Environments: A New Tool for Effective Teaching and Learning in All Levels. Report. NOTE: This paper is posted at the very bottom of the website under the heading "LINKS." March 15: Cooperative Learning 68-180 One of the buzz words in education today cooperative or group learning. Many flavors of this type of learning exist, most with an emphasis on creating an environment where students accomplish more in a group format than any individual can accomplish by his- or herself. Some models, like the guild model discussed in today’s paper, explicitly encourage the group to capitalize on each individual member’s strengths to accomplish the overall goal. We will discuss applicability of various forms of group work to a number of educational environments. We will also discuss the balance between covering content and developing skills students need to acquire content on their own. Wright, R., Boggs, J (2002). Learning Cell Biology as a Team: A Project-Based Approach to Upper-Division Cell Biology. Cell Biology Education, 1, 145-53. March 22: Case studies 68-180 Case method is a method of instruction that focuses on using real-world or made-up cases (case studies) as the main vehicle for learning. The goal is for students to learn through practice. Ideally, the cases are complex and even controversial, such that the students are engaged and motivated to explore the subject. We will discuss the use of cases as a tool, as well as the difference between pure case method and sporadic use of cases in the curriculum. Richmond, G., Neureither, B. (1998). Making a Case for Cases. American Biology Teacher, 60(5), 335-42. Additional readings: Smith, R.A., Murphy, S.K. (1998). Using Case Studies to Increase Learning and Interest in Biology. American Biology Teacher, 60(4), 265-8. NOTE: These papers are posted at the very bottom of the website under the heading "LINKS." April 5: Concept Mapping 68-180 Concept mapping is a technique that asks individual learners to plot the concepts and facts together with their interrelationships in an organizational network that is meaningful to each learner. Based on the assimilation theory of cognitive learning, concept maps have the potential to illuminate student misconceptions and to present a coherent picture of student’s knowledge base. We will discuss pluses and minuses of using concept maps in the context of a large lecture course or a smaller course. Brown, D.S. (2003). High School Biology: A Group Approach to Concept Mapping. The American Biology Teacher. 65: 192-7. April 12: Concept-based Laboratories and Lecture Connections 68-180 One of the recommendations defined by Bio2010 was to increase the amount of inquiry-based learning in the biological sciences. This is extremely difficult considering most students find themselves learning biology in large lecture environments with a only few hours of lab time. This week, we will look at an example of how small laboratories may be incorporated into large lecture classes to facilitate understanding and concept continuity. Howard, D.R. and Miskowski, J.A. (2005) Using a Module-based Laboratory to Incorporate Inquiry into a Large Cell Biology Course. Cell Biology Education. 4: 249-260. April 19: Predictors of success in college science 68-181 One of the most frustrating aspects of teaching is watching students who by all rights should succeed in your class fail miserably. What factors predicts student success in college level science? And what can be done to improve the chances of the students who do not come from the backgrounds likely to produce success in college science? Today’s paper is focused on college level physics, but some conclusions likely transfer across the spectrum of college science. Sadler, Philip M., Tai, Robert H. (2001). Success in Introductory College Physics: The Role of High School Preparation. Science Education, 85(2), p.111-36. April 26: Assessment 68-180 With all the new techniques and theories circulating in the educational world, we need to be able to assess whether or not our pedagogical changes are having any effect on student understanding and retention. This week we will discuss how we can evaluate the effectiveness of different teaching approaches and styles to subject matter comprehension. Sundberg, M.D. (2002) Assessing student learning. Cell Biology Education. 1: 11-15. May 3: Student self-assessment 68-180 In addition to subject-matter assessment, it is often important to understand how the course affects students’ self-perception. Did the student gain confidence in their ability to approach the subject matter or another related field? Are they more likely to pay attention when the subject matter of the course shows up in the media? Are they interested in applying what they learned in their everyday lives? SALG is an instrument that was developed to assess just such questions. We will discuss the instrument itself, as well as the benefits and limitations of using self-assessment. Seymour, E., Weise, D.J., Hunter, A.B., Daffinrud, S.M. (2000). Creating a Better Mousetrap: On-line Student Assessment of their Learning Gains. Paper originally presented to the National Meeting of the American Chemical Society Symposium, “Using Real-World Questions to Promote Active Learning, San Francisco, March 27, 2000. May 10: Teaching evolution 68-180 Evolution is one of the fundamental subjects of modern science. It is supported by evidence from a diverse set of disciplines. And yet, somehow, the teaching of evolution in the United States remains controversial. We will discuss what it means to teach evolution to the students who graduate from American high schools. Rutledge, M.L., Mitchell, M.A. (2002). High School Biology Teachers' Knowledge Structure, Acceptance & Teaching of Evolution. The American Biology Teacher. 64: 21-8 Alters, B.J., and Nelson, C.E. (2002) Perspective:Teaching Evolution in Higher Education. Evolution. 56: 1891-1901. May 17: Wrap-up 68-180 We will talk about what we learned, how teaching discussion groups affected your view of biology and of teaching, and about how to improve this course.
March 8: Multiple Intelligences
March 22: Richmond 1998
March 22: Smith 1998
|
|
|