The Science Literacy Teaching Journal Club is a cooperative effort of the Teaching Effectiveness Program and the Science Literacy Program. Meetings feature lively, structured discussions across discipline and rank with occasional small-scale teaching experiments. Participants from all disciplines are invited to join the whole series or stop by for a specific conversation.
Week 1 – January 8 and 9
For Thursday, we read the Forward, Preface, How to Use This Book, and Chapter 1 (pgs vii-7) as well as Appendix C – Research Involving Human Subjects (pgs 90-93) from the book Discipline-Based Education Research (Slater, Slater, & Bailey, 2011).
For Friday we read about developing student metacognition:
Tanner, K. D. (2012). Promoting student metacognition. CBE Life Sciences Education, 11(2), 113-20.
http://www.lifescied.org/content/11/2/113.full.pdf+html
Week 2 – January 15 and 16
This week we read about a teaching practices inventory developed by Carl Wieman, who visited the UO in February.
Wieman, C., & Gilbert, S. (2014). The Teaching Practices Inventory: A New Tool for Characterizing College and University Teaching in Mathematics and Science. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 13(3), 552-569.
http://www.lifescied.org/content/13/3/552.full.pdf+html
Week 3 – January 22 and 23
For Thursday, we investigated some of the quantitative statistical methods used in analysis of DBER data. To prepare, we read Chapter 4: Quantitative Methods from Discipline-Based Education Research: A Scientist’s Guide, by S. J. Slater, T. F. Slater, and J. M. Bailey.
For Friday, we read contrasting accounts of using cell phones in class:
Tessier, J. T. (2014). Eliminating the Textbook: Learning Science With Cell Phones. Journal of College Science Teaching, 44(2).
http://static.nsta.org/files/jcst1402_46.pdf
Kuznekoff, J. H., & Titsworth, S. (2013). The impact of mobile phone usage on student learning. Communication Education, 62(3), 233-252.
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/03634523.2013.767917
Also available here
http://cobweb.cs.uga.edu/~eileen/1730/Readings/ImpactMobilePhoneUsage.pdf
Weimer, M. 2012. Students think they can multitask. Here’s proof they can’t. Faculty Focus Blog.
http://www.facultyfocus.com/articles/teaching-professor-blog/multitasking-confronting-students-with-the-facts/
Week 4 – January 29 and 30
For Thursday, we continued our work on Chapter 4: Quantitative Methods from Discipline-Based Education Research: A Scientist’s Guide, by S. J. Slater, T. F. Slater, and J. M. Bailey. We asked participants to read about four statistical tests that we will use in our session:
1. Point-biserial-correlation coefficient for item discrimination
2. Cronbach’s alpha for internal consistency of test questions
3. Gain, normalized student gain, average normalized gain
4. T-test
For Friday, we took a field trip to the UO Museum of National and Cultural History to explore ways that the museum could be integrated into a course. We read these articles:
Chesebrough, D.E. (2014) University-Science Center Partnering in Ohio.
http://www.informalscience.org/perspectives/blog/university-science-center-partnering-in-ohio
(December 15, 2014).
Bamberger, Y., & Tal, T. (2007). Learning in a personal context: Levels of choice in a free choice learning environment in science and natural history museums.Science Education, 91(1), 75-95.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1002/sce.20174/asset/20174_ftp.pdf?v=1&t=i5ed2tda&s=9e0bb660bfde197980dfe0f4e0ef80f567ac1a6b
Week 5 – February 5 and 6
This week for the Science Literacy Teaching Journal Club, both the Thursday and Friday groups read this article:
L. Aguilar, G. Walton, and C. Wieman (2014). Psychological insights for improved physics teaching. Physics Today, 67 (5), 43-49.
http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/magazine/physicstoday/article/67/5/10.1063/PT.3.2383
Week 6 – February 12 and 13
For Thursday, we discussed Chapter 5: Qualitative and Interpretive Methods Revealing Understanding from Discipline-Based Education Research: A Scientist’s Guide, by S. J. Slater, T. F. Slater, and J. M. Bailey.
For Friday, we read about how to bring real world relevance into the classroom:
Rowat, A. C., Sinha, N. N., Sörensen, P. M., Campàs, O., Castells, P., Rosenberg, D., … Weitz, D. A. (2014). The kitchen as a physics classroom. Physics Education, 49(5), 512–522. doi:10.1088/0031-9120/49/5/512
http://iopscience.iop.org/0031-9120/49/5/512/pdf/0031-9120_49_5_512.pdf
Week 7 – February 19 and 20
For Thursday, our focus was on the development of the qualitative methods used to address the research question:
Lukes, L. a., & McConnell, D. a. (2014). What Motivates Introductory Geology Students to Study for an Exam?Journal of Geoscience Education, 62, 725–735. doi:10.5408/13-110.1
http://nagt-jge.org/doi/pdf/10.5408/13-110.1
For Friday, we read two papers exploring ways to implement demos in the classroom:
Miller, S. (2014). Modeling the Nature of Science with the Mystery Tube. The Physics Teacher, 52, 548–551. doi:10.1119/1.4902200
http://scitation.aip.org/content/aapt/journal/tpt/52/9/10.1119/1.4902200
Mylott, E., Dunlap, J., Lampert, L., & Widenhorn, R. (2014). Kinesthetic Activities for the Classroom. The Physics Teacher, 52(9).
http://scitation.aip.org/content/aapt/journal/tpt/52/9/10.1119/1.4902193
Week 8 – February 26 and 27
For Thursday, we read Chapter 1 “Understanding Action Research” from:
Mills, G. E. (2000). Action research: A guide for the teacher researcher. Prentice-Hall, Inc., New Jersey.
For Friday, we explored how active learning can support creating an inclusive learning environment:
Eddy, S. L., & Hogan, K. A. (2014). Getting Under the Hood: How and for Whom Does Increasing Course Structure Work? Cell Biology Education, 13(3), 453–468. doi:10.1187/cbe.14-03-0050
http://www.lifescied.org/content/13/3/453.full.pdf+html
Week 9 – March 5 and 6
For Thursday, we explored how active learning can support creating an inclusive learning environment:
Eddy, S. L., & Hogan, K. A. (2014). Getting Under the Hood: How and for Whom Does Increasing Course Structure Work? Cell Biology Education, 13(3), 453–468. doi:10.1187/cbe.14-03-0050
http://www.lifescied.org/content/13/3/453.full.pdf+html
For Friday, we read some practical strategies for increasing active learning:
Tanner, K. D. (2013). Structure matters: Twenty-one teaching strategies to promote student engagement and cultivate classroom equity. CBE Life Sciences Education,12(3), 322–331. doi:10.1187/cbe.13-06-0115
http://www.lifescied.org/content/12/3/322.full.pdf+html
Week 10 – March 12 and 13
For Thursday, we read two pieces to wrap up our assessment discussion this term:
Action Research, SoTL, DBER from University of Nebraska, Lincoln
http://www.unl.edu/dber/action-research-sotl-dber
McKinney, K. (2012). Making a difference: Application of SoTL to enhance learning. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 12 (1), 1-7.
http://josotl.indiana.edu/article/download/1971/1935
For Friday, we read an article from the most recent CBE Life Sciences journal:
Jensen, J. L., Kummer, T. A., & Godoy, P. D. D. M. (2015). Improvements from a Flipped Classroom May Simply Be the Fruits of Active Learning. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 14(1), ar5
http://www.lifescied.org/content/14/1/ar5.full.pdf+html