Fall 2013: Scientific Teaching and Pedagogy

In its fourth year, the Science Literacy Teaching Journal Club, a cooperative effort of the Teaching Effectiveness Program and the Science Literacy Program, continued its popular pedagogy reading group. Meetings featured lively, structured discussions across discipline and rank (even including some excellent undergraduate students and graduate teaching fellows) and occasional small-scale experiments with teaching techniques.


Week 1 – October 3 and 4

Reading:
Tanner, KD. 2013. Structure matters: twenty-one teaching strategies to promote student engagements and cultivate classroom equity. CBE-Life Sciences Education 12:322-331 Available from: http://www.lifescied.org/content/12/3/322.full.pdf+html

Take the Quiz and Read: PewResearch Center for the People and the Press. 2013. Public’s knowledge of science and technology http://www.people-press.org/2013/04/22/publics-knowledge-of-science-and-technology/

Discussion:
We began the Fall 2013 journal club with an ice-breaker activity that encouraged participants to stand-up for introductions. Next we laid out the plan for the year:

  • Fall term Nuts and Bolts: reading and discussing current science education article(s).
  • Winter term Book Discussion: reading and discussing chapter(s) of an assigned book (we are accepting suggestions for a book).
  • Spring term Practice: sessions will alternate between reading and discussing new teaching methods/activities and volunteers demonstrating the activity in a group exercise the following week.

In partners, we discussed the Pew Research Center quiz about the public’s knowledge of science and technology addressing the question: “Does the quiz actually measure science literacy?” before reconvening for a discussion with the whole group. Many participants agreed that while some of the questions did test more than a respondent’s knowledge about a particular concept, the majority of questions were fact-based and did little to measure science literacy. Suggestions to improve the quiz included:

  • Include questions that measure a respondent’s ability to think critically about or analyze information.
  • Test a respondent’s ability to distinguish between theory vs hypothesis or process vs pattern.
  • Take a claim from a “reliable” source and ask the respondent to dismantle the claim by pointing out assumptions, conjecture and logical fallacies.
  • Changing the format of the quiz from a phone interview to a written quiz.

Next, we passed out a list Science Literacy behaviors that were nominated and rated by UO SLP affiliated faculty and used for student research during the 2012-13 academic year. Participants were asked to consider how many of the behaviors they encourage in their teaching.

We ended the session by considering the Table 1 from Kimberly Tanner’s Structure matters: twenty-one teaching strategies to promote student engagements and cultivate classroom equity. Participants talked openly about strategies they had never used or with which they were not familiar. One strategy that few participants had experience with was the “whip-around.” We demonstrated the whip-round by going around the table after a think-pair-share activity and asking for a brief contribution from every participant.


Week 2 – October 10 and 11

Reading:
Pollack, E. 2013 October 3.  Why are there still so few women in science?  New York Times Magazine http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/06/magazine/why-are-there-still-so-few-women-in-science.html

Discussion:
This week’s discussion began with a brainstorming session about examples of diversity in our classrooms. As we compiled the list, it became clear that some forms of diversity that our students bring to the classroom are more difficult to recognize than others. We considered challenges faced by students in the classroom and how instructors can be aware of their own unintended bias and perceived stereotype threat and how this may impact the student experiences in the classroom. Next, we paused our discussion for a one-minute writing assignment about an experience where we had contributed to a non-inclusive environment for another person and strategized ways to minimize this for the future. For the final activity, we compiled a  list of challenges associated with making a classroom more inclusive and a list of strategies for making a classroom more inclusive.

Teaching tip of the week:
It may be challenging to recognize the many forms of diversity in a classroom but the learning environment is better for students when there is an effort to create an inclusive classroom. There are many ways to build an inclusive classroom that can encourage student participation and boost confidence.


Week 3 – October 17 and 18th

Reading:
This week in the Science Literacy Teaching Journal Club we discussed best practices for using clickers in the classroom. To prepare for our meetings, we read the following materials, developed by the Carl Wieman Science Education Initiative (CWSEI) at the University of British Columbia.

 


Week 4 – October 24 and 25

Reading:
This week we explored a having student do close reading of science newspaper articles. To prepare, we followed these steps:

Step 1:  Create a concept map about all of the factors that contribute to or affect obesity and their connections. This site is a good resource for information on concept maps.  Bring your concept map with you.

Step 2: Read Wall Street Journal article, “Study links produce prices to obesity,” by Rhonda L. Rundle (2005). http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB112855170081961018 and define unfamiliar words, draw a diagram or cartoon to depict studies done, and/or create charts or graphs to represent data described but not illustrated.  Bring these with you.

Step 3: Read
Hoskins, S. G. (2010). “But if It’s in the Newspaper, Doesn’t That Mean It’s True?” Developing Critical Reading & Analysis Skills by Evaluating Newspaper Science with CREATE. The American Biology Teacher, 72 (7), 415–420.
Available from: http://www.bioone.org/doi/pdf/10.1525/abt.2010.72.7.5

This was Week 4 of the quarter, a great time to get some student feedback about how things are going in courses!  TEP recommends asking a few simple questions, with perhaps a few others to address issues specific to your course.  Consider asking these questions with an online survey (e.g. through blackboard):

  • What’s working well in the course and helping you learn?
  • What constructive suggestions do you have for improving the course?

Once students have completed the survey, thank them and talk about the results in class, even if you won’t be implementing any of their suggestions!  This makes the students feel that you actually care what they think, predisposing them to evaluate you favorably in the future.  The conversation also makes it more likely that you will follow through on any planned changes.  For details on how to implement the survey, please see the TEP website.


Week 5 – October 31 and November 1

Reading:
This week in the Science Literacy Teaching Journal Club we turned our attention to helping students use meta-cognition to develop learning strategies that work for them. To prepare for our meeting, we read:

Cook E., Kennedy E., McGuire S.Y. 2013. Effect of teaching meta-cognitive learning strategies on performance in general chemistry courses. Journal of Chemical Education 90:961-967. Available from http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ed300686h (Note that the PowerPoint file the authors used in the meta-cognition lecture may be found athttp://pubs.acs.org/doi/suppl/10.1021/ed300686h .)

This was Week 5 of the term, a great time to do a midterm assessment of how things are going in your class. TEP recommends asking students a few simple questions, with perhaps a few others to address issues specific to your course. Consider asking these questions with an online survey (e.g. through blackboard):

  • What’s working well in the course and helping you learn?
  • What constructive suggestions do you have for improving the course?

Once students have completed the survey, thank them and talk about the results in class, even if you won’t be implementing any of their suggestions! This makes the students feel that you actually care what they think, predisposing them to evaluate you favorably in the future. The conversation also makes it more likely that you will follow through on any planned changes. For details on how to implement the survey, please see the TEP website:

http://tep.uoregon.edu/services/midterm feedback/midtermfeedback.html


Week 6 – November 7 and 8

Reading:
This week for Journal Club we explored the new UO Academic Integrity website, a collaboration between TEP and the Office of Student Conduct and Community Standards. TEP director Lee Rumbarger joined us fto help facilitate a discussion on academic integrity in undergraduate science courses, and to learn how the site can best speak to the concerns and interests of science faculty and students.

To prepare, we visited http://integrity.uoregon.edu/ and read the following sections:


Week 7 – November 14 and 15

Reading:
This week the Science Literacy Program hosted Adina Paytan and Catherine Halversen for workshops on communicating science. To build on that workshop, we read a recent PNAS article about communicating science:

Scheufele, DA. 2013 Communicating science in social settings. PNAS 110(3):14040-14047. Available from http://www.pnas.org/content/110/Supplement_3/14040.full.pdf+html

To read more about Catherine and Adina’s work around communicating science, read this very short article:

Tran, LU and Halversen C. 2010. Helping young scientists learn and practice public engagement  in ASTC Dimensions, November/December 2010: 18-19. Available from here.


Week 8 – November 21 and 22

Reading:
We read this article about using a campus activity to inform science educational opportunities:

Goldsmith ST, Trierwieler AM, Welch SA, Bancroft AM, Von Bargen JM, Carey AE. 2013. Transforming a university tradition into a geoscience teaching and learning opportunity for the university community. Journal of Geoscience Education 61: 280-290. Available from: http://nagtjge.org/doi/abs/10.5408/12-354.1

After reading, we asked participants to consider traditions from our local campus community or region which could be used for an educational opportunity.


Week 9 – November 28 and 29

There is no Journal Club meeting this week due to the holiday.


Week 10 – December 6 and 7

Reading:
We finished fall term talking about student course evaluations:

Weimer, M. 2012 End-of-course evaluations: making sense of student comments. Faculty Focus Blog. Available from: http://www.facultyfocus.com/articles/teaching-professor-blog/end-of-course-evaluations-making-sense-of-student-comments/

Cooper, G. 2013. Using multiple course evaluations to engage and empower your students and yourself. Faculty Focus Blog. Available from: http://www.facultyfocus.com/articles/teaching-and-learning/using-multiple-course-evaluations-to-engage-and-empower-your-students-and-yourself/

Lang, S. 2011. Tips for using student evaluations to assess teaching effectiveness. IUPUI Center fro Teaching and Learning. Available from: http://ctl.iupui.edu/Resources/Documenting-Your-Teaching/Assess-Teaching-Effectiveness