STEM: The Positives and the Negatives

If you’re still catching up with recent Chronicle issues, you might have missed Stacey Patton’s Oct. 27 article entitled “Black Man in the Lab.” 

Patton reviews some on-going questions, pointing out that two decades of affirmative action and diversity initiatives still haven’t rendered these questions obsolete:

• Why do black males underperform in grade-school and high-school math and science classrooms?
• Why do so few pursue STEM degrees?
• Of those who enter college with the intention to major in STEM fields, why do so many switch to other disciplines?
• And among those who persist and graduate with science majors, why do so few proceed to Ph.D. programs?

Patton acknowledges a number of reasons:  “Among the factors are academic and cultural isolation, the difficulty of performing in the face of negative stereotypes and low expectations among faculty members, a lack of mentors of color and friendship networks, concerns about financial debt, inadequate advising and emotional support during times of stress, and lack of exposure to hands-on research.”

One interesting point made in this article was that the literature is only filled with the negative data and the negative factors, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy.  Perhaps, Patton suggests, we should “stop fixating on negative data and start telling the stories of black success.”

Here at Lincoln, where STEM and STEM students are pointed to with pride, what success stories can we offer?  Maybe we can use this week’s blog to brag a little, and then share the results with our students and our colleagues at other institutions? What are we doing right?

Re-thinking My Teaching: A Midpoint Assessment

Guest Blogger:  David Royer

Last week, Dr. Kwame posed the question “Have you flipped your classroom?” which is a great lead-in to my blog because I am in the process of doing that for my General Biology II course, and while I have not completely flipped it, I have certainly rearranged it. It began when I attended a workshop last summer at NYU titled "Evidence-Based Teaching: Just the Facts or Thinking Like Scientists?"  Diane Ebert-May, the workshop leader, is from Michigan State where she uses active learning, inquiry-based instructional strategies to teach introductory biology to classes of 200 students. She does very little traditional lecture in her classes, instead relying on having the students work in groups to solve problems during class time after which the groups present their results, often using poster paper taped to the classroom walls, which is followed by whole class discussion. She describes what she does as teaching biology using the same methods that biologists use to conduct research so that students can develop higher-level cognitive skills and build conceptual connections within biology and across the curriculum. Another aspect of her work is to use a backward design to construct courses in which objectives, assessments and instruction are aligned. Diane conducted the workshop in the same way she does her classes – we worked in groups discussing educational issues followed by presentation of results and general discussion. 

I came away from the workshop enthused and ready to plunge into my sabbatical semester, the purpose of which was to redesign my General Biology II course in a way that promoted active learning on the part of the students and less lecture from me. My reason for applying for sabbatical was to explore alternative methods and design of instruction; over the past several years, I realized that, while I enjoyed delivering lectures, it was not producing enough positive results in student learning and problem-solving skills. From what I read during my sabbatical, it appears that many faculty are experiencing the same misgivings about the way that we teach. So I spent most of my sabbatical redesigning the way I would teach my course, and now that we are approaching the halfway point of the semester, I have some results to share: 

1. The students are more engaged working in groups. While I still need to occasionally remind a student to put the cell phone away, the students are working well in groups and staying on task. 
2. The students are helping each other. As I circulate through the classroom, I can hear students explaining concepts and methods to each other, and sometimes explaining it in better terms that I would use, a humbling but exciting realization. 
3. There have been positive results in student performance. Compared to last spring when I taught the course with traditional lecture methods, the average on the first quiz was nine points higher this semester as was the average on the first exam by six points. 
4. It is easy to fall back into old habits. One student group had a question recently that required more explanation than a short answer, and as I thought the entire class would benefit from the answer, I threw up a PowerPoint to illustrate the explanation – the result was that I lectured for 15 minutes and it felt completely comfortable like a pair of old slippers that fit perfectly after years of wear. 
5. Some material is challenging in terms of developing meaningful group assignments. The first part of the course covers genetics at the level of organisms, and it was easy to come up with genetics problems for the student groups. Now that we are moving into molecular genetics, the material is more challenging as is coming up with group assignments. I am beginning to feel the need to lecture, but resisting it so far. 
6. It is okay to occasionally throw in a mini-lecture (10-15 minutes) when needed. Sometimes there is a topic that requires explanation that is best delivered in lecture mode, but even then it can be interactive, forcing the students to be involved. 
7. It takes much preparation to design good group assignments and the overall flow of the class. My biggest error so far is planning too much for each class which then requires the redesign of subsequent classes. 
8. Most importantly, the students seem to enjoy the new design. I overheard one student say that she felt that she was learning more with this format, and the early assessment results support her statement. 
9. I am getting to know the students better. There is more interaction with the students using the new format, and I feel that I am more aware of each student’s strengths and weaknesses compared to when I taught this course with just lectures. 

I am excited about what I am doing as well as challenged by it. I now realize that the transition to newer methods is not a one-semester job; it is ongoing, and I will probably never be completely satisfied with the methods or results, but it does feel that I am headed in the right direction. I have not completely flipped (the classroom, of course) yet, but I am pleased with the experience so far.