1.2. A new way of knowing
Nearly 40 years have passed since biologist John Moore called for
scientists in higher education to be better educators, namely to teach
science as a way of knowing, focused on the processes of doing science
and not on the memorization of facts (Moore, 1984). Moore’s initial call
spurred new directives and initiatives for biology education and science
teaching in general. In 2011, the American Association for the
Advancement of Science (AAAS) published the first edition ofVision and Change in Undergraduate Biology Education: A Call to
Action . The AAAS highlighted the need for student-centered learning,
teaching the process of science, and the integration of science with
society (AAAS, 2011). Vision and Change also called for
broadening participation and making science more inclusive. These
documents have been updated over time (AAAS, 2015; 2018) but the
overarching message has stayed the same: biology education needs to be
more inclusive, to engage learners as doers, and to emphasize the
interdisciplinary aspects of biology.
Along the same theme, while John Moore called for teaching science as a
way of knowing, bell hooks called for a different way of knowing. She
advocated for engaged pedagogy and using education as the practice of
freedom (hooks, 1994). This type of teaching includes the voices and
lived experiences of all students in the classroom and calls for
interrogation of ideas and traditional ways of knowing (hooks, 1994).
Educators should embrace cultural diversity and deconstruct academic
biases that uphold racism, sexism, imperialism, and white supremacy
(hooks, 1994). Instructors should also build teaching communities where
students are active participants, educators embrace mind and body, and
reject the “banking system of education” in favor of active engagement
(hooks, 1994).
One way in which educators have begun to meet these calls to action is
by using active learning practices which engage students in the learning
process. Active learning requires that students be involved in
their own education and allows them to take agency over understanding
and applying the material. Active learning often focuses on the higher
levels of Bloom’s taxonomy, a common framework for understanding
educational outcomes (Bloom, 1956). Students are challenged to develop a
deeper mastery of curricular knowledge by applying concepts, analyzing
data, and creating novel synthesis or knowledge. Active learning methods
are highly effective. As evidenced by a meta-analysis of 225 studies,
active learning practices enhance student learning and reduce failure
rate in undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM)
courses (Freeman et al., 2014). Additionally, active learning
approaches, accompanied by major changes to course structure, improve
performance in evolution courses (Frasier and Roderick, 2011), and can
be used successfully in ecology (Burrow, 2018) and in courses aiming to
integrate ecological and evolutionary concepts throughout the biology
curriculum (White et al, 2013).
On top of the general educational benefits associated with active
learning practices, the use of these strategies in the classroom is
especially beneficial for students from groups traditionally
underrepresented in STEM. The Association of American Colleges and
Universities (AAC&U) called for an increase in equity and availability
of high-impact educational practices for all students, but especially
for underserved students, as this demographic shows the highest gains in
grades and persistence when exposed to high-impact, active learning
(Kuh, 2008). Similarly, the National Institute of General Medical
Sciences and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute Joint Working Group on
improving persistence in STEM advocated for incorporating active
learning across schools to benefit underrepresented students (Estrada et
al, 2016). These are evidence-based recommendations. For example, when
active learning practices (in this case, five major changes to the
course curriculum) were used in an introductory evolutionary biology and
biodiversity course, African American, Latinx, Pacific Islander, and
Native American students had higher learning assessment gains and course
grades at the end of the semester compared to outcomes in the same
course using traditional lecture teaching (Ballen et al, 2017a). In that
study, the gains were specific to students in the aforementioned
minoritized groups. Learning outcome gains and grades did not differ
between teaching methods for students from non-minoritized groups;
however, for all students, self-efficacy was higher in the course using
active learning (Ballen et al, 2017a). In a separate study, addition of
structured active learning practices (i.e., lecture-free classes with
daily clickers, hands-on activities, and pre-tests) to large
(>300 students) introductory biology courses increased
performance of all students and was able to reduce the achievement gap
between students from disadvantaged backgrounds (defined here primarily
by first generation students and low income) and those from
non-disadvantaged backgrounds (Haak et al, 2011). Lastly, a recent
meta-analysis found that active learning practices can reduce the
achievement gap between students in minoritized groups (based on race,
ethnicity, or income) and those in non-minoritized groups by 33%
(Theobald et al, 2020).
Active learning has often been touted as a way to increase student
performance as well as inclusion in the classroom, and clearly using
these practices can be effective. However, active learning is not always
beneficial in helping students learn evolutionary concepts (Andrews et
al, 2011) and this is likely due to the way in which instructors
incorporate active learning into their courses (Michael, 2006). For
example, Andrews and colleagues surveyed a random sample of introductory
biology courses taught by 33 different instructors across the nation to
determine if active learning increased student understanding of natural
selection (Andrews et al., 2011). The authors found that it did not.
They attributed this outcome to a few possible scenarios centered on the
implementation of active learning and instructor training and knowledge.
Previous studies showing the effectiveness of active learning were
conducted using instructors who had science education research
experience. Thus, these instructors better understood nuances of active
learning and were able to design effective courses and implement
activities in more meaningful ways. This is not surprising given the
lack of attention to learning how to teach in STEM disciplinary training
(Winberg et al, 2019). Unfortunately, it seems one cannot just use
clickers or periodic class discussion and expect increased gains in
student learning. This is a disappointing take-away as we all strive to
be great educators and having ready-to-use tools to increase performance
is appealing. However, this does not mean we should not try to
incorporate more meaningful active learning assignments into the
classroom, nor does it mean that only science education experts can
effectively use active learning. What it does mean is that we all need
to be more intentional about how we design and implement classroom
activities.
The rapid shift to online learning and the upending of the traditional
day-to-day of teaching in spring, 2020 provided us all with the unique
opportunity to pause and re-calibrate our teaching. Importantly, it
provided an opportunity to think critically about course design. For
many of us, we are now facing the challenge of completely re-working our
course(s) for online delivery. Scientific teaching practices
suggest that course planning should start from the learning outcomes
(Handlesman et al, 2007). That is, instructors first determine what
students should know and be able to do at the end of the course, then
the course framework and assignments are designed to meet those
outcomes. This approach, termed backward design , can facilitate
creation of meaningful active learning assignments. Instructors can
further increase the effectiveness of delivery by providing clear
learning goals for each activity, lecture, and/or unit (Handelsman et
al, 2007). These explicit, direct, and measurable goals are typically
written using verbs corresponding to different levels of Bloom’s
Taxonomy (Crowe et al, 2008). However, to truly incorporate inclusivity
in these active learning practices, we challenge instructors to consider
course design above and beyond specific disciplinary content by
incorporating multiple inclusive teaching strategies (see Penner, 2018).