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).