Connecting ConceptsOn-line Tutorials for Introductory Biology

Robert L. Jeanne and Jan CheethamUniversity of Wisconsin-Madison

http://ats.doit.wisc.edu/biology/

Overview

1. Why we created the tutorials

2. How we created the tutorials

3. Demonstrations

4. An assessment

Introduction

• Introductory Biology 151-152• Majors course• 1,000 students

– Mostly sophomores• Team-taught

– 30 faculty – 5 lecture sections

The Need

• Growth in class size

• Students vary in– learning styles– foundations in biology

• Students tend to– focus on facts rather than on concepts – have misconceptions– compartmentalize

The Goals

• Stimulate higher-order learning– apply concepts covered in lecture– solve problems– think critically

• Correct misconceptions• Connect concepts to get the “big picture”• Reduce need for TAs to clarify material

covered in lecture

The Outcome

9 tutorials:– 2 Cell biology

– 2 Evolution

– 2 Animal physiology

– 1 Genetics

– 1 Plant biology

– 1 Ecology

Ideas

Genetics

30 Instructors in:

Bob Jeanne, PI

3 Instructionaldesigners

Jan Cheetham, PM

Creation

Cell biology

Animal physiology

Plant physiology

Evolution

Ecology

3 Programmers TutorialsContent5 Grad

students

Demonstration

1. Homeostasis (most frequently accessed from MERLOT)

2. Natural selection

3. Water relations

4. Speciation (effectiveness data relate to this one)

1. Homeostasis

• Connect concepts– Mechanisms of endocrine vs nervous systems– Systems work together

• Learning goal: Systemic thinking

• Instructional design: Advance organizer– Structure for linking new info and prior knowledge– Models a good way to organize new info– Demo (link)

2. Natural Selection

• Connect concepts: – Genetic variation– Relationship between genotype and phenotype– Meaning of fitness

• Learning goal: Correct misconceptions

• Instructional design: Game– Situated context– “Foil” expectations– Cycles of cognitive disequilibrium/resolution– Demo (link)

3. Water Relations

• Connect concepts– Movement of water and gases in photosynthesis– Physiology of plant cells and whole plant– Water relations equation

• Learning goal: Problem solving in context

• Instructional design: Scaffolding– Worked examples, completion problems– Leading questions– Just in-time information– Demo (link)

4. Speciation

• Connect concepts– Species definitions– Incompleteness of evidence– Relative weight of evidence

• Learning goal: Critical thinking

• Instructional design: Scaffolding– Case study– Metacognitive procedures built into interface– Demo (link)

Are they effective?

An assessment

Effect of the lecture

Unit 1: Cell biology

Unit 2: Genetics

Unit 3: Evolution

5 weeks; Exam 1

5 weeks; Exam 2

5 weeks; Exam 3 (final exam)

Speciation lecture

Post-test

Pre-test

Test of effect of lecture

Exam 3

Unit 1: Cell biology

Unit 2: Genetics

Unit 3: Evolution

5 weeks; Exam 1

5 weeks; Exam 2

5 weeks; Exam 3 (final exam)

Speciation lecture

Post-test

Tutorial v. control

Pre-test

Test of effect of lecture

Test of effect of tutorial

Effect of tutorial

3 treatment groups:

1. Interactive (n = 51)--completed speciation tutorial on-line

2. Non-interactive 1 (n = 42)--assigned tutorial info as PDF

3. Non-interactive 2 (n = 53)--assigned a general homework question on speciation --read only 1 of the 2 case studies as PDF

Effect of tutorial

Treatment subgroups:

A. Average on previous two exams >80%

B. Average on previous two exams <80%

Effect of tutorial

Pre-test (%) Post-test (%) P =

Group 1 51 57.5 .001

<80% 50 54.8 .05

>80% 52 60.2 .008

Group 2 48.6 58.4 <.001

<80% 49.5 54.9 .14

>80% 47.9 61.3 <.001

Group 3 52.3 59.0 <.001

<80% 52.1 56.5 .09

>80% 52.5 62.2 <.001

Result 1: Effect of lecture

Exams 1 & 2 (%) Exam 3 (%) P =

Group 1 79.0 84.3 <.001

<80% 72.7 83.2 <.001

>80% 85.5 85.4 .93

Group 2 78.0 77.6 .89

<80% 67.7 68.9 .75

>80% 86.5 84.7 .55

Group 3 77.2 78.9 .42

<80% 70.8 74.2 .17

>80% 85.5 85.0 .83

Result 2: Effect of tutorial

Exam 3, overall Exam 3, evolution P =

Group 1 84.3 82.1 .19

<80% 83.2 81.0 .38

>80% 85.4 83.2 .34

Group 2 77.6 78.5 .79

<80% 68.9 70.3 .75

>80% 84.7 85.3 .90

Group 3 78.9 78.5 .87

<80% 74.2 74.2 .99

>80% 85.0 84.1 .75

Result 3: Effect of tutorial

Conclusions

1. Lecture most effective for the >80% subgroup

2. Tutorial most effective for the <80% subgroup

3. Tutorial seemed to enhance learning of material not directly related to speciation

Wish-list:• Existing tutorials

– update information– enable edits– enable customization

• Possible new tutorials in– genetics– cell– ecology

Nevertheless…

Final thoughts

Principal Investigator: Robert Jeanne

Project Manager: Jan Cheetham

Instructional Designers and Consultants: Lee Clippard, Alan Wolf, Les Howles

Project Assistants: Edna Francisco, Steven Grunder, Sainath Suryanarayanan, Ben Schulte, Olaf Olson

Programmers: Michelle Glenetski, Bahman Zakeri, Cidney Frietag

Instructors and Instructional Support Staff, Biology 151-152:

Nancy RuggeriJean HeitzCarlos PeraltaBrian ManskeCatherine ReinitzDoug RouseCarol LeeTony Stretton

Dave AbbottMilo Wiltbank Bill MellonTed GolosPaul WeimerTony BleeckerEric TriplettBob Goodman

Linda GrahamSeth BlairDonna FernandezRich Viersta

Tim AllenJohn KirschEvelyn HowellMonica Turner

Stanley Dodson Kathy BartonKen SytsmaPaul BerryTom SharkeyEdgar SpaldingTom MartinSteve Gammie

Acknowledgments