Designing Laboratory Courses To Address Critical Needs In Undergraduate Education
MarthaLeah Chaiken, Psychology Department, Rutgers University, 101 Warren Street, Newark, NJ 07102. (Summary of talk presented to the Symposium "Educating About Animal Behavior" presented at the annual meeting of the Animal Behavior Society, Lewisburg, PA, June 29, 1999. Posted for general use with permission of the author. Any ideas or quotations taken from this document should be credited to the author.)
Critical thinking, creative problem-solving, and scientific reasoning are among the most frequently cited goals of higher education. Educational research consistently shows that active involvement of students in problem-solving and experimentation are the most effective means of achieving these higher cognitive skills.
A useful heuristic for analyzing the kinds of cognitive challenges we are setting for students is Bloom’s Taxonomy (Bloom, 1956). It classifies cognitive tasks on the following scale of increasing complexity.
1. Knowledge: memorization
2. Comprehension: grasping the meaning of a concept; rephrasing or summarizing
3. Application: Applying a formula or implementing a technique
4. Analysis: Breaking down material into component parts
5. Synthesis: Putting parts together to form a new whole
6. Evaluation: Judging the value of material.
Chaiken’s Canon: Never assume a student is operating at a higher level of Bloom’s taxonomy when his or her behavior can be explained by reference to a lower level.
If our goal is to develop critical thinking, problem-solving, and scientific reasoning, students should be working at the higher levels of Bloom’s taxonomy. Yet most teaching is aimed at imparting facts and concepts at lower cognitive levels.
For example, an analysis of 55 class sessions of 40 undergraduate courses revealed that nearly 90% of the questions asked in class required no more than rote learning. A separate analysis of all the problems set for engineering students in the course of a 4- year program categorized 82% at the level of knowledge or comprehension (both studies cited in Gardiner, 1994, p. 42).
In the words of Alison Gopnik (1999), students “rarely get to formulate a theory, make a prediction, or construct an explanation”
“Imagine if we taught baseball the way we teach science. Until they were twelve, children would read about baseball technique and occasionally hear inspirational stories of the great baseball players. They would answer quizzes about baseball rules. Conservative coaches would argue that we ought to make children practice fundamental baseball skills, throwing the ball to second base twenty times in a row, followed by tagging first base seventy times. Others would reply that the economic history of the reserve clause proved that there was, in fact, no such thing as “objectively accurate” pitching. Undergraduates might be allowed, under strict supervision, to reproduce famous historic baseball plays. But only in graduate school would they, at last, actually get to play a game. If we taught baseball this way, we might expect about the same degree of success in the Little League World Series that we currently see in science performance.”
Under-emphasis of the creative aspects of science may be alienating to nonspecialists and even to potential scientists.
It is claimed that 95% of the general public is scientifically illiterate (NSF, 1996), and few liberal arts students take more than the minimum science requirements.
we also have a serious problem with retaining undergraduates in the sciences. Among students who enter college intending to major in a science, about 50% switch to a non- science major or drop out altogether, as compared with 30% who leave the humanities. The figure applies even to students who are best qualified to succeed and includes a disproportionate number of women and minority students. Several extensive studies have attempted to identify the reasons why these students abandon their plans for a scientific career (Seymour & Hewitt, 1997). One Westinghouse award winner summarizes the most common complaint:
“When I was doing the Westinghouse project, I really enjoyed the process of doing scientific research… When I got to college and went to some of the required science classes like intro bio and chem, I realized I was going to be in for 3 years of memorizing scientific facts.”
In a study of 460 students at seven institutions, the most common reasons offered for opting out of a science major were a lack or loss of interest in science, poor science teaching, and an overwhelming curriculum. Students at Cal Tech have recently coined the phrase “the bulimic study method.“
NSF’s Directorate for Education and Human Resources sponsored a yearlong review of undergraduate education in the sciences (NSF, 1996). It involved hundreds of faculty members, representatives of professional societies, federal agencies, and foundations. The advisory committee summarizes their conclusions as follows.
“On the basis of all that we have heard and learned during this review process, we
urgently wish for, and urge decisive action to achieve, an America in which… all
students have access to supportive, excellent undergraduate education in science,
mathematics, engineering and technology, and all students learn these subjects by
direct experience with the methods and processes of inquiry.”
And further, “every student should be presented an opportunity to understand what science is, and is not,
and to be involved in some way in scientific inquiry, not just a "hands-on" experience.
There is very general agreement with these recommendations.
For more specific advice, we can look to research on the effectiveness of various educational techniques. Pascarella &Terenzini (1991) summarize the results of 20 years of educational research. Although some techniques have attracted more research than others, there is good support in the literature for the effectiveness of the following three approaches:
I. The Keller Plan, or Personalized Systems of Instruction, empasizes:
- Clear objectives
- Self-pacing
- Active involvement by students
- Student interaction
- Insistence on mastery
- Timely feedback
In a meta-analysis of 61 studies, the Keller Plan was 19% more effective than traditional methods.
II. The Learning Cycle or Inquiry Approach, based on a Piagetian model, envisions a sequence of steps (which vary slightly in different versions) designed to help students assimilate abstract concepts:
1. Concrete Experience, or Exploration: Participate in an activity involving concrete materials.
Example. Toss some toothpicks of various colors in the grass and ask the students to retrieve them.
2. Reflective Observation: Reflect on the experience.
Example. Ask students which toothpicks were easier to find and why.
3. Abstract Conceptualization: Introduce or lead students to discover a new principle or
concept.
Example. Introduce the concept of cryptic coloration.
4. Application and Generalization: Apply and generalize the concept to further situations.
Example. Show students examples of cryptically colored organisms.
With luck, step 4 leads to further exploration and the cycle continues. For example, the concept of cryptic coloration might suggest an exploration of conspicuous coloration, sensory systems of predator species, etc.
Research has found the learning cycle approach to be about 10% more effective than conventional teaching methods.
III. Interdisciplinary Approaches.
Interdisciplinary studies have been shown to improve performance on tests of critical
thinking. The process of applying concepts across disciplines or viewing one topic from
different perspectives requires higher level thinkingandovercomes a general tendency
to compartmentalize knowledge.
- Broad appeal:
In a letter to NSF, Emlen, Nowicki, and West (1998) argue persuasively for the value of animal behavior as a “magnet,” a “gateway” and a “hook” that provides the initial attraction for the study of biology.
Deceptively easy startup for student research:
It is comparatively easy for a student to get started doing interesting research in animal behavior. It is less easy to escape without picking up some widely applicable research skills: behavioral studies usually involve sophisticated problems in research design and statistical analysis as well as a variety of computer skills. They often link into studies of physiology, biochemistry, neuroscience, ecology, evolutionary theory, mathematical modeling, or other allied disciplines.
An object lesson in scientific method:
The methodology of systematic observation, familiar to students of animal behavior, can be used to demonstrate key aspects of scientific method. In even a few training sessions, students can discover the value of careful observation as a source of creative insight . at the same time, they also discover the limitations of casual experience as a source of scientific data. They can see vividly how their own presuppositions, their definitions of behavioral phenomena, and their choice of sampling methods affect their conclusions. There must be few more efficient ways to bridge the gap between classroom knowledge and personal experience.
Integration across disciplines:
Tinbergen’s unifying vision of a discipline that would integrate functional, evolutionary, developmental, and physiological approaches may be considered the starting point for the modern field of animal behavior. Such a balanced perspective is if anything more important, and more difficult to attain, in the study of human behavior. For this reason the study of animal behavior can be an invaluable foundation for further work in the life sciences, the social sciences, and medicine.
Bloom, B.S. ed., 1956. Taxonomy of educational objectives Handbook I: Cognitive Domain. New York. Longman.
Elaine Seymour and Nancy M. Hewitt. 1997. Talking about Leaving: Why Undergraduates Leave the Sciences. Westview Press, Boulder, Colo.
Gardiner, L.F. 1994. Redesigning Higher Education: Producing Dramatic Gains in Student Learning. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report # 7. George Washington University.
Gopnik, Alison. 1999. Small Wonders. The New York Review of Books, May 6
Kolb, D.A. 1984. Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall
Pascarella, E.T., and P.T. Terenzini. 1991. How College Affects Students: Findings and Insights from Twenty Years of Research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
NSF Division of Undergraduate Education. 1996. SHAPING THE FUTURE: A Report on
the Review of Undergraduate Education from the Committee for the Review to the
National Science Foundation Directorate for Education and Human Resources
http://www.ehr.nsf.gov/ehr/due/documents/review/96139/start.htm
Emlen, S.T., S. Nowicki, and M. West. 1998. Letter to NSF from ABS
Reprinted under “A message from the president” in The ABS Newsletter 43, Nov. 1998.
http://www.clarku.edu/~abs/nov98.html
Don’t call it a lab. Call it something like “original research in animal behavior.”At
Rutgers, at least, students earn only 2 credits for 6 hours a week of lab work.
Animal care and use committees may be taken aback by a request that students be
permitted to design their own experimental manipulations. Allay their doubts by
specifying in as much detail as possible the limits of permissible manipulations. For
instance, “birds will be exposed to playbacks of acoustic stimuli at or below the decibel
level of their natural vocalizations. The birds will be handled only by the instructor and by
the animal care staff.”
Remember the invertebrates!
An animal behavior lab is a good candidate for internal or external grants for curriculum
enrichment etc. Use some of the material above to make your case. Higher-level
administrators are sometimes quite supportive of educational innovations.
Take a look at the lab manuals on our education web page!
Send us your additions to this list.
