2008 PTLC Research Proposals

2008 PTLC Research Proposals Index of 2008 PTLC Research Proposals: 1. Professor John Basey- University of Colorado Boulder 2. Professor Lynne Bemis- University of Colorado Denver 3. Professor Peter Blanken- University of Colorado Boulder 4. Professor Elaine Cheesman- University of Colorado Colorado Springs 5. Professor Judith Coe- University of Colorado Denver 6. Professor Alejandro Cremaschi- University of Colorado Boulder 7. Professor Kendra Gale- University of Colorado Boulder 8. Professor Scott Grabinger- University of Colorado Denver 9. Professor Jean Hertzberg- University of Colorado Boulder 10. Professors Jane Kass-Wolff and Ernestine Kotthoff-Burrell- University of Colorado Denver 11. Professor Yvonne Kellar-Guenther- University of Colorado Denver 12. Professor Mary Klages- University of Colorado Boulder 13. Professor Suzanne MacAulay- University of Colorado Colorado Springs 14. Professor Stefanie Mollborn- University of Colorado Boulder 15. Professor Mary Jane Rapport- University of Colorado Denver 16. Professor Cathy Thompson- University of Colorado Denver 17. Professor Cindy White- University of Colorado Boulder John M. Basey Senior Instructor Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology University of Colorado at Boulder UCB 334 Boulder, CO, 80309 303 492-8487 [email protected] Project Proposal Characteristics of science labs can vary in delivery (teacher demonstration, computer simulation, hands-on observation, hands-on experimentation), approach (inductive, process-based, constructivist (1); implicit, explicit, explicit and reflective (2), style (expository, discovery, problem-based, inquiry (3) and a host of other miscellaneous features. Likewise, student- learning outcomes vary in a similar manner (Table 1), along with student learning-style preferences (4). Different combinations of lab characteristics should result in variations in student-learning outcomes. For instance, take two fetal pig dissection labs. The first, a hands-on observational lab utilizing an expository style, that has students identify structures and know functions. The second an inquiry style experiment utilizing fetal-pig dissection as the avenue for gathering data, in which students derive a question then design and carry out an investigation to test the question. Both labs address somewhat the same content topic and lab skills, but the first may help students more with term recognition and conceptualization associated with discipline content, while the second may help students more with science process and reasoning skills and improving students' attitudes toward science. In other words, trade-offs are most likely to exist in learning outcomes resulting from labs with various designs. Theoretically, for a given set of student-learning goals, there should be an optimal lab design that maximizes student-realization of those goals. Actually determining the "optimal lab design" for a set of learning goals or even tougher an "optimal curriculum design" is virtually impossible. However, quantifying differential influences of lab characteristics on various learning goals can get lab and curriculum designs much closer to the optimal design. Research in this area is difficult to evaluate for several reasons. - Relatively few studies experimentally compare effects of different characteristics of hands-on science labs on student learning outcomes. Most of these studies only compare two or three lab characteristics, and with the exception of understanding the nature of science (NOS), utilize unique assessments that cannot be compared on relative scales between studies. - Studies often do not delineate learning outcomes (especially higher and lower order cognition) in the assessment so tradeoffs cannot be evaluated for different learning outcomes. - Studies commonly examine specific adjustments to labs or curricula rather than broad theoretical categories. In 2007, I was part of the President's Teaching and Learning Collaborative. As part of that program, I attempted to quantify relative impacts of 6 characteristics of lab design on students' attitudes towards lab. Results indicated the following quantitative relationship: Total Student Attitude = 0.39 Exciting 0.25 Time Efficient 0.15 Not Difficult 0.10 Lecture Help 0.08 Experimental 0.03 Open-Ended. In this proposal, I would like to extend this research and quantify how lab style can influence the six characteristics listed above. For example, what are the trade-offs in excitement, time efficiency, level of difficulty and lecture help for an expository vs. discovery vs. problem-based vs. full-inquiry lab? Methods. In 2001 -2003, I derived and verified an assessment that could be used to determine changes in students attitudes towards lab between years and be sensitive to changes in labs between years. In spring 2007, I modified the assessment for a new question and utilized it in General Biology Lab II. The assessment was an end of semester survey that had students provide an overall rating of each lab in the curriculum and a rating based on their perception of the degree to which the independent variables of excitement, time efficiency, lecture help, level of difficulty, open-ended and experimentation impacted the lab. I plan to utilize the same assessment at the end of fall 2007 in General Biology Lab I (GBLI), and General Biology Lab: A Human Approach (HAL). I then plan to redesign some labs for fall 2008 so they are the same in content covered, but have different lab styles, then reassess with the same assessment. Extensions. This research could directly impact my lab designs and the lab designs of others. After examining attitudes, I intend to examine impacts of lab style and design on other learning goals, such as memorization, comprehension and science reasoning. When completed, I intend to submit my findings to one or more journals (e.g. The Journal of Research in Science Teaching, The Journal of Biological Education, or The International Journal of Science Education). I also plan to speak at national meetings (e.g. The Alliance of Biology Lab Educators), and at other universities (similar to the invited seminar I did in 2004 for the biological education program at UNC). I have chaired the senior outcomes assessment committee in The Department of EEB for the last 2 years. I do not have anyone in mind right now as a coach. If I am selected, I plan to attend required meetings. Since I was part of the PTLC cohort of 2007, I plan to be a coach. Literature Cited: (1) Hodson D (1996) Journal of Curriculum Studies, 28(2), 115-135; (2) Toh and Woolnough (1993) Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(5), 445-457; (3) Domin DS (1999) Journal of Chemical Education, 76, 543 - 547; (4) Dunn R, Dunn K., & Price, GE (1982) Lawrence. Kansas: Price Systems. Lynne T. Bemis Associate Professor of Medicine Cancer Biology University of Colorado Denver School of Medicine Mail Stop 8117 PO Box 6511, Aurora, CO 80045 303-724-3846 [email protected] What is the central question, issue, or problem you plan to explore in your proposed work? The central question of our work is: Does training in health disparities and cultural diversity enhance health care professional's knowledge of the factors influencing health needs of people from diverse backgrounds. The long term goal of our program is to prepare healthcare professionals trained in the research of health disparities to implement positive solutions to health disparities. Why is your central question, issue, or problem important, to you and to others who might benefit from or build on your findings? Recall that the goal of the scholarship of teaching and learning is not simply to improve your own teaching but to contribute to the practice and profession of teaching more broadly. Comprehensive Health Disparities Training for First Year Medical Students was funded last year as a Diversity and Excellence pilot project. The project was initiated because of a deficit that several of our first year medical students had identified in their preparation for a medical career. They had come to realize that prior to entering medical school many of their peers developed laboratory research skills, whereas laboratory research experience was not available to many of the minority students. Another area of concern is that of cross cultural issues and health disparities, that is often students of color are expected to be experts on health disparities by virtue of their heritage. Although, many students from under represented populations may have experienced health disparities firsthand, most probably have not discussed these issues with national leaders in the field of health disparities research. The goal of this project is to rectify both the lack of research experience and the inadequate preparation to discuss health disparities by providing a comprehensive training program. The training requires that participants (first year medical students) attend the weeklong Annual Summer Workshop, Disparities in America - Working Towards Social Justice held in Houston, Texas and if their schedule permits spend the remainder of the summer conducting research in a laboratory or public health setting. Description of the Program Comprehensive Health Disparities Training for First Year Medical Students is a student driven educational initiative. The program was open to all students in the first year of medical school and 8 students inquired about the program. Two students who were initially interested in the program later determined that they were not available for the summer

Load more