Board 15: Work in Progress: Mixing Flipped and Traditional Teaching to Support Conceptual Learning and Motivation in a Cell and Molecular Biology Course

Laura Christian; Todd M. Fernandez

Download Paper | Permalink

Conference: 2024 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition
Location: Portland, Oregon
Publication Date: June 23, 2024
Start Date: June 23, 2024
End Date: July 12, 2024
Conference Session: Biomedical Engineering Division (BED) Poster Session
Tagged Division: Biomedical Engineering Division (BED)
Permanent URL: https://peer.asee.org/46710

Request a correction

Paper Authors

biography

Laura Christian Georgia Institute of Technology

visit author page

Laura Christian's doctorate work at UT Austin was is in the field of cell and molecular biology and she has held biology teaching faculty positions at West Virginia University and Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. She is currently a Lecturer in the Biomedical Engineering Department at Georgia Tech. She is excited to combine her experiences in biology teaching with methods used in engineering instruction and to use education research techniques determine methods that work well for these students.

visit author page

biography

Todd M. Fernandez Georgia Institute of Technology

visit author page

Todd is a lecturer in the Wallace H. Coulter Department of Biomedical Engineering at Georgia Institute of Technology. His research interests are engineering students beliefs about knowledge and education and how those beliefs interact with learning engineering.

visit author page

Download Paper | Permalink

Abstract

Cell and molecular biology courses often focus on memorization of biological facts using traditional lecture approaches. The disconnect between typical approaches to teaching such courses and the larger goals of engineering education has the potential to reduce student learning and motivation in an important core course. Active pedagogical techniques and flipped course delivery have been shown to be more effective than traditional lectures. In addition, both of these solutions are relatively accessible to instructors with limited time to engage in course design or redesign.

With the goal of improving content learning and increasing student motivation for learning cell and molecular biology, we revised the instructional design for a junior-level cell and molecular biology course for BME students. The first change was the integration of Problem Solving Studio (PSS) into three to five class sessions. PSS is a student apprenticeship learning model, where small groups of students solve open-ended problem sets with facilitation by an instructor. While PSS has been shown to increase student motivation and learning over a semester, changes in these parameters have not been measured in semesters before and after its implementation. PSS is also frequently used in courses focused on math concepts, but it also has the potential to increase student learning and motivation in a cell and molecular biology course for engineering students.

In order to assess student learning of concepts and motivation, student data is being collected through pre- and post-course assessments: a cell and molecular biology concept inventory (CI) and responses to a survey on motivation, along with exam grades and demographic information. In this preliminary analysis, we asked two research questions: RQ1. Does student learning increase over the semester, regardless of class type? RQ2. Does the class type (PSS or no PSS) affect CI scores in this course? Using Classical Test Theory and two-way ANOVA, we determined that student learning does increase over the semester regardless of class type. However, we were unable to show that class type affects CI scores.

Citation
Format

Christian, L., & Fernandez, T. M. (2024, June), Board 15: Work in Progress: Mixing Flipped and Traditional Teaching to Support Conceptual Learning and Motivation in a Cell and Molecular Biology Course Paper presented at 2024 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Portland, Oregon. https://peer.asee.org/46710

TY  - CPAPER
AB  - Cell and molecular biology courses often focus on memorization of biological facts using traditional lecture approaches. The disconnect between typical approaches to teaching such courses and the larger goals of engineering education has the potential to reduce student learning and motivation in an important core course. Active pedagogical techniques and flipped course delivery have been shown to be more effective than traditional lectures. In addition, both of these solutions are relatively accessible to instructors with limited time to engage in course design or redesign.

With the goal of improving content learning and increasing student motivation for learning cell and molecular biology, we revised the instructional design for a junior-level cell and molecular biology course for BME students. The first change was the integration of Problem Solving Studio (PSS) into three to five class sessions. PSS is a student apprenticeship learning model, where small groups of students solve open-ended problem sets with facilitation by an instructor. While PSS has been shown to increase student motivation and learning over a semester, changes in these parameters have not been measured in semesters before and after its implementation. PSS is also frequently used in courses focused on math concepts, but it also has the potential to increase student learning and motivation in a cell and molecular biology course for engineering students.

In order to assess student learning of concepts and motivation, student data is being collected through pre- and post-course assessments: a cell and molecular biology concept inventory (CI) and responses to a survey on motivation, along with exam grades and demographic information. In this preliminary analysis, we asked two research questions: RQ1. Does student learning increase over the semester, regardless of class type? RQ2. Does the class type (PSS or no PSS) affect CI scores in this course? Using Classical Test Theory and two-way ANOVA, we determined that student learning does increase over the semester regardless of class type. However, we were unable to show that class type affects CI scores.
AU  - Laura Christian
AU  - Todd M. Fernandez
CY  - Portland, Oregon
DA  - 2024/06/23
PB  - ASEE Conferences
TI  - Board 15: Work in Progress: Mixing Flipped and Traditional Teaching to Support Conceptual Learning and Motivation in a Cell and Molecular Biology Course 
UR  - https://peer.asee.org/46710
ER  -