Jennifer L. Momsen

What We Say Is Not What We Do: Effective Evaluation of Faculty Professional Development Programs

Professional development (PD) workshops designed to help faculty move from teacher- to learner-centered science courses for undergraduates are typically evaluated with self-reported surveys that address facultys satisfaction with a workshop, what they learned, and what they applied in the classroom. Professional development outcomes are seldom evaluated through analysis of observed teaching practices. We analyzed videotapes of biology faculty teaching following PD to address three questions: (1) How learner centered was their teaching? (2) Did self-reported data about faculty teaching differ from the data from independent observers? (3) What variables predict teaching practices by faculty? Following PD, 89% of the respondents stated that they made changes in their courses that included active, learner-centered instruction. In contrast, observational data showed that participation in PD did not result in learner-centered teaching. The majority of faculty (75%) used lecture-based, teacher-centered pedagogy, showing a clear disconnect between facultys perceptions of their teaching and their actual practices.

Just the Facts? Introductory Undergraduate Biology Courses Focus on Low-Level Cognitive Skills

Introductory biology courses are widely criticized for overemphasizing details and rote memorization of facts. Data to support such claims, however, are surprisingly scarce. We sought to determine whether this claim was evidence-based. To do so we quantified the cognitive level of learning targeted by faculty in introductory-level biology courses. We used Blooms Taxonomy of Educational Objectives to assign cognitive learning levels to course goals as articulated on syllabi and individual items on high-stakes assessments (i.e., exams and quizzes). Our investigation revealed the following: 1) assessment items overwhelmingly targeted lower cognitive levels, 2) the cognitive level of articulated course goals was not predictive of the cognitive level of assessment items, and 3) there was no influence of course size or institution type on the cognitive levels of assessments. These results support the claim that introductory biology courses emphasize facts more than higher-order thinking.

Using assessments to investigate and compare the nature of learning in undergraduate science courses.

Characterizing and comparing cognitive skills assessed by introductory biology and physics indicate that (a) both course sequences assess primarily lower-order cognitive skills, (b) the distribution of items across cognitive skill levels differs significantly, and (c) there is no strong relationship between student performance and cognitive skill level.

Breaking the Cycle: Future Faculty Begin Teaching with Learner-Centered Strategies after Professional Development

The authors investigated the extent to which postdoctoral fellows believed in and implemented evidence-based pedagogies after completion of a 2-yr professional development program, FIRST IV. Postdocs reported greater use of learner-centered compared with teacher-centered instruction, and video ratings further documented learner-centered instruction.

Stereotyped: Investigating Gender in Introductory Science Courses

This study investigated the performance of women and men across introductory science courses, stereotype threat endorsement, and the utility of a values-affirmation writing task in reducing achievement gaps. Data analysis revealed no achievement gap, little stereotype threat endorsement, and no impact of the values-affirmation writing task on performance.

Introductory Biology Students’ Conceptual Models and Explanations of the Origin of Variation

Introductory biology students struggle to incorporate the molecular genetic origin of variation in their evolutionary reasoning framework. Meaningful learning of this concept may require 1) multiple cycles of instruction, assessment, and feedback; and 2) assessment forms, such as conceptual models, that promote and reveal mechanistic and causal reasoning.

Attention "Blinks" Differently for Plants and Animals.

We use an established paradigm in visual cognition, the “attentional blink,” to demonstrate that our attention is captured more slowly by plants than by animals. This suggests fundamental differences in how the visual system processes plants, which may contribute to plant blindness considered broadly.

Student Interpretations of Phylogenetic Trees in an Introductory Biology Course

Phylogenetic trees are essential to understanding evolutionary relatedness, yet undergraduates struggle to interpret these visualizations. This research uses data from students enrolled in a majors introductory biology course to characterize patterns in students’ tree thinking and how students’ reasoning changes over time and in response to instruction.

Education research: set a high bar.

In their report “Improved learning in a large-enrollment physics class” (13 May, p. [862][1]), L. Deslauriers et al. explored the effects of different instruction techniques on student learning in a college-level physics class. In one group, an experienced teacher taught the lesson using a

Student construction of phylogenetic trees in an introductory biology course

BackgroundPhylogenetic trees have become increasingly essential across biology disciplines. Consequently, learning about phylogenetic trees has become an important component of biology education and an area of interest for biology education research. Construction tasks, in which students generate phylogenetic trees from some type of data, are often used for instruction. However, the impact of these exercises on student learning is uncertain, in part due to our fragmented knowledge of what students construct during the tasks. The goal of this project was to develop a more robust method for describing student-generated phylogenetic trees, which will support future investigations that attempt to link construction tasks with student learning.ResultsThrough iterative examination of data from an introductory biology course, we developed a method for describing student-generated phylogenetic trees in terms of style, conventionality, and accuracy. Students used the diagonal style more often than the bracket style for construction tasks. The majority of phylogenetic trees were constructed conventionally, and variable orientation of branches was the most common unconventional feature. In addition, the majority of phylogenetic trees were generated correctly (no errors) or adequately (minor errors only) in terms of accuracy. Suggesting extant taxa are descended from other extant taxa was the most common major error, while empty branches and extra nodes were very common minor errors.ConclusionsThe method we developed to describe student-constructed phylogenetic trees uncovered several trends that warrant further investigation. For example, while diagonal and bracket phylogenetic trees contain equivalent information, student preference for using the diagonal style could impact comprehension. In addition, despite a lack of explicit instruction, students generated phylogenetic trees that were largely conventional and accurate. Surprisingly, accuracy and conventionality were also dependent on each other. Our method for describing phylogenetic trees constructed by students is based on data from one introductory biology course at one institution, and the results are likely limited. We encourage researchers to use our method as a baseline for developing a more generalizable tool, which will support future investigations that attempt to link construction tasks with student learning.