Making a Major Curriculum Change in a Multi-Section, Multi-Instructor Biology Laboratory Course

Phyllis S. Laine and Linda J. Heath

This article contains some of the lessons learned during this exciting and sometimes frustrating experience.

Background
In 1996 the Department of Education released the nation’s first educational technology plan. Its goals include student and faculty access to information technology and the skills to use that technology to improve learning. In the same year the National Research Council introduced the National Science Education Standards. These standards recommended science be taught by using the inquiry approach. Research shows that students retain more content information when they design and perform experiments, than when they do confirmation experiments. In addition, studies show that teachers taught by the inquiry method teach more science to their own students.

Each fall, Xavier University’s Biology Department teaches approximately 300 non- majors, including pre-service teachers, in 12-13 sections of a Life Investigations Laboratory. In fall of 1999, funds were received from the National Science Foundation to revise this course.

The two major changes were: (1) to make the laboratory experiences "inquiry-based" where the students, working in cooperative groups, become responsible for asking scientific questions, as well as designing and conducting experiments, and (2) to introduce greater use of information technology to enhance background knowledge, analyze data, write science journal articles, and communicate findings.

Phyllis is currently a faculty member of the Biology Department at Xavier University. Linda retired January 2002. Both authors have been teaching undergraduate biology for over 25 years. In addition they have been actively involved with science teachers in the neighboring schools by conducting summer workshops and inservices.

Ms. Heath has a BS degree in Biology and a MS degree in Botany from the University of Kentucky.

Dr. Laine has a BS , two MS degrees and a Ph.D degree from the University of Cincinnati.

Lesson One: "It takes a village."
Support from the university was essential for this major curricular change. In 1995 funds from an internal Wheeler award supported a workshop to introduce inquiry-based teaching to our science faculty. The Dean of Arts & Sciences through normal travel funds, supported travel for two-biology faculty to visit and observe successful investigative labs for over 1200 non-biology majors at Clemson University.

This visit encouraged us to write a NSF Adaptation and Implementation proposal. During the process, both the Grants Services Office and Associate Vice President provided editing, copying, budget guidelines, criticism, cheerleading, and handholding. We all worked to put the pieces together for the required university matching funds.

After receiving the grant, the traditional laboratory room had to be transformed to accommodate the technology component. This involved several divisions at the university. Information Service and Systems (ISS) helped in room planning, installing and purchasing equipment, plus on-going maintenance and trouble shooting. Academic Computing and Telecommunications Services set up network folders, assigned rights to them, wired and connected the computers. Instructional Media Services (IMS) advised in room planning, equipment ordering, installation and maintenance of media equipment.

Electricians, carpenters, and locksmith from physical plant division worked with us to remodel the room. Career Services coached us through hiring student technology assistants and Accounting checked the budget. The library staff advised on how to document electronic resources and store materials on electronic reserve. An instructional technologist employed by the university taught us the technology we envisioned for the course design. Our department secretary worked with us through many rewrites of the grant and lab manual. The department’s lab prep-assistant tolerated many changes in the orders of materials and supplies and helped to coordinate the logistics of 13 sections.

Lesson Two: "You can teach an old dog new tricks."
Several of the eight instructors teaching the new lab had taught for over 30 years, but the "tech stuff " for most had to be learned. Prior to teaching the course to 300 students, a weeklong professional development workshop was held to practice the technology and experience the inquiry approach. Many other members in the department also attended to share what they were doing and to learn what new equipment was now available to our department. A ‘tech-helper" was hired for in each of the lab sections. These were Xavier students who needed minimal training. Often, students in the course taught both their classmates and the instructors. For example, in some sections students ended up teaching Excel techniques, both informally to their own teams and to the entire class. However, not having time tp perfect their own tech skills before heading into the lab was a source of frustration for some instructors.

Lesson Three: "From sage on the stage, to guide on the side."
Inquiry is an approach that teaches both content and process. It requires the student/teacher relationship to change. The instructor has to become a facilitator, a role for which most have had no training and little experience. Some of the differences between the traditional approach and the inquiry approach include:

• In traditional labs science instructors normally work with groups of 3-4 students, but all are working on the same experiment. In an inquiry lab the facilitator interacts with up to six groups working on entirely different methods to answer a question.

• In the inquiry classroom both student and facilitator learn together. The students can no longer be referred to the lab manual for the answers. The facilitator becomes a resource, along with textbooks, Internet sources, and instruction manuals.

• Some students will know more than you do. This of course happens in other classes, but when students are the experts on their experiment and organism, it is more obvious. The facilitator has to be comfortable with this change. He/she may struggle with "teaching issues" more than with "student learning" issues.

To prepare the instructors for this new student/facilitator relationship, pedagogy was included in professional training workshop. Dr. Cindy Geer, a science educator, in the Department of Education at Xavier, explained the theory behind inquiry teaching, presented tips on teamwork in cooperative groups, addressed the topic of non-traditional assessment techniques, as well as the role of instructor as facilitator. Workshop participants experienced inquiry, worked in groups, designed their own experiments, and presented them.

Lesson Four: "Change continues."
The new lab continues to evolve. More effort is needed to:

• provide ongoing training to faculty.
• improve the quality of the student’s questions.
• strengthen faculty skills as facilitators.
  
• make the technology more of a tool, so less time is spent on teaching Excel or how to save a Word file, and more time focused on science

Final and most important lesson learned:
Involve only faculty who are willing to change their paradigm and become a facilitator.

The first time through a major curricular change, no matter how prepared you think you are, you’ll be reacting. The second and third time, the ride seems less bumpy. And once you’re on the roller coaster, strapped in, and climbing, try to enjoy the ride!

The laboratory manual for this model laboratory has been purchased by the Pearson Custom Publishing Company and should be available by the end of January 2002. The project was funded by NSF #DUE9950373 and Xavier University.

Editor's note: This laboratory course was presented as a workshop ("A Guided Inquiry in Computer-Based Biology Laboratory") at ABLE 2001, and will be presented as a Chautauqua Short Course (see page 8 of this newsletter).