Biology Scholars ProgramAmy Chang

American Society for Microbiology

• Goal: Develop faculty expertise in evidenced-based science education reform

• Seven life science professional societies• Carnegie Foundation for the

Advancement of Teaching initiative on the scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL)

Program Features• Three themes

– Science education research– Science education publishing– Educational leadership

• Applications & institutional support required

• Intensive, multi-day kick-off event

• 1-2 years virtual residency – Follow-up meetings– E-discussions – E-mentoring– Personal benchmarks

Outcome: Research Residency

• Locate and use science education and science research literature

• Frame appropriate questions regarding student learning in the biological sciences

• Design projects to determine outcomes in terms of student learning

• Design methods for collecting data concerned with student learning and other outcomes

• Analyze and interpret student surveys and learning data

• Understand the importance of and necessary steps required for IRB approval

• Identify appropriate venues for publishing studies

Outcome: Writing Residency

• Identify the audience and determine voice• Plan the story in context of what is known

about learning• Present data to support findings with

conviction• Develop a storyline and resolve storyline gaps • Understand the editorial process from pre-

submission through publication including leading causes for rejection

• Serve as an ad hoc reviewer in staged reviews

Research Residency (06-08): Levels of Evaluation & Participation

Evaluation

• Participation– Number and demographics of

participants– Continue throughout the year? Any

attrition?• Satisfaction

– Do they enjoy the residency?– Is it what they expected?

• Learning– What did they learn?– Did they learn what you intended?

• Application– Are they using what they learned?– In what ways?

• Overall Impact– Publications and presentations– Participation in the Writing

Residency or Leadership Residency

Participation

• 2005-2006 Cohort– 16 participants; 14 women, 2 men– 88% (n=14) Follow-up Survey

response rate• 2006-2007 Cohort

– 15 participants; 7 women, 8 men– 73% (n=11) Follow-up Survey

response rate– 60% (n=9) completed posters

(July, Nov and May)• 2007-2008 Cohort

– 13 participants; 8 women, 9 men– 62% (n=8) Follow-up Survey

response rate

Satisfaction

The outcomes have all been positive. I have gained new tools with which to pursue my research and have a network of scholars with whom I can share and learn from in this pursuit.

The ASM Scholars experience gave me the confidence to take an initial attempt at SoTL and turn it into a part of my research program.

Before NowI feel part of a community of teachers

3.00 4.56

I am a good teacher

3.92 4.32

I am satisfied with the teaching materials that I create

3.60 4.24

Learning

Describe your practice of SoTL:

I think about what I want to know about my students and their learning and apply methods to answer those questions.

I develop assessment instruments to use in my classroom in an attempt to determine how changes I make in my teaching style affect student learning.

Before Now

Assessing student learning and revising teaching methods accordingly

2.75 4.08

Developing learning goals that reflect the nature of science

3.17 3.96

Developing learning goals based on students’ understanding of material

2.71 3.88

Identifying and solving teaching challenges

3.33 4.21

Including regular formative assessment in courses

2.84 3.02

Drawing on knowledge and experience of colleagues

3.30 4.18

ApplicationI used a mixed methods approach to assess student learning in an advanced molecular biology course; one tool was a written grant proposal to assess higher order thinking skills.

I have asked students to write reflective journals weekly. I have scored these to see how their thinking about the lab becomes more or less scientific over the course of a semester.

Which of the following have you done due to your participation as an ASM Scholar? Please check all that apply.Gained IRB approval to conduct classroom research   20 80%Sought "human subjects" approval from my students   18 72%Identified a teaching problem to resolve through classroom research   23 92%Identified literature related to a teaching problem   23 92%Identified a research method or approach to address the teaching problem   19 76%Conducted research on some aspect of my teaching   23 92%Gathered and interpreted data about my teaching   24 96%Changed my teaching due to the results of my research   19 76%

ApplicationCompleting one 4-year study on active learning; working on one study involving high school teachers and students; and starting a project to revise the curriculum and assess learning in an intro biology course.

I have revised my course to include active learning experiences and online discussions of scientific readings.

Before Now

Measuring student learning 2.64 4.16

I am interested in publishing my findings about student learning

2.92 4.48

I regularly experiment with new teaching approaches

3.44 4.48

Giving and receiving constructive feedback about teaching

2.92 3.96

I can mentor other teachers and teachers-in-training

2.92 4.48

Overall ImpactIf anything, I am a more fierce advocate of SoTL and feel strongly that SoTL must be seen on par with traditional, disciplinary, discovery-based scholarship, especially for tenure and promotion.

I am so centered on student learning that I rarely take time to administer the teaching evaluations!

Which of the following have you done due to your participation as an ASM Scholar?

Presented about teaching and learning to my department/ campus colleagues   21 84%Served as a reviewer or panelist about teaching and learning   9 36%Received a teaching award or similar honor   6 24%Had teaching recognized in a tenure or promotion review   5 20%Gave a presentation about teaching and learning at a professional meeting   20 80%

Submitted a manuscript for publication about teaching and learning   8 32%Published findings from a study of my teaching   5 20%Attended other teaching and learning events (courses, seminars) for professional development   22 88%

Barriers and Challenges• IRB process at institution• Unsupportive administration• Time to implement• Still learning how to practice SoTL• Resistant or unsupportive colleagues• Student issues - resistance, attrition• Not supported by discipline, profession• Pre-tenure

Biology Scholars www.biologyscholars.org

Writing ResidencyJan 7-10, 2009, Washington, DC

Application deadline: Oct 19, 2008

Research ResidencyJul 15-18, 2009, Washington, DC

Application deadline: March 1, 2009

Research Residency (06-08) Levels of Evaluation

• Participation– Number and demographics of participants– Continue throughout the year? Any attrition?

• Satisfaction– Do they enjoy the residency?– Is it what they expected?

• Learning– What did they learn?– Did they learn what you intended?

• Application– Are they using what they learned?– In what ways?

• Overall Impact– Publications and presentations– Participation in the Writing Residency or Leadership Residency

Participation

• 2005-2006 Cohort– 16 participants; 14 women, 2 men– 88% (n=14) Follow-up Survey response rate

• 2006-2007 Cohort– 15 participants; 7 women, 8 men– 73% (n=11) Follow-up Survey response rate– 60% (n=9) completed posters (July, Nov and

May)• 2007-2008 Cohort

– 13 participants; 8 women, 9 men– 62% (n=8) Follow-up Survey response rate

Partners and Sponsors• Life science partners

– American Association for the Advancement of Science– American Institute of Biological Sciences– American Physiological Society– American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biologt– American Society for Cell Biology– Ecological Society of America– Genetics Society of America

• Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching • National Science Foundation CCLI Project

Managed by the American Society for Microbiology

biologyscholars@asmusa.org www.biologyscholars.org