Category Archives: Teaching Strategies

Student Evaluation of Teaching – The Next 100 Years

Mari K. Hopper, PhD
Sam Houston State University

Student evaluation of teaching (SET) has been utilized and studied for over 100 years. Originally, SET was designed by faculty to gather information from students in order to improve personal teaching methods (Remmers and Guthrie, 1927). Over time, SET became increasingly common. Reports in the literature indicate 29% of institutions of higher education employed this resource in 1973, 68% in 1983,  86% in 1993, and 94.2% in 2010 (Seldin, 1993).

Today, SET is employed almost universally, and has become a routine task for both faculty and students. While deployment of this instrument has increased, impact with faculty has declined. A study published in 2002 indicated only 2-10% of instructors reported major teaching changes based on SET (Nasser & Fresko, 2002). However, results of SET has become increasingly important in making impactful faculty decisions including promotion and tenure, merit pay, and awards. A study by Miller and Seldin (2010), reported that 99.3% Deans use SET in evaluating their faculty (Miller & Seldin, 2014)

The literature offers a rich discussion of issues related to SET including bias, validity, reliability, and accuracy. Although discussions raise concern for current use of SET, institutions continue to rely on SET for multiple purposes. As a consequence, it has become increasingly important that students offer feedback that is informative, actionable, and professional. It would also be helpful to raise student awareness of the scope, implications, and potential impact of SET results. 

To that end, I offer the following suggestions for helping students become motivated and effective evaluators of faculty:

  • Inform students of changes made based on evaluations from last semester/year
  • Share information concerning potential bias (age, primary language, perception of grading leniency, etc.)
  • Inform of full use including departmental and campus wide (administrative decisions, awards, P & T, etc,)
  • Establish a standard of faculty performance for each rating on the Likert scale (in some cases a 3 may be the more desirable indicator)
  • Inform students of professionalism, and the development of professional identity. Ask students to write only what they would share in face-to-face conversation.
  • Ask students to exercise caution and discrimination – avoid discussing factors out of faculty control (class size, time offered, required exams, classroom setting, etc.)
  • If indicating a faculty behavior is unsatisfactory – offer specific reasons
  • When writing that a faculty member display positive attributes – be sure to include written comments of factual items, not just perceptions and personal feelings
  • Give students examples of USEFUL and NOT USEFUL feedback
  • Distinguish between ‘anonymous’ and ‘blinded’ based on your school’s policy

Although technology has made the administration of SET nearly invisible to faculty, it is perhaps time for faculty to re-connect with the original purpose. It is also appropriate for faculty to be involved in the process of developing SET instruments, and screening questions posed to their students. Additionally, it is our responsibility to help students develop proficiency in offering effective evaluation. Faculty have the opportunity, and perhaps a responsibility, to determine the usefulness and impact of SET for the next 100 years.

Please share your ideas about how we might return to the original purpose of SET – to inform our teaching. I would also encourage you to share instructions you give your students just prior to administering SET. 

Mari K. Hopper, PhD, is currently the Associate Dean for Biomedical Sciences at Sam Houston State University Proposed College of Osteopathic Medicine. She received her Ph.D. in Physiology from Kansas State University. She was trained as a physiologist with special interest in maximum capabilities of the cardiorespiratory and muscular systems. Throughout her academic career she has found immense gratification in working with students in the classroom, the research laboratory, and in community service positions. Dr Hopper has consistently used the scholarly approach in her teaching, and earned tenure and multiple awards as a result of her contributions in the area of scholarship of teaching and learning. She has focused on curriculum development and creating curricular materials that challenge adult learners while engaging students to evaluate, synthesize, and apply difficult concepts. At SHSU she will lead the development of the basic science curriculum for the first two years of medical school. Dr Hopper is very active in professional organizations and currently serves as the Chapter Advisory Council Chair for the American Physiological Society, the HAPS Conference Site Selection Committee, and Past-President of the Indiana Physiological Society. Dr Hopper has four grown children and a husband David who is a research scientist.

Fostering an Inclusive Classroom: A Practical Guide

Ah, the summer season has begun! I love this time of year, yes for the sun and the beach and baseball games and long, lazy summer reading, but also because it gets me thinking about new beginnings. I’ve always operated on a school-year calendar mindset, so if you’re like me, you’re probably reflecting on the successes and shortcomings of the past year, preparing for the upcoming fall semester, or maybe even launching into a new summer semester now. As campuses become more diverse, fostering an inclusive learning environment becomes increasingly important, yet the prospect of how to do so can be daunting. So where to start?

First, recognize that there is not just one way to create an inclusive classroom. Often, the most effective tactics you use may be discipline-, regional-, campus-, or classroom-specific. Inclusive teaching is a student-oriented mindset, a way of thinking that challenges you to maximize opportunities for all students to connect with you, the course material, and each other.

Second, being proactive before a semester begins can save you a lot of time, headaches, and conflict down the road. Set aside some dedicated time to critically evaluate your course structure, curriculum, assignments, and language choices before ever interacting with your students. Consider which voices, perspectives, and examples are prominent in your class materials, and ask yourself which ones are missing and why. Try to diversify the mode of content representation (lectures, videos, readings, discussions, hands-on activities, etc.) and/or assessments types (verbal vs. diagrammed, written vs. spoken, group vs. individual, online vs. in-class, etc.). Recognize the limits of your own culture-bound assumptions, and, if possible, ask for feedback from a colleague whose background differs from your own.

Third, know that you don’t have to change everything all at once. If you are developing an entirely new course/preparation, you’ll have less time to commit to these endeavors than you might for a course you’ve taught a few times already. Recognize that incremental steps in the right direction are better than completely overwhelming yourself and your students to the point of ineffectiveness (Trust me, I’ve tried and it isn’t pretty!)

Below, I have included some practical ways to make a classroom more inclusive, but this list is far from comprehensive. As always, feedback is much appreciated!

Part 1: Course Structure and Student Feedback

These strategies require the largest time commitment to design and implement, but they are well worth the effort.

  • Provide opportunities for collaborative learning in the classroom. Active learning activities can better engage diverse students, and this promotes inclusivity by allowing students from diverse backgrounds to interact with one another. Furthermore, heterogeneous groups are usually better problem-solvers than homogeneous ones.
  • Implement a variety of learning activity types in order to reach different kinds of learners. Use poll questions, case studies, think-pair-share, jigsaws, hands-on activities, oral and written assignments, etc.
  • Select texts/readings whose language is gender-neutral or stereotype-free, and if you run across a problem after the fact, point out the text’s shortcomings in class and give students the opportunity to discuss it.
  • Promote a growth mindset. The language you use in the classroom can have a surprising impact on student success, even when you try to be encouraging. How many of us have said to our students before a test, “You all are so smart. I know you can do this!”? It sounds innocent enough, but this language conveys that “being smart” determines success rather than hard work. Students with this fixed mindset are more likely to give up when confronted with a challenge because they don’t think they are smart/good/talented enough to succeed. Therefore, when we encourage our students before an assessment or give them feedback afterwards, we must always address their effort and their work, rather than assigning attributes (positive or negative) to them as people.
  • Convey the same level of confidence in the abilities of all your students. Set high expectations that you believe all students can achieve, emphasizing the importance of hard work and effort. Perhaps the biggest challenge is maintaining high expectations for every student, even those who have performed poorly in the past. However, assuming a student just can’t cut it based on one low exam grade may be as damaging as assuming a student isn’t fit due to their race, gender, background, etc.
  • Be evenhanded in praising your students. Don’t go overboard as it makes students feel like you don’t expect it of them.

Part 2: Combating Implicit Bias

Every one of us harbors biases, including implicit biases that form outside of our conscious awareness. In some cases, our implicit biases may even run counter to our conscious values. This matters in the classroom because implicit bias can trigger self-fulfilling prophecies by changing stereotyped groups’ behaviors to conform to stereotypes, even when the stereotype was initially untrue. Attempting to suppress our biases is likely to be counterproductive, so we must employ other strategies to ensure fairness to all our students.

  • Become aware of your own biases, by assessing them with tools like the Harvard Implicit Association Test (https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/takeatest.html) or by self-reflection. Ask yourself: Do I interact with men and women in ways that create double standards? Do I assume that members of one group will need extra help in the classroom – or alternatively, that they will outperform others? Do I undervalue comments made by individuals with a different accent than my own?
  • Learn about cultures different than your own. Read authors with diverse backgrounds. Express a genuine interest in other cultural traditions. Exposure to different groups increases your empathy towards them.
  • Take extra care to evaluate students on individual bases rather than social categorization / group membership. Issues related to group identity may be especially enhanced on college campuses because this is often the first time for students to affirm their identity and/or join single-identity organizations / groups.
  • Recognize the complexity of diversity. No person has just one identity. We all belong to multiple groups, and differences within groups may be as great as those across groups.
  • Promote interactions in the classroom between different social groups. Even if you choose to let students form their own groups in class, mix it up with jigsaw activities, for example.
  • Use counter-stereotypic examples in your lectures, case studies, and exams.
  • Employ fair grading practices, such as clearly-defined rubrics, anonymous grading, grading question by question instead of student by student, and utilize activities with some group points and some individual points.

Part 3: Day-to-Day Classroom Culture

These suggestions fall under the “biggest bang for your buck” category. They don’t require much time to implement, but they can go a long way to making your students feel more welcome in your classroom.

  • Use diverse images, names, examples, analogies, perspectives, and cultural references in your teaching. Keep this in mind when you choose pictures/cartoons for your lectures, prepare in-class or take-home activities, and write quiz/test questions. Ask yourself if the examples you are using are only familiar or relevant to someone with your background. If so, challenge yourself to make it accessible to a wider audience.
  • Pay attention to your terminology and be willing to adjust based on new information. This may be country-, region-, or campus-specific, and it may change over time (e.g. “minority” vs. “historically underrepresented”). When in doubt, be more specific rather than less (e.g. “Korean” instead of “Asian”; “Navajo” instead of “Native American”).
  • Use inclusive and non-gendered language whenever possible (e.g. “significant other/partner” instead of “boyfriend/husband,” “chairperson” instead of “chairman,” “parenting” instead of “mothering”).
  • Make a concerted effort to learn your students’ names AND pronunciations. Even if it takes you a few tries, it is a meaningful way to show your students you care about them as individuals.
  • Highlight the important historical and current contributions to your field made by scientists belonging to underrepresented groups.
  • Limit barriers to learning. You will likely have a list of your own, but here are a few I’ve compiled:
    • Provide lecture materials before class so that students can take notes on them during class.
    • Use a microphone to make sure all students can hear you clearly.
    • Consider using Dyslexie font on your slides to make it easier for dyslexic students to read them.
    • Speak slowly and limit your use of contractions so that non-native-English speakers can understand you more easily.
    • Write bullet points on the board that remain there for the whole class period, including the main points for that lecture, important dates coming up, and key assignments.
    • Be sensitive to students whose first language is not English and don’t punish them unnecessarily for misusing idioms.

As a final parting message, always try to be mindful of your students’ needs, but know that you don’t have everything figured out at the outset. Make time to reevaluate your approach, class materials, and activities to see where improvements can be made. Challenge yourself to continually improve and hone better practices. Listen to your students, and be mindful with the feedback you ask them to give you in mid-semester and/or course evaluations.

For more information, I recommend the following resources:

  1. Davis, BG. “Diversity and Inclusion in the Classroom.” Tools for Teaching (2nd Ed). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, A Wiley Imprint. p 57 – 71. Print.
  2. Eredics, Nicole. “16 Inclusive Education Blogs You Need to Know About!” The Inclusive Class, 2016 July 27. http://www.theinclusiveclass.com/2016/07/16-inclusive-education-blogs-you-need.html
  3. Handelsman J, Miller S, Pfund C. “Diversity.” Scientific Teaching. New York: W. H. Freeman and Company, 2007. p 65 – 82. Print.
  4. “Instructional Strategies: Inclusive Teaching and Learning.” The University of Texas at Austin Faculty Innovation Center. https://facultyinnovate.utexas.edu/inclusive

Laura Weise Cross is an Assistant Professor of Biology at Millersville University, beginning in the fall of 2019, where she will be teaching courses in Introductory Biology, Anatomy & Physiology, and Nutrition. Laura received a B.S. in Biochemistry from the University of Texas and a Ph.D. in Molecular and Cellular Pathology from the University of North Carolina. She recently completed her post-doctoral training in the Department of Cell Biology & Physiology at the University of New Mexico, where she studied the molecular mechanisms of hypoxia-induced pulmonary hypertension. Laura’s research is especially focused on how hypoxia leads to structural remodeling of the pulmonary vessel wall, which is characterized by excessive vascular smooth muscle cell proliferation and migration. She looks forward to engaging undergraduate students in these projects in her new research lab.

Do You Want To Be On TV?

Last summer, some colleagues and I published a paper on how high school students can communicate their understanding of science through songwriting.  This gradually led to a press release from my home institution, and then (months later) a feature article in a local newspaper, and then appearances on Seattle TV stations KING-5 and KOMO-4.

It’s been an interesting little journey.  I haven’t exactly “gone viral” — I haven’t been adding hundreds of new Twitter followers, or anything like that — but even this mild uptick in interest has prompted me to ponder my relationship with the news media. In short, I do enjoy the attention, but I also feel some responsibility to influence the tone and emphases of these stories. In this post, I share a few bits of advice based on my recent experiences, and I invite others to contribute their own tips in the comments section.

(1) Find out how your school/department/committee views media appearances.  In April, I was invited to appear on KING’s mid-morning talk show, which sounded cool, except that the show would be taped during my normal Thursday physiology lecture!  My department chair and my dean encouraged me to do the show, noting that this sort of media exposure is generally good for the school, and so, with their blessing, I got a sub and headed for the studio.

(2) Respect students’ privacy during classroom visits.  After some students were included in a classroom-visit video despite promises to the contrary, I realized that I needed to protect their privacy more strongly. I subsequently established an option by which any camera-shy students could live-stream the lecture until the TV crew left.

(3) Anticipate and explicitly address potential misconceptions about what you’re doing.  I’ve worried that these “singing professor” pieces might portray the students simply as amused audience members rather than as active participants, so, during the classroom visits, I’ve used songs that are conducive to the students singing along and/or analyzing the meaning of the lyrics. (Well, mostly. “Cross-Bridges Over Troubled Water” wasn’t that great for either, but I had already sung “Myofibrils” for KING, and KOMO deserved an exclusive too, right?)

(4) Take advantage of your institution’s public relations expertise.  Everett Community College’s director of public relations offered to help me rehearse for the talk show — and boy am I glad that she did!  Being familiar with the conventions and expectations of TV conversations, Katherine helped me talk much more pithily than I normally do. In taking multiple cracks at her practice question about “how did you get started [using music in teaching]?” I eventually pared a meandering 90-second draft answer down to 30 seconds. She also asked me a practice question to which my normal response would be, “Can you clarify what you mean by X?” — and convinced me that in a 4-minute TV conversation, you don’t ask for clarifications, you just make reasonable assumptions and plow ahead with your answers.

(5) Ask your interviewers what they will want to talk about. Like a novice debater, I struggle with extemporaneous speaking; the more I can prepare for specific questions, the better.  Fortunately, my interviewers have been happy to give me a heads-up about possible questions, thus increasing their chances of getting compelling and focused answers.

Readers, what other advice would you add to the above?

Gregory J. Crowther, PhD has a BA in Biology from Williams College, a MA in Science Education from Western Governors University, and a PhD in Physiology & Biophysics from the University of Washington. He teaches anatomy and physiology in the Department of Life Sciences at Everett Community College. His peer-reviewed journal articles on enhancing learning with content-rich music have collectively been cited over 100 times.

Embracing the Instability of Positive Feedback Loops

Feedback loops are a physiology professor’s bread and butter.  From blood sugar to body temperature, negative feedback ensures that no physiological variable strays from its set point (or range) and that homeostasis is maintained.  Positive feedback loops, on the other hand, are inherently unstable.  In these loops, the response elicited by a stimulus drives the variable further from its set point, reinforcing the stimulus rather than reducing it, and continuing until some outside influence intervenes1.  The classic physiological example of positive feedback is childbirth – pressure from the baby on the mother’s uterus and cervix triggers the release of the hormone oxytocin, which triggers uterine muscle contractions that further push the baby toward the cervix.  This loop of pressure, oxytocin release, and contractions continues until an intervening event occurs – the delivery of the baby.

While physiological positive feedback loops are fascinating, they are greatly outnumbered by negative feedback loops; thus, they don’t usually get much attention in our physiology classrooms.  We usually tell students that the instability of positive feedback loops is what makes them so uncommon.  However, I’d like to use my platform here to argue for a larger place for positive feedback loops in not just our physiology courses, but all of our courses.

 

Positive Feedback Loop Learning

I mentioned above that positive feedback loops are inherently unstable because they drive variables further from their set points, so you may be thinking, “why would I ever want my classroom to be unstable?”  Imagine it this way:  in this feedback loop, the stimulus is an idea, concept, or problem posed by the instructor.  The response is the student’s own investigation of the stimulus, which hopefully sparks further curiosity in the student about the topic at hand, and drives him or her toward more investigation and questioning.  Granted, this system of learning could certainly introduce some instability and uncertainty to the classroom.  Once sparked, the instructor does not have control over the student’s curiosity, which may take the student outside of the instructor’s area of expertise.  However, I maintain that this instability actually enriches our classroom by giving students the space to think critically.

 

Why Encourage Positive Feedback Loops?

Though often misattributed (or even misquoted), Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr. (poet, essayist, physician, and father of US Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.) once wrote “Every now and then a man’s mind is stretched by a new idea or sensation, and never shrinks back to its former dimensions.”2 Neuroscience research supports this assertion.  In rodents, exposure to novel stimuli in enriched environments enhances neuronal long-term potentiation, the cellular correlate of learning and memory in the brain3.  Human brains both functionally and structurally reorganize upon learning new information.  A magnetic resonance imaging study examined gray matter volume in the brains of German medical students who were studying for their “Physikum,” an extensive exam covering biology, chemistry, biochemistry, physics, human anatomy, and physiology4.  Brain scans taken 1-2 days after the Physikum demonstrated significantly increased gray matter volume in the parietal cortex and hippocampus compared to baseline scans taken 3 months prior to the exam (and prior to extensive exposure to new information during the study period)4.  Thus, while the brain may not literally be “stretched” by new ideas, as Holmes proposed, the process of learning (acquisition, encoding, and retrieval of new information) certainly reshapes the brain.

In the model I’ve presented above, new ideas, concepts, and questions are the stimuli in our positive feedback loop.  These stimuli promote changes in our student’s brains.  And, if these stimuli spark curiosity, these brain changes (and thus learning) will be amplified as students respond – meaning, as they construct new ideas, concepts, and questions based on their own interests.  Thus, the loop feeds into itself.

 

Designing Stimuli That Elicit Positive Feedback

How can we structure our teaching so that the stimulus we present to our students is strong enough to elicit a response?  First, it is crucial that our stimuli elicit curiosity in our students. In his essay surveying recent research on the role of curiosity in academic success, David Barry Kaufman wrote, “Stimulating classroom activities are those that offer novelty, surprise, and complexity, allowing greater autonomy and student choice; they also encourage students to ask questions, question assumptions, and achieve mastery through revision rather than judgment-day-style testing.”5  Project-based learning, a teaching technique focused on extended engagement with a problem or task as a means of constructing knowledge, checks many of Kaufman’s boxes6.  As an example, in the past two iterations of my Physiology course, my students have participated in the “Superhero Physiology Project” in which they develop interactive lesson plans for middle school students.  Based on the work of E. Paul Zehr, Ph.D. (author of Becoming Batman: The Possibility of Superhero7 and multiple APS Advances in Physiology Education articles), my students choose a superhero to base their lesson upon, and work over the course of several weeks to create interactive, hands-on activities to teach kids about a physiological system.  While I give my students feedback on the plausibility of their ideas (within our time and budgetary constraints), I leave much of the structure of their lessons open so that they have the opportunity to work through the complexities that come with keeping 20 or more middle schoolers engaged.  Often, my students tell me that figuring out the best way to communicate physiological concepts for a young audience encouraged them to go beyond our textbook to search for new analogies and real-life examples of physiology to which middle schoolers could relate.

Another way to design stimuli that elicit curiosity and positive feedback learning is by capitalizing on a student’s naiveté.  In this approach, described by education expert Kimberly Van Orman of the University of Albany in The Chronicle of Higher Education8, “students don’t need to know everything before they can do anything” – meaning, curiosity is most easily sparked when possibilities aren’t limited by your existing knowledge, because you don’t have any!  For me, this approach is somewhat difficult.  Like all instructors, I regularly feel the pressure to ensure we “get through the material” and often plow through concepts too quickly.  However, my physiology students last fall showed me the power of the “naïve task” firsthand when I observed the Superhero Physiology lesson9 they gave at the middle school.  They decided that before teaching the middle schoolers any physiological terms or concepts didactically, they would present them with a hands-on experiment to introduce the concepts of stroke volume and vasoconstriction.  Their rationale and approach (below) illustrate their mastery of using naiveté to spark curiosity.

Rationale:

The students should be provided with very little, if any, background information on the heart models and the reasoning behind the varying sizes of the materials. By providing little information up front, we hope to intrigue their curiosity regarding the lesson and its significance. Students will be told what to do with the instruments; however, they will not receive any advice on which instruments to use.

The Experiment:

  1. Divide the class into two groups (within each group there should be 4-5 “holders” for the tubes and 4-5 “pumpers” managing water and pipets). Group 1 will be given large diameter tubing, a large funnel as well as 3 large volume pipettes. Group 2 will receive smaller tubing, a smaller funnel and only one smaller volume pipet.
  2. Instruct the students that they will be transporting the water from a large bucket into another bucket 8-10 feet across the room without moving the bucket.
  3. The groups will have 10 minutes to construct their apparatus, and 5 minutes for the actual head-to-head “race” in which the winner is determined by who moves the most amount of water in the allotted time.
  4. After the students have completed the first experiment they will return to their seats for the lecture portion of the lesson which will connect the different parts of the build to different portions of the cardiovascular system.

 

Not only did the middle school students have a fantastic time building their apparatus (and accidentally on purpose getting each other wet!), but as the experiment progressed, they began to get curious about why the other team was so behind or ahead.  Soon after, discussions between groups about tubing diameter and pipet size emerged organically among the middle schoolers, and they were able to easily apply these concepts to later discussions of blood flow and cardiac output.

 

Embracing Instability

While I think most educators aspire to elicit positive feedback learning in their students, there can be barriers to putting it into practice.  As I mentioned above, pressure to cover content results in some of us shying away from open-ended activities and projects.  Not all students in a given class will come in with the same motivations for learning (as discussed in Dr. Ryan Downey’s December 2018 PECOP Blog post10), nor will they all respond to the same stimuli with curiosity.  However, it just takes one stimulus to put a positive feedback loop into action – and once it gets going, it’s hard to stop.  Once a student’s curiosity is piqued, the classroom may feel a bit unstable as their interests move out of the realm of your expertise as an instructor.  But ultimately, we all as educators live for that moment when a connection crystallizes in a student’s mind and they discover a new question they can’t wait to answer.

 

Acknowledgements

The author is grateful to Wabash students James Eaton, Sam Hayes, Cheng Ge, and Hunter Jones for sharing an excerpt of their middle school lesson.

 

References

1 Silverthorn DU. (2013).  Human physiology, an integrated approach (6th Ed.). Pearson.

2 Holmes OW. (1858). The autocrat of the breakfast-table. Boston:  Phillips, Sampson and Company.

3 Hullinger R, O’Riordan K, Burger C.  (2015).  Environmental enrichment improves learning and memory and long-term potentiation in young adult rats through a mechanism requiring mGluR5 signaling and sustained activation of p70s6k.  Neurobiol Learn Mem 125:126-34.

4 Draganski B, Gaser C, Kempermann G, Kuhn HG, Winkler J, Büchel C, May A. (2006).  Temporal and spatial dynamics of brain structure changes during extensive learning.  J Neurosci 26(23):6314-17.

Kaufman,SB. (2017, July 24).  Schools are missing what matters about learning.  The Atlantic.  Retrieved from https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/07/the-underrated-gift-of-curiosity/534573/

6 What is PBL? (n.d.) Retrieved from https://www.pblworks.org/what-is-pbl

7 Zehr, EP. (2008).  Becoming Batman: the possibility of a superhero.  Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

8 Supiano, B. (2018, June 7). How one teaching expert activates students’ curiosity. Retrieved from https://www.chronicle.com/article/How-One-Teaching-Expert/243609

9 Eaton J, Hayes S, Ge C, Jones H. (2018).  Superhero cardio: the effects of blood vessel diameter, stroke volume, and heart rate on cardiac output. Unpublished work, Wabash College, Crawfordsville, IN.

10 Downey, R.  (2018, December 13).  Affective teaching and motivational instruction: becoming more effective educators of science. [Blog post]. Retrieved from https://blog.lifescitrc.org/pecop/2018/12/13/affective-teaching-and-motivational-instruction-becoming-more-effective-educators-of-science/

 

Heidi Walsh has been an Assistant Professor of Biology at Wabash College since 2014. She received a B.S. in Neuroscience from Allegheny College, a Ph.D. in Neuroscience from the University of Virginia, and completed post-doctoral work in the Department of Metabolism & Aging at The Scripps Research Institute’s Florida campus.  Heidi’s research lab studies the impact of obesity-related stressors, including endoplasmic reticulum stress, on gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) neurons. She teaches courses in Cell Biology, Physiology, and Molecular Endocrinology, and enjoys collaborating with students on science outreach projects.
Engaging students in active learning via protocol development

Physiology, particularly metabolic physiology, covers the fundamentals of biophysics and biochemistry for nutrient absorption, transport, and metabolism. Engaging pre-health students in experimentation may facilitate students’ learning and their in-depth understanding of the mechanisms coordinating homeostatic control. In addition, it may promote critical thinking and problem-solving ability if students are engaged in active learning.

Traditionally, students are provided instructions that detail the stepwise procedures before an experiment or demonstration. Although students are encouraged to ask questions before and during the experiments, an in-depth discussion would not be possible until they understand each step and the underlying principles. This is particularly true nowadays when commercial kits come with stepwise instructions where no explanation can be found of principles behind the procedure. The outcomes may contrast in three ways: (1) students are happy with the perfect data they acquire by following the instructions provided by the manufacturer, but they miss the opportunity to chew on the key principles that are critical for students to develop creative thinking; (2) students are frustrated as they follow the instruction but fail the experiments, without knowing what is wrong and where to start for trouble shooting; and (3) driven by self-motivation, students dig into the details and interact intensively with the instructor to grasp the principles of the procedure. As such, the students can produce reliable data and interpret the procedure and data with confidence, and in addition, they may effectively diagnose operational errors for trouble shooting. Evidently, the 3rd scenario demonstrates an example of active learning, which is desirable but not common in a traditional model of experimentation.

To engage students in active learning, one of the strategies is to remove the ready-to-go procedure from the curricular setting but request the students to submit a working protocol of their own version at the end of an experiment. Instead of a stepwise procedure (i.e., a “recipe”), the students are provided with reading materials that discuss the key principles of the analytical procedures. When students show the competency in the understanding of the principles in a formative assessment (e.g., a 30-min quiz), they are ready to observe the demonstrations step by step, taking notes and asking questions. Based on their notes and inspiration from discussion, each student is requested to develop a protocol of their own version. Depending on how detail-oriented the protocols are, the instructor may approve it or ask students to recall the details and revise their protocols before moving forward. Once students show competency in the protocol development, they are ready to conduct the steps in groups under the instructor’s (or teaching assistant, TA’s) supervision. Assessment on precision and accuracy is the key to examine the competency of students’ operation, which also provides opportunities for students to go back to improve or update their protocols. In the case of unexpected results, the students are encouraged to interpret and justify their results in a physiological setting (e.g., fasting vs. feeding states) unless they choose not to. Regardless, students are asked to go back to recall and review their operation for trouble shooting under the instructor’s (or TA’s) supervision, till they show competency in the experiment with reproducible and biologically meaningful data. Trouble shooting under instructor’s or TA’s supervision and inspiration serves as an efficient platform for students to take the lead in critical thinking and problem solving, which prompts students to go back to improve or update their protocols showing special and practical notes about potential pitfalls and success tips.

Often with delight, students realize how much they have grown at the end of experimentation. However, frustration is not uncommon during the troubleshooting and learning, which has to be overcome through students’ persistence and instructor’s encouragement. Some students might feel like “jumping off a cliff” in the early stage of an experiment where a ready-to follow instruction is not available. Growing in experience and persistence, they become more confident and open to pursue “why” in addition to “what”.

Of note, logistic consideration is critical to ensure active learning by this strategy. A single experiment would take up to 3-fold more time for the instructor and students to work together to reach competency. To this end, the instructor needs to reduce the number of experiments for a semester, and carefully select and design the key experiments to maximally benefit students in terms of skill learning, critical thinking, and problem solving. Furthermore, group size should be kept small (e.g., less than 3 students per group) to maximize interactive learning if independent experimentation by individuals is not an option. Such a requirement can be met either by increasing TA support or reducing class size.

 

 

Zhiyong Cheng is an Assistant Professor of Nutritional Science at the Food Science and Human Nutrition Department, University of Florida’s Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (UF/IFAS). Dr. Cheng received his PhD in Analytical Biochemistry from Peking University. After completing his postdoctoral training at the University of Michigan (Ann Arbor) and Harvard Medical School, Dr. Cheng joined Virginia Tech as a faculty member, and recently he relocated to the University of Florida. Dr. Cheng has taught Nutrition and Metabolism, with a focus on substrate absorption, transport, and metabolism. As the principal investigator in a research lab studying metabolic diseases (obesity and type 2 diabetes), Dr. Cheng has been actively participating in undergraduate and graduate research training.
Where does general education fit into an undergraduate degree?

I am currently serving on a taskforce which has been given the job of revising our general education program. As a member of this taskforce, I have been reading, analyzing, and using data to design and implement a program that many faculty struggle to explain and that many students often question. This made me think. What do schools mean by general education?

If we look at definitions, most people would say this is the part of a student’s education which is meant to develop their personalities or provide skills and knowledge which will help students succeed not only in their chosen major but also in their careers and life. If we look at this more closely, many faculty members see general education as the place for students to develop some of those soft skills that are often talked about by employers. These soft skills include communication skills, listening skills, critical thinking/problem solving, and interpersonal skills to name a few.

If general education is the place for the learning of these skills, where do we as faculty fit into general education? After all, isn’t it my job to provide the knowledge for Biology classes? That is why I have my Ph.D. and the institution hired me. Surely, there are other members of the campus community that can also guide students on successful acquisition of these skills? For example, I was never taught how to teach writing so why should I teach writing? But is this statement true? I was taught how to write. In elementary, junior high, and high school, I was taught how to construct sentences to ensure that all verbs had a subject. I was taught how to put together an outline so that my thoughts were organized in a logical manner. In college, I was taught how to now take difficult concepts and use them to develop a hypothesis. I was taught how to present the methodology of my experiments. And finally, I was taught how to analyze and present data and then discuss what that data meant. Graduate school asked me to use these skills and bring them to a higher level. I could list similar instances and experiences for thinking and problem solving, collaboration, and other soft skills as well. Are these experiences enough for me to be able to teach writing in our general education program? That is the million dollar question our taskforce is trying to answer. There is a part of me, that says, “YES! I can teach students how to write.” I have had papers published. I write all the time for different committees, classes, and other activities. There is a second part of me that is terrified of the idea of teaching writing in a more general class. Those scary terms like logic and rhetoric seem overwhelming to this Biology professor. Can I even give an example of rhetoric? I know that if I stepped back and took a breath, I could give an example of rhetoric. But this raises another question. Do the students deserve someone better trained (and less afraid of these terms) to guide them while learning these skills? That question is still one our taskforce is trying to answer.

The other question our taskforce has had to face is, “How do we get students to buy into general education?” What can we as faculty and staff do to promote the importance of those skills learned in our institution’s general education programs? Are we so focused on the knowledge and skills of the major that we forget that those soft skills can make or break a successful employee? Knowledge and skills specific to a job can get the applicant to the interview. It is the soft skills that can get the applicant the job. If this is the case, then isn’t it our job as professors and teachers to not only help our students gain the knowledge but also to help them gain those skills that will help them to succeed in their careers and lives? And if that is our job, how do we as faculty support and allow for equal importance of both technical knowledge and skills and these so-called soft skills?

Let me preface, I am certainly not telling faculty that they need to get rid of their grading scales. And I am not telling students they should forget about their grades. But I am questioning how we measure success in today’s academic world and in our global society. If we look at surveys and reports that have been published, employers are having trouble finding students/potential employees with soft skills. Does this mean all of these higher education institutions are failing in their general education of students? I would like to think that we aren’t failing. But I am suggesting we might need to find a better way to illustrate the importance of the skills learned in general education classes. This could be in how we discuss general education to how we define successful completion of general education. Most teachers always ask how to assess soft skills. Is it possible that maybe a grading scale isn’t the only way to define success when it comes to learning some skills? Again, our taskforce hasn’t come up with the golden answer yet.

Serving on this taskforce has been eye opening and I have learned that putting together a successful general education program requires a great deal of guesswork. There have been questions raised that I truly do not have answers for, and I don’t know that answers are available for these questions. But these questions and this process have made me question what the future of general education looks like.  The current generation of students have access to technology and possess skills and talents that did not even exist when many faculty were students. As faculty we learned skills that helped us succeed back when we were graduating and looking to move to the next phase of life. And we have adapted as changes to the world have come. While I cannot say for sure what general education will look like in the future, I can say that we need to be training students for the requirements of today’s workforce and the ability to adapt for the future workforce. And unless we have a crystal ball which can predict the future, what that looks like will remain unknown.

 

Melissa A. Fleegal-DeMotta, Ph.D. earned her BS in Biology from Lebanon Valley College in Annville, PA. After working at Penn State’s College of Medicine, she then earned her PhD from the University of Florida in Gainesville, FL. Following postdoctoral fellowships at the University of Florida, University of Arizona, and Saint Louis University, she has been a professor at Clarke University in Dubuque, IA for over 10 years. During her time at Clarke, she has developed an interest in how the general education of a liberal arts university fits with the education of science majors.
The Large Lecture: Minor Adjustments, Major Impacts

Large lecture courses are hard, for both students and faculty alike, and while an exhaustive body of Scholarship of Teaching & Learning (SOTL) research boasts benefits of smaller classes (Cuseo, 2007), budgetary and a myriad of other restrictions leave many higher education institutions with few options for reducing class sizes.  Accordingly, many instructors are forced to figure out a way to best serve our students in this unideal setting.

Three years ago, in my first year as a full time faculty member, I found myself teaching one of these large lecture classes.  There were ~250 students, split across two sections, piled into an outdated auditorium.   The setting was intimidating for me, and if one thing was certain, it was that however intimidated I felt, my students felt it even harder (and as an aside, three years later, I still find myself, at times, intimidated by this space).  So, in a high-stakes, pre-requisite course like Anatomy & Physiology that is content-heavy and, by nature, inherently intense, what can be done in a large lecture hall to ease the tension and improve student learning?

When looking to the SOTL research for evidence-based recommendations on student engagement and active learning ideas in high-enrollment courses such as mine, I quickly became overwhelmed with possibilities (not unlike a kid in a candy store).  Before I knew it, finding meaningful ways to reshape my class in the best interest of the student became defeating – how was I supposed to overhaul my course to integrate best-practice pedagogy while still juggling the rest of my faculty responsibilities?

Thankfully, last year a colleague introduced me to a book, Small Teaching: Everyday Lessons from the Science of Learning, by James Lang.  Admittedly – I still have not finished this book (rest assured – I am currently in a book club studying this book, so I WILL finish it!); that being said, Lang’s powerful message about the significance of small changes resonated with me pretty early on in the text.  Minor, thoughtful adjustments to the daily classroom routine are capable of eliciting substantial impacts on student learning.  In other words, I did not need to reinvent the wheel to better serve my students; instead, I set a goal for myself to try out one or two small, reasonable adjustments per semester.  While I am still navigating best-practice teaching and experience a healthy dose of trial-and-error, here is what I have found useful thus far:

 

1. Learning names. This is perhaps the most straightforward, obvious classroom goal, but when you have a large number of students, something as simple as learning student names can quickly slip through the cracks.  Now, I appreciate that implementing this goal takes considerable time and intention, and depending on the structure of your high-enrollment course, it may or may not be feasible.  In my course, for example, it is a two-part series, which means I have the same students for an entire academic year rather than one semester.  Moreover, in addition to lecture, I have all of my students in smaller lab sections.  Accordingly, I have plenty of opportunity to interact with students and pay attention to names.

From a purely anecdotal observation, if and when a student musters up the courage to ask a question in the large auditorium, addressing them by name appears to increase the likelihood of the student asking again.  Moreover, it seems to have an impact on other students in the classroom, too; anecdotally, I have noticed in lectures where I address student questions using student names, the number of different students asking questions appears to increase.  Overall, addressing students by name seems to communicate a message that students in our classrooms are not simply a body in a seat or a number in the system, but they are a member of a learning community.

2. Finding an inclusive platform for voicing questions. Despite reaching a point in the academic year where everyone knows each other by name, some students will never feel comfortable enough raising their hand to ask questions in the big lecture hall. Knowing this, along with the notion that student confusion rarely exist in isolation, this semester I made it a point to explore alternative platforms for asking questions during lecture.  Cue in the Google Doc: this handy, online word-processing tool gave me a platform for monitoring student questions in real time during lecture.  On the logistical end, it is worth noting that I have a TA monitoring our Google Doc during lecture, so that when a stream of questions comes through, common themes in questions are consolidated into one or two questions.  A few times during the lecture, I will check in with our TA and address questions.  It is also worth mentioning that the document has been set up such that student names are linked to their comments; this was implemented as a measure to keep comments appropriate and on track.  So far, this has turned out to be a great platform, not only for students asking lecture questions in real time, but also for facilitating some really great discussion amongst students.

 

3. Holding students accountable for in-class activities.  I quickly realized in my large lecture class that students were generally unmotivated to participate in any in-class activity unless I collected it and assigned points (which, by the way, can be a logistical nightmare with 250 students).  Yet, as I learned in Making it Stick: The Successful Science of Learning, by Brown, Roediger, and McDaniel (a previous book club endeavor of mine), engaging students in activities like 5 minute recall exercises is widely supported as an effective tool for long-term learning and retention.  So, I decided to piggy back off my previous idea of the Q&A Google Doc, and open up an entire classroom folder where, in addition to our Q&A doc, students had daily folders for submitting in-class activities (again, in real time).  As of now, the way that it works is as follows: upon completing the short recall exercise, or other in-class activity, students will snap a photo of their work and upload it to our Google drive.  Then, I choose a piece of student work to display as we review the activity prompt, which has proven to be a great method for maintaining student accountability (I disclosed to the students that I will randomly choose a few days in the semester to award extra credit for those who submitted during class).  Additionally, this provides quick feedback to me (in real time) regarding student comprehension and common misunderstandings; in fact, I will occasionally choose to review a student submission that represents a common mistake to highlight and address a common problem area.

In summary, implementing these small changes has offered realistic approaches to improving my students’ experience and creating community in an otherwise challenging setting: the large lecture.  While I retain other long-term teaching goals that require more of a time commitment, Lang’s sentiment that small ≠ insignificant provides a solid ground for improvement in the present.

References:

Brown, PC, Roediger, HL, and McDaniel, MA (2014). Making it Stick: The Successful Science of Learning.  Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Cuseo, Joe. (2007). The empirical case against large class size: Adverse effects on the teaching, learning, and retention of first-year students. Journal of Faculty Development: 21.

Lang, James (2016).  Small Teaching: Everyday Lessons from the Science of Learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

 

Amber Schlater earned her B.S. from the University of Pittsburgh in Biological Sciences, and her M.S. and Ph.D. from Colorado State University in Zoology; she also completed a two-year post-doctoral fellowship at McMaster University.  Currently, Amber is an Assistant Professor in the Biology Department at The College of Saint Scholastica in beautiful Duluth, MN, where she teaches Human Anatomy & Physiology, Super Physiology (a comparative physiology course), and mentors undergraduate research students.  Outside of work, Amber enjoys hiking, biking, camping, canoeing, and doing just about anything she can outside with her family.
The Teaching of Basic Science as a Necessity in the Doctor in Physical Therapy Clinical Curriculum

There is an ever increasing need to train evidenced-based clinicians among all the health disciplines. This is particularly true in the relatively young profession of physical therapy, where the educational standards have shifted from entry level bachelor’s degree requirements to clinical doctorate training. The increase in educational standards reflect the growth of the discipline, with an effort to increase the depth of knowledge and level of skill required to be a physical therapist while moving from technician to an independent direct access practitioner. This evolution also marks a shift in standards of evidenced-based practice from clinical observation to an ability to provide mechanistic understanding which includes fundamental scientific insights and transforms clinical practice. The profession also recognizes the need to advance the profession through research that provides a scientific basis validating physical therapy treatment approaches. As a result, there is an expanding, yet underappreciated role, for the basic science researcher / educator in Doctor of Physical Therapy (DPT) programs.

Strategies to integrate and infuse the basic science into practice:

1. Faculty training:

Big Four Bridge in Louisville, KY

How to bridge the gap between basic science and clinical education?  As dual credentialed physical therapist and basic scientist these influence Sonja’s teaching approach, to serve as a “bridge” between foundational science content and clinical application.  Teaching across broad content areas in a DPT curriculum provides opportunities to “make the connection” from what students learn in the sciences, clinical courses, and relate these to patient diagnosis and therapeutic approaches.

While dual training is one approach, these credentials combined with years of ongoing contemporary clinical practice, are rare and impractical to implement in an academic setting. Most often DPT programs rely on PhD trained anatomists, neuroanatomists, and physiologists to teach foundational courses, often borrowed from other departments to fulfill these foundational teaching needs. Thus, Chris’s approach is through crosstalk between scientist/physiologist and clinician to serve as a role model and teach the application of discoveries for identifying best evidence in clinical decision making. By either approach, we have become that key bridge teaching and demonstrating how foundational science, both basic and applied impact clinical decision making.

2. Placement of foundational science courses (physiology, neuroscience, anatomy):

Traditional curricular approaches introduce foundational sciences in anatomy, neuroscience, and physiology in the first year of the DPT curriculum, followed by clinical content with either integrated or end loaded clinical experiences over the course of remaining 2.5-3 years. Our current program established an alternative approach of introducing foundational sciences after the introduction of clinical content and subsequently followed by a full time clinical clerkship/ education. Having taught in both models, early or late introduction of foundational sciences, we recognized either partitioned approaches lead to educational gaps and makes bridging the knowledge to application gap challenging for students.

Regardless, the overall message is clear and suggestive of the need for better integration of foundational/scientific content throughout the curriculum. These challenges are not unique to physical therapy, as this knowledge to clinical translation gap is well documented in medicine and nursing and has been the impetus for ongoing curriculum transformations in these programs. These professions are exploring a variety of approaches on how to best deliver /package courses / and curriculum that foster rapid translation into clinical practice. Arena, R., et al., 2017; Fall, L.H. 2015; Newhouse, R.P. and Spring, B., 2010; Fincher et al., 2009.

Recently, new curricular models have emerged within the doctoral of physical therapy curriculum that complement the academic mission to train competent evidenced based clinicians Bliss et al., 2018, Arena R. et al. 2017. These models leverage the faculty expertise of physiologist/scientist, research, and clinical faculty to create integrative learning experiences for students. These models include integrated models of clinical laboratory learning and/ or classroom-based discussion of case scenarios, that pair the basic scientist and the clinical expert. It is our belief, that teaching our clinical students through these models will lead to enhanced educational experience, application of didactic course work, and the appreciation for high quality research both basic and applied.

3. Appreciation and value of foundational sciences through participation in faculty led research:

Capstone experiences are common curricular elements for the physical therapy profession. This model is believed to 1) prepare future physical therapy generations to provide high-quality clinical care and, 2) provide research needed to guide evidence-based care, and 3) foster the appreciation for evidence and advances in the field. We believe these pipeline experiences could allow for advanced training incorporating strong foundational (science) knowledge that is relevant to the field, which can be applied broadly and adapted to integrate the rapidly growing knowledge base. Such models may assist in integrating the importance of scientific findings (basic and applied) while facilitating the breakdown of barriers (perceived and real) that silo clinical and foundational content (Haramati, A., 2011).

Contributing to the barriers are that relatively few of the basic sciences and translational studies are being conducted by rehabilitation experts. Furthermore, like medicine disciplines, it is unlikely that DPT faculty will be experts as both a clinician and scientist. Rather these emerging models promote teams of scientists and clinical faculty who work together to promote scientific, evidence-based education (Polancich S. et al., 2018; Read and Ward 2017; Fincher et al., 2009). Implementation of these education models requires “buy in” from administration and faculty who must recognize and value a core of outstanding clinician-educators, clinician-scientists, and basic scientists, and reward effective collaboration in education (Fincher 2009).

Although these models are flowering in research intensive universities, the challenges of integrating the basic sciences are greater in programs embedded within smaller liberal arts institutions that lack the infrastructure and administrative support for creating teaching-science-clinical synergies. Often these programs are heavily weighted towards clinical education faculty who emphasize clinical teaching and development of clinical skills, with a less integrated emphasis on the fundamental science in clinical decision making. Our own experience, having taught foundational (physiology and neuroscience) sciences, are that faculty in these programs are more reluctant to embrace and value foundational sciences. A possible explanation may be the limited exposure to and unrecognized value of contributions to the field from such basic and translational approaches. It is frequently implied if it works, it may not be necessary to understand mechanistically how it works. While this might suffice for today’s practice approach, this will not be enough for future clinicians in a rapidly evolving clinical environment. Programs that may not foster scientific curiosity, may be missing the opportunity to instill lifelong learning. We agree with other educators that the integration of basic science is critical for the student progress toward independence and essential competence, and that health science educators should support the teaching of basic science as it aids in the teaching of how to solve complex clinical scenarios even if clinicians may not emphasize the basic science that underlies their reasoning (Pangaro, 2011).

Concluding Thoughts:

Physical therapy departments particularly those within major academic centers housing a mix of research, education, and clinically focused faculty can successfully operate a curriculum able to synergize education, research, and clinical initiatives. Creating synergies early in a curriculum by pairing clinical specialists with science trained faculty will facilitate connections between clinical practice and science (Bliss, et al., 2018). While curricular change can be challenging, programs that implement a collaborative model where faculty with a shared area of expertise (e.g., orthopedics, neurology, cardiopulmonary, pediatrics and geriatrics) and unique complementary skill sets (i.e., research, education, and clinical practice) come together to transform student educational experiences – completing that bridge between basic science and clinical practice.

Stacked Stone Arch

 

References:

Arena, R., Girolami, G., Aruin, A., Keil, A., Sainsbury, J. and Phillips, S.A.,

Integrated approaches to physical Therapy education: a new comprehensive model from the University of Illinois Chicago, Physiotherapy Theory and Practice, 2017, 33:5, 353-360, doi: 10.1080/09593985.2017.1305471.

Bliss, R., Brueilly, K. E., Swiggum, M. S., Morris, G. S., Williamson, E.M., Importance of Terminal Academic Degreed Core Faculty in Physical Therapist Education, Journal of Physical Therapy Education. 2018, 32(2):123-127, doi: 10.1097/JTE.0000000000000054.

Fall, L.H., The Collaborative Construction of the Clinical Mind: Excellence in Patient Care through Cognitive Integration of Basic Sciences Concepts into Routine Clinical Practice, Med.Sci.Educ. 2015, 25(Suppl 1): 5, doi: 10.1007/s40670-015-0192-9.

Fincher, M., Wallach P., and Richardson, W.S.,  Basic Science Right, Not Basic Science Lite: Medical Education at a Crossroad, J Gen Intern Med. 2009, Nov; 24(11): 1255–1258, doi: 10.1007/s11606-009-1109-3

Haramati, A., Fostering Scientific Curiosity and Professional Behaviors in a Basic Science Curriculum, Med.Sci.Educ. 2011, 21(Suppl 3): 254, doi: 10.1007/BF03341720.

Newhouse, R.P. and Spring, B., Interdisciplinary Evidence-based Practice: Moving from Silos to Synergy, Nurs Outlook. 2010, Nov–Dec; 58(6): 309–317, doi: 10.1016/j.outlook.2010.09.001.

Pangaro, L., The Role and Value of the Basic Sciences in Medical Education: The Perspective of Clinical Education -Students’ Progress from Understanding to Action. Medical Science Educator. 2010, Volume 20: No. 3. 307-313.

Polancich, S., Roussel, L., Graves, B.A., O’Neal, P.V., A regional consortium for doctor of nursing practice education: Integrating improvement science into the curriculum. J Prof Nurs. 2017, Nov – Dec;33(6):417-421, doi: 10.1016/j.profnurs.2017.07.013.

Read C.Y., Ward L.D., Misconceptions About Genomics Among Nursing Faculty and Students. Nurse Educ. 2018, Jul/Aug;43(4):196-200, doi: 10.1097/NNE.0000000000000444.

 

 

Chris Wingard completed his BA in Biology form Hiram College a MS from University of Akron and PhD from Wayne State University. He has served in physiology departments at University of Virginia, Medical College of Georgia and East Carolina University during his career and has most recently joined the Bellarmine University College of Health Professions as Professor teaching in the Physical Therapy, Accelerated Nursing and Biology Programs.  His interests are in the impacts of environmental exposures on the function of the cardiovascular pulmonary systems.
Sonja Bareiss received a BS in Biology and Master’s in Physical Therapy from Rockhurst University. She completed her PhD in Anatomy and Cell Biology at East Carolina University. Dr. Bareiss was a faculty member at East Carolina University Department of Physical Therapy and Department of Anatomy and Cell Biology before joining the DPT program at Bellarmine University. Her areas of teaching span foundational sciences (neuroscience and anatomy) to clinical content (electrical modalities). Her most recent efforts have been to develop and implement a pain mechanisms and management course into physical therapy curriculum with emphasis on interdisciplinary learning. In addition to her academic experience, Dr. Bareiss has over 8 years of full-time clinical experience where she specialized in treating patients with chronic pain syndromes. Her research and clinical interests have been dedicated to understanding mechanisms of neural plasticity related to the development and treatment of pain and neurodegenerative disease and injury and integrating undergraduate Biology Honors and DPT students into the work.
Motivational Interviewing in Higher Education

Motivational interviewing (MI) originated in Norway in the early 1980s by psychotherapists who began to use this principle to treat patients with drinking difficulties.  He suggested one “could use empathetic listening to minimize resistance and increase motivation for change1. The methodology was further developed, revised and expanded 2, 3 by William Miller and fellow clinical psychologist Stephen Rollnick to elicit change behavior using intrinsic motivation to overcome resistance and ambivalence.

MI has gained greater popularity with it’s expansion from treatment of addiction by psychologists to healthcare providers working to elicit change health-related behaviors such as smoking cessation, exercise and healthy eating habits.  This is where I first encountered MI.  The outpatient physical therapy clinic where I was working offered a continuing education class for physical and occupational therapists to learn MI principles, conversation and listening (especially listening) skills to elicit change behavior in our patients.  Most of our patients are motivated to perform their home exercise program and implement lifestyle modifications, if necessary, to help in pain management and improving function.  However, as in the classroom, there always seems to be 1 or 2 patients on your schedule where it feels like pulling teeth to get them involved and motivated to participate.

During the 2-day MI course, we practiced reflective and empathetic listening skills and learned how to drive a conversation so the patient is the one doing most of the talking.   I worked to expand these new skills with my patients in the PT clinic.  It was harder than I anticipated to withhold my opinion on how I thought various obstacles could be overcome or ways my patients could make time in their day to do their home exercise program.  However, what emerged was a patient-driven conversation where they devised ways to make behavioral changes and I felt like I was doing less work.  Woah.

I split my time between treating patients as a PT in an outpatient PT clinic and being a PhD student.  For many reasons I love this split in my roles, but one of the best parts is experiencing how what I learn in one environment influences my actions in the other.  In my role as a lab instructor, discussion leader and eventually sole instructor on campus, one of my biggest challenges was knowing how far to go to reach out to the seemingly disengaged or apathetic students.  I felt responsible for their learning, I wanted them to get the most out of the short time we spent together in the classroom and I wanted them to have a positive experience.  At the same time, I recognized that I cannot make a student learn.  It was unclear to me how far I should be reaching, how often should I pull them into the conversation and really, how to manage the less well-engaged students.

I made use of the many wonderful people and resources available to me to better understand how others dealt with similar experiences and feelings.  I also started to think about how I handle the patients in the PT clinic that are there “because my doctor sent me”, at least on the surface don’t seem to want to be there and take few actions to help themselves resolve their pain.   And then the thought, “why not use MI strategies in the classroom”, came to me.  While MI is continually evolving over time with its ongoing expansion into more disciplines, to me, MI is a style of listening (really listening) and questioning to facilitate change behaviors by working with the other person to identify their intrinsic motivation.  And many of the keywords used to describe MI are words that have also been used to describe high-quality pedagogical techniques such as collaboration, empathy, autonomy and promoting self-efficacy.

After a few reflective listening conversations, what followed was not a miracle transformation of student behavior.  However, I gained a much better understanding of the student’s situation from her perspective, with many layers of complexity built in, and was able to give that student what she needed at that moment in time – which did not involve getting an A in that class.  We were now on the same page.  I felt so much better about the situation and I lost the guilt and stress over not being able to improve participation in the seemingly unengaged student in the back of the class.  This student seemed to also feel more comfortable in class and with me.  She did not pass that class, but it was what she needed to do at that time.  She took the class again over the summer, when her personal life allowed her to succeed in the classroom, with a high level of engagement throughout the term.  It was a huge win for both of us – she was eventually successful in the classroom and I felt good about meeting her where she was on that path to success.

I certainly am not the only one who has thought to transfer MI strategies from the healthcare setting to the classroom.  In fact, Harvey Wells and Anna Jones have recently published a couple papers on the theoretical basis4 and practical application5 of using MI in higher education classrooms.  They argue that using MI in higher education classrooms can lead to student-teacher collaboration, facilitate building self-efficacious behaviors in students and establish a student-driven pathway to change4.  After all, isn’t learning a non-linear process of change?  Why not couple that process with a set of useful techniques educators can use to see the change they want to see in students?

To be sure, there are challenges associated with taking a method or style of communication from one discipline and adapting it to another.  Certainly, empathetic and reflective listening practices can easily lead to a greater emotional involvement, yet as Wells & Jones4 have described, “education is not (nor should be) therapy”.  Using MI strategies should not be viewed as a mechanism to “treat” a student, but rather as a tool to foster change within a student and help educators to understand where they need to meet the student, so they can walk along the same path instead of pushing against each other.

While empirical evidence is needed to determine the effectiveness of using MI in higher education, given my own use of and success with MI, I can foresee MI practices becoming more prevalent in higher education as a mechanism to identify student-driven goals with a pathway for educators and students to collaboratively meet those goals.  I encourage you to do a little reading on MI practices.  At a minimum it will make you a better listener.

 

References

1) Rollnick, S. and Allison, J. (2004). Motivational Interviewing. In The Essential Handbook of Treatment and Prevention of Alcohol Problems. (105-116). Chapter 7: West Sussex, England: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

2) Miller, W.R. and Rollnick, S. (1991). Motivational interviewing: Preparing people for change. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

3) Miller, W.R. and Rollnick, S. (2013). Motivational Interviewing: Helping people change, 3rd edition. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

4) Wells, H. and Jones, A. (2018). Learning to change: the rationale for the use of motivational interviewing in higher education, Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 55:1, 111-118.

5) Wells, H., Jones, A. and Jones, S.C. (2014). Teaching reluctant students: using the principles and techniques of motivational interviewing to foster better student-teacher interactions, Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 51:2, 175-184.

 

Katie Kolwaski completed her BS and DPT from the University of Wisconsin – Madison.  After practicing as a full-time PT for 4 years, she decided to pursue further education at the University of Oregon.  In 2017, she finished a MS degree in Muscle Physiology and then transitioned into the Neurophysiology lab for her PhD, studying the impact of mental fatigue on neuromuscular function in older adults and the potential role of physical activity in modulating that relationship.  Katie has since moved to the University of Western Ontario in the great white north in order to finish her PhD.  She continues to treat patients as a PT and teach students within the Physio school in London, ON as a TA.
It was Just a Bag of Candy, but Now It’s a Lung – Don’t Be Afraid to Improvise When Teaching Physiology

Many of us have been teaching the same course or the same topic in a team-taught course for many years.  I have been teaching the undergraduate Anatomy and Physiology-II (AP-II) course at a community college for four years.  People often ask, “Doesn’t it get old?  Don’t you get bored, teaching the same topic?”  Without hesitation, I answer, “No.” Why?  First, on-going research continually brings new details and insight to nearly every aspect of cell and integrative physiology.  You’re always learning to keep up with the field and modifying lectures to incorporate new concepts.  Second, you truly want your students to learn and enjoy learning and continually seek out ways to teach more effectively.  You try new approaches to improve student learning.  However, the third reason is truly why teaching physiology will never get old or dull.  No two students and no two classes are alike; individual and collective personalities, career goals, academic backgrounds and preparedness, and learning curves vary from class to class.  About half my students have not taken the general biology or chemistry courses typically required for AP-I or AP-II (these are not required by the college).  The unique combination of characteristics in each group of students means that on any given day I will need to create a new makeshift model or a new analogy for a physiological mechanism or structure-function relationship to help students learn.  Thus, even if all physiological research came to complete fruition, the teaching of physiology would still be challenging, interesting, and entertaining.  Many of my peers share this perspective on teaching physiology.

Irrespective of one’s mastery of integrative physiology, as teachers we must be ready and willing to think creatively on our feet to answer questions or clarify points of confusion.  A common mistake in teaching is to interpret the lack of questions to mean our students have mastered the concept we just explained, such as the oxygen-hemoglobin dissociation curve.  Despite the amazing color-coding of green for pH 7.35, red for pH 7.0 and blue for pH 7.5 and perfectly spaced lines drawn on that PowerPoint slide, your Ms./Mr. Congeniality level of enthusiasm, and sincerest intentions – you lost them at “The relationship of oxygen saturation of hemoglobin to the partial pressure of oxygen is curvilinear.”  You know you lost them.  You can see it in their faces.  The facial expression varies: a forehead so furrowed the left and right eyebrows nearly touch, the cringing-in-pain look, the blank almost flat stare, or my favorite – the bug-eyed look of shock.  Unfortunately, it will not always be obvious.  Thus, it is essential we make an effort to become familiar with the class as a group and as individuals, no matter how large the class.  Being familiar with their baseline demeanor and sense of humor is a good start.  (I have students complete ‘Tell Me About Yourself’ cards on the first day of class; these help me a great deal.)  During lecture, we make continual and deliberate eye contact with the students and read their faces as we lecture and talk to them, rather than at them.  In lab we work with and talk to each group of students and even eavesdrop as a means to assess learning.  Time in class or lab is limited, which tempts us to overlook looks of confusion and move on to the next point.  However, when students do not accurately and confidently understand a fundamental concept, they may have even greater difficulty understanding more integrated and complicated mechanisms.  You must recognize non-verbal, as well as subtle verbal cues that students are not following your logic or explanation.  In that immediate moment you must develop and deliver an alternative explanation.  Improvise.

As per Merriam-Webster, to improvise is to compose, recite, play, or sing extemporaneously; to make, invent, or arrange offhand; to fabricate out of what is conveniently on hand.  What do you have on hand right now to create or develop a new explanation or analogy?  Work with what you have within the confines of the classroom.  These resources can be items within arm’s reach, anything you can see or refer to in the classroom.  You can also use stories or anecdotes from your own life.  Reference a TV commercial, TV show, movie, song, or cartoon character that is familiar to both you and your students.  Food, sports, and monetary issues can be great sources for ideas.  I cook and sew, which gives me additional ideas and skills.  Play to your strengths.  Some people are the MacGyvers of teaching; improvisation seems to be a natural born gift.  However, we all have the basic ability to improvise.  You know your topic; you are the expert in the room.  Tap into your creativity and imagination; let your students see your goofy side.  Also, as you improvise and implement familiar, everyday things to model or explain physiological or structure-function relationships you teach your students to think outside the box.  Students learn by example.  My own undergraduate and graduate professors improvised frequently.  My PhD and post-doc advisors were comparative physiologists – true masters of improvised instrumentation.

Improvise now, and improve later.  Some of my improvised explanations and demonstrations have worked; some have fallen flat.  In some cases I have taken the initial improvised teaching tool and improved the prototype and now regularly use the demonstration to teach that physiological concept.  Here are three examples of improvisational analogies I have used for the anatomy of circular folds in the intestine, the opening and closing of valves in the heart, and the role of alveoli in pulmonary gas exchange.  Disclaimer:  These are not perfect analogies and I welcome comments.

Surface area in the small intestine.  Students understand that the surface area of a large flat lab table is greater than the surface area of a flat sheet of notebook paper.  A sheet of paper can be rolled into a tube, and students understand that the surface area of the ‘lumen’ is equal to the surface area of the paper.  In AP-I, students learned that microvilli increase the surface area of the plasma membrane at the apical pole of an epithelial cell, and many teachers use the ‘shag carpet’ analogy for microvilli.  Similarly, they understood how villi increase surface area of the intestinal lumen.  However, some students did not quite understand or cannot envision the structure of circular folds.  As luck would have it, I was wearing that style of knit shirt with extra-long sleeves that extend just to your fingertips.  I fully extended the sleeve and began to explain. “My sleeve is the small intestine – a tube with a flat-surface lumen (my arm is in the lumen) – no circular folds.  This tube is 28 inches long and about 8 inches around.  As I push up my sleeves as far as I can, and the fabric bunches up.  These messy folds that form are like circular folds.  And, now this 6 inch tube with all these circular folds has the same surface area as the 28-inch plain tube.”  (I sew; I know the length of my own arm and am great at eyeballing measurements.)

Heart valves open and close as dictated by the pressure difference across the valve.  This is integral to ventricular filling, ejection of blood into the lung and aorta, and the effect of afterload.  Heart valves are one-way valves.  A few students heard ‘pressure difference’ and were lost.  Other students had trouble understanding how stroke volume would decrease with an increase in afterload.  What can I use in the room?  There’s a big door to the lab, and it has a window.  It opens in one direction – out, because of the doorframe, hinges and door closure mechanism; it only opens, if you push hard enough.  I ran over to the door.  “The lab door is a heart valve.  It’s the mitral valve, the lab is the atrium, and the hallway is the ventricle.  The door only opens into the hall – the mitral valve only opens into the ventricle.  When it closes, it stops once it sits in the frame.”  I asked a student about my size to go outside the room, and push against the door closed – but let me open it; she could see and hear me through the window.  “As long as I push with greater force than she applies to keep it shut, the door or valve will open.”  The student played along and made it challenging, but let me open the door.  ‘Blood flows from the atrium into the ventricle, as long as the valve is open.  But, as soon as the pressure in the ventricle is greater than the pressure in the atrium the valve closes.”  The student forcefully pushed the door shut.  They got it!  Now, afterload …?  Back to the lab door.  “Now the lab door is the aortic valve, the lab is the left ventricle, and the hall is the aorta.  This valve will open and stay open as long as the pressure in the ventricle is greater than the pressure in the aorta.  The longer the valve is open, the greater the volume of blood ejected from the ventricle.  The volume of blood ejected from the ventricle in one beat is the stroke volume.  The pressure that opposes the opening of the aortic valve is afterload.  What happens with afterload?”  I then asked the tallest, strongest student in class to play the role of Afterload; he too got into the role.  “Afterload has now increased!  The pressure that opposes the opening of the valve has increased.  Will I or won’t I have to push harder to open the door – now that afterload has increased?”  The student is very strong; I can barely push the door open.  “I not only have to push harder, but I can’t keep the door or valve open for very long.  Look.  Even though the ventricle pressure is greater, the valve is open for a shorter period – so less blood is ejected and stroke volume decreases.”

Alveoli increase the surface area for gas exchange.  Students see the lungs as 2 large sacs, and the surface area available for gas exchange between air and blood is simply the inner lining of each sac.  However, each lung is made of millions of tiny air sacs or alveoli into which air flows.  How this anatomical arrangement greatly increases surface area for gas exchange is not intuitively obvious.  The overall size of the lung does not increase, so why would the surface area increase?  As luck would have it, it was Halloween.  I had brought a big bonus bag of individually wrapped bite-size candies to class.  “One lung is like this bag.  If we cut open the bag and measure the sheet of plastic, it would be about 18 inches by 12 inches or 216 square inches.  But if we completely fill it with candy, it might hold at least 150 pieces of candy.”  I quickly unwrapped one piece of candy, held up the wrapper, and estimated a single wrapper was 4 square inches.  “If we fill one bag with 150 pieces of candy, we then have 600 square inches of surface area.  Which would provide greater area for gas exchange: one big lung or millions of alveoli?”  I revised this particular improvised explanation using scissors, a ruler and two 11-oz bags of Hershey’s® kisses.  I carefully opened both bags and transferred kisses from one bag to the other, until it was completely full, i.e., 112 kisses, and taped it shut.  I then fully opened up the other bag; it was 10 inches x 8 inches or 80 square inches.  An individual kiss wrapper is 4 square inches; all 112 individual wrappers are 448 square inches.

My improvised analogies are not perfect, but they have served as great teaching tools.  If you can improve upon these, please do.  Share any suggestions you have and lastly, share your improvised explanations and analogies.  Thanks.

Alice Villalobos received her B.S.in biology from Loyola Marymount University and her PhD in comparative physiology from the University of Arizona-College of Medicine.  She has been in the Department of Biology at Blinn College for 4 years where she teaches Anatomy and Physiology II and Introduction to Human Nutrition.  She guest lectures in undergraduate courses at Texas A&M University on the topics of brain barrier physiology and the toxicity of heavy metals.