Thursday, 30 October 2014

what was old is new again - flipping the classroom

Maryellen Weimer published a great post on the Faculty Focus website yesterday. There she raised some concerns about the current trend in flipping the classroom. The issues discussed are worth consideration and are ones that I have thought about myself since implementing Team-Based Learning in a couple of my courses. One that I think is worth serious consideration is the content dump I sometimes see in flipped classrooms - make room for active learning in the classroom by moving everything else outside of the classroom for students to complete. Actually this could be a problem for any course regardless of how it is delivered: online, traditional, blended, or flipped. We need to consider carefully the work and cognitive load we are placing on our students. In the flipped classroom, rote work (reading, podcast viewing) is done outside of class individually by students and what was once considered to be homework is done inside the class under the guidance of the instructor and often in collaboration with classmates. However, I have seen many flipped classrooms where additional projects are assigned to be done outside of class. This can easily get out of hand in terms of students' workload and cognitive load. Students are often encountering course material for the first time when doing the assigned reading or podcast viewing and this requires careful thinking on their part. Flipping the classroom means that homework is now the initial encounter with course material and assignments are done inside of class. We need to be careful to not load too much more on our students to complete outside of class.

I also wanted to address the title of this blog post. I, along with others, sense that flipping the classroom is a familiar idea. Didn't we used to be expected as students to have read the assignment and come to class prepared to discuss the material? Seems like at its essence this is what flipping is. I think what is different and improved since I was a student is that we are being more aware of holding students accountable for what we have assigned. JiTT and TBL both make use of pre-class quizzes to both check what students know or misunderstand from the assignment and also as a means of ensuring that students are responsible for their out-of-class preparation. So many times I remember while a student coming to class unprepared and quickly flipping through the textbook before the instructor started the day's class. I wonder if I would have better prepared if I knew there was going to be a quiz on the material before it was discussed in class? And I also wonder with the growing prevalence of in-class collaborative work if the pressure to contribute to my group would have given me the drive to be prepared. Peer pressure can be a wonderful inducement for making students responsible for their own learning.


Weimer M. 2014. A Few Concerns about the Rush to Flip. Faculty Focus, October 29.

Thursday, 23 October 2014

ruminations from the 58th ACUBE meeting in Portland OR, Oct 16-17, 2014

I just returned from the annual meeting of ACUBE in Portland, OR. This is a great group of biological educators interested in providing the best learning environment for their students. ACUBE publishes the semi-annual journal Bioscene: Journal of College Biology Teaching. You may contact their editor, James Clack, if you are interested in reviewing manuscripts for the journal.

I presented my survey of capstone courses in biology. It was at 8 am so we were a small but engaged group - we had an interesting discussion. I am preparing the manuscript for publication but if you can't wait you can view the PDF of my PowerPoint presentation here.

The following paragraphs are my summaries of the presentations I was able to attend.

Community Engagement in Undergraduate Biology: Opportunities and Challenges was presented by Amy Boyd from Warren Wilson College and presented her experience in developing a community service learning program for her students. She provided examples at all levels of college in which her students completed projects for community partners: middle school, community gardens, public gardens. She explained that there were pedagogical advantages of having direct contact between students and community partners: students consider alternative career tracks and it places students' learning in a larger social context.

James Clack from Indiana University-Purdue University presented Online Biology courses - Five Years In which was a reflection of his experiences with online learning in biology. There were a couple of take home messages for me. One was that online courses really benefit from being blended with a face-to-face component because his students didn't seem to make use of the online interaction opportunities he provided. In addition he found that far more students did not show up for the final exam compared to his in-class courses. Online students seemed to drop out of the course without officially dropping it resulting in an incomplete or failing grade. Some of the discussion mused about whether students simply forgot they were enrolled in the course or whether they were unclear about the need to take the initiative to drop or withdraw from a course before the deadline.

Matt Kropf & Denise Piechnik from the University of Pittsburgh presented An Approach to STEM Education in the Biology Classroom and Lab in which they suggested that it is not difficult for students to learn how to produce their own sensing instruments for their biology labs and projects. They acknowledged that the initial learning curve is steep but short - their students learned how to use the inexpensive kits within an afternoon (2-3 hrs) producing equipment that worked (e.g. moisture sensors). The kits were relatively inexpensive ($100 from Open Source Hardware & Open Source Software) and could be re-used. For those interested they are looking for collaborators for a grant in which they would complete a careful assessment of the impact of sensor development on student learning outcomes. Their argument and experience suggests that if students build their own equipment they have a better sense of the sensor's capabilities and limitations.

Lisa Felzien from Rockhurst University presented  Assessing the Impact of Integrated Research in a Molecular Biology Course in which she argued that embedding authentic research experience in courses produced increases in understanding experimental design, and improved critical thinking. A survey of her students' experiences indicated that they still perceived lectures to be the best teaching/learning method and that learning from their peers was not as valuable. However, they did highly rate their experiences in analysing their own data. Based on an analysis of student pre/post-tests she found that there were large learning increases for hypothesis making and testing but not as much for lecture based content/learning and that there was not much difference in students' ability to answer lower vs higher (Bloom's) order questions. She concluded that students appreciate working on research projects with a good perception of the learning involved but that there was little difference in their preference for lecture vs project-based learning and that students' perceptions of their learning do not always align with their performance and is more likely related to what they like.

Tom Davis did a great demonstration of flipping the classroom in Flippin' the A&P Classroom: Why Didn't I Do It Before? He had us complete an exercise very similar to TBL but without the IF AT cards. We used chalkboards (yes chalkboards!) on all walls of the classroom for students (us) to complete a relatively short assignment (similar to TBL Apps) on the material. His desired outcomes from flipping are: students are talking to each other and to the instructor rather than sitting passively in their seats; students prepare before class; the instructor is doing less telling with students instead more speaking to each other while they collaboratively engage with the course material. He provides a short interactive summary for each lecture section called Lecture Note Outlines (LNOs) that students have to complete while reading their pre-class assignment. This is very similar to TBL reading guides. A funny misunderstanding during the presentation was that a participant heard him describe his LNOs as lecture no outlines and couldn't figure out how this was an advantage for students.....

Marlee Marsh from Columbia College presented Improving Lab Report Writing & Student Confidence. In her freshman introductory biology course she found that students' lab reports were poorly prepared and that even a guide to lab reports did not improve them. She developed a plan of attack which involved scaffolding the assignments and partnering freshman biologists with senior students. Meetings between the upper classmen and freshmen were part of the grade. The classroom partners (CP) attended the labs and lectures and provided feedback but did not edit freshman's writing (lab reports). CP were paid, trained and recruited (strong biology student with good writing skills). She found that it was important to be intentional in her writing instructions to students (e.g. writing M&M in past tense and third person). She has noticed improved results over the last three years. A third of her freshman met more than the required three times with their CP. Most (> 80%) of her students thought they had improved their writing and learning. Students' comments reflected a positive change in attitude toward their assignment. Going forward she will continue to communicate clear expectations of writing to her students and ensure communication among instructors, students, CP. She also found that timely feedback was important and that time is easier to secure than funds. She hopes to follow up on this program in upper level courses.

Finally Christopher Price presented the keynote entitled Promoting Academic Integrity in the 21st C. He is a Political Scientist at SUNY, but on this day he was presenting in his role as Academic Programs Manager of the SUNY Center for Professional Development, and Director of the Center for Excellence in Learning & Teaching at the College at Brockport, SUNY. He discussed a couple of questions from Lang's 2013 book Cheating Lessons: Learning From Academic Dishonesty

1. what does it mean for biology students to do their own work?
2. why does it matter?

Some of the answers we generated were:

  • students need to practice their discipline - copying doesn't enable that.
  • students need to engage in the construction of their own knowledge structure - again copying someone else doesn't enable that
  • if assignments are plagiarized then instructors can't assess students' understanding of the material
  • difficult for students and instructors to sometimes distinguish between what is collaborative vs copied work
Christopher presented the alarming statistic that 65% students have engaged in some form of cheating (this has been reported previously elsewhere), but that students don't consider cheating to be a problem - they don't value academic integrity. I have had this discussion with my colleagues at Augustana and concluded, similar to Dr. Price, that we need to teach our students why it is important: the academic enterprise rests on trust and honesty. For example, in the sciences imagine the problems of advancing our knowledge if data are fabricated. Thus plagiarizing is not as serious as fabricating data but plagiarism does indicate their trustworthiness. In the sciences attribution is less important than accuracy but there are the sociocultural issues that if we don't properly acknowledge each other's contribution, there will be much less collaboration on the issues that can't be solved by one person alone.

One of the problems unique to the 21st C  that Christopher presented was that our current ability to socially engage through the internet of things makes it difficult to determine unique authorship - intertextuality & collaboration are much more common now than a couple of decades ago due to social media. In undergraduate courses, this problem can be addressed by assigning team assignments which includes peer assessment.

Another problem of the 21st C is the corporatization of higher ed: the professional pressure on faculty produces a careerism at the expense of focusing on the needs of the students. From the student side they assume that with their tuition dollars they are purchasing a degree that will lead to a career and monetary success. Thus weak performance in college has real potential of impacting people's lives resulting in the perceive necessity by students to sometimes cheat. Other issues include greater diversity of the student body making some traditional approaches less effective (e.g. honor code) and the hidden curriculum (norms, values, beliefs) unreliable.

Dr Price suggested some strategies including enforcing existing rules but its reliance on fear produces questionable results. Here he cited Parker Palmer and his assertion in The Courage to Teach that a culture of fear is antithetical to learning. Another possibility is to develop ethical orientation & behaviour in our students but this typically become a delegated responsibility to someone or some dept and thus becomes marginalized. A better approach that Christopher suggested is to develop a mastery rather than performance orientation in our students by changing the nature of how our courses are designed. This might include multiple attempts at assignments or the possibility of permitting students to design/suggest alternative assessments. Similar to Mazur, Price advocated for authentic assessments. These are assessments that are not in and of themselves the learning objective but rather are opportunities for students to show what they have learned. This may involve a change in practice moving from few high to many low stakes assessments and to provide students with practice to prepare them for assessments . This altered learning orientation from performance to mastery emphasizes intrinsic rather than extrinsic motivation for students and thus promotes the development of self-regulated learners. Similar to Maryellen Weimer in her book Student-Centered Teaching, Price advocated for approaching course content as a means to the learning goal not an end in itself leading to grounded assessments - something students will do in the work or research world rather than a content dump. Similar to what I have been thinking, Price suggested that the incorporation of metacognitive activities into course work will promote student self-efficacy and may help to develop students' ability to assess themselves by asking the metacognitive question "have I mastered this material?" This approach can be facilitated by how instructors approach their teaching. As educators we need to express that we have something great to teach our students, that we will challenge them, and that they are capable of meeting that challenge.

For those of you interested, the next ACUBE annual meeting will take place Oct 23-24, 2015 at
Missouri Western State University in St Joseph, MO.

Tuesday, 21 October 2014

transformation an ontological condition for learning?

Nope, I changed my mind about this article - it really is getting at the idea of students' developing their own learning philosophy. The first time I read this article I thought it was another article that was conflating teaching philosophy with learning philosophy discussing what the educator does for the learner. A teaching philosophy to my mind is an educator's philosophy for how to set the learning environment for students and thus takes into consideration a philosophy of learning - how do students in general learn? In contrast, a learning philosophy is something the learner develops for themselves. Learners, when taking a course, do not design the educational environment; that is the work of the teacher. A learning philosophy, in my opinion is something that a student discovers and constructs for themselves.

However, the argument that Bramming is making here is that transformation of the student is an ontological condition for learning. If transformation does not occur, then true learning really has not happened. This actually makes sense to me - if learning does not change a student, then what has happened in the process? Nothing, it has not impacted their knowledge structure - they have memorized without processing. Transformative learning will alter students' learning structure - they should see their world in a new way as a result of their education.

Bramming makes an interesting appeal to Nietzsche's acting and reacting forces linking it to Piaget's assimilative (surface) and accommodative (deep) learning. The author, notes however, that Nietzsche did not denigrate one over the other - both are necessary for learning: the actor is the accommodative force (interior) and the social learning structure being the assimilative force (exterior). Learning requires encouragement and the establishment by mentor (authority) of the degree to which skills will be mastered whereas the will/desire to master derives from within the student.

So Bramming is suggesting that we should be considering strong and weak learning experiences rather than strong and weak students. Has the educational environment set the challenge such that students must be actively engaged in their learning? Students need to transform their expectations and desires for learning from passive to active engagement with the course material and consider what the material means for themselves rather than memorizing what it means for an author or instructor - they must construct their own meaning. To do that students must question why and how they are learning something and not only what they are learning. These are the basic questions that undergird my understanding of developing one's own learning philosophy.

The analysis of Nietzsche's strong and weak learning forces is counter-intuitive because the weak forces can actually negate strong learning - they interfere with students' active engagement with the educational experience.

Thus, the argument here is to not allow the nature of the educational experience be determined by students' satisfaction, because for transformation to occur, frustration, anger, and loss may be part of the learning process as students experience a deconstruction/reconstruction of their knowledge structure which forms the filter through which they view their world. Thus real learning - deep learning - alters the way we see the world.


Bramming P. 2007. An Argument for Strong Learning in Higher Education. Quality in Higher Education 13(1): 45-56. DOI:10.1080/13538320701272722

Wednesday, 15 October 2014

to provide instructor's notes to students or not: that is the question.

Today is a guest post about whether or not to provide students with the instructor's notes. I have had student requests for this in the past but have always resisted on the grounds that it is the process not the product that promotes student learning. Giving students my set of notes does nothing to encourage the construction of their own knowledge structure. However, similar to Jeffery Stowell at  Eastern Illinois University, I do provide students with copies of the slideshows that I use during class because they are incomplete - I develop them during the course of the class. Students have indicated that this allows them to to stay on course during the class while still needing to be engaged with the flow of the conversation.

Below is what Jeffrey provides his students at the beginning of the courses he teaches. It provides a scholarly rationale for why he does not give students a complete set of notes. This was posted on the discussion forum and was forwarded to me by a Psychology colleague . When I read it I contacted Dr. Stowell requesting permission to repost it here. He gladly gave his blessing.

"Why I Provide Partial PowerPoint Notes"
Jeffrey R. Stowell
Eastern Illinois University

1)      Students with partial notes (before the days of PowerPoint) did better on an essay exam than students who received full notes (Annis, 1981). In contrast, students who were provided a text outline of PowerPoint slides did more poorly than a comparable class without the outlines (Weatherly, Grabe, & Arthur, 2003). However, in a study looking at full versus partial PowerPoint notes, there was no difference in quiz or exam scores (Stark-Wroblewski, Kreiner, Clause, Edelbaum, & Ziser, 2006), which was similar to results by Vandehey, Marsh, and Diekhoff (2005) who found no effect of providing full notes on grades or attendance compared to providing partial notes or student-generated notes. Comparing partial PowerPoint notes to no instructor-provided notes, there was no difference in student attendance or grades (Bowman, 2009).  Yet, another study showed that students assigned to receive partial PowerPoint notes did better than those receiving full notes on conceptual exam questions (much like mine) and final grades (Cornelius & Owen-DeSchryver, 2008).  Although students like having PowerPoint notes available (Frank, Shaw, & Wilson, 2009), there appears to be no significant benefit of providing full lecture notes compared to partial notes. In fact, providing full lecture notes may have harmful effects on attendance or grades.  An additional review of the benefits of providing partial notes is found on page 74-75 of the book "Applying Science of Learning in Education" (

2)      Partial notes are a nice balance between instructor- and student-generated notes.  Students who come to class can take additional notes on material not included in the PowerPoint outline. Regardless of the detail provided in the notes, attending class will generally result in a higher grade for the course.

3)      Also, please consider that the PowerPoint slides contain copyrighted materials that I may not be authorized to share publicly.


Annis, L. F. (1981). Effect of preference for assigned lecture notes on student achievement. Journal of Educational Research, 74(3), 179-182.

Bowman, L. L. (2009). Does posting PowerPoint presentations on WebCT affect class performance or attendance? Journal of Instructional Psychology, 36(2), 104-107.

Cornelius, T. L., & Owen-DeSchryver, J. (2008). Differential effects of full and partial notes on learning outcomes and attendance. Teaching of Psychology, 35(1), 6 - 12.

Frank, J., Shaw, L., & Wilson, E. (2009). The impact of providing web-based PowerPoint slides as study guides in undergraduate business classes. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 37(2), 217-229.

Stark-Wroblewski, K., Kreiner, D. S., Clause, C. B., Edelbaum, J., & Ziser, S. B. (2006). Does the generation effect apply to PowerPoint handouts? Psychology and Education: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 43(2), 28-37.

Vandehey, M. A., Marsh, C. M., & Diekhoff, G. M. (2005). Providing students with instructors' notes: Problems with reading, studying, and attendance. Teaching of Psychology, 32(1), 49-52.

Weatherly, J. N., Grabe, M., & Arthur, E. I. L. (2003). Providing introductory psychology students access to lecture slides via Blackboard 5: A negative impact on performance. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 31(4), 463-474.

Tuesday, 14 October 2014

does in-class technology use by students enhance or diminish learning?

A couple of weeks ago this issue was raised on the Team-Based Learning Collaborative email forum. Members were asking whether or not instructors should allow students to use their tablets, laptops and smartphones in class. Does it enhance or diminish students' educational experience? Does it impact student learning outcomes?

I think there are two things to consider here. One is the use for whole class testing/polling which I think makes pretty good sense - there is plenty of published data suggesting that personal response systems (clickers), for example, enhance student learning.

No, the real issue here is whether or not student use of these devices during lecture enhances or detracts and whether it enhances learning when used to research in-class assignments. This is the real question.

It seems to me that their use during lecture will diminish student learning because students cannot multitask. However,this point is probably moot because there should be less lecturing and more active learning going on in the 21st century classroom. I think students will be less inclined to send texts and check email if they are actively engaged in the class. If the technology is used to complete in-class assignments as can happen, for example, during the application phase of Team-Based Learning then I think this is similar to Eric Mazur's assertion that if it is an authentic assessment (formative like TBL apps or summative as in a final exam) it should make no difference. If the question or problem being considered by the student is directly searchable by Google, then it probably isn't an authentic assessment. Which means that this is a difficult task for instructors: setting authentic assessments.


Brady, M., Seli, H., & Rosenthal, J. (2013). “Clickers” and metacognition: A quasi-experimental comparative study about metacognitive self-regulation and use of electronic feedback devices. Computers & Education, 65(July), 56–63. doi:

Curzan A. 2014. Why I’m Asking You Not to Use Laptops. The Chronicle of Higher Education, August 25. Available from:
Fulbright S. 2013. Cell Phones in the Classroom: What’s Your Policy? Faculty Focus, April 15. Available from

Mazur E. (2012) Promoting ownership of learning with authentic assessment. Allen ISD/November Learning Webinar at the Harvard Universtiy in Cambridge, MA, October 2. Available from

Orlando J. 2010. Using Polling and Smartphones to Keep Students Engaged. Faculty Focus, October 4. Available from

Robinson, D. H., & Walker, J. D. (2008). Technological alternatives to paper-based components of team-based learning. New Directions for Teaching & Learning, 2008(116), 79–85.

Strauss V. 2014. Why a leading professor of new media just banned technology use in class. The Washington Post, September 25. Available from

Weimer M. 2014. The Age of Distraction: Getting Students to Put Away Their Phones and Focus on Learning. Faculty Focus, January 8. Available from

Weimer M. 2012. Students Think They Can Multitask. Here’s Proof They Can’t. Faculty Focus, September 26. Available from

Monday, 6 October 2014

Kimberly Tanner to be keynote speaker at AIBA 2015

The Alberta Introductory Biology Association will be having its annual meeting on the North Campus of the University of Alberta on May 12, 2015. We are very pleased that Dr. Kimberly Tanner will be our keynote speaker. The Center for Teaching and Learning, Faculty of Science, and Department of Biological Sciences are supporting her visit to Edmonton and in return, Dr. Tanner will also be hosting a couple of workshops and presentations on the day before our AIBA meeting, May 11, 2015.

Dr. Tanner is a perfect fit as keynote speaker for AIBA. AIBA is an organization of biological educators in higher education who come together each May to share teaching practices, innovations and simply enjoy each other's inner BIO geekiness. Good grief we love biology! And we love to share our love of biology with our students through our teaching. Dr Tanner was trained as a biochemist and neuroscientist and has since become a researcher and advocate of student learning in general and the biological sciences in particular.

Here is her detailed biography:

Kimberly D. Tanner is a tenured Professor of Biology and the Director of SEPAL: The Science Education Partnership and Assessment Laboratory within the Department of Biology at San Francisco State University (SFSU). Trained as both a biochemist and a neuroscientist, she received her B.A. in Biochemistry from Rice University in 1991 and her Ph.D. in Neuroscience from the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) in 1997. She was awarded an NSF Postdoctoral Fellowship in Science Education (PFSMETE) from 1998-2000, during which she pursued additional training in science education research methodologies, investigating the impact of involving scientists in K-12 science education partnerships. After completing her fellowship, she joined the UCSF Science & Health Education Partnership (SEP), her fellowship study site, as a Senior Academic Coordinator from 2000-2004. Most recently, she was hired at SFSU in January 2004 as a tenure-track faculty member with a specialization in biology education, the first such hire across the SFSU science departments. Her research group – SEPAL – investigates how people learn science, especially biology, and how teachers and scientists can collaborate to make science teaching and learning in classrooms – Kindergarten through university – more like how scientists work. SEPAL research addresses a couple of lines of inquiry:

  1. developing novel assessment tools to better understand conceptual change and misconceptions in biology that can guide strategies for curriculum improvement and teaching reform,  
  2. studying the impact of involving scientists in science education, whether in K-12 classrooms, as undergraduate or graduate teaching assistants, or as college and university Science Faculty with Education Specialties (SFES). 
SEPAL also offers courses designed to teach scientific trainees how to teach the science they know and programs that promote science education partnerships between scientific trainees and instructors from Kindergarten through community college. Dr. Tanner is a founding member of the Editorial Board for CBE: A Journal of Life Sciences Education and co-author of the Approaches to Biology Teaching and Learning series, which translates education research and pedagogical strategies into language accessible to undergraduate biology faculty. Professionally, she has served on committees for the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, the National Research Council, the Society for Neuroscience, the American Society for Cell Biology, and the National Association for Research in Science Teaching. Her scholarly activities have been funded by multiple NSF grant awards, an NIH Science Education Partnership Award, and multiple, internal SFSU awards. Most recently, Dr. Tanner received a prestigious National Science Foundation CAREER research award, was elected a Fellow of the California Academy of Sciences and received the 2012 Outstanding College Science Teacher Award from the Society for College Science Teaching, an affiliate of the National Science Teachers Association.

This is a list of articles she has published in CBE-Life Sciences Education. My personal favourites discuss student metacognition in the classroom, how to assess to make room for active learning, and how to deal with student resistance to active learning teaching strategies:
  • John D. Coley and Kimberly Tanner. Relations between Intuitive Biological Thinking and Biological Misconceptions in Biology Majors and Nonmajors. CBE Life Sci Educ March 2, 2015 14:ar8; doi:10.1187/cbe.14-06-0094
  • Jeffrey Schinske and Kimberly Tanner. Teaching More by Grading Less (or Differently). CBE Life Sci Educ June 2, 2014 13:159-166; doi:10.1187/cbe.CBE-14-03-0054
  • Gloriana Trujillo and Kimberly D. Tanner. Considering the Role of Affect in Learning: Monitoring Students' Self-Efficacy, Sense of Belonging, and Science Identity. CBE Life Sci Educ March 3, 2014 13:6-15; doi:10.1187/cbe.13-12-0241
  • Shannon B. Seidel and Kimberly D. Tanner. “What if students revolt?”—Considering Student Resistance: Origins, Options, and Opportunities for Investigation. CBE Life Sci Educ December 2, 2013 12:586-595; doi:10.1187/cbe-13-09-0190
  • Kimberly D. Tanner. Structure Matters: Twenty-One Teaching Strategies to Promote Student Engagement and Cultivate Classroom Equity. CBE Life Sci Educ September 4, 2013 12:322-331; doi:10.1187/cbe.13-06-0115
  • Kimberly D. Tanner. Promoting Student Metacognition. CBE Life Sci Educ June 4, 2012 11:113-120; doi:10.1187/cbe.12-03-0033
  • Sara E. Brownell and Kimberly D. Tanner. Barriers to Faculty Pedagogical Change: Lack of Training, Time, Incentives, and…Tensions with Professional Identity? CBE Life Sci Educ December 3, 2012 11:339-346; doi:10.1187/cbe.12-09-0163
  • William B. Wood and Kimberly D. Tanner. The Role of the Lecturer as Tutor: Doing What Effective Tutors Do in a Large Lecture Class. CBE Life Sci Educ 2012 11:3-9; doi:10.1187/cbe.11-12-0110
  • John D. Coley and Kimberly D. Tanner. Common Origins of Diverse Misconceptions: Cognitive Principles and the Development of Biology Thinking. CBE Life Sci Educ September 4, 2012 11:209-215; doi:10.1187/cbe.12-06-0074
  • Kimberly D. Tanner. Reconsidering “What Works”. CBE Life Sci Educ December 1, 2011 10:329-333; doi:10.1187/cbe.11-09-0085
  • Julia I. Smith and Kimberly Tanner. The Problem of Revealing How Students Think: Concept Inventories and Beyond. CBE Life Sci Educ 2010 9:1-5; doi:10.1187/cbe.09-12-0094
  • Kimberly D. Tanner. Order Matters: Using the 5E Model to Align Teaching with How People Learn. CBE Life Sci Educ 2010 9:159-164; doi:10.1187/cbe.10-06-0082
  • Kimberly D. Tanner. Talking to Learn: Why Biology Students Should Be Talking in Classrooms and How to Make It Happen. CBE Life Sci Educ 2009 8:89-94; doi:10.1187/cbe.09-03-0021
  • Katayoun Chamany, Deborah Allen, and Kimberly Tanner. Making Biology Learning Relevant to Students: Integrating People, History, and Context into College Biology Teaching. CBE Life Sci Educ 2008 7:267-278; doi:10.1187/cbe.08-06-0029
  • Jonathan D. Knight, Rebecca M. Fulop, Leticia Márquez-Magaña, and Kimberly D. Tanner. Investigative Cases and Student Outcomes in an Upper-Division Cell and Molecular Biology Laboratory Course at a Minority-serving Institution. CBE Life Sci Educ 2008 7:382-393; doi:10.1187/cbe.08-06-0027
  • Kimberly Tanner and Deborah Allen. Cultural Competence in the College Biology Classroom. CBE Life Sci Educ 2007 6:251-258; doi:10.1187/cbe.07-09-0086
  • Deborah Allen and Kimberly Tanner. Putting the Horse Back in Front of the Cart: Using Visions and Decisions about High-Quality Learning Experiences to Drive Course Design. CBE Life Sci Educ 2007 6:85-89; doi:10.1187/cbe.07-03-0017
  • Kimberly Tanner and Deborah Allen. Approaches to Biology Teaching and Learning: On Integrating Pedagogical Training into the Graduate Experiences of Future Science Faculty. CBE Life Sci Educ Spring 2006 5:1-6; doi:10.1187/cbe.05-12-0132
  • Deborah Allen and Kimberly Tanner. Rubrics: Tools for Making Learning Goals and Evaluation Criteria Explicit for Both Teachers and Learners. CBE Life Sci Educ 2006 5:197-203; doi:10.1187/cbe.06-06-0168
  • Deborah Allen and Kimberly Tanner. Infusing Active Learning into the Large-enrollment Biology Class: Seven Strategies, from the Simple to Complex. Cell Biol Educ Winter 2005 4:262-268; doi:10.1187/cbe.05-08-0113
  • Kimberly Tanner and Deborah Allen. Approaches to Biology Teaching and Learning: Understanding the Wrong Answers—Teaching toward Conceptual Change. Cell Biol Educ Summer 2005 4:112-117; doi:10.1187/cbe.05-02-0068
  • Deborah Allen and Kimberly Tanner. Approaches to Biology Teaching and Learning: From a Scholarly Approach to Teaching to the Scholarship of Teaching. Cell Biol Educ Spring 2005 4:1-6; doi:10.1187/cbe.04-11-0052
  • Deborah Allen and Kimberly Tanner. Approaches to Cell Biology Teaching: Learning Content in Context—Problem-Based Learning. Cell Biol Educ Summer 2003 2:73-81; doi:10.1187/cbe.03-04-0019
  • Kimberly D. Tanner, Liesl Chatman, and Deborah Allen. Approaches to Biology Teaching and Learning: Science Teaching and Learning Across the School–University Divide—Cultivating Conversations through Scientist–Teacher Partnerships. Cell Biol Educ Winter 2003 2:195-201; doi:10.1187/cbe.03-10-0044
  • Kimberly Tanner and Deborah Allen. Approaches to Biology Teaching and Learning: From Assays to Assessments—On Collecting Evidence in Science Teaching. Cell Biol Educ Summer 2004 3:69-74; doi:10.1187/cbe.04-03-0037
  • Deborah Allen and Kimberly Tanner. Approaches to Cell Biology Teaching: Mapping the Journey—Concept Maps as Signposts of Developing Knowledge Structures. Cell Biol Educ Fall 2003 2:133-136; doi:10.1187/cbe.03-07-0033
  • Kimberly Tanner and Deborah Allen. Approaches to Cell Biology Teaching: A Primer on Standards. Cell Biol Educ Winter 2002 1:95-100; doi:10.1187/cbe.02-09-0046
  • Deborah Allen and Kimberly Tanner. Approaches to Cell Biology Teaching: Questions about Questions. Cell Biol Educ Fall 2002 1:63-67; doi:10.1187/cbe.02-07-0021
More information may be found at the AIBA and CTL websites. I hope to see you on the North Campus of the UofA on May 11 and/or 12.