Introduction
This is my fourth reflection on my experience with online teaching during the pandemic of the 2020/21 academic year. This reflection considers the course AUBIO 230 - Molecular Cell Biology which I taught in the fall term of 2020. Links to my other reflections may be found at this link here.
I have taught cell biology in some form or other since 1990 at the Augustana Campus of the University of Alberta. I taught BIO 201 - Cell Biology from 1990 to 1998. It was then removed from Augustana's biology degree program when the biological disciplines (zoology, botany, microbiology, and more) in the Faculty of Science on the North Campus of the U of A were reorganized into one Department of Biological Sciences. That initiated a whole scale change in the way that biology was taught in Alberta with one model following the University of Calgary and another following the University of Alberta. At that time Augustana was not a Faculty of the University of Alberta but was rather an independent private liberal arts & sciences college: Augustana University College.
To manage the issue of transfer between the Southern Alberta (U of Calgary) and Northern Alberta (U of Alberta) models of postsecondary biological education the three large universities (Universities of Alberta, Calgary and Lethbridge) entered into a two-year block transfer agreement with the other smaller post-secondary institutions in Alberta (e.g., Athabasca University, Red Deer College, Augustana University College, King's University College, Concordia University College, Grande Prarie Regional College, and many more). I was a part of these negotiations which resulted in the following block of courses that if students completed in their first two years at any institution in Alberta would transfer as a block for equal credit thus solving the problem of a southern and northern model of biological education:
- cell biology - 3 cr
- evolution - 3 cr
- genetics - 3 cr
- ecology - 3 cr
- biological diversity - 3 cr (could be from zoology, botany or microbiology)
- biochemistry - 3 cr
- chemistry - 9 cr (comprised of general and organic)
- statistics - 3 cr
- mathematics - 3cr
Four of the five biology courses above must have an associated lab. This block transfer gave each institution the ability to organise these foundational biological topics in whatever made sense for their program enabling students to complete these transfer courses over a minimum of their first two years of their undergraduate degree program.
As a result of these block transfer negotiations, Augustana's 2nd-year biology course became a 1st-year biology course where it remained for many years. However, over the subsequent years, Alberta PSE found that many students still wanted to transfer their courses among the PSIs piecemeal rather than as a two-year block. In addition, the Department of Biological Sciences ended up not removing their 2nd-year cell biology course instead having a 1st-yr introduction to cell biology followed by a 2nd-yr eukaryotic cell biology course. By the end of 2010, the block transfer in biology was abandoned and Augustana revised the 1st-year cell biology course to 1st-year functional biology (Integrative Biology I) and returned to teaching cell biology in the 2nd-year of their biology major as AUBIO 230 - Molecular Cell Biology in 2011.
In this blog post, I reflect on the Fall 2020 offering of AUBIO 230 - Molecular Cell Biology for which I was the instructor. This was the first term that I taught completely online and it was also the first time since the 1990s that I was the instructor for more than three courses in one term all of which had to be revised from face-to-face delivery to remote delivery. This is how I spent my spring and summer in 2020: revising molecular cell biology along with a couple of other courses so that students had a reasonable educational experience in an entirely online environment. Needless to say, this was a large amount of work to complete in a very short amount of time.
My reflection on teaching molecular cell biology during the fall 2020 term relies on my own personal experience, students' feedback from the end of term student ratings of instruction (SRI), the SoTL literature I have read, and advice that I have received from my colleagues. These are the four lenses that Stephen Brookfield (2017) advocates should inform any critical reflection of teaching:
- students' eyes
- colleagues' perceptions
- personal experience of the instructor
- theory (the SoTL literature)
Methods & Materials
As noted in the introduction above, AUBIO 230 - Molecular Cell Biology has gone through a number of revisions from a 2nd-year cell biology course, to a 1st-yr introduction to cell biology, ending up being what it is today, a course which considers the molecular biology of the cell. The primary difference between where the course started to where it is today is that initially, the course focused on the structure of cells and what that structure told us about how cells function. It was a classic structure and function course which relied heavily on cell ultrastructure and biochemical studies to inform us about how cells work. The publication of Molecular Biology of the Cell in 1983 by Alberts et al. changed how cell biology was conceived and studied by senior and graduate students. Certainly, there were other textbooks that were designed to bring a molecular understanding to bear on how cells work, but none were considered the same way as Molecular Biology of the Cell which came to be known as "The Bible" of cell biology. But it was not until this same author team produced Essential Cell Biology in 1998 that cell biology education began to truly focus on a molecular understanding of how cells work for undergraduate students in the first two years of their degree program.
Our knowledge of the molecular biology of the cell has exploded over the last couple of decades requiring instructors to carefully curate this burgeoning field for neophyte students. I have done this for the current iteration of AUBIO 230 - Molecular Cell Biology by asking students the overarching course question of how do proteins know where to go inside the cell? If proteins are not in the correct position at the correct time in the correct concentration, cell function is disrupted. To illustrate this point, I ask students on the first day of class what would happen to their ability to absorb sugar from their sports drink after a heavy workout if the apical and basal surfaces of their enterocytes were reversed? They soon realize after drawing a functional diagram of an enterocyte that they would die due to lack of nutrient absorption. So how do the correct proteins know to arrive in their correct intracellular positions after protein synthesis? And once there, how do they communicate with other proteins that they are there and ready to function?
This grabs students' attention and we spend the remainder of the course learning the techniques and experiments that have produced our current understanding of how cells get proteins into their different organelles and once there how they work and communicate with each other. Those of you reading this who are molecular biologists know that this is a huge field. This is a second-year (sophomore) course that only introduces students to this field.
To facilitate students' learning of the molecular details of cells and the approaches we have used to study them, I use the instructional strategy of team-based learning or TBL (Haide, Kubitz & McCormack, 2014) which I have explained in some detail in a previous blog post. Briefly, students are assigned pre-class preparation (a reading &/or a video recording) guided by a reading or viewing guide with learning objectives. After this pre-class preparation, students come to class to write a two-stage quiz (iRAT + tRAT in TBL lingo) consisting of 10 MCQs answered individually in 15 minutes followed by a longer period of time for the team attempt of the same quiz. Subsequent classes consist of team applications (Apps) of their learning. In the online environment that resulted from the pandemic, RATs and Apps were completed over Zoom using the breakout rooms to facilitate the teamwork. In addition, I allocated the class time before the two-stage quiz to a drop-in session over Zoom during which anyone and everyone in the class could come to ask questions about the pre-class assignment. Some students used this time to either ask me questions or to individually review the reading or video-recording. The quizzes were conducted using the quizzing feature in adaptive mode of our LMS which is based on Moodle. Apps were completed by teams using Google Forms to deliver the problems. Both RATs and Apps contributed to students' final course grades. You may view the course syllabus that I used in Fall 2020 at this link here. For this course, I did not use any proctoring or exam monitoring software as I have in other courses. There were repercussions from this decision that I will address in the Discussion.
Something new that I implemented for this course was the use of Smartwork5, the online homework website that is available to students free of charge with the purchase of the assigned textbook for the course (Essential Cell Biology, 5th ed.). Completion of these online individual assignments was awarded some marks toward their final grade (15%) to encourage their completion resulting in the study of the course material. These homework assignments were available to students for one week after we had completed our consideration of the topic in the course schedule (i.e., after RATs and Apps were completed and graded). Students were permitted to submit their Smartwork5 homework assignments late (5% penalty per day late). I also made available to students pre-class quizzes through Smartwork5 which enabled students to practice their learning without penalty; these pre-class quizzes did not contribute to students' final grades and were available to students throughout the term once the course schedule reached that topic.
SRI results were analysed for statistical differences among the different student cohorts using ANOVA (α = 0.05). The Tukey-Kramer post-hoc test was then used to detect differences among pairs of student cohorts (α = 0.05) if ANOVA initially detected differences among all cohorts. Details of the SRI survey were described in a previous blog post. The student comments in the following Results section are in response to four open-ended questions inviting students to type their comments into our online SRI survey:
- What aspects of the course and/or instructor did you find most valuable?
- What aspects of the course and/or instructor did you find least valuable?
- How useful were the course textbook(s) and/or other learning support materials?
- Please add any other comments that you would like to make about the course and/or instructor.
Results
ANOVA detected significant differences (α = 0.05) among the student cohorts for all SRI prompts. Generally speaking, the Tukey-Kramer post-hoc test indicates that the Fall 2020 cohort had the best experience and Fall 2017 had the worst experience in AUBIO 230 - Molecular Cell Biology among the student cohorts I have taught.
Students' perceptions of the instructor
Instructor overall
In Fall 2020 I received the highest rating ever (mean = 4.8) for my excellence as an instructor by students in Molecular Cell Biology but this was only significantly different from the cohorts in Fall 2017 and 2019. Statistically significant differences were detected between F2017 and all other cohorts except F2019 with F2019 being significantly different from the W2012, F2012 & F2020 cohorts (α = 0.05).
Student comments corroborate the numerical data above regarding my excellence as an instructor:
- I believe Professor Haave truly wants his students to succeed, not only in his course but in life. The endless resources and repetitions that Haave's style of teaching provides are unparalleled. The instructor was amazing and planned the semester perfectly.
- Professor Haave, is a great professor who took a lot of time to set up the best possible way to learn during COVID.
- Neil is awesome! So thankful I had him this semester and can't wait for more classes with him!
- Dr. Haave is a wonderful professor, very respectful, passionate and organized.
Instructor preparedness
Significant differences were indicated between F2017 and all other cohorts (α = 0.05). The Fall 2020 cohort highly rated how well prepared I was to teach this course (mean = 4.8).
Students' comments support the numerical data above that I was well-prepared:
- This is reflected by the way he constructs a rigid schedule for the semester, that if not maintained students will drastically fall behind. The structure creates the habits that students need in order to succeed in the field of Biology.
- This whole course was very valuable as the eclass set up was very easy to follow and the amount of work placed into the preparation of the class was reflected in the course content.
- The course was well organized and is one of few that a student could asynchronously learn the material effectively
- I thought that the mini lectures were concise and easier to digest than the readings which was helpful.
- I was truly impressed with the organization of the class, especially now being online.
- [what was valuable to me was] Having lecture videos to go back to and office hours when I needed help.
Instructor's effective use of in-class time
The F2017 is significantly different from all other cohorts. In addition, F2019 is significantly different from F2020 (α = 0.05). The Fall 2020 cohort highly rated how effectively I used the synchronous Zoom sessions (mean = 4.5).
The student comments on the SRI support the graphical data above that class time (i.e., Zoom time) was well used:
- I really liked working in teams and completing the "apps".
- I found the instructors [sic] explanation of application questions quite valuable.
- The instructor used synchronous and asynchronous classes very well and effectively. All lectures were taught asynchronously and all quizzes were during a synchronous time.
Clarity of instructor's speech
Statistically significant differences (α = 0.05) were detected between F2017 and all other cohorts except F2018. The Fall 2020 cohort highly rated my clarity of speech but there were no typed comments that specifically referred to this.
Instructor's constructive feedback
The F2017 cohort was significantly different (α = 0.05) from all other cohorts except F2018. The Fall 2020 cohort was clearly appreciative of the feedback I provided them (mean = 4.4) but was no different from the previous cohorts, other than Fall 2017 (mean = 3.3).
Note that one form of feedback that I designed into the course was the
Smartwork5 assignments. Student comments support the numerical data above:
- I found that working as a team made for a deeper understanding of course information and I appreciated the direct feedback about the apps after completing them.
- The textbook and SmartWorks were very useful to the course. I found that having the Pre-lecture quizzes were very helpful as a whole chapter review, and the homework was helpful (especially with the feedback it gave you).
- I really enjoyed the smartwork assignments as a way to help cement learning before RATs and APPs
Instructor's respectful treatment of students
The F2017 student cohort was found to be significantly different (α = 0.05) from W2012, F2012, F2019 & F2020. I have consistently treated my students with respect as illustrated in the graph below.
A sample of student comments on the SRI corroborates the data in the graph above:
- The prof cared about his students and made sure everyone was on the right track and was always ready to help.
- I liked how they were encouraging and very understanding to the students, especially now that everything is online.
- He always treats students with the utmost respect and creates a positive learning environment that I enjoy participating in. I especially appreciated Neil's anecdotal stories, sometimes random, but always entertaining.
Students' perceptions of the course structure & material
Quality of course content
Statistically significant differences were detected between F2017 and all other cohorts except F2019 (α = 0.05). In addition, F2020 is significantly different from W2012, F2012, F2016 & F2019. The F2017 cohort was the most dissatisfied (mean = 2.8) with the course whereas F2020 was the most satisfied (mean = 4.7).
One student comment echoed the numerical results:
- This was a very interesting course and I am looking forward to taking similar ones!
Clarity of course goals and objectives
The F2017 cohort was determined to be significantly different from all other cohorts (α = 0.05). The Fall 2020 cohort found them to be clear with an average SRI of 4.7. There were no student comments that referred to the course goals and objectives.
Course workload and difficulty
The F2020 cohort rated the course difficulty to be significantly less than the student cohorts in W2011, F2012, F2016 & F2017. In addition, the F2018 cohort rated the course difficulty significantly lower than the W2011 & F2012 cohorts (α = 0.05).
Reflective of the numerical data above, there was only one student comment directed toward the course difficulty:
- Team apps were challenging at times.
The F2020 student cohort rated the course workload to be significantly lighter than all other cohorts except W2011 (α = 0.05).
There was only one student comment that addressed workload whereas in previous years I have received many comments concerned about the workload (and difficulty) of molecular cell biology. I think the fewer comments regarding the course difficulty and workload indicate students found the Fall 2020 offering of Molecular Cell Biology to be not as overwhelming as previous years being more similar to what the Winter 2011 cohort experienced:
- The reading [sic] were valuable, but can be overwhelming at times.
Students' perceptions of their own experience
The course was a good learning experience
There were significant differences between F2017 and all other cohorts (α = 0.05). Students in the Fall 2020 cohort highly rated their learning experience with a mean and median SRI of 4.5.
The written comments by students on the SRI corroborate the numerical data above that this was a good learning experience for students in the Fall 2020 cohort:
- This was by far my favourite course this semester. Neil is great and so nice! I really liked how some classes were synchronous and some wre [sic] not. and the synchronous classes were so fun. I really enjoyed splitting into teams to do quizzes and assignments - this time is hard so being able to actually talk virtually with your classmates was great!!
- Overall, this instructor provided a positive learning experience throughout the semester.
- The learning environment was very encouraging.
Motivation to learn more
The F2017 cohort is significantly different from the cohorts in W2011, F2012, F2018 & F2020 (α = 0.05). In addition, F2020 was significantly different from W2012 & F2016. The cohort in Fall 2020 had greater motivation to learn more (mean = 4.4) than previous student cohorts but there were no student comments that addressed this SRI prompt.
Students increased their knowledge
Statistical analysis found F2017 to be significantly different from W2012, F2012, F2018 & F2020 (α = 0.05). In addition, F2016 was significantly different from F2020. The Fall 2020 cohort highly rated their increase in knowledge with an SRI average of 4.8.
There was one student comment that echoed the numerical data:
- This course and its instructor were very good and I learned a lot from this course.
Student concerns
Two students commented that the team Apps were the least valuable portion of the course or induced anxiety for them during class. The student who was anxious about the Apps suggested that they not contribute as significantly as they did toward the final course grade (Apps contributed 12% toward students' final grade). Another student commented that they found the information between the mini-lecture videos and the textbook to be virtually the same and so could not justify for themselves the need to read both the text and view the videos. Another student comment suggested that it would be helpful to have an additional office hour that was outside of the flex class time (i.e., the class before the RAT that I used for students to drop in to ask their questions about the pre-class assignment) as they used the flex class time to view the videos rather than come to class to ask questions.
Discussion
I am very pleased with how learners responded to my efforts to produce a quality learning environment for Molecular Cell Biology in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic. This corresponds to my own experience teaching the course which I found to run well from my perspective. I am also pleased that students recognized the time and energy required to prepare a traditional F2F course for online learning.
What did I learn? What will I do differently?
It is interesting that before the pandemic before I was forced to teach online, I was very dismissive of preparing and making available video-recorded mini-lectures thinking that they could not recreate the experience I provided students in F2F real-time. The pandemic has taught me that video-recorded mini-lectures are a good alternative to reading the textbook for some students. The problem, of course, is that video recording mini-lectures take an inordinate amount of time whereas an excellent author team has already made available an excellent reading resource. Is it worth an instructor's time to recreate in video format what is already available in text format? I am not sure. In the case of the 2020/21 academic year, I took the advice of my colleagues and the published literature that the online learning environment is best served with video recorded minilectures. The response from my students seems to validate this claim.
A couple of things that I am considering changing for the next time I teach this course in response to the feedback I received from students are:
- Mix-up the Apps so that some are low stakes (no marks attached) and some will have marks recorded. I can typically run two or three Apps in a single 60 min class. So something I may try in the coming academic year is to have at least the first App not be for marks and the last App to count for marks. Of course, I will warn the students about which ones count and which ones do not.
- Many students reported to me anecdotally that they appreciated the flex days when there was no formal class but I was available in class (over Zoom) to answer questions or discuss the pre-class assignment. I had announced to students that I would be available to meet individually with students outside of these flex classes if they were unable to attend to ask their questions. Clearly, I need to be more explicit about this alternative as at least one student in Fall 2020 did not understand this to be available to them.
- I need to make it clearer to students that the learning resources are there for them to use as they wish and that the reading/viewing guides indicate what they will be responsible for on exams. At least one student in Fall 2020 thought that they had to read and watch everything. For some students this may be beneficial to their learning. But I need to make it clear to all students that the learning resources I provide to them may be used (or not) as they see fit. But that to be successful in the course they need to use the reading guide to inform their learning. Maybe I need to rename these as learning guides instead of reading/viewing guides?
What was different for the Fall 2017 and Fall 2020 cohorts?
I was left with a couple of questions after reviewing the statistical analysis of the cohorts' SRIs for molecular cell biology since 2011. Why did the Fall 2020 cohort have the best experience whereas the Fall 2017 cohort seems to have had the worst experience when taught AUBIO 230 - Molecular Cell Biology?
I think the explanation for the Fall 2017 student cohort reporting a relatively poor experience (relatively speaking because the F2017 experience is still overall positive, rating generally > 3, for the SRI prompts) is because that is the year that Augustana first implemented its new term structure consisting of an initial 3-week block followed by an 11-week block in which students completed one compressed course in the first 3-wk block and then four courses in the subsequent 11-wk block. Teaching (& learning) a course in a three-week block is a very different experience from completing the same course over eleven weeks. Most Augustana faculty had never taught a compressed course before Fall 2017 and were still trying to make adjustments (or realizing that adjustments were necessary) when teaching in the three-week block. Thus, many students were feeling somewhat shell-shocked when they entered AUBIO 230 - Molecular Cell Biology during the subsequent 11-week block after their first ever experience of a three-week block course. On top of that, none of these students had ever experienced a TBL course before AUBIO 230. The SRI response rate was only 51% which is ~25-35% lower than typical for me and thus may represent a disproportionate number of students taking the time to respond to the online SRI survey to express their frustration with Augustana's new term structure and having to adjust to my implementation of TBL as a learning strategy. In subsequent years there were more students enrolled in AUBIO 230 who had some exposure to TBL as a teaching strategy and Augustana faculty became more adept at teaching compressed courses in the three-week block. Fall 2017 may have been a perfect storm for student dissatisfaction when I taught Molecular Cell Biology that term.
What about Fall 2020? Why did they have one of the best if not the best experience since 2011 in Molecular Cell Biology when I taught it in the fall of 2020? This surprises me because this would have been the first term that Augustana students were forced to complete all of their courses in a completely online environment as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. I know students were stressed and dissatisfied with their learning experience because a number of them personally confided in me about this.
When we were forced to transition from fully F2F teaching and learning to fully remote delivery of our courses in the middle of the previous term (Winter 2020) I had my first experience teaching online. Thus, when it became apparent in the spring of 2020 that the entirety of the 2020/21 academic year was going to be completely online I spent all my spring and summer months preparing the five different courses I was to teach in 202/21 for a totally online experience. This required many hours of attending teaching workshops to develop my ability to continue using TBL in an online educational environment. Mini-lectures needed to be video-recorded, two-stage quizzes needed to be converted from paper delivery to online delivery via our LMS, Apps had to be converted from a paper format to Google Forms.
This.
Was.
A.
Lot.
Of.
Work.
I was unable to attend to my scholarship during the 2020/21 academic year as a result. But, the silver lining is that I was able to deliver an educational experience that was sensitive to students' needs during the pandemic. I think the SRI ratings and accompanying student quotes are evidence of that. The advice of my colleagues through conversations in the different educational communities I belong to (COPLAC, ACUBE, oCUBE, UBEA, STLHE, ISSOTL, The Teaching Professor, Team-based Learning Collaborative, UofA's CTL) all provided me with the necessary advice to successfully prepare for online teaching. The most surprising advice that I was given was to not lecture during the in-class Zoom meetings but rather use those times to answer student questions, support students as they struggled to learn in an online environment, and provide as much as possible the opportunity to practice what they are learning online. This was relatively easy for me to do because it was what I was already doing with my implementation of TBL during my typical F2F classes. The thing I had to master in order to continue doing this in an online environment was delivering two-stage quizzes (Readiness Assurance Tests, or RATs in the vocabulary of TBL) and Apps using the breakout rooms in Zoom, the adaptive mode in our LMS (Moodle which the UofA has branded eClass) quizzing function, and Google Forms. Plus learning how to use Loom to successfully video record minilectures. An incredibly large number of skills to quickly master.
Apparently, I was successful.
Dealing with academic dishonesty
The one sad result from the Fall 2020 teaching term was the number of cases of academic dishonesty I reported to my Associate Dean (Academic). While marking the final exam for Molecular Cell Biology I was shocked to read an answer that was word for word the one I had in my answer key. How did that happen? I found that I had used a question from an older textbook question bank and the question bank (with answers) had been photocopied and uploaded to a "homework" or "study" site such as Course Hero. After I read that copied answer I went through the other students' answers carefully and found a few more that were worded suspiciously similar to my answer rubric.
The prevalence of academic dishonesty in the Fall 2020 11-week block was a result, I think, of my decision to not use exam proctoring software for online environments. I had decided not to use exam security software in the 11-week block of Fall 2020 because students in the preceding 3-week block course that I had taught (AUBIO/AUCHE 381 - Biochemistry: Intermediary Metabolism) complained that they found the implementation of ExamLock to be anxiety inducing during exams. Being mindful of the anxiety already present in students as a result of the pandemic I made the decision to discontinue using ExamLock during the fall 11-week block. After experiencing the prevelance of academic dishonesty in both AUBIO 230 - Molecular Cell Biology and AUBIO 111 - Integrative Biology I, I made the decision to return to using ExamLock in Winter 2021. I was unable to detect academic dishonesty in both of the courses I taught in Winter 2021.
So, there is a balance that needs to be sought between inducing unnecessary anxiety in students during exams while simultaneously ensuring that students are being examined fairly without undue advantages to some students. Using ExamLock for online learning environments seems to be the best balance for my online courses. ExamLock does not record students' physical surroundings, but does take periodic screen shots of students' computer desktop. In addition, it detects and alerts the instructor when students navigate away from the window containing the exam. This does not prevent students from using a smartphone or 2nd computer to look up answers to questions, but at least it prevents students from simply copying and pasting answers they find on the internet. I now pre-Google all exam questions before setting the exam rewording them until they are no longer easily Googleable. It takes time, but on balance using ExamLock and pre-Googling questions seems to be the best compromise when examining student learning in an online environment.
Resources
Alberts, B., Johnson, A. D., Lewis, J., Morgan, D., Raff, M., Roberts, K., & Walter, P. (1983). Molecular Biology of the Cell. Garland Science.
Alberts, B., Johnson, A., Hopkin, K., Raff, M., Roberts, K., Bray, D., Lewis, J., & Walter, P. (1998). Essential cell biology. Garland Science.
Alberts, B., Hopkin, K., Johnson, A., Morgan, D., Raff, M., Roberts, K., & Walter, P. (2019). Essential Cell Biology (5th ed.). W. W. Norton & Company.
Brookfield, S. D. (2017). Becoming a critically reflective teacher (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Haide, P., Kubitz, K., & McCormack, W. T. (2014). Analysis of the team-based learning literature: TBL comes of age. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 25(3&4), 303–333.
