Actively Learning to Teach: March 2022

Introduction

This is the second instalment of my reflections on my experience with online teaching during the pandemic of the 2020/21 academic year. This reflection considers the course AUBIO 111 - Integrative Biology I which I taught in the fall term of 2021. Links to my other reflections may be found at this link here.

The University of Alberta is a multi-campus university consisting of five different campuses. Four of them are located in Edmonton, our province's capital. The fifth campus, the Augustana Campus is the university's rural liberal arts and science campus which houses the Augustana Faculty of the University of Alberta located in Camrose, approximately 100 km southeast of Edmonton where the larger North Campus of our university is located. I have been teaching in the biology degree program of the Augustana Faculty for over 30 years.

In the fall term of 2020 I taught two sections of first-year biology. At Augustana the course title is AUBIO 111 - Integrative Biology I. This course is basically functional biology starting with macromolecules and cell biology, working through energy conservation, photosynthesis, cell signaling and cloning (mitosis). The last half of the course places this cellular understanding of life in a whole organism context considering how organisms exchange gases, transport O₂ and CO₂, and excrete nitrogen while maintaining water and salt balance. The different strategies that plants, animals, and single cell organisms implement to carry out these biological processes are compared. There is a lab attached to the course that uses the concepts being learned during class to train students to ask and investigate biological questions. Ultimately, the course is trying to teach students to think like a biologist in terms of how organisms work. The second term course, AUBIO 112 - The Evolution of Biological Diversity teaches students evolutionary biology.

I have been teaching different versions of first-year biological function since I started teaching in 1990. Approximately nine years ago I implemented Team-Based Learning (TBL) in AUBIO 111 (Michaelsen & Sweet, 2008). The first couple of iterations of TBL in first-year were rough but I am becoming more proficient at using this teaching strategy. The fall 2020 response from students was quite positive as you will see in the following analysis. This surprised me because fall 2020 was the first time I ever attempted implementing TBL in a course that was fully online due to the COVID19 pandemic. It worked well as a result of my ability to recreate synchronous small group meetings using the breakout rooms in Zoom. My online implementation of TBL was a little bit different that what others have reported (Parrish, Williams & Estis, 2021) in that all group work was synchronous using the breakout rooms in Zoom: both the initial two-stage quizzes and the subsequent apps (applications) were done synchronously over Zoom. All asynchronous portions of TBL (e.g., preparation for the two-stage quizzes, optional online quizzes) were activities that students could complete on their own.

Something that was newly implemented by me in AUBIO 111 during fall 2020 was the assignment of textbook quizzes through the Mastering Biology website. There were pre-class quizzes that could be attempted on Mastering Biology as often and whenever students wished that did not contribute to students' grades. In addition there were post-class homework assignments that were assigned from Mastering Biology after a particular course topic was completed. These quizzes contributed 5% towards students' final grades and were available to students for one week. Post-class quizzes could be opened and returned to for further work as many times as students wished during the week it was available and each question on the quiz could be attempted multiple times with each attempt worth a lesser amount (10% penalty for each incorrect attempt of an individual question). Students were able to submit their homework late but were administered a 10% penalty per day late.

This blog post is my reflection on the efficacy of my implementation of TBL in a first-year biology course in the online environment of fall 2020. My reflection is based on my own experience and students' feedback on the end of term student ratings of instruction (SRI).

Methods & Materials

I have posted these details in a previous blog post available at this link here.

The syllabus for the fall 2020 offering of AUBIO 111 is available at this link here.

The figures in the following results section indicate the SRI scores from the first-year biology courses I have taught since 2006, the first year that the University of Alberta began collecting these data for Augustana. Each figure title begins with B1xx to indicate that these are all 100-level courses. However, from 2006 to 2013 the first-year biology course I taught focused on cell biology using physiology only to illustrate the role of particular cell functions (e.g., the mucociliary escalator in our respiratory tract as an example of the role of the cytoskeleton). Since 2015, the 100-level biology course I teach is Integrative Biology I which, as previously indicated in the introduction, teaches cell biology but also considers osmoregulation, excretion, gas exchange, and circulation. Another thing to note in the data below is that I implemented TBL as the teaching strategy in AUBIO 111 in 2013.

Results

My SRI scores for quality of the instructor experienced a nadir when I began implementing TBL and when the course changed to include a greater focus on biological function in 2013 and 2105, respectively. However, in 2020 students rated my instructional abilities more similar to to what they were before 2010. ANOVA indicated differences among the student cohorts with Tukey-Kramer paired comparison tests indicating that the two sections from Fall 2020 are significantly different from the cohorts in 2013, 2015, & 2017 (α=0.05).

Some sample student comments:

I liked how caring and understanding the instructor was about our learning in this time. You could tell that he really was passionate about what he was teaching.
He is very experienced in this course making it easy to ask questions and be able to answer back with a clear answer. Encouraged us to speak even if our answeres [sic] where [sic] wrong and never judged us if they were. He would further explain the context making learning easy and fun.
Dr. Haave is a great person and was an excellent professor. The video recordings were nice to have and very helpful. Thank you for putting in the time to make such good lecture videos. I also enjoyed the in person class days where we would do quizzes or applications.
Dr. Haave is a very engaging, knowledgeable professor.
Dr. Haave loves biology and he makes students excited about biology too. His love and knowledge made all of the intensity of the course so much easier to bear and work through.
Probably the best professor I’ve had this term!!
He is an excellent instructor who genuinely cares about his students.

This same pattern of a nadir in SRI scores being lower between 2010 to 2017 is repeated for the next few graphs.

ANOVA indicated differences among the cohorts in how students rated the course content. The Tukey-Kramer test (α=0.05) indicated that the W2013 cohort is different from the cohorts in 2006, 2008, 2009, 2020 and that the 2020 cohorts are different from the cohorts in 2015 and from section A1 in 2017. The Tukey-Kramer test also indicated that section A1 in F2015 is significantly different from the 2006 cohort.

Some sample students comments from the 2020 cohorts:

Overall the setup and execution of the course was done very well and the information that we were learning was interesting and benificial [sic].
I thought this was a very interesting course, and I enjoyed my time in this class.

Similarly, ANOVA indicated differences among the cohorts in terms of how students rated the course as a positive learning experience with the Tukey-Kramer test (α=0.05) indicating that the F2006, F2020 cohorts are different from the cohorts in 2013, 2015 & 2017. In addition Tukey-Kramer detected significant differences between section A1 from F2020 and the F2010 cohort and between the F2008 and W2013 cohorts.

Some sample student comments:

I really enjoyed this class. The instructor made sure to check in with students on a weekly basis and had learning apps where we could review the material we were learning about as a class.
Encourages us to ask questions, places us into groups to interact with others, open to discussing potentially unfair questions/ lost marks, goes through group work with class
He was very welcoming. Always open to questions and was happy to answer them. This course was the most safe working environment, in my opinion.
He had all the lecture videos recorded ahead for us and always check [sic] on students with care when we missed an assignment or haven't been attending classes. He talks very nicely and points out the important highlights in class and lecture videos very clearly. He always emails us about upcoming deadlines and responds to our questions quickly with instructions.
Dr. Haave is [a] very genuine person who is able to make connections with each of his students, making his class a more comfortable environment.
Dr. Haave was always very cheerful and overall really lifted the mood of the classes.

This same pattern was observed in how students rated how well I was prepared to teach the course with ANOVA detecting differences among the cohorts. Tukey-Kramer analysis detected the following significant paired differences:

section A1 in F2015 is different from each of the cohorts in 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2020
section A1 in F2020 is different from the two cohorts in F2017
section A2 in F2020 is different from section A1 in F2017.

Some sample student comments from the 2020 cohorts:

The time and effort put in the course in respect to the content that was provided and produced was very evident.
Dr. Haave was very generous with the resources he gave us. The reading guides he made were very helpful in guiding us on what exactly to focus on.
The instructor was very organized and prepared, very easy going and laid back.
The recorded mini lectures were amazing and helped a lot.
Neil was fantastic! Very patient, helpful and well prepared

ANOVA detected differences among the cohorts regarding the quality of the feedback I provided students. However, Tukey-Kramer analysis indicated that only F2015A1 is significantly different from W2013 and the two F2020 cohorts (α= 0.05). This appears to be due to the spread in the data.

Some sample student comments:

Provided great feedback and really explained concepts.
I like how we went over the answers to application questions after we finished them in order to figure out how we should have reached the correct answer.
Team apps provided us a great tool to work on our communication and team work as well as live constructive feedback during this difficult time.

ANOVA detected statistical differences among the cohorts for how clearly students perceived the objectives and goals of the course. Tukey-Kramer analysis (α=0.05) indicated that the 2020 cohorts were significantly different from the cohorts in 2013 and 2015 and that the cohort in 2008 was different from section A1 in 2015.

There were no student comments that addressed whether or not the course goals and objectives were clear.

There is a large spread in the data for the SRIs for students being motivated to learn similar to the spread in the SRIs for feedback above. However, ANOVA did detect significant differences among the student cohorts. The Tukey-Kramer test (α=0.05) indicated that section A2 of the F2020 cohort was significantly different from the 2010 & 2015 cohorts.

Some sample student comments:

The enthusiasm and passion Neil had for this course really made me interested in learning more about the course and kept me motivated to study because he was putting so much work and passion into it and I wanted to match that.
I appreciate the work you put into all the videos and the two stage quizzes and team apps. They were all well thought out and I felt like they challenged me enough in my knowledge to let me feel like "I know this" but still made me think on each question.
The course was great, I really enjoyed [it], definitely looking forward to learning more in the biology field.

Students have highly rated my ability to speak clearly consistently since 2006. ANOVA did detect significant differences among the cohorts with the Tukey-Kramer test indicating that section A2 of the F2017 cohort is significantly different from the F2006 and F2020 cohorts (α=0.05).

Although SRIs indicated that the majority of students thought I spoke clearly, there were a couple of students who commented that they had difficulty hearing me:

Neil is very soft spoken which was difficult to understand at times.
This professor was hard to listen too [sic]

Students have also consistently highly rated my respectful treatment of them. ANOVA did detect significant differences among the cohorts but the Tukey-Kramer test did not detect any significant differences among the pairs of cohorts (α=0.05).

Comments from the fall 2020 cohort corroborate the numerical ratings:

The way he treated students with respect was outstanding and how he put in effort.
Was very kind and respectful to each of his students and always treated each question that was asked of him respectfully

Students have always rated the courses that I teach as being among their most difficult and among those with the greatest workload. First-year biology is no different. ANOVA did not detect any differences among the cohorts regarding the difficulty of the course but did detect significant differences among the cohorts rating the workload of the course.

Regarding workload, the Tukey-Kramer test indicated that F2009 was significantly different from the Winter 2013 & F2017A1 cohorts F2020A1 was significantly different from the cohorts in 2013 & 2017 (α=0.05).

Some sample student comments:

The applications were difficult but extremely helpful in understanding the material better.
The workload of the the course is intimidating and overwhelming at times but he is very supportive and understanding.
The applications were valuable don't get me wrong, they were probably good in the long run for my learning, I just found them way more difficult than the quizzes, which I guess makes sense since your actually applying the information
I struggled a lot with the course because the workload was very surprising to me and it took me awhile to be able to find a balance with everything. I didn't enjoy how much information we covered each week but I acknowledge that this is necessary and just how the course goes.
Sometimes the tests and quizzes were extremely difficult when the lectures and homework were very easier [sic] and it was at times confusing for my group.

After the nadir in student ratings that I experienced when I started implementing TBL in this course in 2013 I was very pleased to read a number of student comments that explicitly expressed that this teaching strategy was received positively. The three aspects of TBL that most distinguish it from other teaching strategies are the teams that are stable for the entire term, two-stage pre-topic quizzes, and the subsequent applications (apps) that students noted as promoting their learning:

The team quizzes were also really nice because it gave us a chance to learn and discuss things with other classmates, this is especially nice since we can't really talk to our classmates otherwise due to online learning
The most valuable aspect of this course is that Dr. Haave had many zoom meetings for class lectures and quizzes and I found this very helpful in understanding the course material.
The 2 stage quizzes were great since it gave an opportunity to go over questions with peers to share ideas and help one another out.
I really enjoyed the format of the two-stage quizzes, and the team apps. They provided an opportunity to discuss with and learn from my peers. It was very beneficial to understanding the material.
Team quizzes and team apps improves my understanding of the course.
Team quizzes and lectures were very useful.
Most valuable part would be the 2-stage quizzes, these were very helpful. It was also valuable that we were placed in groups and stayed in those groups fro [sic] the entire term so we could get to know our group mates better.
I think that the individual and team quizzes were a great way to asses [sic] learning, and then work through mistakes with others in my group. I found it very helpful and it provided contact with others when everyone is still quite isolated.
I found the team applications and two stage quizzes to be very helpful. The collaboration helped my understanding of the course and made remote learning feel more normal and engaging.
I found the two stage quizzes in this course to be very valuable since it allowed us to see where we went wrong and it gave us a chance to practice working collaboratively.
I found the 2-stage quizzes and the apps most valuable.
I found the team quizzes and apps very valuable to be able to work through things with other people; they were able to help you, and you were able to help them.
Having two stage quizzes were valuable because it allowed you to gain more knowledge from other people. Also within the two stage quizzes if someone in your group did not completely understand having the opportunity to explain that topic to them provided yourself with the ability to further your understanding of the topic by having to explain the subject.
The concept of team quizzes and team apps is something I enjoyed a lot.
Having a lot more team work than independent work was great. I also found the 2-stage quizzes to be helpful, specifically being able to discuss with team mates. Being with the same group throughout the semester also created more of a connection with peers (which is difficult to do online).
[What aspects of the course and/or instructor did you find most valuable?]

Team based quizzes and applications.
The quizes [sic] we got to work through as a group.
team apps and quizzes. this motivated me to stay on top of my work so i [sic] could contribute in our discussions.
The 2-stage quizzes and team apps. They tested our knowledge of the material in a low-stakes way.
The in depth lecture videos, the class meetings for quizzes and team apps and the instructors availability for questions.
Live zoom meetings, apps, quizzes-especially team ones.

There were a couple of student comments, however that expressed dissatisfaction with the team aspects of the course because this required them to login to Zoom at a particular time of day for the synchronous part of the course. In addition, one student commented that they found the group exercises to not be very valuable because they were shy and found it difficult to speak up when their team was discussing how to solve an assigned problem.

Although this was the first time I had assigned online homework via the Mastering Biology website, the student reception was very positive:

We use mastering biology which helps me a lot
Yes, the textbook and mastering biology was extremely beneficial. I found the dynamic study modules on mastering biology a great way to study for the quizzes and allowed me to see what I needed to study more and what I had down pact [sic].
the study area in mastering biology as well as the homework assignments were invaluable.
mastering biology HW and modules really helped solidify concepts
The textbook was useful as well as the Mastering Biology website that was used throughout the course
The Mastering Biology website was a great place to do practice questions and the homework assignments helped me dive deeper into the material.
The textbook and the mastering biology homework was very helpful.
The Mastering Biology website was very useful for helping learn and understand material. I liked that it helped you improve on the areas you needed the most work on.
Textbook was very useful, as well as mastering biology. Both were used a lot.
I really liked mastering biology for extra practice.
Mastering biology was a great resource.
Master [sic] biology was extremely helpful for practice and gaining a better understanding of the course work
Love mastering biology, combination of theoretical knowledge and exercises to improve knowledge effectively, but some of the topics feel difficult.
I liked the Mastering Biology online method, seemed easier to keep assignment[s] organized and know when there [sic] due
Mastering biology homework assignments and team apps are a great study tool and resource.
Mastering biology provides a great array of questions, that makes you really think about what the question is asking.
I think the mastering biology homework assignments were very valuable as they helped me review key points.
Mastering Biology was very helpful.
The mastering biology website with its assignments and dynamic study modules were extremely helpful as well.
The textbook and the assignments through my lab and mastering biology were very helpful in furthering my understanding in the course.
The mastering biology was very helpful with the home work and dynamic learning.
the program mastering biology was wonderful because you have everything right there so you could not miss anything. The program also provided other study tools, like dynamic study module, which were another valuable resource for studying.
Mastering biology and the dynamic study modules were great to have!
[What aspects of the course and/or instructor did you find most valuable?]

The Mastering Biology homework
The 2-stage quiz and the follow-up assignments in mastering biology.

However, there were a couple of student comments that indicated that the Mastering Biology website was not helpful to them. Only one explained further stating that "The mastering biology website

is also very slow, and not user friendly." There was also one student comment that indicated irritation with being required to purchase the textbook in order to obtain the code to access the online homework.

Finally, this was the first time that I produced and made available to students video-recorded mini-lectures that I made available to students at the beginning of the course. Many students noted how much they appreciated these (e.g., "The lecture videos were an excellent learning tool" and "I liked the set up videos given to us" and "The video recordings were nice to have and very helpful"). However, a couple of student comments indicated that having both video mini-lectures and assigned reading to be unnecessary. For example, "I felt as though the pre recorded lectures weren’t that useful as well, I usually ended up reading the textbook chapters and it didn’t make a difference if I watched the videos or not."

Discussion

Despite the pandemic nightmares I had in anticipation of the 2020/21 academic year I was pleasantly surprised at how well this first-year biology course went in the fall term. I am certain that is because of the time I devoted to preparing video recorded minilectures and converting my 2-stage quizzes and apps from in-class to online synchronous activities. This is how I spent the summer of 2020 even though the time devoted to instructional preparation seriously impacted my scholarly productivity.

I am pleased that first-year students in fall 2020 responded well to my preparation and had the same good experience I had. The in-class (online over Zoom) activities went well and students seemed to be engaged and interested. This conclusion is borne out by both my own personal experience and the SRI feedback presented in the results above.

So what did I learn from this experience, my first experience of delivering a course completely online with no physical face-to-face (F2F) interaction? I learned that even though online learning is not the same experience as F2F it can still produce a quality learning experience. I also learned that short punchy video recorded minilectures are a good way to encourage students to prepare for class before class. This was done on the advice of the many different workshops I attended during summer 2020 that encouraged the preparation of videos. In particular, I want to give a shoutout to the University of Alberta's Centre for Teaching and Learning and the online course on online teaching and learning. That short course was critical in my course preparation for online delivery. Other workshops that were incredibly helpful to me were hosted by ACUBE, oCUBE, UBEA, STLHE, COPLAC, and the Teaching Professor Conference, all of which helpfully delivered these as online virtual workshops during the pandemic.

Zoom and the ability to send student teams into individual breakout rooms greatly facilitated the ability to continue with my implementation of TBL and as indicated by the students comments noted in the results section above enabled some semblance of community for learners. This is the power of TBL as a teaching and learning strategy: not only does it flip the classroom to enable active learning during synchronous class meetings, it also facilitates the development of learning communities through the creation of student teams that remain in place for the duration of the course (Michaelsen & Sweet, 2008; Parrish, Williams & Estis, 2021) which we know facilitates student resilience for learning (Lemelin et al., 2021).

Still, there were a couple of issues with how the course was run during this pandemic term. International students, I know had a difficult time getting out of bed in the middle of the night to attend the synchronous class meetings. I made an effort, however, to anticipate that by having some class meeting times devoted to office hours where I was available in our Zoom classroom to answer student questions. Students could choose to use that time to read the textbook or view the video recordings. Still, I did hear a couple of student complaints some of which are captured in the student comments in the results section above. It was made clear in the syllabus, however, that the course would be a hybrid of synchronous and asynchronous activities. I made this commitment to a hybrid or blended course (I am not sure which term would best apply to the course structure I implemented) because I knew, from experience, the efficacy of TBL for promoting student learning (Carmichael, 2009; Travis et al., 2016; Swanson et al., 2019; Lewis & Estis, 2020) and I could not figure out a way to do that without some synchronous class meetings.

I was also very pleased that students responded positively to my use of the Mastering Biology website that accompanies the textbook for this course, Campbell Biology. There was, unfortunately, some student confusion over which textbook was required for the course. I suspect that some students purchased a used copy of the textbook or purchased a copy from Amazon or other online retailer and so did not also obtain free access to the Mastering Biology website that normally accompanies the purchase of the textbook through our university bookstore. I suspect that students were unaware that they should purchase the textbook through our university to be eligible for this free resource. This despite the course syllabus indicating that the textbook with a Mastering Biology access code was a required resource for the course. In the future, I need to ensure that this is made more explicit on our bookstore website.

The dissatisfaction expressed by a couple of students over the Mastering Biology online assignments I suspect may have resulted from students taking the course in regions with poor internet access. This is unfortunate and I am unsure how this could be ameliorated when all learning resources are delivered online. I heard comments from students directly (not on the SRIs) that some students experienced similar internet lag issues during the synchronous Zoom sessions and may partly explain why some students never turned on their cameras over Zoom. The only thing that I can think of to do in the future is to ensure that students understand the sort of learning environment they would be experiencing. I know our university administration made this clear, but there were likely some students who had no other choice during the pandemic but to continue their education in an online environment.

The couple of students who were disappointed with the video recordings because they seemed to repeat what was already present in the textbook I found to be odd responses because throughout the course and on the course syllabus I had made it clear that I was making available to students a variety of learning resources and that they could use all or some or none of them as best suited the way that they were most comfortable learning. So I am not sure what to make of the student comment in the results above that indicated they were dissatisfied because it didn't make a difference whether they watched the video-recording or read the textbook. I receive this comment as an indication that my preparation of the video mini-lectures did what they were supposed to do: give students the choice of how they wished to learn.

However, the vast majority of students appreciated the course and learning materials although some students had hurdles to their learning that were not experienced by others.

Another thing that I learned from this online teaching experience is one that is embarrassing for me to admit. I need to claim naivete about what is available to students over the internet. Unbeknownst to me, is the fact that test banks and old exams quickly make their way to online "study" websites. While marking the final exam I was perplexed at a few student papers that had basically identical answers (correct, and more telling incorrect). Much to my chagrin, I learned while sleuthing these cases of potential academic dishonesty that many of the questions I had used were freely available to students online on websites such as Chegg. What fall 2022 taught me is that all questions used in an online exam must be pre-Googled and reworded until it is no longer possible to find a quick answer that is readily copied and pasted. This is what I did in the winter term: pre-Googled everything. Of course, this took an inordinate amount of time, but I do not know what alternative there is when dealing with a large enrolment class.

Many colleagues during the teaching workshops I attended in summer 2020 advocated for assessment alternatives to exams and I laud those efforts. However, those alternatives (e.g., projects, take-home essays) seem unwieldy to me for large enrolment classes. Until class sizes become more humanly sized, pre-Googling exam questions will be the pre-emptive solution I use to discourage academic dishonesty in an online learning environment. That, and using exam software that prevents students from copying answers found on the internet and pasting them into their exam. Doing this greatly ameliorated academic dishonesty in my winter 2021 courses. Please note that I am not advocating the use of exam software that uses facial recognition or monitoring of a student's physical workspace. The exam software that I used, ExamLock, was developed by our university's IT department and simply created an alert when students browsed away from their exam or opened another app or window on their computer. This seems to be sufficient when used along with pre-Googling exam questions. But that is a discussion for my winter 2021 courses.

When I look at the trajectory of student feedback from 2006 to 2021 it is clear that my teaching has been affected by trying new teaching strategies and course content. The nadir in SRI scores from 2010 to 2017 may be explained by my implementation of TBL in 2013 and modifying the course content in 2015. What is interesting is that some questions that students are asked on the SRIs seem to be more resistant to being impacted by pedagogical innovation than others: motivation to learn more, clarity of speech, respect for students, workload, and difficulty were less impacted than the other questions. In addition, the nadir seems to begin in 2010 not 2013. So what happened in 2010? I was appointed the Associate Dean (Teaching) for the Augustana Faculty in 2010 and managing the change in additional priorities, may have distracted me somewhat from attending to the needs of my students. I find that kind of ironic that holding an administrative position with a focus on teaching distracted me from teaching! Finally, an additional item that may have contributed to 2017 being part of the nadir in how students responded to my teaching is that 2017 is when Augustana changed from a traditional academic term consisting of five courses completed by students in 13 weeks (traditional for Canada) to an academic term consisting of a 3-week block in which students complete one course followed by an 11-week block in which students complete another four courses. On the other hand, the SRIs in 2017 seem to be improving over those from 2015 so maybe what is more significant is my better preparation for new course content plus beginning to master TBL as the implemented teaching strategy for this course. But as noted above, the majority of students really appreciated the learning resources on the Mastering Biology website and I am certain that this also contributed to my improved SRI scores from 2020 in AUBIO 111 - Integrative Biology I.