Student Centered Education Leading the Way: Changing the Focus from Teaching to Learning in Large Subjects with Limited Budgets

Karen Fildes†* Tracey Kuit‡ Glennys O’Brien§ Lynne Keevers¶ Simon Bedford§

From the †Graduate School of Medicine, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, New South Wales 2522, Australia, ‡School of Biology, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, New South Wales 2522, Australia, §School of Chemistry, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, New South Wales 2522, Australia, ¶Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, New South Wales 2522, Australia

Abstract To lead positive change in the teaching practice of teams that service large numbers of diverse students from multiple degree programs provides many challenges. The primary aim of this study was to provide a clear framework on which to plan the process of change that can be utilized by academic departments sector wide. Barriers to change were reduced by adapting and utilizing Kotter’s principals of change specifically by creating a sense of urgency and defining a clear goal designed to address the problem. Changing attitudes involved training staff in new teaching and learning approaches and strategies, and creating a collaborative, supportive team-based teaching environment within which the planned changes could be implemented and evaluated. As a result senior academics are now directly involved in delivering sections of the face-to-face

teaching in the new environment. Through promoting positive change we enabled deeper student engagement with the theoretical concepts delivered in lectures as evidenced by favorable student evaluations, feedback, and improved final exam results. A collaborative team-based approach that recognizes the importance of distributed leadership combined with a clearly articulated change management process were central to enabling academics to design, try, and evaluate the new teaching and learning practices. Our study demonstrates that a concerted focus on “change management” enabled teaching team members to adopt a major shift in the teaching and learning approach that resulted in measurable improvements in student learning. C 2015 by The International Union of Biochemistry and V Molecular Biology, 43(2):88–99, 2015.

Keywords: action learning; leadership-change; team-teaching; POGIL

Introduction During the past 10 to 15 years, universities have seen many major changes in the way education is delivered. For instance, the higher education policy environment has seen a shift from “universities as elite institutions for the few, to higher education as a birth right of the many,” often called the massification of higher education [1]. Remaining unchanged, however, is the overall aim of a teaching focused academic: that is to teach a subject comprehen-

*Address for correspondence to: Faculty of Science, Medicine and Health, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW 2522, Australia. E-mail: [email protected] Received 25 July 2014; Accepted 19 November 2014 DOI 10.1002/bmb.20851 Published online 20 February 2015 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com)

88

sively, have students master threshold concepts and learn to problem solve within their discipline. The dominant approach to the delivery of content is still affected by someone with expertise, presenting core knowledge and problems. This is still primarily achieved through a (hopefully) imaginative lecture, delivering a foundation of knowledge on which the student can then build. Rapid changes in communication and information technologies, combined with the massification of higher education, has resulted in changes to student demographics, student expectations in relation to technology, lecture attendance, and the increasing financial pressure on Universities. Although in the past, lectures have rarely been compulsory, if they were missed, there were few alternatives but borrowing notes or reading a textbook so lecture attendance was higher. Further, lectures were usually complimented by a small group tutorial, a clear recognition of the benefit for students to engage in an active discussion of

Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education

their learning [2]. Because of financial constraints, the traditional stand-and-deliver lecture followed by small group tutorials is often reduced to the lecture alone and the platform for student discussion of key concepts in tutorials is lost. Currently, with the onslaught of ever advancing technology, we as teachers are faced with a student culture that is linked to instant updates and a constantly available stream of information. Now, not only can students download later, they are often also able to access similar lectures given by academics from other institutions. Understandably, for many students the motivation to prioritise lecture attendance is lacking. This situation in itself would not be a problem if students remained up-to-date with their lecture downloads and attended a tutorial. Unfortunately, the reality is that many lectures are not viewed online by students until the last minute “study-dash,” just before assessments. Further, in many large service subjects, small group tutorials that discuss theoretical content delivered in lectures are costly and are increasingly removed from the timetable. So how do we as academics adapt to these changes and simultaneously enhance the quality of learning and teaching in large-group service subjects? We recognize that lectures, either face to face or online, are a vital component of the learning process, especially with large student numbers. However, they were never intended to stand alone as the only method of delivering the learning objectives, which now in the absence of tutorials, they often do in large service subjects. There is much evidence in the literature that students need a platform from which they can learn to engage with the lecture content [3]. From a social constructivism perspective, knowledge is constructed in the mind of the learner by the learner [4]. The “building” process is aided through cooperative social interactions. Therefore, learning is ultimately a social and cultural experience, if it were not, we would not require institutions. In large service subjects where students are enrolled in varying degrees across faculties, this aspect of learning can easily be neglected in part due to the changes, such as the massification of higher education, that have taken place in universities during the past ten years. Further, as argued by Eberlien et al. (2008) [2] lecture-only methods of teaching ignore that as cognitive load increases, the need for peer engagement increases so this load is shared. They maintain the “teaching by telling” method is ineffective for many if not most students [5] and that to understand sophisticated concepts students must be engaged in developing their own higher order thinking skills. If they are not so engaged, “cognitive overload” eventuates. That is, a student’s learning will be inhibited if the instructional materials overwhelm a learner’s cognitive resources [6]. The challenge for academics teaching in the context of underfunded student growth is how to overcome logistical barriers to re-build the platform from which students can construct their own knowledge and insight. In our second year biochemistry subject, theory has been delivered by a “transmission of content” approach [7].

Fildes et al.

This combined with low lecture attendance by students and limited uptake of recordings (Echo 360) can result in a focus on quick, surface learning, where the primary aim is not to reach deep understanding, but to “pass the test” [8]. In subjects like biochemistry, which is traditionally content heavy, this proves an unsuccessful methodology. In our experience there has been an increasing decline in final grades, with a high 25% failure rate, preventing progress through degrees. Teaching methods based on how people learn have been well described [9–11], however, they can be perceived as logistically difficult to apply in large service subjects. Hence, although effective alternatives have demonstrated their impact, adoption has been slow. Our challenge then was how does a small team of academics change the teaching approach of research focused colleagues to keep pace with the overall changes at the institutional, even societal level? Although the need for change is increasingly clear, the means to lead that change is not traditionally part of the science academic’s portfolio or skill set. We rarely have leadership training but rather learn this “on the job.” The primary aim of this study therefore, is to provide a framework on which to plan such a process of change. To achieve this aim, we have designed and articulated a process adapted from change management principles successfully implemented across a variety of sectors. We will present evidence, and argue that by utilizing our modified framework for change, action learning methodology and distributive leadership approach, changes to biochemistry teaching that improve student learning can be achieved across the sector despite significant barriers.

Study and Research Approach In this section, we situate our study, describe the research methodology, outline the specific methods used, and the data collected. To build capacity for changes to teaching practice that would improve student engagement and motivation, the School of Chemistry and the School of Biological Sciences at the University of Wollongong (UOW) began a collaborative venture. We were awarded support by Science and Mathematics Network of Australian University Educators (SaMnet, http://samnetaustralia.blogspot.com.au/) to pursue an action learning project in order to lead such a change in learning and teaching. SaMnet is a national network that brings together university academics to collaborate on national issues in university science and mathematics education. It is working to develop educational leaders, to foster and spread best practices, and to promote cultural change in university teaching and learning. Action learning projects are supported by advice, peer review, and leadership training from SaMnet. Academics from the School of Chemistry (UOW) had developed a customised set of POGIL (process orientated guided inquiry learning) workshops for first year chemistry with success in terms of student

89

Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education feedback and improved performance. The current innovation involved utilizing this expertise and experience to successfully invoke a similar change in biochemistry. Biol213 is a 2nd year biochemistry subject (400 students) which covers aspects of fundamental biochemistry. We did not follow the POGIL process strictly but modified sessions to suit our budget and space constraints. Throughout this article we will refer to our POGIL “style” sessions as active learning classes (ALC). We based our innovation on processorientated guided enquiry learning (POGIL) as we believed it was a tried and tested solution to the problem of passive/ surface learning [12–15]. Biol213 can be described as a “service” subject because the completion of which is compulsory for a variety of degrees across faculties. Therefore, the material can be viewed by many students as peripheral to their learning which creates a high risk that students become passive and uninvolved, adopting attitudes consistent with “surface” learning [8]. We expected to see a clear and marked improvement in student engagement and deeper learning when using our new approach. As group work, peer support, peer assessment, and student centred learning were to be used, we anticipated better student interaction with theoretical content as is evidenced in the literature [13, 14, 16–19]. We aimed to develop improvements in staff training and to create new teaching materials with a resultant change in staff attitudes in a positive direction. Due to the large student numbers in the subject, a significant number of staff is involved in teaching and management. The two coordinators, who lecture and supervise practical laboratory classes, are employed as lecturers. Initiating change therefore meant training senior academic staff, Associate Professors and senior lecturers, as well as casual demonstrators who teach a bench of 20 students in laboratory classes.

Methodology Participatory action research (PAR) [20] is the methodology employed in this collaborative project to collect both qualitative and quantitative data. PAR was embedded into our activities and processes as the curriculum innovation unfolded, rather than being a separate process of “researching” the collaborative efforts from the outside. The intention of such research is to produce practical knowledge that is useful, both for, and in action. Reason and Bradbury [21] offer the following definition of action research: “A participatory, democratic process concerned with developing practical knowing in the pursuit of worthwhile human purposes. . . it seeks to bring together action and reflection, theory and practice, in participation with others, in the pursuit of practical solutions to issues of pressing concern to people” [21]. Most approaches involve a spiral of the four moments of PAR: planning, action, observing, and reflecting [22].

90

PAR is situational. It is solution oriented in that it focuses on particular problems/situations, in a specific locality and aims at improvement and problem solving. It is an evolving, involving and reflective process [20]. PAR offers a good fit for the project aims as its collaborative and participative character supports the distributed model of leadership employed. Such a model recognizes the ability of those in non-formal leadership positions to develop their leadership capacity and influence change through an active approach [23].

Data Gathering Methods Within our PAR cycles we used multiple mixed-methods for gathering a variety of data including:  Observing teaching practices and processes—staff members from the School of Chemistry observed biochemistry ALC in progress then contributed observations to the staff meetings following the ALC.  Written ethnographic accounts of observations of teaching and learning practices—a learning developer with no science background but expertise in learning and teaching was invited to observe the ALC and the observations were communicated through a written report to the biology staff involved.  Participatory action learning training sessions with teaching team members  Reflective group discussions with teaching team members: staff perception of the experience were collected through staff meetings following every ALC  Survey evaluating student experience of the innovation: the student experience was evaluated through questionnaires in 2012 and 2013. Human research ethics approval was granted for the evaluations (HE12/214). The student evaluation results are expressed as mean percentage response to questions/statements in both years, and all figures or figure legends include sample sizes (n).  Comparison of student assessment results with previous iterations of the subject.

Data Analysis Qualitative data from observations, teaching team reflective group discussions, and surveys was collated and analysed to identify dominant themes and trends using Kotter’s (1996) [24] approach to leading change as the theoretical framework. Quantitative data from surveys and student results were examined using a Student’s t-test. The significance level was p < 0.05. Statistical procedures follow those outlined in Zar (1998) [25] with analyses performed using JMP statistical software (Version Pro 9, SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC). The following sections describe the process of initiating the needed changes to practice that shifted a focus from teaching to learning; how we successfully engaged time-

Leading Change from Teaching to Learning in Large Subjects

TABLE I

Data gathering methods embedded in Kotter’s change leadership framework

Theoretical framework; Kotter’s approach to change

Data gathering methods

A. Create a sense of urgency

Reflective group discussions with senior academics and teaching teams

B. Build support from influential people

Reflective group discussions with senior academics and teaching teams

C. Create a clear description of the goal

Participatory action learning workshops with teaching team members

D. Remove barriers to change where you can

Observing teaching and learning practice

E. Identify short-term successes along the way

Written ethnographic accounts of observations of teaching and learning practices

F. Build on progress to create more change

Comparison of student assessment results; Survey evaluating student experience of the innovation

poor, research-oriented academics to engage in this process and overcame budgetary restraints to achieve this result.

Framework for Change We have utilized a change strategy adapted from Kotter (1996) [24] as the basis for structuring the analysis of the challenges and opportunities faced by academics creating change in teaching (Table I). Kotter’s (1996) work is part of a vast array of popular and academic literature in the field of organizational management that addresses organizational change. Kotter’s approach had been employed by a previous, national, leadership development projects in science, Active Learning in University Science (ALIUS): Leading Change in Australian Science Teaching [26]. In this study we utilize a subset of the original steps to categorize and give structure to the sequence of our efforts to shift how our colleagues were teaching biochemistry by supporting adoption of a POGIL-like approach. We endeavoured to use the issues surrounding the biochemistry subject as an opportunity to develop inhouse capability for change management in the realm of university science teaching. The account from here attends to what we did, what impact it appeared to have on colleagues, what impacts the change in teaching had on students, learning and attainment and reflections on development of our own capabilities.

Create a Sense of Urgency Biochemistry is a large “service subject” (400 students) that many students view as marginal to their main learning. As a consequence, in recent years, there has been a marked dip in the summative examination result with a higher than usual 25% failure rate preventing many stu-

Fildes et al.

dents progressing through their degrees. It was important to raise awareness among our colleagues of the decreasing final marks as student results indicated they were not learning deeply and applying concepts well enough to pass the final exam. Discussion at examiners’ meetings meant that both chemistry and biology academic staff became aware of the issue. It was agreed that an innovation was required to reduce the bottle-neck occurring with a large number of students unable to progress suitably in their degree program without meeting the prerequisite of passing biochemistry. It required three separate meetings with senior academics in biology for staff to agree on the specific changes to teaching practice that would be most effective. There was little resistance to the innovative approaches when they were presented as cost neutral and work-load neutral.

Gain Support from Influential People We initially arranged a meeting with the Head of School of Biological Sciences, and the academics teaching other subjects in cell and molecular biology. We framed the problem for our colleagues as the decline in student performance over the past three years. Our approach to gain support from senior academic staff involved taking a “request” rather than a “demand” approach. Further, we found that it was important to be clear and concise with what we were trying to achieve. Repeatedly restating the problem was a way to keep the focus on the agreement that an innovation was required. The productive approach involved: an acknowledgment of academic time constraints and recognition that academic contribution to change teaching would increase workloads, at least initially, in an already very tight schedule. Providing assurance that support would be available throughout

91

Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education

Excerpt from the activity given to the students to complete before the ALC (Part A of the worksheet). FIG 1

the process, and that the whole teaching team were “innovating together” appeared to support staff understanding that the load would be shared. As a consequence of this approach, support to initiate the innovation was unanimous from traditionally, research-focussed, time poor, senior academics.

Create a Clear Description of a Goal Student Learning. POGIL focuses on the process side of learning, where knowledge is sought rather than information given [13] and involves searching for information and applying that knowledge to solve related problems. Through POGIL, the student is required to engage with problem solv-

92

ing activities, looking up information and sifting through for relevance, rather than passively regurgitating facts. In the biochemistry ALC, students were given activities to complete before the class (Fig. 1). These pre-activities were developed to prepare students for the worksheet to be completed as a group during the ALC (Fig. 2). Each group consisted of three members who used reference material brought by one group member, the allocated “technician.” A second group member, “the manager,” was responsible for time management and organization of the group work. The third group member acted as the “scribe” and was responsible for recording answers. A short quiz, which was completed at the end of the ALC by all students individually, was peer-

Leading Change from Teaching to Learning in Large Subjects

FIG 2

Excerpt from the group worksheet which the students completed during the ACL (Part B of the worksheet). [Color figure can be viewed in the online issue, which is available at wileyonlinelibrary.com.]

assessed as a form of instant feedback on their learning. In this way, the ALC involved collaborative group work activities along with peer assessment and allowed students to deepen their discipline knowledge, practice team work, and gain experience in judging the work of their peers.

Staff Learning. To implement our change successfully we recognized that staff required training in order to deeply engage colleagues in the change process itself [19]. A halfday training session was held to inform and educate senior academic staff and sessional teaching staff alike, on the innovation we aimed to introduce and why. During our training session we provided evidence to the biochemistry teaching team of low student engagement and motivation reflected in poor lecture attendance and small numbers of online (Echo 360) lecture viewings until exam week. It was argued that although information is more easily accessed than ever, through printed lecture notes and recordings, final results indicated that a surface—rather than deep— learning approach [8] was being adopted by many students. During the session we outlined evidence from the literature that provided support for the idea that a good way for

Fildes et al.

new concepts to be retained, and understood on any deep level, is to make the learner become active in their learning [27]. Staff discussed how deep learning might be achieved when students are motivated to take responsibility for their own learning. We demonstrated a requirement for more active learning by placing the teaching team in the position of the student. In the training session the staff worked through an activity nonrelated to their discipline area, like students would in an ALC (Fig. 3). They then completed another activity in a related area, chemistry, and underwent a peer marking exercise to see how commentary and feedback could be useful. The teaching team worked in groups, discussing and prioritizing, with the aim of developing real understanding rather than a simple recall. Casual-staff, as well as senior academics, were taught ways in which to promote active learning and how to organize the student groups to maximise interaction. By exposing the teaching staff to ALC exercises in training, we demonstrated the theory behind the practice. The staff left the session clearly understanding how the ALC would be structured and how to run it. Further, through completing exercises themselves, the staff

93

Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education

FIG 3

Excerpt from the activity not related to discipline area and completed by staff during the training session. [Color figure can be viewed in the online issue, which is available at wileyonlinelibrary.com.]

understood how students will have explored content through their own resources, derived their own concepts, and applied these to solve different problems.

94

“I expected to practice working with ALC as a tutor not as a student – so this really changed my perspective on the responsibilities of a tutor” (Sessional Demonstrator).

Leading Change from Teaching to Learning in Large Subjects

“I really enjoyed the opportunity to work with people from another school and share ideas on teaching with them” (Lecturer, Biochemistry) “Great interactions between all involved. Very enjoyable training session, keep it up!”(Sessional Demonstrator, Biochemistry) In summary, we focused on conveying the idea that active, deep learning would contribute to reducing the failure rate and poor study habits that had become increasingly evident. The result was staff understanding and collaboratively agreeing to a change.

Remove Barriers to Change Where You Can

FIG 4

Percent improvement in responses to identical questions on the final exam in 2011 before the ALC to 2012 when ALC was first introduced. (n 5 377; *statistically significant improvement p < 0.001). Question 1. (a) (i) Show the basic overall structure of glycerophospholipids and triacylglycerols highlighting the types of linkages involved (numbering of carbons not required) and polarity. (ii) State the primary functions of each of these lipid types? (b) Explain the difference between integral and peripheral membrane proteins. What compounds would you use to extract/solubilise each from the membrane? Question 2. (a) Draw the overall structure of a ribonucleotide showing the position of linkages on the pentose ring. Note: Detailed structure of the pyrimidine or purine base is not required, but indicate which N atom is responsible for attachment to the base. (b) Describe what is meant when two DNA strands are (i) complementary and (ii) antiparallel. Question 3. (a) Briefly describe four key differences in transcription and the formation of mature mRNA, between prokaryotes and eukaryotes. Question 4. Draw a dipeptide (indicate the side chains using -Rs) and its charge state at pH 7.0. Identify (i) the amino terminus, (ii) the carboxy terminus, and (iii) the bond(s) in the peptide backbone that has/have limited rotation. (iv) Briefly explain why the bond(s) you chose has/have limited rotation.

The above comment illustrates how the training provided the opportunity to experience the innovation before implementation and gain insight as to how their students may experience it. Another clear benefit was to have casual staff that had run similar sessions with students, attend the training. These staff members had been convinced of the benefits of the new approach and were available to informally discuss the process with inexperienced colleagues. The benefit of providing facilitated opportunities for academic staff, from different disciplines, and at different levels in the organization, to work together are illustrated in the following comments from participants.

Fildes et al.

Our proposal to implement ALC was well supported by colleagues, and supervisors of part-time staff. Therefore the initiative was not restricted by a lack of institutional cooperation. However, funding was a significant structural barrier. We needed to implement a change to teaching practice with no change to the teaching budget. In order to discover ways that this could be done, biology staff undertook teaching and learning practice observations of the chemistry classes that had adopted POGIL tutorials. Through these observations obstacles were identified that could interfere with affecting change in biology (namely space and budget) as well as ways in which barriers could be surmounted. Instead of strictly following the chemistry model, and employing tutors to run small groups, ALC were introduced without tutorial-sized classes due to budget and space constraints. Before the introduction of ALC, Biol213 consisted of eight wet laboratory classes (practical) and three dry laboratory classes that revised the practical classes. The classes were held in the laboratory (80 students) with one academic supervising and three demonstrators helping to guide and direct students with their group work. The three, revision, dry laboratory classes were removed from the timetable and were replaced with ALC covering the theoretical content delivered in lectures. This change was based on the evidence from final exam results, which indicated that the theory was more challenging to students than the practical element. In this way our desired change could be seen as cost neutral, thereby removing a significant barrier to adoption. Another barrier identified was the common concern from academics that workload would be increased. We removed this barrier by alleviating fears at the outset (workload was not increased, simply changed) and keeping the focus on the previously mentioned Kotter’s step C.

Identify Short-Term Successes on the Way to the Overall Goal Short-term success was demonstrated by holding short informal meetings with supervising academics and demonstrators following each ALC. These meetings contributed to sessional staff feeling valued, and academic staff feeling supported and part of a team, therefore their own engagement in the innovation was improved. Demonstrators were asked

95

Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education in judging the work of their peers. The instant feedback was a further opportunity to identify highly visible, short-term success. For example, students admitted to being coerced into reading the textbook for the first time, as they felt a need to prepare for the ALC and the quiz that followed. It could be argued that the high levels of interaction between the students themselves as they worked together in the ALC may have helped to bring down barriers between staff and students. This, together with the assessed quiz held at the end of the session, may have contributed to creating a sense of urgency that kept students motivated and on task. FIG 5

Responses to student evaluation statements on the ALC distributed in 2012 and 2013 (n 5 593; Statement 1 5 My knowledge of biochemistry was improved by undertaking the ALC in Biol213; Statement 2 5 Completion of the ALC activities improved my study skills in Biol213). Error bars represent the standard deviation between evaluations in 2012 and 2013. Questionnaire response rate was 82 to 93% (356/382-254/309) over the 2 years.

for feedback on the worksheets based on their observations of, and interactions with, students. Employing this approach, we could identify short-term successes with students. The demonstrators confirmed that in the ALC, there are numerous opportunities for the students to interact with staff, and groups were very proactive in their engagement with the demonstrators. This heightened level of student interaction proved to be a highly visible, short-term success. Written ethnographic accounts of observations of teaching and learning practices by a nonscientist, academic-developer, were shared during the feedback sessions following each ALC. A high level of student interaction was a key feature of her observations and one of the successful aspects of our innovation. Specifically, students seemed to work together systematically, rather than simply socializing. Student conversations were most often focussed entirely on the task at hand. These views were confirmed in the academic developer’s ethnographic notes from an observation of a bio-chemistry ALC: “a highly interactive learning environment. . .. I would predict that the process will produce an improvement in success and grades in the subject. Janice one of the demonstrators commented that they are more willing to ask questions of the demonstrators compared to when they work individually” (observation by Academic Developer) This observed willingness to seek assistance from the laboratory demonstrators was also noted by staff in our feedback sessions. The short quiz completed at the end of the ALC involved peer assessment which allowed students to gain experience

96

Build on Progress to Create more Change This innovation was evaluated to determine whether these teaching activities and assessment tasks had been effective in improving student motivation and engagement. Final exam performance was compared between 2011, before the introduction of ALC, and 2012 when ALC was first introduced. The student groups between years were academically matched based on final exam results from the prerequisite first year biology subject that all students successfully complete in order to enrol in Biol213. The Biol213 exam questions were short-answer, written response, questions with multiple parts (Fig. 4). Performance improved significantly in 2012 with student responses on three of the four identical questions that were compared (Fig. 4; p < 0.001). These results provided evidence that the innovation was successful in terms of improving student performance therefore ALC has been established as a crucial component of our curriculum. Student perception of the action learning class was evaluated through questionnaires distributed in class at the end of the session in 2012 after the first iteration and then again in 2013 when the ACL had been implemented for the second year. There was no difference in student responses and staff attitudes were equally positive between years. There were changes to the academic teaching team in 2013, however due to the successful implementation of ACL during 2012 there was no requirement in 2013 to adhere to Kotter’s steps A (Create a Sense of Urgency) and B (Gain Support from Influential People). Following Kotter’s steps C through to F however, was an invaluable framework for change during both years. The results of student evaluations indicated that over 70% of the biochemistry students felt their knowledge of biochemistry was improved by ALC and that the discussion of theoretical concepts with fellow students was an effective way to learn (Fig. 5). These results have also been used as evidence for the success of the innovation to convince colleagues that the student benefit from this change outweighs the cost in terms of time and effort. Progress was clearly evident in teaching observations and written ethnographic reports then fortified by the positive results from the student evaluations and improvement in final exam results. Accordingly, the argument, that creating a platform for student discussion and active learning

Leading Change from Teaching to Learning in Large Subjects

is a positive change to teaching practice was underpinned by immediate evidence, as well as evidence from the literature. We were then able to use the success of the innovation as a vehicle to create more change and introduce similar sessions in other large subjects that no longer run small group tutorials.

Discussion Innovating and improving curricula is always difficult and instigating change in large “service subjects” is particularly challenging. Despite being faced with financial barriers and logistical difficulties typically associated with these “service subjects,” through the transfer of knowledge from one science discipline to another, we were able to lead a positive change in teaching and learning practice. Overall, academics and sessional staff from the School of Biology agreed that adopting the ALC approach to learning cultivated more diligence in students by creating a highly interactive learning environment where the main focus of the student’s attention was with their peers and their discipline-based materials. Reflective feedback from staff, combined with positive student feedback, provide evidence that our approach was successful. Our findings concur with those of Marlow et al. (2010) and Benjamin (2000) [28, 29] who argued that curriculum change to improve student learning can best be achieved through collaboration within teaching teams, clearly defined goals and a common focus on learning outcomes. The results of our study, together with evidence in the literature suggest that to change dominant modes of delivery within institutions and introduce innovations to improve student engagement, and learning, are more likely to be achieved when based on collaborative and reflective practice among teams of academics [30]. As outlined by Benjamin (2000), [29] key aspects to collaborative practices include sharing new ideas and critiquing in order to improve them [31, 32], however, this alone will not result in positively influencing learning outcomes. A collaborative approach was embedded in our practice throughout our innovation through the staff training and feedback sessions. However, we would argue, following Benjamin (2000), that this alone was not what resulted in the successful outcome. It should be noted that, just as importantly, we kept the desired learning outcome in focus when reflecting and reviewing the innovation with colleagues. For this purpose Kotter’s steps and participatory action research were invaluable as our basis for a framework on which to construct and plan the change process with academic colleagues. Despite the evident benefit of reflection on teaching practice, and although scholars routinely participate in peer review and critical feedback in their chosen disciplines, such collaborative reflection among academics are slow to take hold in university teaching [2, 29, 33]. By holding a staff training session and informing colleagues of the literature in learning and teaching we managed to deeply

Fildes et al.

engage the teaching team in the change process. The findings presented here provide further evidence of the value of reflection and review of teaching practice among academic teams. By providing a framework adapted from change management principles successfully implemented in a variety of settings, our study will contribute to providing the impetus and evidence needed across the university sector to justify and then implement similar changes.

The Framework for Change Convincing colleagues to reflect on rising failure rates and their causes, was a crucial component of our success in leading change. This approached aligned with Kotter’s steps A through to C: Create a Sense of Urgency; Gain Support from Influential People; and Create a Clear Description of a Goal. By bringing the problem to the attention of the teaching staff we managed to create the impetus to collaborate as a team to address it. Our results are supported in the literature where evidence suggests that improvements in learning outcomes are more likely to be achieved when academics are able to evaluate their practice as part of a team [19, 34]. A common barrier to change (Kotter’s step D: Remove Barriers to Change Where You Can) that we encountered was a fear of increased workload. Benjamin (2000) argued that to positively influence learning outcomes, it is essential to address intention. That is, if the teaching team is focussed on sharing workload, they will be unlikely to enable a change in practice. To avoid this, our primary goal, to promote deeper student learning of theoretical concepts, was always kept to the forefront of the teaching agenda and while workload was always considered it was never allowed to be a major focus of the innovation. The goal of sharing the workload to achieve our agreed aims became secondary and consequently with a well-defined aim in common, it was easier to keep on track to achieving change. Participatory action research (PAR) in our SaMnet project was about learning from one-self as well as one another. A collaborative team-based approach was central to enabling academics to design, try, and evaluate the new teaching and learning practices. “The most positive aspect was feeling like a supported member of a teaching team, continually exchanging ideas and developing strategies. I would never have attempted this innovation in such a large subject, but with guidance and support from fellow academics, the result was very successful, and I would certainly utilize a similar protocol in other subjects.” (Associate Professor, Biochemistry) These comments from a senior academic illustrate the value of PAR applied to situated, practiced-based teaching development, in which teaching teams work together, to enhance student engagement and learning. To be

97

Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education successful, the change process needed to be collaborative with mutual respect for all perspectives [35]. Eliciting open feedback from part-time, sessional and permanent academic staff—including criticism—enabled us to identify the mistakes in our teaching approach and our change management strategy. As is argued by Zuber-Skerritt (2002) [35], it was from these observations that we learnt most. Holding reflective feedback sessions following ALC provided valuable insight on which to make continual quality improvements, in line with the general aims of the SaMnet action learning project and PAR. Problem solving as a team and remaining solution oriented when listening to critical viewpoints ensured that the potential for student learning during the ACL, and staff development following the ACL was optimised. “I had my doubts that it would work on such a large scale, but it did. Importantly, it provided an opportunity for discussion of lecture content that otherwise wouldn’t happen for the majority of students. I’ve been aware for some time that this important aspect of learning is often missing in large classes. I now have the confidence and know-how to include similar group workshops in other subjects” (Lecturer Biochemistry) The above comment provides evidence that not only was our innovation successful for the student learning in the cohort in biochemistry, it also provided the foundation to translate this innovation to other subjects aligning with Kotter’s step E: Build on Progress to Create More Change. By remaining focussed on a well-defined learning outcome, in combination with adopting a reflective, collegial approach, the team grew to appreciate that the result achieved was worth the effort. The experience emphasised how much could be achieved when working collaboratively to do so. In conclusion, a teaching culture that recognizes the benefits of active learning enables the development of an environment by academics that focuses on student learning rather than teaching alone [30, 36, 37]. We were able to lead change and foster a shift in culture based on a combination of feedback, review, and cooperation, while remaining focussed on the desired learning outcomes at all times throughout the process. This combination of elements, as we have discussed above, align well with the steps for driving change delineated by Kotter. By employing change management strategies as outlined in this article, we have fostered the beginnings of a shift in culture and believe that this approach will be of benefit to many academic departments facing similar challenges.

References [1] Gidley, J.M., Hampson, G.P., Wheeler, L. and E. Bereded-Samuel. (2010) From access to success an integrated approach to quality higher education informed by social inclusion theory and practice. High. Educ. Policy 23, 123–147.

98

[2] Eberlein, T., Kampmeier, J., Minderhout, V., Moog, R.S., Platt, T., Varma-Nelson, P. and H.B. White. (2008) Pedagogies of engagement in science: A comparison of PBL, POGIL, and PLTL. Biochem. Mol. Biol. Educ. 36, 262–273. [3] Hattie, J. (2012) Visible Learning for Teachers: Maximising Impact on Learning, Routledge, London. [4] Bodner, G. (1986) Constructivism: A theory of knowledge. J. Chem. Educ. 63, 873–878. [5] Spencer, J. N. (1999) New directions in teaching chemistry: A philosophical and pedagogical basis. J. Chem. Educ. 76, 566–569. [6] Sweller, J. (1994) Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design. Learn. Instruct. 4, 295–312. [7] Shank, R. C. and C. Cleary. (1995) Engines for Education, Lawrence Erlbaum, USA. [8] Brown, G. and M. Atkins. (1988) Effective Teaching in Higher Education, Routledge, London. [9] Laws, P.W. (1991) Calculus-based physics without lectures. Phys. Today 44, 24–31. [10] Handelsman, J., Ebert-May, D., Beichner, R., Bruns, P., Chang, A., DeHaan, R., Gentile, J., Lauffer, S., Stewart, J., Tilghman, S. M. and W.B. Wood. (2004) Scientific teaching. Science 304, 521–522. [11] Udovic, D., Morris, D., Dickman, A., Postlethwait, J., and P. Wetherwax. (2002) Workshop biology: Demonstrating the effectiveness of active learning in an introductory biology course. BioScience 52, 272–281. [12] Hein, S.M. (2012) Positive impacts using POGIL in organic chemistry. J. Chem. Educ. 89, 860–864. [13] Minderhout, V. and J. Loertscher. (2007) Lecture-free biochemistry. Biochem. Mol. Biol. Educ. 35, 172–180. [14] Lewis, J. E. and Lewis, S. E. (2005) Departing from lectures: An evaluation of a peer-led guided inquiry alternative. J. Chem. Educ. 82, 135–139. [15] Hanson, D. and Wolfskill, T. (2000)Process workshops—A new model for instruction. J. Chem. Educ. Technol. Res. Teach. Dev. 89, 860–864. [16] Lombardi, M. (2007) Authentic Learning for the 21st Century. Educause Learning Initiative Paper 1. Washington DC, USA. [17] Anderson, W.L., S.M. Mitchell, and M.P. Osgood. (2005) Comparison of student performance in cooperative learning and traditional lecturebased biochemistry classes. Biochem. Mol. Biol. Educ. 33, 387–393. [18] Spencer, J. A. and Jordan, R. K. (1999) Learner centred approaches in medical education. Br. Med. J. 318, 1280. [19] Axelrod, R. H. (2001) Terms of engagement: Changing the way we change organizations. J. Qual. Participation 21, 22–27. [20] Kindon, S., Pain, R. and Kesby, M., Eds. (2007) Participatory Action Research Approaches and Methods: Connecting People, Participation and Place, Routledge, Oxon. [21] Reason, P. and Bradbury, H., Eds. (2001) Handbook of Action Research: Participative Inquiry and Practice, Sage Publications, London. [22] Kemmis, S. and McTaggart, R., in Participatory action research, N. Denzin and Y. Lincoln, Eds. (2001) Handbook of Qualitative Research, Sage, Thousand Oaks, pp. 567–605. [23] Jones, S., Lefoe, G., Harvey, M. and K. Ryland. (2012) Distributed leadership: A collaborative framework for academics, executives and professionals in higher education. J. High. Educ. Policy Manag. 34, 67–78. [24] Kotter, J.P. (1996) Leading Change, Harvard Business Review Press, USA. [25] Zar, J. H. (2010) Biostatistical Analysis, 5th ed., Pearson, New York. [26] Bedgood, D.R., Bridgeman, A., Lim, K., Morris, G., Yates, B., Gardiner, M., Pyke, S., Buntine, M., Mocerino, M. and M. Zadnik. in ALIUS: Active Learning In University Science: Leading Change in Australian Science Teaching (2009) Uniserve Science, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia, pp. 186. [27] Hurney, C. A. (2012) Learner-centered teaching in non majors introductory biology: The impact of giving sudent choices. J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. 13, 133–141.

Leading Change from Teaching to Learning in Large Subjects

[28] Marlow, A., Spratt, C., and Reilly, A. (2008) Collaborative action learning: A professional development model for educational innovation in nursing. Nurse Educ. Pract. 8, 184–189. [29] Benjamin, J. (2000) The scholarship of teaching in teams,: What does it look like in practice? High. Educ. Res. Dev. 19, 191–204. [30] Ramsden, P. (2003) Learning to Teach in Higher Education, 2nd ed., Routledge, London. [31] Senge, P.(1990) The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization, Random House, Sydney. [32] Schrage, M. (1995) No More Teams! Mastering the Dynamics of Creative Collaoration, Doubleday, New York.

Fildes et al.

[33] Shulman, L. and Hutchings, P., Eds. (1995) Starting the Conversation. From Idea to Prototype: The Peer Review of Teaching, American Association for Higher Education, Washington DC. [34] Argyris, C. (1993) Knowledge for Action: A Guide to Overcoming Barriers to Organizational Change, Jossey Bass, San Francisco. [35] Zuber-Skerritt, O. (2002) The concept of action learning. Learn. Org. 9, 114–124. [36] Biggs, J. (1999) What the student does: Teaching for enhanced learning. High. Educ. Res. Dev. 18, 57–75. [37] Biggs, J. B. (2003) Teaching for Quality Learning at University, 2nd ed., Open University Press, Buckingham.

99

Leading the way: changing the focus from teaching to learning in large subjects with limited budgets.

To lead positive change in the teaching practice of teams that service large numbers of diverse students from multiple degree programs provides many c...
887KB Sizes 3 Downloads 5 Views