The Science Prize for Inquiry-Based Instruction - ACS Publications

Chapter 11

Downloaded by UNIV OF CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO on December 12, 2016 | http://pubs.acs.org Publication Date (Web): November 22, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1231.ch011

The Science Prize for Inquiry-Based Instruction Melissa McCartney*,1 and Bruce Alberts2 1AAAS/Science, 2University

1200 New York Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20005 of California, San Francisco, UCSF MC 2200, Genentech Hall N312C, 600-16th Street, San Francisco, CA 94158 *E-mail: [email protected]

Inquiry-based classes differ from traditional lectures that focus on transmitting facts and principles derived from what scientists have discovered and instead focus on activating students’ natural curiosity in exploring how the world works. Consider the laboratory work that traditionally accompanies an introductory college science course. Most scientists recall these laboratories as tedious “cookbook labs,” where neither any real understanding of the nature of science nor experience in generating and evaluating scientific evidence and explanations was gained. Many college laboratory exercises remain deficient in precisely these ways today. The Science Prize for Inquiry-Based Instruction was created, with support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, to recognize and promote lessons in which students become invested in exploring questions through activities that are at least partially of their own design. In addition to honoring the winning modules, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) has disseminated them as widely as possible. Each winner has written an essay for Science magazine with complete details on how others can implement their inquiry-based activity, and the entire collection of articles has been made available on an open-access education website at http://portal.scienceintheclassroom.org/category/ibi-prize.

© 2016 American Chemical Society Murray et al.; The Power and Promise of Early Research ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.


Science and engineering education are being redefined in ways that encourage all students to actively experience “science as inquiry” and “engineering as design under constraint.” And, for the first time, thanks to the Internet, it is possible for advanced high school and undergraduate students to work with some of the same data and tools as practicing scientists and engineers. How can science and engineering education capitalize on these new and unprecedented opportunities? One approach led to the Science Prize for Inquiry-Based Instruction (IBI), a prize established to encourage innovation and excellence in education by recognizing outstanding, inquiry-based science and design-based engineering education modules. In this form of active learning, the instructor provides a question or a challenge, plus a general set of procedures that can be used to answer it. The students then produce an explanation or answer that is based on the evidence that they collect from appropriate resource materials or experiments that are, at least in part, of the students’ own design. Competitions for the IBI prize were held in 2012 and 2013. The prize required that students taught with the module become invested in exploration. Nominations were requested for any inquiry-based or design-based module that had been associated with an introductory level college course in science or engineering (2012 contest), or with either that or an advanced high school course (2013 contest). Winners were selected by the editors of Science with the assistance of a judging panel composed of teachers and researchers in relevant science and engineering fields. The individuals responsible for the development of each winning resource were invited to write a short, two-page essay describing the material for publication in Science. In addition, the complete instructions for implementation were included as Supplementary Online Material. The announced Eligibility Rules, produced with input from an advisory board of science education experts, were as follows: 1.

2.

3. 4.

5.

The module must be associated with an advanced high school or introductory college science or engineering course without unusual prerequisites; the module can either be associated with a lecture course, a laboratory course, or one that combines lecture and laboratory. The course can be targeted to science or engineering majors, nonmajors, or both. We define a module as a coherent unit that requires between 8 and 50 hours of student work, including in-class activities and work done outside of class. It must be freestanding, requiring only the background that is normally provided in such a course. The material must be in English or include an English translation. The cost of running the module must be relatively low, with the cost of expendables being no more than $100/student, not including permanent equipment. Priority will be given to modules requiring only modest resources. The module must have been used with groups of at least 10 students, and must have been in place for at least two cycles so as to provide evidence for feasibility and effectiveness. 196 Murray et al.; The Power and Promise of Early Research ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.

6.

Scalability is an important criterion. Applicants must explain how the module can be scaled to a large number of students.


The Application Process Potential winners were asked to fill out a comprehensive application form. First, we asked for a general description of the laboratory module. Questions then became more detailed in an effort to easily separate modules that truly were inquiry-based from those of the more traditional “cookbook” style. Specifically, we asked applicants to explain how student inquiry is the primary focus of the module. For example, to what extent does a student create his or her scientific question and then design and implement the means to answer it? Can the results that students obtain lead to new findings rather than known results? Are smaller groups of students working on specific aspects of a larger research problem and sharing data or is each group of students working independently to address a specific research question? The scalability of winning modules was an important factor for us to consider. We were anticipating applications from smaller institutions where it may be easier to provide the teacher-student ratio, laboratory space, and budget often needed for hands-on learning. We were hoping to then challenge these applicants to think about how to adapt their modules to fit into a larger, lecture hall style of environment. To this end, we asked applicants: • • • • •

How many students have participated in the module during each cycle? What is the total annual cost per student in supplies and other expendables? Please list the specialized equipment that is needed and the cost per student, both for an initial cycle and subsequently. How was the development of this module funded and supported? What evidence is there that this module is transportable? Are there other institutions using the module or other evidence that it can be readily disseminated elsewhere to good advantage?

Applicants were also asked to provide evidence that meaningful learning was taking place through use of the module. We anticipated that newer modules in early stages of development might not have extensive data on this point, but as long as the applicants could show that an appropriate assessment plan was in place, we considered them to be eligible for the prize. Here are those questions: • • • •

How long has the module been taught at your institution? How many student hours were required both in and out of class? What are the learning goals for the laboratory module? What kinds of assessments have been used to evaluate the effectiveness of this module in attaining learning goals? Both qualitative/subjective measures and quantitative measures of student performance are relevant. 197 Murray et al.; The Power and Promise of Early Research ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.

•


•

If the results from student projects or a description of the project have been published, please provide the appropriate citation(s). Please submit the results of three students’ (or three groups of students’) actual coursework.

During the planning process for this prize, our advisers suggested that we require a department chair or dean to provide a statement describing the impact of the module on the course that it is connected to, as well as how the module has influenced introductory science teaching practices in the department. In addition, how does this module fit into the school’s vision for education and how will the administration help to sustain the effort? We included these requirements knowing that such a letter was unlikely to help our judging process; however, we recognized that it would serve as an important way for applicants to make their department chair or dean aware that their work in science education was at the level of being appropriate for consideration by Science.

Applicants The IBI prize competition remained open for applications for 2 months after the announcement of the prize was made in a Science editorial (1, 2). Science editors and AAAS colleagues also advertised the prize to all of our relevant education networks. Both external nominations and self-nominations were allowed. For the 2012 IBI prize, we received a total of 73 entries, spanning all disciplines of science, including astronomy, biology, chemistry, physics, engineering, and behavioral and social sciences. We received international entries from India, China, the Netherlands, and Canada. We received three entries from community colleges; however, the majority of applicants came from small liberal arts colleges. We received entries from applicants at all levels of careers (high school teachers, graduate students, community college faculty, and adjunct, pre-tenure, and tenured university faculty). We did not retain the data needed to be able to report here how the modules in these applications were funded. For the 2013 IBI prize, the total number of entries dropped to 30. It is important to note that some of the essays describing winning modules had been published by this time, setting a high standard that likely reduced the number of submissions. Thus, the 2013 applications were generally much more targeted to the eligibility requirements than were the 2012 applications. Despite the drop in numbers, the demographics of the 2013 entries mirrored those of 2012, except that modules taught in high school had become newly eligible.

Judging Process All IBI entries were reviewed by a judging panel composed of teachers and researchers in the relevant science fields. At the same time that we produced a call for entries, we also made a call for judges. We were overwhelmed with the number of qualified experts who volunteered to judge, with 52 volunteers for the 198 Murray et al.; The Power and Promise of Early Research ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.

2012 prize and 38 volunteers for the 2013 prize. To us, this indicated a sincere interest in the field of education for supporting more prizes of this type. Judges were provided with a rubric, developed by Science editors with input from science education experts, to complete for each entry. Judges were asked to comment on the following questions: •


• • • • • • •

•

Is this module appropriate for an introductory college science course without unusual prerequisites? Is this module a coherent unit that requires between 8 and 50 hours of student work? Is this module freestanding (i.e., can it be taught independently of the modules that precede it in the course)? Can the module truly be run for the cost the applicants provide? Do you feel that this module is truly scalable? As a teacher, would you use this module? Why or why not? If you were a student, would you feel that this module taught you science through the process of actually doing science? Why or why not? If a two-page description of this module were published in Science as an IBI contest winner, what educational benefits would it provide to support science education? What additional information, beyond what you have seen, would need to be added to the Supplemental Online Material?

Each entry was seen by at least four judges, with two being scientists in the relevant field and two being experts in teaching and learning. Final recommendations from the judges were reviewed by Science editors and final winners were selected.

Publication in Science Winning applicants were invited to write a two-page essay in Science describing their module, with feedback from Science editors. The accompanying Supplemental Online Material, reviewed before publication by a member of the judging panel, provided complete instructions on how to implement the module. Essays were published in the final Science issue of each month throughout 2012 and 2013. On two occasions we published two similar modules as winners in the same issue, bringing the total number of published essays to 26. All essays are freely available without a subscription to Science, and they are archived here: http://portal.scienceintheclassroom.org/category/ibi-prize

Feedback Three months after publication of their essay, we followed up with each of the winners. There was no requirement to return feedback and as such we had a 50% response rate (13 of 26). The responses to our questions were overwhelmingly 199 Murray et al.; The Power and Promise of Early Research ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.

positive, which may be the result of feedback being voluntary. We asked winners to respond to the following two questions: • •

Has the IBI prize promoted any new contacts or collaborations related to your module? Has the IBI prize enhanced recognition of your module at your institution or elsewhere?


The majority of responses fit into the following three categories:

1.

The IBI prize led to new collaborations or opportunities: •

•

•

•

•

• •

•

In the approximately 6 weeks since my essay was published, I have been approached about the possibility of a book contract, serving as a consultant on a National Science Foundation–funded project, a potential collaboration related to developing materials for a leading textbook in my field, and by website managers organizing related educational modules. I have also received reprint requests from around the world, and queries about the learning module from throughout the country. This award had a positive impact on recognition of our project by administrators and other educators at our school and elsewhere, primarily because of the prestige associated with Science magazine and AAAS. The essay resulted in increased downloads of our module from schools worldwide. My university very much appreciated the positive publicity for the unit. A reporter who works at the university wrote a nice feature article about it in the campus-wide newsletter and I received warm congratulations from the dean of the College of Arts and Sciences. A brief description of the prize was also included in the alumni magazine. I was able to connect the prize publication with the 10th anniversary of our center that promotes inquiry-based instruction in public schools throughout the state, which resulted in an expanded audience for both. Plus lots of features on our website and local news articles. We started two new collaborations with universities in Africa as a result—this was the first time they had developed courses to engage students in community-based research. This was extremely useful for collaborations. I have received two postdoctoral offers from PI’s who read the article. I set up a long- term collaboration with the Smithsonian where we are attempting to use my curriculum as the new outreach model for Smithsonian projects. The prize itself has not directly created changes, but those involved in the project now understand how very special it is. 200

Murray et al.; The Power and Promise of Early Research ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.

•


•

2.

I have been approached by science educators in Chicago who are considering adapting the curriculum for instruction in Chicago schools. Although this may not have been directly as a result of the IBI prize, receiving that acknowledgement was probably an important endorsement for the project. The Science article directed a lot of traffic to our website, and I was contacted by a number of different people who are working in similar areas. I am currently in negotiation with Image Insight for specific changes to GammaPix, their smartphone app that measures gamma radiation, to enable its use as a classroom tool. I also have been invited to be a member of the RIO5 working group of oceanographers that formed to study ocean radioactivity after the Fukushima disaster. My role will be to advise their educational efforts and possibly to develop programs if I can get funding for such a project.

The IBI prize was influential in departmental status and promotion requests: •

•

•

•

•

•

•

This award was instrumental in my case for tenure. As the vice chancellor of academic affairs said in her announcement of my tenure and promotion, “Dr. X was recognized recently as one of 12 recipients of the prestigious AAAS Science Prize for InquiryBased Instruction; as one of the external reviewers commented, this is ‘a most impressive accomplishment, particularly for a junior faculty member.’” The external reviewers in my tenure case described me as an “emerging leader” in the field of college-level biology education. I have no doubt that part of that opinion is based on receiving this prize. I can attest that this publication has elevated my status within the department—I have received significant recognition for the publication. It was great to get recognized for a project that I’d worked so hard on for so long. I knew it was good, and am glad that others know more about it. I think folks in my department have a newfound appreciation for the activity. Also, they have adopted some other activities in their own classes, elevating the playing field for all. It was very helpful in encouraging our institution to continue funding a project that combined research and education for undergraduates. I’ve always been a great educator, but only I and some of my students knew this until I received the IBI prize. Now, faculty and administration in my institution recognize this as well. The IBI prize changed my standing at my institution. Before my article was published, the science faculty regarded me as a 201



•

•

•

•

3.

lightweight because I wasn’t working on science, but “just” on teaching, which is not as important in their eyes. The rest of the campus was marginally aware, at best, of my work. Since the article in Science, the science faculty affords me a little more respect and attention. They invited me to give a colloquium on my project, which is a first! Recognition for this work validated our efforts! Having a prestigious, external pat on the back from one of the world’s premier scientific journals was awesome. It also meant a lot to me personally. Sometimes in the past, my colleagues have suggested I shouldn’t work so hard on education issues. This helped balance their skepticism about the value of this work. Personally, the IBI prize was the most prestigious award I have received so far. I feel like it provided me with an air of legitimacy to aid in my future academic career. This is difficult to measure, but I would say that I’m now looked on by faculty and staff as someone who has much to offer by way of educational expertise. My opinion matters and I’m sought out for teaching advice. This was not the case before the IBI prize. Winning the IBI prize was important for me. I really appreciated the recognition of my work and it has encouraged me to keep up the effort. In the normal day-to-day grind I don’t get a lot of positive recognition except from students. The IBI prize was something that my administrators and my peers in the physics education research community could point to as evidence that what I’m doing matters.

The IBI prize led to strengthened/renewed interest in promoting inquiry-based learning within their scientific field and beyond: •

•

Paradoxically, it is unusual for scientists to look at science education research as a scientific endeavor. Recognition of the field from AAAS is an incredibly influential way to encourage scientists across the board to consider research-based education techniques. Thus, the IBI prize and the Education Forum are exceedingly important contributions because of their visibility and reach. I believe that elevating the status of programs that promote inquiry-based learning is a worthwhile endeavor and highly beneficial to science in general. If we want to retain the best students, we must, as scientists, be effective educators. The disparity between recognition for classroom effort relative to research publications has a long history, and it is time to break that cycle. Science magazine should be proud to be a leader in highlighting the importance of innovative teaching in the retention of our most promising students. 202



•

•

For the flagship magazine of science in the United States, Science, to regularly devote some of its very competitive pages to science education, and to offer a prize for innovation in science education, is a way to emphasize to its readers—fellow scientists, and probably some educated laypersons and politicians—that science education is vital to the future of science. It has also been personally gratifying to get recognition for the hard work and creativity that it takes to create a course that challenges and also excites students about research. There are few awards that acknowledge the efforts of people in my profession (science education outreach). Receiving the IBI prize was personally very gratifying and validated many years of hard work through two grant-funded projects.

Next Steps In the years since the IBI prize was awarded, increasing evidence has accrued that this type of college science education increases student learning across a wide variety of science disciplines (3). In addition, research reveals that students who are actively engaged in introductory science courses have increased retention rates and success as science majors (4, 5). Furthermore, it is only natural to expect science teachers at lower levels to teach using the ineffective way that they themselves have been taught … the lecture in which students are passive observers. Thus, it is abundantly clear that, unless we redefine what is meant by “science education” at the college level, we can never succeed in broadly implementing the inquiry-based science education that is strongly recommended for today’s K-12 classrooms. The Science Prize for Inquiry-Based Instruction ran for only 2 years. Ideally, prizes such as this should be awarded on a regular basis, biannually if not annually. However, the precise requirements may need to be tweaked to keep up with advances in science education. As one example, might a new type of science education prize reward the successful large-scale implementation of effective inquiry modules, rather than rewarding their initial development? The possible need for such a prize is reinforced by feedback that we received from two of our winners: •

I received considerable recognition for winning the prize, but very few, if any, people seem to have adopted the module because of the article. This is a persistent problem in educational development—how do you get people to adopt new ideas? Clearly, having the IBI in a high-impact and widely read journal like Science increases the status of the development of innovative educational tools. I’d be interested to know how much it has influenced the adoption of these tools. I’ve read many of the IBI articles with interest. While I’ve taken much encouragement and some inspiration, I haven’t used any of them directly. So, I am just as guilty as the readers of my article. 203 Murray et al.; The Power and Promise of Early Research ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.


•

I don’t know if I’m the only one with this issue, but if I’m not, I would be interested to talk with you and any other interested folks about this issue—what is the best way to help people adopt innovative educational materials? Is it institutional barriers to change? Difficulty in adapting the materials to particular courses? The quality of the materials?

The issues discussed in this chapter are critical. One only needs to scan the daily news to recognize the importance of creating more rational, science-based societies in every nation. Democracies cannot flourish without both the tolerance and respect for evidence that are inherent to scientific habits of mind. As forcefully written more than a century ago: “That the great majority of those who leave school should have some idea of the kind of evidence required to substantiate given types of belief does not seem unreasonable. Nor is it absurd to expect that they should go forth with a lively interest in the ways in which knowledge is improved and a marked distaste for all conclusions reached in disharmony with the methods of scientific inquiry. ... One of the only two articles that remain in my creed of life is that the future of our civilization depends upon the widening spread and deepening hold of the scientific habit of mind; and that the problem of problems in our education is therefore to discover how to mature and make effective this scientific habit” (6). Continuing to recognize scientists who are doing outstanding parallel work in education is a powerful way to bring more recognition and prestige to their endeavors. The IBI prize, awarded by a major scientific society, can serve as a model for a relatively cost-efficient way to promote these science education achievements to a wide audience. A relatively modest philanthropic gift to the AAAS would likely allow a Science Education Prize series to be continued for many years to come. We conclude that continuing to award prestigious science education prizes to recognize the leaders in this endeavor, so important to humanity, can only be beneficial to the future of science and thereby to the future of our world.

Acknowledgments Science would like to thank the Howard Hughes Medical Institute for their generous support of the Inquiry-Based Instruction prize.

References 1. 2. 3.

Alberts, B. A New College Science Prize. Science 2011, 331, 10. Alberts, B. Teaching Real Science. Science 2012, 335, 380. Freeman, S.; Eddy, S.; McDonougha, M.; Smith, M. K.; Okoroafora, N.; Jordta, H.; Wenderoth, M. Active Learning Increases Student Performance in Science, Engineering, and Mathematics. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2014, 111, 8410–8415. 204 Murray et al.; The Power and Promise of Early Research ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.

4.

5.


6.

Smith, M. K.; Wood, W. B.; Adams, W. K.; Wieman, C.; Knight, J. K.; Guild, N.; Su, T. T. Why Peer Discussion Improves Student Performance on In-Class Concept Questions. Science 2009, 323, 122–124. Jessica Watkins, J.; Mazur, E. Retaining Students in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Majors. J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 2013, 42, 36–41. Dewey, J. Science as a Subject-matter and as a Method. Science 1910, 31, 121–127.

205 Murray et al.; The Power and Promise of Early Research ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.

The Science Prize for Inquiry-Based Instruction - ACS Publications

Recommend Documents