In the Classroom
Poster Sessions as a Learning Technique Mary E. Sisak Department of Chemistry, Slippery Rock University, Slippery Rock, PA 16057 Abstract While poster sessions have been used in some academic areas as an alternative to traditional teaching techniques, their use in chemistry has generally been limited to the presentation of results of undergraduate research projects at professional conferences. This paper describes the use of poster sessions as a teaching tool in a junior level biochemistry course. Students were assigned the task of investigating a disease of their choice and then preparing and presenting a poster describing the molecular origin of the disease. The posters were evaluated by faculty members from various disciplines. The grade from the poster was equivalent to an exam. This paper describes the logistics and outcome of this alternative teaching method. This approach provided a student-driven educational experience. It provided the students the opportunity to acquire and demonstrate expertise in a particular disease of their choice and to receive immediate feedback regarding their effort in a one-on -one fashion. It also provided and educational experience and fostered a spirit of cooperation among those in attendance. Keywords Teaching/Learning Theory/Practice Biochemistry Supplementary Materials No supplementary material available.
Full Text
Return to Table of Contents
Vol. 74 No. 9 September 1997 • Journal of Chemical Education
Abstract
In the Classroom
Poster Sessions as a Learning Technique Mary E. Sisak Department of Chemistry, Slippery Rock University, Slippery Rock, PA 16057 One of the most disturbing recent observations of my teaching career has been the lack of enthusiasm in students to rise to the challenge of learning difficult concepts. Many times I have felt like a salesperson trying to sell the idea of learning such concepts to reluctant student consumers. Reflecting on my own education, I had to admit that there were probably times when I demonstrated the same attitude. The single event that turned my attitude around more than any other was the day that I gave my first seminar. I was totally responsible for the outcome and I alone would have to take responsibility for its success or failure. I remembered having the idea that I was finally the expert in something and how that appealed to me. I look back on that day as one of the most significant events of my educational experience. I have often pondered how I could get my students to experience the idea that they were the experts. I firmly believe that this confidence should be based on actual expertise, not on “perceived knowledge”. That is, the goal of the experience was not to just make the students “feel good about themselves” but to demonstrate that the rewards of meeting a difficult challenge could be much more than merely getting a good grade. I thought the most likely class with which I could accomplish this was my biochemistry class. Its being a junior level course, I felt that the students had sufficient background knowledge and self discipline to succeed. It did, however, pose an additional challenge, as there were 20 students in the class. A discussion at a professional meeting with a biology professor from another university planted the seed of an idea for a possible solution. She mentioned that she had her students present poster sessions on their undergraduate research projects not only at conferences but at their own university as well (personal communication, Maureen Knabb, October 13, 1995). I was familiar with poster sessions, but my experience had been limited to using them as a means of presenting research data at professional meetings. Poster sessions have been used as a teaching tool in many areas, including psychology, geology, mathematics, and nursing (1–4). They offer many advantages over both traditional papers and student seminars. Compared to traditional papers, Baird et al. noted “that poster sessions were suitable for classes of all sizes, promote collaborative learning, encourage creativity and independent thought, develop research and communication skill, and ease the grading burden on instructors” (5). Chute et al. were more pragmatic, noting that posters were superior to traditional oral seminars because “We just couldn’t spend half the course listening to nervous undergraduates awkwardly drone on in the usual seminar fashion” (1). My goal of not only providing the students an opportunity to become experts in an area but to demonstrate their expertise to others precluded the use of a traditional paper. I felt that poster sessions offered several advantages over traditional seminars beyond the time restraints noted by Chute (1). First, this format allows students to demonstrate their expertise in a dialogue manner, which is inherently less threatening than living or dying by a single presentation. My experience with traditional undergraduate
seminars had been that the only feeling that students came away with was a sense of relief that it was over. Second, it allows students to get immediate feedback regarding their effort in a one-on-one fashion. Third, it gives students the opportunity to learn to present information in a format common to many professional meetings. Finally, it gives students the opportunity to experience how they will interact with colleagues after they leave academe; that is, via professional conversations. The next question I needed to tackle was the topic of the posters. The answer to this question came from my recent experience of auditing a biochemistry class at a medical school. In the laboratory portion of the course, we were provided with the laboratory test results from patients suffering from various metabolic disorders and we were asked to explain these results on a molecular level. To say that I enjoyed this course would be an understatement. It almost made me consider going to medical school. The approach I chose to try combined these two ideas. On the first day of class, the biochemistry students were told that they had to present a poster session at the conclusion of the semester. Initially, I told them that it had to be on a metabolic disorder. As the semester progressed and students presented ideas, I modified the topic to include other diseases. There were two reasons for this change. One was that some students had a particular interest in a specific disease (either a family member suffered from it or they hoped to work in that field). This guaranteed that the students would be enthusiastic. The second reason was that the students did not have the background to find a topic fitting the original description early enough in the semester. There were two stipulations that I insisted on. First was that the topic had to be current so that they could include recent journal articles. Second, and most important, they were required to explain the disorder on the molecular level. The posters were available for viewing in the biochemistry laboratory throughout the day of the presentation. The students were only required to be at their posters to answer questions during the evaluation period, which was approximately two hours. The students were aware that the posters would be evaluated by four faculty members, who included two members of the biology faculty, another chemistry faculty member, and myself. Each evaluator could assign points ranging from zero to five in five categories. These categories included presentation, depth of knowledge, currency, organization, and topic selection. Each student could earn up to 100 points for his or her poster session, which would be equivalent to an exam. Other faculty and students were invited to attend either by word of mouth or announcements in designated classes. Initially, the students were not thrilled with the idea. This is understandable to anyone who has done a literature search. I think some of the students were hoping for an eleventh-hour reprieve. The two most common difficulties students encountered were finding a suitable topic and not understanding the concept of a poster session. Students were encouraged to seek aid from both me and other faculty members, to discuss potential topics and obtain guid-
Vol. 74 No. 9 September 1997 • Journal of Chemical Education
1065
In the Classroom ance regarding the presentation of the posters. The results showed that the students had risen to the occasion. Selected topics included hypercholesterolemia, diabetes, breast cancer, Pompe’s disease, Wilson’s disease, and Tay-Sachs disease. It was clear from the quality of the posters and the students’ desire to discuss them with both evaluators and spectators that they had embraced their topics with enthusiasm. Many of the students showed a sense of confidence during and after the poster sessions that I had not previously seen in them or in any individuals from my earlier biochemistry classes. The poster sessions served to remind us all that grades are but one method of measuring success. The semester ended on an upbeat note because the posters gave the students the chance to recognize and utilize the information they had obtained throughout the semester. Many of the faculty were initially skeptical. One colleague admitted that he had some real doubts about the idea when I initially described it to him but added that he changed his mind after hearing the students’ responses. Overall, most fellow faculty members were supportive. I had no problem recruiting judges. Students reported that they received invaluable help from other faculty members in both the selection of a topic and the review of journal articles. The preparation and the actual poster sessions themselves fostered a spirit of cooperation within the sciences. Faculty members from chemistry, biology, and psychology attended the sessions. The faculty members who attended were extremely complimentary to both the students and the sessions. I believe that the key to this cooperation was that the focus was on the students’ mastery of the material. There are some modifications that I will incorporate in the future. Despite the fact that the sessions were conducted in two groups, it became clear that even trying to evaluate only nine or ten posters in the allotted time was difficult for the evaluators. In the future I will require that the students prepare a two- or three-minute overview of their posters to present to the evaluators. I will also recommend that the evaluators review the posters before the sessions. Two problems that I encountered involved the sources from which the students obtained their information. Some
1066
students obtained information from the Internet, while others obtained it from pharmaceutical companies that were actively researching a particular disease. In the future I will advise students to not only evaluate the information they obtain but evaluate the source of that information, to ensure that it is unbiased and true. I believe that it needs to be emphasized to students that information on the Internet is not refereed and that anybody can put information on it. To avoid this in the future, I will require that each student place a brief bibliography on his or her poster and submit a more detailed bibliography to me. Other individuals who have utilized poster sessions as a learning tool have incorporated additional ideas. These include making the poster sessions more formal by giving prizes for the best posters (6), serving refreshments to those in attendance (2), or holding the event in an area more accessible to the public (5). I chose not to incorporate prizes because this could promote competition. My primary goal was to allow each student the opportunity to appreciate his or her own individual success. I chose not to serve refreshments or hold the sessions in a public arena because I wanted to make the students the center of attention before their peers. I would encourage any individuals seeking new methods of motivating students in the learning process to try this technique. Acknowledgments I would like to thank Frank Pugliese and Carolyn Steglich of the Biology Department and Mary Ann Fuhry of the Chemistry Department for their participation as evaluators. I would also like to thank Barbara Hodgins for her invaluable assistance in the preparation of this manuscript. Literature Cited 1. Chute, D. L.; Bank, B. Clin. Psychopharmacol. 1983, 10(2), 99– 100. 2. Romey, W. D. J. Geol. Ed. 1983, 31, 197–183. 3. Berry J. Ed. Stu. Math. 1995, 29, 21–27. 4. Hinzmann, C. J. Nurs. 1996, 35(4), 177–178. 5. Baird, B. N. Teach. Psychol. 1991, 18, 27–28. 6. Gore, P.A. Teach. Psychol. 1987, 14, 244–244.
Journal of Chemical Education • Vol. 74 No. 9 September 1997
