A case study of course and faculty development in college science

Abstract

Ausubel said: The most important single factor influencing learning is what the learner already knows. Ascertain this and teach him accordingly. The same is true for teachers and courses. If we want to improve teaching, we have to start where teachers and students are rather than develop ideal courses for imaginary students and teachers. In college science classrooms in the Philippines we see a wide variety of situations. However, the following observations would be quite frequent:

• Students are passive, 90+% of the lesson time is filled by talk of the instructor (>90% lecture);
• Alternatives to the lecture method (boardwork, groupwork, reporting, other) are often applied such that most students are still mentally passive;
• The focus in teaching is often on doing standard problems and not on concepts, conceptual difficulties, and the role of context in applying Physics concepts. There is often blind formula work without the conceptual understanding which is needed to realize whether outcomes are sensible;
• Students have no books and mainly study from notes taken in class;
• Course syllabi may deviate considerably from what is actually taught and tested in the course, the "taught" and "assessed" or curriculum are quite far from the curriculum as described in the syllabus in terms of level and in terms of coverage;
• College teachers in Physics and Chemistry may not be majors in these subjects, even if they are, that is not a guarantee for subject matter mastery at the BS level;
• There is no systematic and sustained effort of instructors to stimulate and maintain student work in the course (the instructor may give homework assignments but never checks or uses the assignment in class, thus undermining student dedication);
• Sometimes the classroom atmosphere is so noisy that learning seems impossible (engineering classes), but this problem is not officially recognized as a factor contributing to low performance. College teachers often feel that keeping discipline to create a good learning atmosphere is the responsibility of students rather than of the teacher.

The purpose of our research was to start a process of course and faculty development which aims at increasing the mental effort of students in and outside class. The project makes small and realistic but crucial changes in teaching and learning. Just "paper" changes in a syllabus and in hand-outs are insufficient to cause real change in teaching. Assisting faculty in the classroom through coaching is an essential requirement for real change in teaching and learning. The course was revised to apply a learning cycle approach in which each class meeting consists of one or more cycles consisting of three phases: (a) a short presentation of new information (mini-lecture), (b) student work on problems, questions, or activities with the instructor moving around the classroom, (c) plenary summary which includes reactions to learning difficulties encountered by the teacher during phase (b). During phase (b) the teacher interacts with students individually and in small groups and finds out which problems the students experience with the new subject matter (frequent mistakes, misconceptions, etc.). That information is then used in phase (c). This teacher learning about student difficulties is an essential part of the course improvement process but also of the professional development of the instructors. In practice instructors did not use the cycle in a dogmatic way from (a) to (c). Sometimes an instructor might want to start with seatwork (b) and then move to (c) and (a). A textbook was adopted and made compulsory as a basis for readings, seatwork, and homework assignments.