English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Science educators are urged (National Research Council [NRC], 1997, 2003; National Science Foundation, 1996) to adopt active-learning strategies and other alternatives to uninterrupted lecture to model the methods and mindsets at the heart of scientific inquiry, and to provide opportunities for students to connect abstract ideas to their real-world applications and acquire useful skills, and in doing so gain knowledge that persists beyond the course experience in which it was acquired. While these and other calls for reform dangle the carrot of promised cognitive gains before us (Bransford et al., 1999), the process of translating their message into the realities of practice in given classroom contexts remains a challenge of considerable magnitude. Perhaps because the inquiry-oriented methods that offer the most promise (Edgerton, 2001; Smith, K.A., et al., 2005) were often developed in small-class settings, the gap between promise and practice can seem almost impossible to close in the large-enrollment class environment that still predominates in the introductory course offerings of many colleges and universities. The conditions that led to creation of the large-enrollment class, particularly in research universities, are still with us (Edgerton, 2001) and are not likely to change in the foreseeable future. Thus, although the environment of a large class is not an easy one in which to thrive—either for the instructors who teach them (Carbone and Greenberg, 1998) or for the students who take them (Seymour and Hewitt, 1997; Tobias, 1990)—it is most probably here to stay. Unfortunately, traditional lecture-dominant methods often fail to motivate the meaningful intellectual engagement that is the central mission and hallmark of the college experience (Smith, K.A., et al., 2005) and that is a crucial factor in students’ personal and academic development (Light, 2001). In fact, when large class instructors rely solely on traditional forms of instruction, ‘‘. . . the individuals learning the most in this classroom are the professors. They have reserved for themselves the very conditions that promote learning: actively seeking new information, organizing it in a meaningful way, and having the chance to explain it to others’’ (Huba and Freed, 2000). But moving out from behind the relative safety of the lecture podium to adopt the types of active strategies that shift classroom emphasis away from teachers’ teaching toward students’ participation and learning is often an unsettling prospect, even in the small-class setting. Everyone has heard those real or apocryphal tales of hapless professors who responded to ‘‘the call,’’ then were laid low by the ironic onslaught of student anxiety, resistance, or downright anger when the students were presented with classroom activities that aimed to shift emphasis from memorization and recall to the building of critical thinking skills, and the skill and ability to conduct self-directed learning (Felder and Brent, 1996). Added to the difficulties inherent with instructor and student adjustment to new teaching and learning paradigms are the cogent and interrelated issues of resources and rewards (Boyer Commission on Educating Undergraduates in the Research University for the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 1998). The faculty member using inquiry-oriented instruction is often facedwith the need to develop new curricula to supplement or replace a reliance on textbooks, a task for which she or he may have received little prior training. The organizational tasks and grading responsibilities inherent in large-class instruction may seem multiplied by an unmanageable order of magnitude when implementation of even the most basic of active-learning strategies is contemplated. It is no wonder that many college and university professors, often faced with the struggle to achieve effective practice in both the teaching and research arenas and thus considerable time constraints, choose the default position of the lecture, with its predictability and efficiency at imparting information. In effect, they may feel caught between a rock and a hard place when confronted with the increasingly more frequent and cogent calls for change in the way science is taught (NRC, 1997, 2003; National Science Foundation, 1996). Fortunately, the strategies for breaking down the roadblocks and realizing the promise of active learning and inquiry instruction in the large class are being tested and publicized (Handelsman et al., 2004). Educators who have addressed the multitude of issues that underlie implementation of active-learning strategies in large-enrollment settings are conscientiously spreading the word to the science education community by presenting at conferences or publishing in science education journals (Allen and Tanner, 2005). In previous columns we have discussed a few of the multitude of strategies encompassed by the term ‘‘active DOI: 10.1187 / cbe.05-08-0113 Address correspondence to: Deborah Allen (deallen@udel.edu). Cell Biology Education Vol. 4, 262–268, Winter 2005

Infusing Active Learning into the Large-enrollment Biology Class: Seven Strategies, from the Simple to Complex