Spring 2002 -- Vol. 19, No. 1

Restructured Classes Feature Hands-On, Interactive Methods
Big Sections Move From Lectures Toward Increased Interaction

Professor Richard Cyr describes his work and responds to questions from students interested in biology, who eventually may take Biology 110, during a campus visit prior to their first semester at Penn State.

When it comes to research, one word—interdisciplinary—regularly grabs the attention of funding agencies. In fact, faculty members and groups of colleagues have quickly learned that collaborative efforts often receive a favorable review and lead to well-supported research programs.

In terms of classroom education, another word—interactive—holds the key. In fact, efforts to decrease class sizes, implement a more hands-on educational process, and utilize technology in the classroom have earned praise and positive responses from administrators, funding agencies, and, most importantly, students in recent years.

Many faculty members within the Eberly College of Science have led the move toward such teaching methods, and have witnessed the results in terms of student interest and performance.

Adapting Approaches

In terms of computer and Internet use and interactive educational approaches, Paul Sokol, professor of physics, is among those who have established ambitious programs (see sidebar, page 38) and received much positive response.

“We are working to find a way to best serve students,” Sokol says. “We want them all to understand the material and perform to the best of their ability.”

Other professors have moved toward the implementation of technology at a more measured pace.

For example, during the fall 2001 semester—thanks to abundant preparation work and a grant from the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation—the Department of Biology planned to study the impact of technology on the department’s traditionally lecture-based introductory course, Biology 110. More than 2,000 students each year take Biology 110 at the University Park campus, with a similar number of students enrolled at other Penn State campuses.

After several semesters of preparation, full implementation of the study means some students will complete the course through its current, lecture-based design and others will experience a more high-tech approach with portions of the course available on the World Wide Web. The grant provides the funds to study the educational impact of those different delivery methods.

Despite the proliferation of computer use in the classroom, few studies have been conducted to demonstrate the educational effectiveness of such an approach—either in terms of costs or student performance. With the grant from the Mellon Foundation, educators hope to determine whether the use of computer-based instructional technologies provides an efficient means to help teach students.

“We want to find the best way to instruct students, and we need to go about that the same way we do our research,” says Richard Cyr, professor of biology and principal investigator for the project. “We need to develop quantitative data to determine how much students can benefit from this kind of instruction. If the data show the students can benefit, then we need to provide instruction in that manner.”

Through the project, Cyr and his colleagues also hope to identify the type of students who learn better through the use of a computer, something that could enable the University to better serve the specific needs of students in the future.

“We are anticipating the possibility that not all students will respond in the same manner to the technology,” Cyr says. “It is likely that we will find three classes of students—those who learn better with computer technology, those who learn less well, and those who learn equally well with computers or the traditional lecture method. Therefore, one component of the project will be to identify 'computer learners’ and see if we can profile their characteristics. In the future, perhaps Penn State’s freshmen testing program will involve a test to determine whether students have mastered a handful of subjects and a separate test to discover how they learn best.”

In the early stages of the Biology 110 redesign, proposed lessons were presented to students for their feedback and input. From their questions and reactions, course designers and faculty members improved the course materials and structure. With a more high-tech approach, the department hopes to make the course more engaging for students, thereby allowing instructors to help students become more prepared for upper-level courses and preventing students from dropping the course because of poor grades or a lack of interest.

“It’s about making the educational experience more interesting, personal, and productive, and not letting students get lost in some big lecture hall,” Cyr said. “We want to put them in a position to succeed.”

Likewise, a more grass-roots approach, without foundation support or a study, has been implemented the past few semesters for an introductory biology course, BiSci 3, during the fall semester. Instead of a passive atmosphere inside Schwab Auditorium, professors and teaching assistants aim for a more active environment. Many multiple-choice exams have been phased out, often replaced by hands-on activities, small-group meetings, and visits to local parks.

“We want to provide the students with a take-away message, and we want to make the science meaningful and personal for them,” says Christopher Uhl, professor of biology.

The Department of Mathematics has started a technology-driven redesign process for Math 22 and Math 110, which will impact a significant number of students. A similar approach, implemented by the Department of Statistics during the fall 2000 and spring 2001 semesters did find success, and recognition for that success.

Statistical Switch

The redesign of Statistics 200, made possible with support from The Pew Charitable Trusts through the Learning and Technology Program and the Center for Academic Computing at Penn State, transformed the course from its traditional classroom-and-lecture format to a highly interactive, technology-based environment that encouraged group activities and team learning. Instead of three lectures and two recitation sections per week, students attended one lecture and two computer laboratory sessions each week.

Time in computer labs was split between an elaboration of concepts, computer-based work, class discussion of the results, and assessment. Members of the course-redesign team created more than 50 laboratory activities from which students could select assignments to meet the needs of their individual groups. Some Web-based instruction was included and students worked more frequently with problems simulating real-life applications than with theoretical equations and formulas. The design allowed students to become more active participants in the educational process.

“What we’ve created is a class that’s very close to an on-line course,” says William Harkness, professor of statistics. “Sometimes we think just because we put together a good lecture, that things are really getting across to students. Or, we do not give the students enough credit and do not really challenge them. We tried to shake loose those notions and the students really responded. We’re always going to have that lecture portion, and it’s important, but the structure of the class should provide a wider variety of opportunities.”

Because so many students take the class—Statistics 200 serves as a requirement for about 60 majors and enrolls almost 2,500 students University wide each year—changes in the class were significant.

According to the Schreyer Institute for Innovation in Learning, the changes were effective, too. With its assessment efforts, the Institute observed about a 20 percent improvement in tests of basic concepts when comparing the restructured course to the traditional course. In addition, the restructured class provided more opportunities for one-on-one instruction and more small-group interaction while requiring half as many teaching assistants.

“Our goal is that Statistics 200 students should leave this class confident they can perform a statistical data analysis on the computer and explain its meaning to their peers,” says James Rosenberger, head of the Department of Statistics. “This goal is virtually impossible to attain in the passive environment of the standard large lecture setting. By requiring students to become involved with the computer and interactive with their fellow students several times a week, we expect to make the use of data-analysis tools as natural to students as writing and mathematics have been in the past.”

College Consensus

Mustering the energy and the will to look forward, rather than relying on accepted approaches and teaching methods, provides one of the major challenges for all efforts to restructure classes and educational programs. While some administrators and faculty member might resist making such changes, as a whole the Eberly College of Science has grown in terms of research and teaching thanks to the guiding perspective of Dean Daniel J. Larson.

“Technology in the classroom may improve the quality of education students receive and should help to build skills that will benefit them throughout and beyond their academic experience,” Larson says. “The goal across the college is an increased conceptual understanding of the subject matter accomplished through an atmosphere of 'active’ learning, collaborative activities that engage the students, and easy accessibility to course information from any computer on or off campus.”

While Larson admits some apprehension about the use of technology in teaching, citing a time when universities believed television would revolutionize instruction (and did not), he believes computers, and people who use them in the proper manner, may be able to facilitate valuable changes that benefit students and make faculty members more accessible and productive.

“One of my goals is to find ways that technology can support and enhance student-faculty interactions,” Larson says. “This is a real challenge, but using technology for more routine parts of teaching may free faculty for more one-on-one interactions at critical times—such as when a student needs help getting going in the right direction or is ready for a conceptual leap.”

Even physical leaps have been included as an option as classes throughout the College have been restructured. Specifically, a pilot introductory-level physics course dubbed “Dynamic Physics” allows students to analyze a variety of activities—such as bungee jumping, bowling, and weight lifting—in order to improve their appreciation of the relevance of physics to the real world, and to address common misconceptions about the physical world.

Using computers allows students to concentrate on physical concepts and visualize events without the use of much mathematics. In addition, a special emphasis has been placed on using word processing and spreadsheet software programs, encouraging students to apply the skills they develop to other aspects of their lives.

Along with the emphasis placed on providing options and support for all students as part of restructured classes, the overall approach also includes an ongoing measure of flexibility and personal responsibility.

Since 1993, the Chemistry Resource Center Instrumentation Room, located in 206 Whitmore Laboratory, has allowed hundreds of students to reinforce what they learn in the classroom with hands-on experience operating a wide variety of modern instruments and scientific tools. With the room open 60 hours a week, and teaching assistants and tutorials available to assist with the operation of the tools when necessary, students no longer need to complete their analysis during scheduled laboratory sessions.

They may visit the instrumentation room at their convenience, which provides many students with access to expensive instruments. Those instruments include tools for gas chromatography, nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy, and ultraviolet and visible spectroscopy. All the instruments in the room have systems for data acquisition and analysis, and an adjacent computer lab enables students to complete computational studies—something that makes their educational experience more hands-on and interactive, and more practical and valuable.

~~ Steve Sampsell

Back to Science Journal Spring 2002 Index

Penn State Home Page | Eberly College of Science | Find a Person | Locate a Building | Search | Site Index

Students | Alumni | Visitors | Researchers | Faculty and Staff | Postdoctoral Fellows | Corporate Interests
Academic Programs | Research | Dean's Office | Development and Alumni Relations | News and Events | Directory

This page was last updated on 15 July 2002

If you would like to communicate with the keepers of the Eberly College of Science Web server, send electronic mail to: science-web@thunder.science.psu.edu
Technology Webmaster: Joseph K. Carlson < jkc3@psu.edu >
Content Webmaster: Barbara Kennedy < science@psu.edu >