FEMS Microbiology Letters, 363, 2016, fnw172 doi: 10.1093/femsle/fnw172 Advance Access Publication Date: 12 July 2016 Minireview
M I N I R E V I E W – Professional Development
Susan M. Merkel∗ Department of Microbiology, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853-0001, USA ∗
Contact: Department of Microbiology, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853-0001, USA. Tel: + 1-607-254-2767; E-mail:
[email protected] One sentence summary: The American Society for Microbiology has developed and provides support for a variety of teaching resources to encourage the adoption of evidence-based teaching methods. Editor: Susan Assinder
ABSTRACT Numerous national reports have addressed the need for changing how science courses in higher education are taught, so that students develop a deeper understanding of critical concepts and the analytical and cognitive skills needed to address future challenges. This review presents some evidence-based approaches to curriculum development and teaching. Results from discipline-based education research indicate that it is critically important for educators to formulate learning goals, provide frequent and authentic assessments and actively engage students in their learning. Professional societies can play a role in helping to put these changes into practice. To this end, the American Society for Microbiology has developed a number of educational programs and resources, which are described here to encourage the implementation of student-centered learning in microbiology education. Keywords: Backward Design; educational resources; learning outcomes; student-centered learning; undergraduate microbiology education; evidence-based teaching
INTRODUCTION Over the last few decades, several reports in the USA and Europe have examined how science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) courses in higher education are taught (e.g. AAU 2011; Brewer and Smith 2011; Singer et al. 2012; European Commission High Level Group 2013; Sursock 2015). The concerns grow from a perception that undergraduate students, especially women and under-represented minorities, are leaving STEM majors for other fields of study (Olson and Gerardi 2012; Chen 2013). These reports consistently expound upon the problems that arise when introductory STEM classes are taught as large, passive lectures. First, lecture classes do not convey the excitement of ‘doing science’ and second, large lecture classes often fail to provide students with the support they need to be successful (Seymour and
Hewitt 1997; Bianchini 2013). Not only are we losing students who planned on majoring in STEM, but we are dissuading students in other fields from taking science courses, thus missing the opportunity to train technical workers and science-literate citizens (Singer, Nielsen and Schweingruber 2012). A third concern is that many students who do graduate from STEM programs seem unprepared to tackle the complex, multidisciplinary scientific challenges that face our societies today. Students often maintain misconceptions about core concepts and lack the basic critical-thinking and analytical skills required in the field (Bradforth et al. 2015; Cooper et al. 2015). Most introductory science classes are still taught as passive lectures, in which students are asked to memorize and repeat a litany of facts related to the discipline (Hurtado et al. 2012). While a strong knowledge base is important for advancing in a discipline, memorizing facts
Received: 20 May 2016; Accepted: 4 July 2016 C FEMS 2016. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail:
[email protected]
1
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/femsle/article-abstract/363/16/fnw172/2197755 by guest on 25 April 2019
American Society for Microbiology resources in support of an evidence-based approach to teaching microbiology
2
FEMS Microbiology Letters, 2016, Vol. 363, No. 16
alone does not develop the range of analytical skills necessary for scientific investigation. This review aims to summarize results from education research about teaching and learning in biology, including some evidence-based approaches to curriculum development and teaching. The American Society for Microbiology (ASM) has developed a variety of resources to support these approaches, many of which are available online. The resources are presented here in an effort to encourage the implementation of student-centered learning.
Evidence-based teaching
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/femsle/article-abstract/363/16/fnw172/2197755 by guest on 25 April 2019
We know much about how students learn (Bransford, Brown and Cocking 2000) and how to translate that learning into formal teaching (e.g. Kober 2015). One major finding of educational research is that it is critically important to engage students in their learning (Freeman et al. 2014). This ‘student-centered’ approach to teaching shifts the focus away from what the instructor is doing, and puts it on what the student is learning. Using active learning strategies in the classroom means that students participate in their learning by discussing, writing about or solving problems. Results from educational research suggest that even in large lectures, when students work together and talk or write about meaningful case studies or problem-based learning, they can develop a deeper understanding of core concepts (Freeman et al. 2014; Allen and Tanner 2005). In addition, this provides students with frequent feedback to help them gauge how well they understand the material. Not only does active learning engage students, but it helps them develop the skills necessary for success in STEM fields (Graham et al. 2013). Future scientists will need to understand the scientific process to design experiments and have quantitative skills to analyze and interpret data (Singer, Nielsen and Schweingruber 2013). They will need to find credible information and be able to evaluate conclusions (Holmes, Wieman and Bonn 2015). Students can only move from thinking like a novice toward thinking more like an expert with guidance and practice doing these skills (Wieman 2014). In this vein, the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the National Science Foundation released ‘Vision and Change in Undergraduate Biology Education: A Call to Action’, a report that focused specifically on reform in biology education (Brewer and Smith 2011). They called for biology educators to integrate the scientific process throughout each course, and they emphasized the importance of developing critical competencies or skills in biology students. Recognizing that presenting a range of topics in a field as broad and rapidly changing as biology is counterproductive, they noted that ‘to be scientifically literate, students need to understand a few overarching core concepts: evolution; pathways and transformations of energy and matter; information flow, exchange, and storage; structure and function; and systems’. They further stated that faculty should help students understand the foundational ideas within the core concepts, so that students can apply those concepts to novel problems. Based on results from educational research, the Vision and Change Report called for an emphasis on student-centered classrooms that utilize ‘active, outcomeoriented, inquiry-driven and relevant courses that define learning goals and align assessments to focus on conceptual understanding, not just on covering voluminous content’. The Vision and Change Report builds on the ‘Understanding by Design’ approach for curriculum development (also called ‘Backward Design’) put forth by Wiggins and McTighe (2005). It recommends that faculty who are designing a course should
start by identifying the core concepts and skills required for their field. Educators should focus on the critical ideas that repeat throughout the discipline and apply to a range of situations. For most of us, that means setting priorities so that less material is taught for a deeper understanding. By setting priorities and concentrating on the concepts that are really important for students to understand, instructors can worry less about overwhelming students with an excess of information and begin to develop in students the skills they need to analyze and investigate biology. The next step is to clearly define the desired results for each unit or class by writing learning outcomes. Learning outcomes are statements that explicitly assert the expectations for what a student should be able to do by taking the form: ‘At the end of this unit or class, students should be able to. . . .’, followed by a measureable action verb. Learning outcomes can be directed at different levels of cognition or thinking skills. While there are many frameworks for determining the cognitive level of learning outcomes, the best-known model is Bloom’s Taxonomy (Bloom et al. 1956), which has been revised (Anderson et al. 2001) and applied to the field of biology (Crowe, Dirks and Wenderoth 2008). The revised taxonomy offers six categories of thinking skills: the two lower-order skills (remember and understand) invoke memorization of information (for example, ‘list’ and ‘define’), whereas the four higher-order skills (apply, analyze, evaluate and create) require that students use information in a new and challenging way (for example, ‘predict’ and ‘design’). Biology classes in particular tend to emphasize only the lower-order thinking skills that require rote memorization (Momsen et al. 2010). While lower-order learning outcomes are useful to confirm an understanding of content, educators should also include higher-order learning outcomes to develop students’ analytical skills. Once the learning outcomes are written, educators can then ask themselves, ‘How will I know if my students have achieved these outcomes? What would I accept as evidence?’ The class assessments answer these questions. There are a variety of assessment methods that can provide information about student learning. While most instructors assess learning with periodic exams at the end of a unit or course (summative assessments), education research shows that using frequent, informal and low-stakes assessments during instruction (formative assessment) can provide both students and instructors with more useful information about student understanding (Singer, Nielsen and Schweingruber 2012). Frequent in-class assessments can include multiple-choice questions in class using a personal response system (i.e. ‘clicker’ questions) or open-ended questions that students discuss in pairs or groups (think-pair-share or think-pair square) before answering. (For more suggestions on how to engage students in the classroom, see HEA 2013; Kober 2015.) Only after the learning outcomes and assessments are set, should the instructor decide what resources and instructional activities are required to help the students achieve the learning outcomes. Instruction might include readings in a textbook or primary literature, short minilectures or developing case studies or problem sets. This process is also called ‘Backward Design’ because educators traditionally start with content and instruction, rather than learning outcomes, and assessments are often written as an afterthought (Allen and Tanner 2007). While implementing Backward Design and student-centered teaching in biology classrooms will most certainly require institutional support, professional societies can play a significant role. According to recent report from the Council of Scientific Society Presidents on the Role of Scientific Societies in STEM
Merkel
Faculty Workshops (Hilborn 2013), professional societies are well positioned to influence their members. Most members trust their professional societies and look to them to set standards for professionalism within their fields. Scientific societies can also provide discipline-based professional development. They have access to a wide range of volunteers with varied skills and experiences and often have resources beyond a single college or university. Many professional societies use annual meetings as a venue for providing educational support and instruction on teaching and learning. Because many members attend meetings regularly, they can provide opportunities for building educational networks and ongoing support.
To this end, the ASM has put forth a number of initiatives to promote and support reform in undergraduate microbiology education. An integral part of this effort is the ASM Curriculum Guidelines for Undergraduate Microbiology. In 2010, the Education Board of ASM convened a task force of microbiology educators from a variety of institutions to develop a new set of guidelines for teaching undergraduate introductory microbiology. To ensure widespread support, the draft guidelines were vetted to the microbiology educational community through a series of surveys and at the ASM Conference for Undergraduate Educators (ASMCUE). The final ASM Curriculum Guidelines are the result of input and consensus building from the microbiology educational community (Merkel 2012). The guidelines embrace the scientific process and thinking skills recommended by Vision and Change including the following: understanding the process of science; understanding the interdisciplinary nature of microbiology; competency in communication and collaboration; quantitative skills; and the ability to interpret data (Table 1). The content of the ASM Curriculum Guidelines is organized around the five core concepts presented in Vision and Change with an added core concept specific to microbiology: the impact of microorganisms. Most importantly, the guidelines were developed for use with the framework for curriculum planning presented in ‘Understanding by Design’ and recommended by the Vision and Change report. The ASM Curriculum Guidelines prioritize the critical concepts within the field of microbiology as ‘fundamental statements’ associated with each core concept (Table 1). These fundamental statements correspond to what Wiggins and McTighe call ‘enduring understandings’ and what the Vision and Change report refers to as ‘foundational concepts’. The fundamental statements are purposefully broad so that educators can use them in different ways, depending on the nature of the course. For example, the fundamental statement ‘Mutations and horizontal gene transfer, with the immense variety of microenvironments, have selected for a huge diversity of microorganisms’ can be illustrated in an allied health course by the increase in antibiotic resistance over the last few decades or it can exemplify metabolic diversity in a general microbiology course. The fundamental statements are refined for use in the classroom by writing learning outcomes for each class or unit. To help educators write and use learning outcomes associated with the Curriculum Guidelines, ASM has made available examples of both lower- and higher-order learning outcomes for every fundamental statement (Table 2). For example, a lower-order learning outcome about the Gram stain could be: ‘Students should be able to describe how the cell structure of Gram-negative and Grampositive cells leads to a given Gram stain result’. A higher-order learning outcome on the same subject would use a higher-order
thinking verb: ‘Students should be able to predict how doing the Gram stain incorrectly (e.g. forgetting ethanol) would affect the results for Gram-negative and Gram-positive bacteria’. Instructors should then design assessments to provide evidence that the stated learning outcomes are being met. An essential feature of assessment is that it should be purposefully aligned with the learning outcomes (Tanner and Allen 2004). That is, assessments should match the cognitive level of the learning outcome it is meant to evaluate. For example, a learning outcome of ‘Students should be able to describe three mechanisms of horizontal gene transfer in bacteria’ cannot be assessed with ‘Utilize a BLAST database to determine if gene x has been acquired via horizontal gene transfer’. Nor can a learning goal of ‘Students should be able to interpret sequence data to determine if horizontal gene transfer has occurred’, be assessed with ‘Briefly describe the three mechanisms of horizontal gene transfer listed below’. ASM is developing a number of assessment resources that are linked with the Curriculum Guidelines (Table 3). For example, in 2016, ASM is releasing ‘Sample Questions in Microbiology’, a collection of peer-reviewed, short-answer questions that faculty can use in discussion groups or as ‘clicker’ questions. The collection contains both lower- and higher-order thinking questions to help educators provide students with a range of challenges. In addition, ASM is working with two groups of educators who are developing concept inventories in general microbiology and in the health sciences. First introduced by the physics community (Hestenes, Wells and Swackhamer 1992), a concept inventory is a set of questions that are developed to assess how well students understand critical concepts in a given field (D’Avanzo 2008). Concept inventories are subject to many rounds of testing with hundreds of students to ensure that they are reliable and valid. They are written as multiple-choice questions, with the incorrect choices coming from student’s previous responses to reflect common misconceptions. The General Microbiology Concept Inventory and the Microbiology for Health Sciences Concept Inventory are currently being tested and should be released in 2017. ASM also offers a number of resources to support the final step in Backward Design—planning instruction. The Journal of Microbiology and Biology Education (JMBE) publishes curriculum activities that are evaluated, peer-reviewed and linked to the ASM Curriculum Guidelines. The ASM MicrobeLibrary provides vetted and reviewed visual resources including images, videos and laboratory protocols for instructional use.
Professional Development Resources Our hope is that the ASM Curriculum Guidelines, together with these resources, will help support educators interested in using a more student-centered approach to teaching microbiology (Horak, Merkel and Chang 2015a). However, it is clear that educational resources alone are not enough to change how microbiology is taught. ASM conducted a series of online surveys within the microbiology educational community to assess the impact of the ASM Curriculum Guidelines (Horak, Merkel and Chang 2015b). The survey results showed that while over 80% of the respondents had heard of the guidelines, about 50% were using them in some capacity. Respondents who had heard of the guidelines, but were not using them, indicated that lack of time, financial support, curriculum-related resources and training were the primary barriers to adopting the guidelines. Henderson and Dancy (2011) outline some of the challenges to implementing change in STEM teaching. While most
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/femsle/article-abstract/363/16/fnw172/2197755 by guest on 25 April 2019
ASM Curriculum Guidelines and Backward Design
3
4
FEMS Microbiology Letters, 2016, Vol. 363, No. 16
Table 1. ASM Curriculum Guidelines: list of skills, core concepts and fundamental statements.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/femsle/article-abstract/363/16/fnw172/2197755 by guest on 25 April 2019
Skills and competencies: after this course, students should be able to Scientific thinking rApply the process of science o Demonstrate an ability to formulate hypotheses and design experiments based on the scientific method. o Analyze and interpret results from a variety of microbiological methods and apply these methods to analogous situations. r Use quantitative reasoning o Use mathematical reasoning and graphing skills to solve problems in microbiology. r Communicate and collaborate with other disciplines o Effectively communicate fundamental concepts of microbiology in written and oral format. o Identify credible scientific sources and interpret and evaluate the information therein. r Explain the relationships between science and society o Identify and discuss ethical issues in microbiology. Microbiology laboratory skills r Properly prepare and view specimens for examination using microscopy (e.g. bright field and, if possible, phase contrast). r Use pure culture and selective techniques to enrich for and isolate microorganisms. r Use appropriate methods to correctly identify microorganisms (e.g. media-based, molecular and serological methods). r Estimate the number of microorganisms in a sample (e.g. direct count, viable plate count and spectrophotometric methods). r Use current microbiological and molecular lab equipment (e.g. PCR and gel electrophoresis). r Practice safe microbiology following the ASM Guidelines for Biosafety in Teaching Laboratories. r Document and report on experimental protocols, results and conclusions. Fundamental statements Evolution 1. Cells, organelles (e.g. mitochondria and chloroplasts) and all major metabolic pathways evolved from early prokaryotic cells. 2. Mutations and horizontal gene transfer, with the immense variety of microenvironments, have selected for a huge diversity of microorganisms. 3. Human impact on the environment influences the evolution of microorganisms (e.g. emerging diseases and the selection of antibiotic resistance). 4. The traditional concept of species is not readily applicable to microbes due to asexual reproduction and the frequent occurrence of horizontal gene transfer. 5. The evolutionary relatedness of organisms is best reflected in phylogenetic trees. Cell structure and function 6. The structure and function of microorganisms have been revealed by the use of microscopy (including bright field, phase contrast, fluorescent and electron). 7. Bacteria have unique cell structures that can be targets for antibiotics, immunity and phage infection. 8. Bacteria and Archaea have specialized structures (e.g. flagella, endospores and pili) that often confer critical capabilities. 9. While microscopic eukaryotes (e.g. fungi, protozoa and algae) carry out some of the same processes as bacteria, many of the cellular properties are fundamentally different. 10. The replication cycles of viruses (lytic and lysogenic) differ among viruses and are determined by their unique structures and genomes. Metabolic pathways 11. Bacteria and Archaea exhibit extensive, and often unique, metabolic diversity (e.g. nitrogen fixation, methane production and anoxygenic photosynthesis). 12. The interactions of microorganisms among themselves and with their environment are determined by their metabolic abilities (e.g. quorum sensing, oxygen consumption and nitrogen transformations). 13. The survival and growth of any microorganism in a given environment depend on its metabolic characteristics. 14. The growth of microorganisms can be controlled by physical, chemical, mechanical or biological means. Information flow and genetics 15. Genetic variations can impact microbial functions (e.g. in biofilm formation, pathogenicity and drug resistance). 16. Although the central dogma is universal in all cells, the processes of replication, transcription and translation differ in Bacteria, Archaea and Eukaryotes. 17. The regulation of gene expression is influenced by external and internal molecular cues and/or signals 18. The synthesis of viral genetic material and proteins is dependent on host cells. 19. Cell genomes can be manipulated to alter cell function. Microbial systems 20. Microorganisms are ubiquitous and live in diverse and dynamic ecosystems. 21. Most bacteria in nature live in biofilm communities. 22. Microorganisms and their environment interact with and modify each other. 23. Microorganisms, cellular and viral, can interact with both human and non-human hosts in beneficial, neutral or detrimental ways. Impact of microorganisms 24. Microbes are essential for life as we know it and the processes that support life (e.g. in biogeochemical cycles and plant and/or animal microflora). 25. Microorganisms provide essential models that give us fundamental knowledge about life processes. 26. Humans utilize and harness microorganisms and their products. 27. Because the true diversity of microbial life is largely unknown, its effects and potential benefits have not been fully explored.
Merkel
5
Table 2. Examples of lower-order and higher-order learning outcomes and assessments from some ASM fundamental statements. Example lower-order learning outcome: after this unit, students should be able to . . . .
Example higher-order learning outcome: after this unit, students should be able to . . . .
Evolution Mutations and horizontal gene transfer, with the immense variety of microenvironments, have selected for a huge diversity of microorganisms.
. . . describe three mechanisms of horizontal gene transfer in bacteria.
. . . interpret sequence data to determine if horizontal gene transfer has occurred.
Cell structure and function The structure and function of microorganisms have been revealed by the use of microscopy.
. . . explain how the cell structure of Gram-negative and Gram-positive cells leads to a given Gram stain result.
. . . compare and contrast the effects of doing the Gram stain incorrectly on Gram-negative and Gram-positive bacteria.
Metabolic pathways Bacteria and Archaea exhibit extensive, and often unique, metabolic diversity.
. . . draw a diagram that shows the process of nitrogen fixation in cyanobacteria.
. . . design a mechanism that would allow a bacterium to protect its nitrogenase from oxygen.
Information flow and genetics Genetic variations can impact microbial functions.
. . . identify each of the following: point mutation, genetic insertion, genetic deletion and frameshift mutation.
. . . .predict whether or not a given mutation (genotypic change) would result in a change of function (phenotypic change).
Microbial systems Most bacteria in nature live in biofilm communities.
. . . order the stages of biofilm formation and maturation.
. . . develop a drug that would prevent biofilm formation.
Impact of microorganisms Because the true diversity of microbial life is largely unknown, its effects and potential benefits have not been fully explored.
. . . measure cell density using viable cell counts and microscopy methods and explain the differences.
. . . propose an experiment that would allow you to prospect for antibiotics in a new environment.
faculty appear to know about the research-based teaching approaches, they also cite time as a limiting factor in implementing new techniques. Many faculty who do try these studentcentered strategies often modify them to be more like traditional instruction—what Henderson and Dancy called ‘inappropriate assimilation’. For example, an instructor could employ ‘clicker’ questions in a lecture, but then ask students to relay memorized facts rather than solve a critical thinking problem. They argue that appropriate adoption is more likely if educational materials explain why various approaches are being used, and if faculty learn about new teaching techniques through ‘dynamic social interactions’, that is, from colleagues who use it. Continuing professional development can be very effective in helping faculty change how they teach (Fahnert 2015). Our biggest challenge has been to ensure that educators understand that the ASM Curriculum Guidelines are not just a list of topics for students to learn, but that they embrace a studentcentered approach to teaching that is based upon learning outcomes and assessments. Our experience suggests that while most educators engage their students in some kind of active learning, faculty are not basing their instruction on learning outcomes or higher-order thinking skills (i.e. apply, analyze, evaluate and create). By providing professional development through workshops, hybrid courses and online resources (Table 3), ASM is helping to develop these skills in educators from many different institutions. Central to the effort to encourage evidence-based teaching practices is the ASMCUE. For over 20 years, this annual conference has been a vital resource for microbiology educators to learn about and practice current pedagogy. In addition, it has provided critical networking opportunities for educators to learn from peers, and provides continuity and support for those educators back at their home institutions. Recognizing that ASM membership is becoming increasingly international, the ASM
Leadership Grant for International Educators provides support to educators from resource-limited countries to attend the ASMCUE and a preconference workshop. The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) uses evidence-based research methods to assess the effectiveness of teaching and learning. SoTL can provide faculty who are interested in pedagogy an opportunity to engage in scholarly activities, such that teaching becomes their research. In support of SoTL, the Biology Scholars Program offers face-to-face and online hybrid workshops to faculty interested in conducting research on student learning. Faculty learn how to develop course assessments to monitor student learning and prepare and evaluate their research for publication. Participants often publish their research in JMBE or similar peer-reviewed educational journals. Much effort has gone into reaching out to graduate students, post-docs and early career faculty, both to extend their teaching skills in microbiology and to help them build networks with other educators. The Science Teaching Fellows Program is a 5-month professional development program to help prepare doctoral-trained students and early-career faculty for science teaching positions at non-doctoral institutions. The program combines in-depth webinars, pre- and post-webinar assignments, structured mentoring and a community of practice. ASM also offers a variety of career and educational workshops for young educators (in the Profession of Microbiology track) at the annual ASM Microbe conference.
Outlook Future efforts will certainly include the development of more online resources and the use of social media. ASM has developed a set of online and hybrid courses on curriculum design, pedagogy and career development for faculty and future
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/femsle/article-abstract/363/16/fnw172/2197755 by guest on 25 April 2019
Example core concept and fundamental statement
6
FEMS Microbiology Letters, 2016, Vol. 363, No. 16
Table 3. List of ASM resources that support evidence-based teaching and learning. Description
Website
ASM Curriculum Guidelines for an Undergraduate Microbiology Course
Concepts and competencies for an introductory undergraduate microbiology course
https://www.asm.org/index.php/guidelines/ curriculum-guidelines
Learning outcomes for the ASM Curriculum Guidelines
Examples of lower-order and higher-order learning outcomes
https://www.asm.org/index.php/guidelines/ curriculum-guidelines
ASM Sample Questions in Microbiology (release in 2016)
Collection of peer-reviewed multiple-choice and true/false questions
http://www.asmscience.org
Microbiology Concept Inventory and Microbiology for Health Sciences Concept Inventory (release in 2017)
Tested questions developed to assess how well students understand critical concepts
http://www.facultyprograms.org/index.php/ resources/concept-inventories
Journal of Microbiology and Biology Education
Open access, peer-reviewed collection of research articles and activities
http://www.asmscience.org/content/ journal/jmbe
MicrobeLibrary
Peer-reviewed visual resources and laboratory protocols
https://www.microbelibrary.org
ASM Faculty Programs
Portal to the ASM educational resources
http://www.facultyprograms.org
ASMCUE
Interactive 4-day conference for biology educators
http://www.asmcue.org
Biology Scholars Program
Five-month hybrid courses offering a range of training in microbiology education
http://www.facultyprograms.org/index.php/ biology-scholars-hybrid-courses
Science Teaching Fellowship Program
Five-month online program to prepare doctoral-trained students for science teaching positions
http://facultyprograms.org/index.php/ stf-program
ASM webinars
Online courses on teaching and research
http://www.facultyprograms.org/index. php/webinars
Guidelines for Biosafety in Teaching Laboratories
A comprehensive guidebook of best practices for safely handling BSL-1 and BSL-2 microbes in teaching labs.
https://www.asm.org/index.php/guidelines/ safety-guidelines
faculty, which will be available through the ASM Education Courses. While face-to-face professional development may be desirable, it is not always possible in this resource-limited environment. The use of social media and interactive platforms will allow real-time interactions across the globe. Future interactive models could take into consideration the diverse needs of international users by providing a variety of tools and instruction. Collections of videos, webinars and curricula material on CDs could be provided for those with limited Internet. Truly changing how we, the microbiology educational community, teach can be difficult, daunting and slow. While it is clear that one workshop or conference is not enough to bring about permanent change (Derting et al. 2016), peer instruction and a community of support from like-minded colleagues can increase successful adoption of new teaching approaches (Henderson and Dancy 2011). In their perspective on how to teach effectively, Dolan and Collins (2015) recommend that instructors use available resources and talk to experienced colleagues. The goal of ASM is to provide both resources and a supporting network through a variety of professional development activities on evidence-based teaching in microbiology. Our hope is that at every workshop, every meeting and every online webinar, some microbiology educators will be moved to adopt a more active and more student-centered approach to teaching. These educators become the new scholars, helping to share what they know to
train others. Thus, by providing guidelines, resources and support, the ASM hopes to help drive the upwelling of microbiology educational reform that is being carried forward by the future generations of microbiology educators.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author would like to thank Amy Chang, Rachel Horak and Joseph Yavitt for critical reviews of this manuscript. Thanks also to the ASM Education staff and volunteers who have made these resources possible. Conflict of interest. None declared
REFERENCES AAU (Association of American Universities). Five-Year Initiative for Improving Undergraduate STEM Education. Washington, DC: AAU, 2011. Allen D, Tanner K. Infusing active learning into the largeenrollment biology class: seven strategies, from the simple to complex. CBE-Life Sci Educ 2005;4:262–8. Allen D, Tanner K. Putting the horse back in front of the cart: using visions and decisions about high-quality learning experiences to drive course design. CBE-Life Sci Educ 2007;6:85–9.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/femsle/article-abstract/363/16/fnw172/2197755 by guest on 25 April 2019
Resource
Merkel
Hestenes D, Wells M, Swackhamer G. Force concept inventory. Phys Teach 1992;30:141–58. Hilborn R. The Role of Scientific Societies in STEM Faculty Workshops: Meeting Overview. College Park, MD: American Association of Physics Teachers, 2013. Holmes N, Wieman C, Bonn D. Teaching critical thinking. P Natl Acad Sci USA 2015;112:11199–204. Horak R, Merkel S, Chang A. Developing research-based undergraduate microbiology curricula. Microbe 2015a;10:329–34. Horak R, Merkel S, Chang A. The ASM curriculum guidelines for undergraduate microbiology: a case study of the advocacy role of societies in reform efforts. J Microbiol Biol Educ 2015b;16:100. Hurtado S, Eagan K, Pryor JH et al. Undergraduate Teaching Faculty: The 2010–2011 HERI Faculty Survey. Los Angeles: Higher Education Research Institute, University of California, 2012. Kober N. Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Reaching Students: What Research Says About Effective Instruction in Undergraduate Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2015. Merkel S. The development of curricular guidelines for introductory microbiology that focus on understanding. J Microbiol Biol Educ 2012;13:32–8. Momsen J, Long T, Wyse S et al. Just the facts? Introductory undergraduate biology courses focus on low-level cognitive skills. CBE-Life Sci Educ 2010;9:435–40. Olson S, Gerardi-Riordan D. Engage to excel: producing one million additional college graduates with degrees in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. Report to the President. Executive Office of the President, 2012. Seymour E, Hewitt N. Talking About Leaving: Why Undergraduates Leave the Sciences. Boulder, CO: Westview, 1997. Singer S, Nielsen N, Schweingruber H. Biology education research: lessons and future directions. CBE-Life Sci Educ 2013;12:129–32. Singer S, Nielsen N, Schweingruber H (eds). Discipline-Based Education Research: Understanding and Improving Learning in Undergraduate Science and Engineering. Washington, D.C: National Academies Press, Executive Summary, 2012. Sursock A. Trends 2015: Learning and Teaching in European Universities. Brussel: European University Association, 2015. ¨ http://www.eua.be/Libraries/publications-homepage-list/ EUA Trends 2015 web (16 July 2016, date last accessed). Tanner K, Allen D. Approaches to biology teaching and learning: from assays to assessments—on collecting evidence in science teaching. CBE-Life Sci Educ 2004;3:69–74. Wieman C. Large-scale comparison of science teaching methods sends clear message. P Natl Acad Sci USA 2014;111:8319–20. Wiggins G, McTighe J. Understanding by Design, 2nd edn. New Jersey: Pearson Education, 2005.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/femsle/article-abstract/363/16/fnw172/2197755 by guest on 25 April 2019
Anderson L, Krathwohl D, Bloom B. A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing a Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. New York, NY: Longman, 2001. Bianchini J. Expanding underrepresented minority participation: America’s science and technology talent at the crossroads. Sci Educ 2013;97:163–6. Bloom B, Engelhart M, Furst E et al. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: Handbook I: The Cognitive Domain. New York: David McKay, 1956. Bradforth S, Miller E, Dichtel W et al. University learning: improve undergraduate science education. Nature 2015;523:282–4. Bransford J, Brown A, Cocking R (eds) How People Learn. Brain, Mind, Experience, and School. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2000. Brewer C, Smith D. Vision And Change In Undergraduate Biology Education: A Call To Action. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2011. Chen X. STEM Attrition: College Students’ Paths Into and Out of STEM Fields. Statistical Analysis Report. NCES 2014-001. National Center for Education Statistics, 2013. Cooper M, Caballero M, Ebert-May D et al. Challenge faculty to transform STEM learning. Science 2015;350:281–2. Crowe A, Dirks C, Wenderoth M. Biology in bloom: implementing Bloom’s taxonomy to enhance student learning in biology. CBE-Life Sci Educ 2008;7:368–81. D’Avanzo C. Biology concept inventories: overview, status, and next steps. Bioscience 2008;58:1079–85. Derting T, Ebert-May D, Henkel T et al. Assessing faculty professional development in STEM higher education: Sustainability of outcomes. Sci Adv 2016;2:e1501422. Dolan E, Collins J. We must teach more effectively: here are four ways to get started. Mol Biol Cell 2015;26:2151–5. European Commission High Level Group on the Modernization of Higher Education. Report to the European Commission on Improving the Quality of Teaching and Learning in Europe’s Higher Education Institutions Brussels, 2013. Fahnert B. Teaching matters—academic professional development in the early 21st century. FEMS Microbiol Lett 2015;362.20. Freeman S, Eddy S, McDonough M et al. Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. P Natl Acad Sci USA 2014;111:8410–5. Graham M, Frederick J, Byars-Winston A et al. Increasing Persistence of College Students in STEM. Science 2013;341:1455–6. HEA (Higher Education Academy). Promoting Teaching: Making Evidence Count. New York: Higher Education Academy, 2013. Henderson C, Dancy H. Increasing the impact and diffusion of STEM education innovations. In: National Academy of Engineering, Center for the Advancement of Engineering Education Forum, Impact and Diffusion of Transformative Engineering Education Innovations, 2011. https://www.nae.edu/File.aspx?id=36304.
7