Transcript No Slide Title

How Effective Are Interactive Biology Tutorials as
Learning Enhancement Tools?
Jean Heitz, E. Michelle Capes, Robert Jeanne and Jan Cheetham
University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706
Abstract
Supported by a grant from the UW Madison Transforming Teaching Through Technology (T4) program, we
developed "Connecting Concepts” a set of nine interactive tutorials designed for our two-semester introductorylevel biology course for majors. These are all available at http://ats.doit.wisc.edu/biology/ and through the Merlot
web site (http://www.merlot.org)..
In this study we tested one of these tutorials, Evolution: Species and Speciation, to determine its effectiveness as a
learning enhancement tool.
Our results indicate the tutorials were most effective for students whose prior grades in the course were less than
80%. The average exam grade for this group increased by 11% over their averages on the previous two exams.
We did not see any significant change for other students in the course.
Why did we develop the Connecting
Concepts interactive tutorials?
What is the Evolution: Species and Speciation
tutorial designed to do?
In this tutorial students decide whether organisms should
be considered separate species using the criteria of three
well-known species concepts. They interactively explore
each species concept, identifying their strengths and
weaknesses. Students become familiar with speciation
patterns, and integrate understandings of continental drift
with speciation. At the end of the tutorial, students
analyze two case studies to determine whether the
organisms described are unique species. In doing the
case studies they consider morphological traits,
haplotypes, population histories, ecology, molecular
phylogenies, hybridization, and geographic distributions.
To test the effectiveness of the tutorial on student
learning, we randomly divided an introductory biology
course (N = 283) into three groups.
•Group 1 completed the speciation tutorial on-line.
•Group 2 was given the information from the tutorial in
non-interactive pdf format.
•Group 3 was assigned a general homework question on
speciation and was assigned the pdfs for only one of the
case studies from the speciation tutorial.
•All students who gave written consent (N = 276)
were asked to complete an evolution/speciation
bioinventory test 1 week before and 1 week after the
homework assignment.
•All students received the standard lectures on
speciation between the pre- and post test and before
the homework was due.
• The bioinventory questions used for pre- and posttests were not used on the final. Instead, a different
but related questions developed for the final section
exam.
How did we analyze the data?
Refining the groups
•In Group 1 only students who verified that they actually completed the tutorial as
well as the pre- and post-tests and the final exam were included in the analysis
(N=51) .
•In Groups 2 and 3 only students who verified that they did not access the tutorial
on-line and who completed pre- and post-tests and the final exam were included
(N = 42 and 53 respectively).
Each test group was broken down into two approximately equal subgroups:
•students whose averages on the previous two exams were < 80% and
• students whose averages were >80%.
100
90
80
70
Mean Score
Increasing class size in recent years has resulted in
decreased student-instructor interaction and a large
demand for additional learning tools accessible to
students outside the classroom. Such tools must also
accommodate diverse learning styles and backgrounds.
Our goals in developing the tutorials were to:
• provide students with a type of interactive learning that
cannot generally be provided in the classroom.
• stimulate critical thinking skills,
•reinforce concepts learned in lecture, and
• promote the application of both thinking skills and
concepts — all in an interactive on-line environment that
enhances students’ motivation.
In addition, the instantaneous feedback students get on
line allows them to assess for themselves how well they
are able to understand and apply important concepts
How did we test the effectiveness of the
interactive Speciation tutorial as a learning
enhancement tool?
60
Average of Exams 1 & 2
50
Final Exam
40
Evolution Questions
Only
30
Analyzing the data
•One way ANOVA was used to determine whether differences among test groups were
significant.
•Scores on pre-tests were compared between test groups to determine whether
there was any significant difference inherent in the groups.
•Scores on pre- versus post-tests were compared within each test group as a whole
and then for <80% vs >80% subgroups.
• Total final exam scores were compared to averages on the previous two exams.
•Total final exam scores were also compared to the scores students would have
received for the evolution questions alone. Evolution questions made up 41% of
the final exam.
Group 1
Mean
on
PreTest
51
Mean
on
PostTest
57.5
Grp1<80
50
54.8
Grp1>80
20
10
0
1
2
3
Group #
ANOVA
0.001
Mean
on
Prior
Exams
79
Mean
on
Final
Exam
84.3
<0.001
Mean
for
Evol?
On
Final
82.1
0.05
72.7
83.2
<0.001
81
0.38
ANOVA
Pre- Vs
Post-Test
p value
ANOVA
Mean
Previous
vs Final
p value
Mean
Final vs
Mean
Evol ?s
p value
0.19
52
60.2
0.008
85.5
85.4
0.93
83.2
0.34
Grp2
48.6
58.4
<0.001
78
77.6
0.89
78.5
0.79
Grp2<80
49.5
54.9
0.14
67.7
68.9
0.75
70.3
0.75
Grp2>80
47.9
61.3
<0.001
86.5
84.7
0.55
85.3
0.9
Grp3
52.3
59
<0.001
77.2
78.9
0.42
78.5
0.87
Grp3<80
52.1
56.5
0.09
70.8
74.2
0.17
74.2
0.99
Grp3>80
52.5
62.2
<0.001
85.5
85
0.83
84.1
0.75
What did we discover?
Acknowledgements – Connecting Concepts
Connecting Concepts: Interactive Lessons in Biology (http://ats.doit.wisc.edu/biology/), was produced
collaboratively at the University of Wisconsin – Madison by:
•Transforming Teaching Through Technology (T4), Learning Solutions, Division of Information and
Technology
•Instructors of Introductory Biology 151/152
Credits:
Principle Investigator:
Robert Jeanne
Departments of Zoology and
Entomology
UW – Madison
[email protected]
Project Assistants:
Edna Francisco
Steven Grunder
Sainath Suyanarayanan
Ben Schulte
Olaf Olson
Project Manager:
Jan Cheetham
Learning Solutions
UW-Madison
[email protected]
Progammers:
Michelle Glenetski
Learning Solutions
[email protected]
Instructional Designers and
Consultants:
Lee Clippard
Learning Solutions
[email protected]
Alan Wolf
Learning Technology and Distance
Education & Center for Biology
Education
[email protected]
Bahman Zakeri
Learning Solutions
[email protected]
Cidney Frietag
Learning Solutions
[email protected]
Various Instructors and Instructional Support
Staff, Introductory Biology 151/152
Photo credits:
Paul Berry, Botany Department, UW-Madison and
Les Howles
http://photos.news.wisc.edu/results.php
Learning Solutions
[email protected]
References:
Fraenkel, Jack R. & Wallen, Norman E., 2000. How to Design & Evaluate Research in Education
(4th ed.), San Francisco: McGraw-Hill.
• Comparison of pretest results indicated no significant difference among Groups.
• Comparing scores on pre- versus post-tests within each test group showed significant differences for all groups. In
Group 1, both < and >80% subgroups showed significant differences. In the other groups, only the >80% subgroup
showed a significant difference.
• Comparing total final exam scores to averages on the previous two exams, only the <80% subgroup in Group 1
showed a significant difference.
What do the results tell us about the speciation tutorial as a learning enhancement tool?
• While some improvement in post test scores was noted across all groups, the overall scores on the unannounced preand post-tests were low with means ranging from the high 40s to the low 60s.
•Scores on the final exam were much higher with means ranging from the high 60s to mid 80s.
This confirms what we already know, i.e. while classroom and tutorial experiences can help students learn how to
learn, these alone are not sufficient for full development of understanding. In addition, most students require both an
impetus (e.g.an exam) and individual study time to more fully develop their understanding.
• Both Groups 1 and 2 were given the same information for their homework assignment. The only difference was that
Group 1 did the tutorial interactively on-line and Group 2 read the information in non-interactive pdf format.
• The Group 1 students with grades <80% prior to the final exam benefited most from doing the tutorial. This
group did better not only on the evolution questions alone (mean = 81.0%) but on the final exam as a whole (mean
= 83.2%).
These results imply that:
• the interactivity of the tutorial provides clear learning benefits for this group of students.
• the interactive tutorial experience provides some learning enhancement not directly related to the specific subject
material. Discovering exactly why this occurs warrants further investigation.