Luckie Douglas B, Maleszewski Joseph J, Loznak Sarah D, Krha Marija
Lyman Briggs School of Science, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48825, USA.
Adv Physiol Educ. 2004 Dec;28(1-4):199-209. doi: 10.1152/advan.00025.2004.
Are traditional laboratories in the core introductory biology courses teaching physiology majors the art and trade of science, or simply leaving them with a memory of trivial experiments done for unknown reasons? Our students, a population dominated by pre-med and physiology majors, think the latter and have encouraged us to challenge this model, and it turns out scientists and education researchers agree with our students (4, 31, 32). In an effort to remedy this, we began a long-term redesign of the introductory biology sequence to become what is now a sequence of inquiry laboratories we term "Teams and Streams" (TS). In these TS inquiry labs, student research teams pose a scientific question/hypothesis, propose an experimental design, perform multi-week investigations and then present their findings in various forms (web, interviews, and papers). The response to this classroom laboratory design has been overwhelmingly positive. In a qualitative study of student opinion (where 260 student responses were studied), surveys conducted at the end of semesters where traditional scripted labs were used (n = 70 comments) had predominantly negative opinions (80% negative responses), whereas the reverse was true for students (n = 190 comments) who participated in courses using the TS inquiry labs (78% positive responses). In a quantitative assessment of content knowledge, students who participated in new TS inquiry labs (n = 245) outscored their peers in traditional labs (n = 86) on Medical College Admission Test-style standardized exams (59.3 +/- 0.8% vs. 48.9 +/- 1.3%, respectively; P < 0.0001). We believe these quantitative data support the qualitative findings and suggest the TS inquiry lab approach increases student learning.
在核心的生物学入门课程中,传统实验室是在向生理学专业的学生传授科学的技艺,还是仅仅让他们记住那些出于不明原因而做的琐碎实验?我们的学生,其中以医学预科生和生理学专业学生为主,认为是后者,并鼓励我们挑战这种模式,事实证明科学家和教育研究人员与我们的学生看法一致(参考文献4、31、32)。为了纠正这种情况,我们开始对生物学入门课程进行长期重新设计,使其成为我们现在所说的“团队与溪流”(TS)探究实验室序列。在这些TS探究实验室中,学生研究团队提出一个科学问题/假设,提出实验设计,进行为期数周的调查,然后以各种形式(网络、访谈和论文)展示他们的研究结果。对这种课堂实验室设计的反应非常积极。在一项对学生意见的定性研究中(研究了260份学生回复),在使用传统脚本式实验室的学期末进行的调查(n = 70条评论)中,主要是负面意见(80%负面回复),而参与使用TS探究实验室课程的学生(n = 190条评论)则相反(78%正面回复)。在对内容知识的定量评估中,参加新的TS探究实验室的学生(n = 245)在医学院入学考试风格的标准化考试中比传统实验室的同龄人得分更高(分别为59.3 +/- 0.8%和48.9 +/- 1.3%;P < 0.0001)。我们认为这些定量数据支持了定性研究结果,并表明TS探究实验室方法提高了学生的学习效果。