I believe that teaching should aim to pull the student in and learn about the field they are studying from a broad and integrated perspective.  Introductory courses should represent the reality of the field they are introducing and students should walk away from them with a deeper understanding of how the field works, not just a catalog of memorized, and soon-to-be-forgotten, facts.  Good teaching is guided by clear learning objectives; the instructor always has an answer to “what do I want students to learn?”  These objectives guide lectures and active learning activities alike, which are included in equal amounts at worst, and heavy in the latter at best.  Finally, I believe that education should serve as the same mechanism for positive change as it has for generations past.  Education can—and should—be used as a tool to eliminate disparities between classes and empower the underprivileged. 

Courses should include deep thought about subject matter

            A study by Momsen et al. (2013) found that introductory science classes at the undergraduate level overwhelmingly assess lower-order cognitive skills, like comprehension and knowledge, rather than higher-order levels of thinking, like analysis, synthesis, and evaluation.  According to the authors, these types of learning experiences establish students’ epistemological beliefs that the broader field will also value lower-order cognitive skills and memorization, which transitions to my next point.

Introductory courses should represent their fields

            Momsen et al. (2013) found that epistemological beliefs of the broader field are based on experiences in undergraduate courses.  Extending on this point, Zheng, Lawhorn, Lumley, and Freeman (2008) demonstrated that the disparity between introductory courses and practice in biology was evidence that students may be ill prepared for the higher-order levels of thinking that will be needed to advance in the field, like synthesis and evaluation.  I believe that all undergraduate courses should strive to represent the complexities of their field and teach students how the topic integrates into the broader scientific community.

Teaching should be guided by learning objectives

            Consistent with backward design, as proposed by Wiggins and McTighe (2005), teaching that is not guided by learning objectives lacks a clear purpose and may not be as effective as teaching with specific goals in mind.  I will strive to set specific learning objectives and guide my lesson plans with these objectives as my end goals. 

Narrow the achievement gap

A study by Haak, HilleRisLambers, Pitre, and Freeman (2011) showed that increasing structure by adding active learning exercises to an introductory college biology course significantly narrowed the achievement gap between economically and educationally disadvantaged students and those who come from more educationally prepared backgrounds.  The findings from a study by Freeman, Haak, and Wenderoth (2011) support this conclusion.  Based on this evidence, I believe that it is our duty as educators to help underprepared and disadvantaged students be as successful as possible, to ensure that there are as few limits as possible on their range of opportunities post-college. 

Active learning exercises are beneficial to learning

            In addition to helping narrow the achievement gap, active learning exercises are beneficial to all students’ performance (Freeman et al., 2011; Haak et al., 2011) and their inclusion has been shown to decrease failure rates in science courses (Freeman et al., 2014).  Given the vast literature supporting the use of active learning in promoting favorable learning outcomes, I plan to include active learning exercises in my teaching, and continuously modify my teaching according to current findings in educational research.

References

Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111(23), 8410-8415. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1319030111

Freeman, S., Haak, D. C., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2011). Increased Course Structure Improves Performance in Introductory Biology. CBE--Life Sciences Education, 10, 175-186. doi: 10.1187/cbe.10-08-0105

Haak, D. C., HilleRisLambers, J., Pitre, E., & Freeman, S. (2011). Increased structure and active learning reduce the achievement gap in introductory biology. Science, 332, 1213-1216. doi: 10.1126/science.1204820

Momsen, J., Offerdahl, E., Kryjevskaia, M., Montplaisir, L., Anderson, E., & Grosz, N. (2013). Using Assessments to Investigate and Compare the Nature of Learning in Undergraduate Science Courses. CBE--Life Sciences Education, 12, 239-249. doi: 10.1187/cbe.12-08-0130

Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Backward Design Understanding By Design. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development.

Zheng, A. Y., Lawhorn, J. K., Lumley, T., & Freeman, S. (2008). Application of Bloom's Taxonomy Debunks the "MCAT Myth". Science, 319, 414-415.