Ric Grummer (Dairy Science): LECTURE THAN TEST: MUST WE SPOON FEED?
[Dairy Science Innovations | Innovation Home Page]
Ric Grummer (Dairy Science): LECTURE THAN TEST: MUST WE SPOON FEED?
During the 13 years I have been on faculty, I have perceived a gradual decline in the interest of students to learn. Whether the perception is real can not be ascertained because of too many confounding factors, including changes in my teaching responsibilities and perhaps my attitude towards students. The one thing that has remained constant over the years is my teaching style. I like most new faculty, had no formal training in instruction prior to joining the faculty. Consequently, I tried to imitate the instructors that I admired as an undergraduate and graduate student. Undoubtedly, I selected a teaching method that reflected my preferred learning style. The system of attending lectures, taking notes, and then regurgitating those notes come test or quiz time worked well for me. It was the predominant class structure that I encountered in biological science courses. But is that the learning method that is most suitable and effective for the majority of students in Dairy Science? Have learning styles of the students changed during the past 13 years? Recently, my teaching load increased; I now teach the first three nutrition courses in our 4 course sequence. Therefore, the consequences of incompatible teaching/learning methods could be disastrous because the students have so much exposure to me.
For the final 3 lectures of Dairy Science 414 (Ruminant Nutrition) last spring, I tried an alternative approach. Ruminant nutrition is the third course our students take in animal nutrition. The class size last spring was 20 and students were juniors or seniors. For this "experiment", I did not lecture. Students were provided a reading assignment with a one page question set pertaining to the assignment that they were to complete before coming to class. When students arrived to class, chairs were arranged in a circle and class format was a group discussion on the topic covered by the reading assignment. For me, this was a dramatic departure from past teaching methods. This seemed like an approach/setting more appropriate for the social sciences, especially on a nice spring day on the lawn in front of Bascom Hill!
The goal was to have the students teach themselves by doing the reading and answering the questions. They were to arrive at class as experts capable of discussing the topic, perhaps in greater depth than covered in the reading. The quality of the reading assignments was critical. I did not assign readings out of a text. Past course evaluations indicated that students did not like text books on this subject. The readings came from nutrition conference proceedings. Each year, there are 8-10 major conferences held throughout the US in which university faculty share recent research findings with professionals from the feed industry. In general, the conference speakers try to relate their research results to the real world. It is the continuing education vehicle for BS, MS, and PhD graduates that are employed by industry. Most proceedings include some literature review, some new data, and a reference list that is predominantly peer-review journal articles. The conference proceedings usually do not teach basic biology. However, in general, they are written at a fairly high level. I tried to impress upon the students that after graduation, this was the major route by which they would receive continuing education and keep abreast with recent developments in their field. In other words, I wanted them to know that the readings were not abstract material with no relationship to the real world and future careers.
I indicated to the students that 75% of the material on the exam would come directly from their question sets. The other 25% was to come from material in the readings not covered on the question sets or from points brought out in discussion. The question sets were graded quite leniently; I only wanted to check if the students had completed the reading. I did insist that the question sets were due at the beginning of class prior to group discussion.
Students did come to class prepared. They seemed to do a thorough job of reading the assignment and did not just skim the text to find answers. As expected, students were much more involved during class than when I lectured. (I have always sought student participation when lecturing.) It was their turn to talk, not mine. Some students who rarely spoke, did poorly on exams, and were perceived as being academically inferior by the instructor, excelled in this format. Many of these students were from dairy farms and were able to relate the subject matter to on farm situations that they had experienced. More emphasis was placed on application of biology which really motivated students with applied interests (the majority of our students). Fewer topics were covered but in more depth. This forced me to prioritize subject matter.
Student feed back was extremely favorable. Students indicated that participation stimulated them to learn. Students appreciated the opportunity to think during class rather than just take notes. They also felt that it enabled the professor to better determine if students were comprehending the material.
I loose some control of the course content because I am not the author of the conference proceedings. Therefore, some of the material that I think is important may "fall through the cracks" if I do not introduce the material during group discussion. This was a short experiment, but I plan to expand the use of group discussion in the course. I have many questions that can not be addressed at this time. For example, can this technique be used for an entire semester? Will students grow tired of it? Are there sufficient high quality references for all topics? Do the students learn more than they would through formal lectures? How do I evaluate the success/failure of the change?
[Top ]
UW-Madison, December 1997