Biological Sciences (61). Based on students feedback, professional teaching teams of faculty, lecturers and teaching assistants (TAs) in the Biology department at Stanford University are developing and testing research-based, interactive introductory Biology curriculum focusing on three areas, molecular and cellular biology, evolution, and ecology. Ten weeks of study are devoted to each area during which time students are guided in the laboratory and in the field by the faculty, lecturers and teaching assistants through modern research techniques to acquire and analyze data in order to explore an important research question provided to the class. After analyzing the data, teams of students propose a hypothesis based on the data, devise an experimental plan, execute the experiments, record and analyze data, present their results and conclusions to the class, and submit a final report. During the teaching of the course, feedback provided by both students and the professional teaching teams, through the use of formative evaluation tools, allows the instructional teams to make real-time adjustments to the course. Since exemplary teaching is critical to the success of these courses, goals for the professional teaching teams are part of the project, and their attainment is an important focus. This project is being co-funded by funds from the Directorate for Biological Sciences, Emerging Frontiers Division.
With a two-year TUES (formerly CCLI) award from NSF (2010-2011), Stanford University’s Department of Biology designed and tested two pilot courses comprising the undergraduate biology laboratory curriculum. This process resulted in the successful launch of a new approach to teaching molecular biology/genetics and ecology/evolution to the undergraduates in 2012. The intellectual merit of our endeavor was a redesign of our introductory biology laboratory series to create a rigorous, research-based, interactive curriculum that engages students, presents them with a serious intellectual challenge, and enables them to experience the process of scientific discovery, analysis and communication. During each ten-week course, students engaged in critical thinking about a research question, without predetermined "answers." They applied contemporary research techniques to explore this question, computational tools to analyze their team and class data, and, as appropriate, statistical tools to assess the validity of their hypotheses. Both courses were based on real-world research, related to the expertise and research of the course faculty. During the molecular biology/genetics course, student teams studied mutant forms of the human cancer tumor suppressor p53 protein, expressed in a model yeast system. They searched databases to obtain information about the nucleotide sequence of their mutant and possible effects on its structure. They performed experiments to determine levels of p53 driven transactivation of reporter protein expression. They explored the levels of p53 mutant protein in their yeast construct, evaluated p53 mutant binding efficiency to different response elements, and tagged their mutant p53 with green fluorescent protein (GFP) to visualize its location in the cell. During the spring ecology/evolution course, student teams studied a community of flowers supporting populations of yeast, a model for community assembly. At the macro level, student teams monitored flower production on assigned plants and correlated the timing of flowering and/or flower density with one of three abiotic factors (temperature, light, water). They also recorded observations associated with pollination by hummingbirds and foraging by caterpillars. On the microbial side, students harvested the nectar from representative flowers and plated samples on yeast-selective medium to quantify the number of yeast present. Using subsets of the above data, students tested their various hypotheses about the relationship of the abiotic and biotic factors to the number and/or density of yeast in the flowering community. For both courses, final projects included oral presentations and written reports. In parallel with the modern research approaches we improved course instruction and evaluation. To design and teach the pilot courses, we developed a multi-level educator team that included professors, instructors with PhDs and/or extensive experience in education, and graduate student teaching assistants. This team diversity of professorial research, educator pedagogy, and youthful enthusiasm and expertise of developing PhD candidates, purposefully combined to engage the undergraduate students in inquiry-based learning. We also relied on and endorse the use of formative and summative feedback from all appropriate groups to inform improvements in the course content and delivery, as well as to grow the professional skills of each participant of the instructional team. The broader impact of our curriculum and instructional redesign is its transformative value to the undergraduate introductory laboratory experience, providing a sustainable and scalable model for others to consider. Because the biology laboratory curriculum is required of all Stanford biology majors, human biology majors and pre-medical students, a wide spectrum of undergraduates will experience research first-hand. In evaluations, students enthusiastically endorsed the approach of basing the courses on a continuous research project, with no predetermined answers to the questions posed. They enjoyed working as two-person teams, in the context of the classroom with four other teams, and collaborated among teams by sharing hypotheses, data, analyses and critical discussions. We expect the consequential development of critical thinking and analytical skills will serve students well in their other courses and after graduation as they confront important issues based in science and technology. The intensive nature of this research-focused laboratory curriculum requires the collaborative effort of faculty, staff and students, as well as university leadership, providing a natural community for intellectual challenge, mentoring and support. We anticipate that the cycle of course redesign, development, implementation, and annual improvement is a six to eight year cycle, that is initiated with intense input at the faculty level with students in early years, evolving to a sustainable professorial input with the instructional team in the latter half of the cycle. The design of a succeeding course would start two years prior to full implementation, embracing new faculty and their research interests.
