ASHWINI
- Rate J$821
- Response 1h
J$821/hr
See Biology tutors
Unfortunately, this tutor is unavailable
- Biology
About ASHWINI
I did completed my graduation in B. Pharm from savitribai phule pune university.
I did completed my post graduation in M. Pharm (pharmaceutics) from savitribai phule pune university.
My m. Pharm project title is "effect of diiferent procession variables of FBP on product characteristics of solid dispersion".
See more
About the lesson
- Primary
- Lower Secondary
- Upper Secondary
- +12
levels :
Primary
Lower Secondary
Upper Secondary
Lower Sixth Form
Upper Sixth Form
Diploma
Tertiary
Adult Education
Undergraduate
Master’s degree
PhD
Other
Legal Education Certificate (LEC)
MBA
Kindergarten
- English
All languages in which the lesson is available :
English
Pose thought-provoking questions which inspire your students to think for themselves and become more independent learners. Encouraging students to ask questions and investigate their own ideas helps improve their problem-solving skills as well as gain a deeper understanding of academic concepts.ASCB logo LSE Logo
Skip main navigationClose Drawer Menu
CBE—Life Sciences EducationVol. 12, No. 3 Features
Structure Matters: Twenty-One Teaching Strategies to Promote Student Engagement and Cultivate Classroom Equity
Kimberly D. Tanner
Published Online:13 Oct 2017
(concealed information)
About
Sections
INTRODUCTION
As a biology education community, we focus a great deal of time and energy on issues of “what” students should be learning in the modern age of biology and then probing the extent to which students are learning these things. Additionally, there has been increased focus over time on the “how” of teaching, with attention to questioning the efficacy of traditional lecture methods and exploring new teaching techniques to support students in more effectively learning the “what” of biology. However, the aspect of classroom teaching that seems to be consistently underappreciated is the nature of “whom” we are teaching. Undergraduate students often appear to be treated as interchangeable entities without acknowledgment of the central role of the individual students, their learning histories, and their personal characteristics in the student-centered nature of “how” we aspire to teach. Most innovative approaches to biology teaching that are at the core of national policy documents and resources are rooted in a constructivist framework (e.g., Posner et al., 1982; Handelsman et al., 2004; Labov et al., 2010; American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS], 2011; College Board, 2013). In constructivism, teachers can structure classroom environments with the intention of maximizing student learning, but learning is the work of students (Posner et al., 1982; Bransford et al., 2000). As such, each student's prior experience and attitude and motivation toward the material being learned, confidence in his or her ability to learn, and relative participation in the learning environment are all thought to be key variables in promoting learning of new ideas, biological or not. Finally, bringing together individual students in classrooms produces group interactions that can either support or impede learning for different individuals.
Designing learning environments that attend to individual students and their interactions with one another may seem an impossible task in a course of 20 students, much less a course of more than 700. However, there are a host of simple teaching strategies rooted in research on teaching and learning that can support biology instructors in paying attention to whom they are trying to help learn. These teaching strategies are sometimes referred to as “equitable teaching strategies,” whereby striving for “classroom equity” is about teaching all the students in your classroom, not just those who are already engaged, already participating, and perhaps already know the biology being taught. Equity, then, is about striving to structure biology classroom environments that maximize fairness, wherein all students have opportunities to verbally participate, all students can see their personal connections to biology, all students have the time to think, all students can pose ideas and construct their knowledge of biology, and all students are explicitly welcomed into the intellectual discussion of biology. Without attention to the structure of classroom interactions, what can often ensue is a wonderfully designed biology lesson that can be accessed by only a small subset of students in a classroom.
So what specific teaching strategies might we instructors, as architects of the learning environment in our classrooms, use to structure the classroom learning environment? Below are 21 simple teaching strategies that biology instructors can use to promote student engagement and cultivate classroom equity. To provide a framework for how these teaching strategies might be most useful to instructors, I have organized them into five sections, representing overarching goals instructors may have for their classrooms, including:
Giving students opportunities to think and talk about biology
Encouraging, demanding, and actively managing the participation of all students
Building an inclusive and fair classroom community for all students
Monitoring behavior to cultivate divergent biological thinking
Teaching all of the students in your biology classroom
For each of these goals, there is a brief consideration of why the goal is important for student learning, which is followed by descriptions of several simple strategies for structuring instructor–student and student–student interactions to strive for this goal. No doubt, there are likely dozens of additional strategies that could be added to this list. In addition, many of the strategies affiliated with one equitable teaching goal are also easily used in the service of one or more of the other goals. The intention of presenting these 21 strategies in this framework is solely to provide all biology instructors access to immediate and tractable teaching strategies for promoting access and equity for all students in their biology classrooms.
These equitable teaching strategies can be read and explored in any order. Readers are encouraged to use Table 1 to self-assess which of these strategies they may already use, which they are most interested in reading more about, and which they may want to try in their own classrooms. Self-assessment responses to Table 1 can guide which of the sections below you may be most interested in reading first.
Table 1. Self-assessment of equitable teaching strategiesa
Giving students opportunities to think and talk about biology
_________ 1. Wait time
_________ 2. Allow students time to write
_________ 3. Think–pair–share
_________ 4. Do not try to do too much
Encouraging, demanding, and actively managing the participation of all students
_________ 5. Hand raising
_________ 6. Multiple hands, multiple voices
_________ 7. Random calling using popsicle sticks/index cards
_________ 8. Assign reporters for small groups
_________ 9. Whip (around)
_________ 10. Monitor student participation
Building an inclusive and fair biology classroom community for all students
_________ 11. Learn or have access to students’ names
_________ 12. Integrate culturally diverse and relevant examples
_________ 13. Work in stations or small groups
_________ 14. Use varied active-learning strategies
_________ 15. Be explicit about promoting access and equity for all students
Monitoring (your own and students’) behavior to cultivate divergent biological thinking
_________ 16. Ask open-ended questions
_________ 17. Do not judge responses
_________ 18. Use praise with caution
_________ 19. Establish classroom community and norms
Teaching all of the students in your biology classroom
_________ 20. Teach them from the moment they arrive
_________ 21. Collect assessment evidence from every student, every class
Other equitable teaching strategies I use …
aSpaces to the left of each strategy can be used to indicate: N = never used; O = use occasionally; R = use regularly; W = would like to try!
GIVING STUDENTS OPPORTUNITIES TO THINK AND TALK ABOUT BIOLOGY
Human learning is a biological phenomenon of the brain. Synapses need time to fire, and relevant circuits in the brain need time to be recruited. Yet the structure of class time with students does not usually attend to giving students time to think and talk about biology. As experts with thousands of hours of thinking about biology, we as biologists no doubt think quite quickly about the topics we are attempting to teach students. And we as instructors can be misled that all students have had ample time to think by those few students in our courses who have more background in the concepts under discussion and raise their hands to share almost immediately. However, those students in our courses who are more biologically naïve may need more time to think and talk about the biological concepts under discussion. Below are four simple teaching strategies grounded in research to structure classroom time for students to think and talk about biology.
1. Wait Time
Perhaps the simplest teaching strategy to increase time for student thinking and to expand the number of students participating verbally in a biology classroom is to lengthen one's “wait time” after posing a question to your class (Rowe, 1969; Tobin, 1987). Mary Budd Rowe's groundbreaking papers introducing the concept of wait time have influenced educational practice since their publication more than 40 years ago (Rowe, 1969, 1974, 1978, 1987; Tanner and Allen, 2002). Rowe and colleagues documented in the precollege setting that instructors on average waited only ∼1.5 s after asking a question before taking a student response, answering the question themselves, or posing a follow-up question. With the seemingly modest extension of the “wait time” after a question to ∼3–5 s, Rowe and colleagues showed dramatic effects: substantially more students willing to volunteer answers, fewer students unwilling to share when called on, and increases in the length and complexity of the responses that students gave in response to the question (Rowe, 1974, 1978; Allen and Tanner, 2002). Thinking biologically about increasing wait time to promote student engagement and participation, it seems likely that this increase in time allows critical neural processing time for students, and perhaps also allows more introverted students time to rally the courage to volunteer an answer. Practically, extending wait time can be very challenging for instructors. Actively mentally counting the following—“one thousand one … one thousand two … one thousand three … one thousand four … one thousand five”—before acknowledging potential student respondents is one simple way to track the amount of time that has transpired after asking a question.
2. Allow Students Time to Write
Practicing wait time may still not give enough time for some students to gather a thought and or screw up the confidence to share that thought. Many students may need more scaffolding—more instruction and guidance—about how to use the time they have been given to think. One simple way to scaffold wait time is to explicitly require students to write out one idea, two ideas, three ideas that would capture their initial thoughts on how to answer the question posed. This act of writing itself may even lead students to discover points of confusion or key insights. In addition, if collected, this writing can hold students accountable in thinking and recording their ideas. To set the stage for doing these simple quick writes or minute papers throughout the semester, instructors can require on the syllabus that students purchase a packet of index cards (usually no more than a $1 cost) and bring a few cards to each class session for the purpose of these writing opportunities. Instructors need not collect all of these writings, though it may be quite informative to do so, and certainly instructors need not grade any (much less every) card that students produce. If these quick writes are graded, it can be only for participation points or more elaborately to provide conceptual feedback (Schinske, 2011). Giving students time to write is one way that instructors can structure the learning environment to maximize the number of students who have access (in this case enough time) to participate in thinking about biology.
3. Think–Pair–Share
The oft written about think–pair–share strategy is perhaps the simplest way for instructors coming from a traditional lecture approach to give all students in a classroom opportunities to think about and talk about biology (Lyman, 1981; Chi et al., 1994; Allen and Tanner, 2002; Smith et al., 2009; Tanner, 2009). The mechanics of a think–pair–share generally involve giving all students a minute or so to think (or usually write) about their ideas on a biological question. Then, students are charged to turn and talk with a neighboring student, compare ideas, and identify points of agreement and misalignment. These pair discussions may or may not be followed by a whole-group conversation in which individual students are asked to share the results of their pair discussion aloud with the whole class. Importantly, the instructor's role in facilitating a think–pair–share activity is to be explicit that students need not agree and also to convey that practicing talking about biology is an essential part of learning about biology. Integrating one or more think–pair–share opportunities during a class session has the potential to cultivate classroom equity in multiple ways: providing individual students time to verbalize their thoughts about biological concepts; promoting comparison of ideas among classmates; transforming the nature of the classroom environment to be more participatory; and promoting a collaborative, rather than competitive, culture in undergraduate science classes. Methodologically, a think–pair–share activity need not take more than a few minutes of class time, yet may allow students the neural processing time needed before being ready to take on new information offered by an instructor. It is also during these pair discussions that students may discover new confusions or points of disagreement about concepts with fellow students, which can drive questions to be asked of the instructor.
4. Do Not Try to Do Too Much
Finally, no instructors would likely express the sentiment: “I try to do so much in my class sessions that they go by quickly and students are unclear about what the goals for the class were.” However, evidence from a variety of research studies suggests that this may be the dominant experience for many students in undergraduate science courses (Tobias, 1990; Seymour and Hewitt, 1997). While “not doing too much” is a challenging task for most of us, one particular strategy that can reduce the amount of material considered during class time is to structure more active learning by students outside class time, in particular in the form of homework that goes beyond textbook readings. Examples include case study assignments that charge students to independently explore and find evidence about an upcoming conceptual idea before arriving in class. As experts in our biological fields, it is tempting to continually expand what we deem critical and nonnegotiable in terms of what students need to accomplish during class time. However, there are clear and present trade-offs between continually expanding our aspirations for in-class time and structuring a classroom learning environment that promotes student engagement and provides access to thinking and talking about biology for all students. One strategy for prioritizing how to spend precious class time is to decide on which biological ideas in a course are most difficult to learn, are rooted in common misconceptions, and/or represent fundamental biological principles (National Research Council, 1999; AAAS, 2011; Coley and Tanner, 2012).
ENCOURAGING, DEMANDING, AND ACTIVELY MANAGING THE PARTICIPATION OF ALL STUDENTS
If learning requires that students construct ideas for themselves, then demanding the active participation of every single student in a class is essential to learning. Currently, though, many undergraduate students in biology classrooms can navigate an entire term without speaking aloud in a course. They sit in the back of our large classrooms, and they attempt to appear to be busily writing when a question is asked in a small class. Being called upon to answer a question or share an idea can be deeply uncomfortable to many students, and we as instructors may not be doing enough to build students’ confidence to share. While few instructors would find this lack of active, verbal participation in science acceptable for emerging scientists such as graduate students or practicing scientists themselves, we somehow allow this for undergraduate students. The participation of a only few students in our classrooms on a regular basis, often from the front rows, distracts us from the fact that usually the vast majority of students are not participating in the conversation of biology. To encourage, and in fact demand, the participation of all students in a biology classroom, you can use the following six strategies with little to no preparation or use of class time.
5. Hand Raising
Actively enforcing the use of hand raising and turn taking in a classroom is likely to provide greater access to more students than an open, unregulated discussion. Novice instructors, sometimes awash in silence and desperate for any student participation, can allow the classroom to become an open forum. Some would say this is much like the culture of science in settings such as lab meetings and seminars. However, the undergraduates in our courses are novices, not only to the concepts we are sharing but also to the culture of science itself. As such, providing structure through something as simple as hand raising can establish a culture that the instructor expects all students to be participating. With hand raising, the instructor can also be explicit about asking for “hands from those of us who haven't had a chance yet to share” and strive to cultivate a classroom conversation that goes beyond a few students in the front row.
6. Multiple Hands, Multiple Voices
After asking a question, some instructors call on just a single student to answer. However, this is problematic in many ways. The same students can often end up sharing repeatedly during a class, as well as from class session to class session. In addition, if the goal is to better understand how students are thinking, having a single student share gives a very narrow and highly skewed picture of what a classroom full of students may be thinking. One simple strategy for broadening participation and increasing the breadth of ideas flowing from students to instructors is to generally ask for multiple hands and multiple voices to respond to any question posed during class time (Allen and Tanner, 2002). Instructors can set the stage for this by asserting, “I’m going to pose a question, and I’d like to see at least three hands of colleagues here who would share their ideas. I won't hear from anyone until I’ve got those three volunteers.” Additionally, this particular use of hand raising allows instructors to selectively call on those students who may generally participate less frequently or who may have never previously shared aloud in class. Importantly, instructors really must always wait for the number of hands that they have called for to share. Hearing from fewer than the number of volunteers called for can entrain students in a classroom to know that they simply have to outwait the instructor. Finally, if the number of requested hands have not been volunteered, the instructor can charge students to talk in pairs to rehearse what they could share if called upon to do so.
7. Random Calling Using Popsicle Sticks/Index Cards
Raising hands allows for the instructor to structure and choose which students are participating verbally in a class, but what if no one is raising a hand or the same students continually raise their hands? Establishing the culture in a classroom that any student can be called on at any time is another option for promoting student engagement and participation. How this is done can be critical. If the spirit of calling on students feels like a penalty, it may do more harm than good. However, if the instructor is explicit that all students in the course have great ideas and perspectives to share, then random calling on students in courses that range in size from 10 to 700 can be a useful strategy for broadening student participation. Practically, there are a variety of ways to call randomly on students. In smaller-sized courses, having a cup with popsicle sticks, each with the name of a student on it, can make the process transparent for students, as the instructor can clearly hold up the cup, draw three names, read the names, and begin the sharing. This can minimize suspicions that the instructor is preferentially calling on certain students. For larger course class sizes, instructors can collect an index card with personal information from each student on the first day. The cards serve two purposes: 1) to enable instructors to get to know students and to assist with learning students’ names, and 2) to provide a card set that can be used each class and cycled through over the semester to randomly call on different students to share (Tanner, 2011).
8. Assign Reporters for Small Groups
Promoting student engagement and classroom equity involves making opportunities for students to speak who might not naturally do so on their own. If the decision about who is to share aloud in a class discussion is left entirely to student negotiation, it is no surprise that likely the most extroverted and gregarious students will repeatedly and naturally jump at all opportunities to share. However, this sets up an inequitable classroom environment in which students who are unlikely to volunteer have no opportunities to practice sharing their scientific ideas aloud. Assigning a “reporter”—an individual who will report back on their small-group discussion—is a simple strategy to provide access to verbal participation for students who would not otherwise volunteer. The assignment of reporters need not be complex. It can be random and publicly verifiable, such as assigning that the reporter will be the person wearing the darkest shirt. In smaller classes, one can use simple tools to assign a reporter, such as colored clips on individual student name tents or colored index cards handed to students as they enter the class. It can also be nonrandom and intended to draw out a particular population. For example, assigning the group reporter to be the person with the longest hair will often, not always, result in a female being the reporter for a group. Or instructors can choose to hand out the colored clips/cards specifically to students who are less likely to share their ideas in class. Early on, it may be useful to assign based on a visible characteristic, so the instructor can verify that those students reporting are indeed those who were assigned to report. After the culture of assigned reporters is established, and everyone is following the rules, assignments can become less verifiable and prompt more personal sharing, such as the reporter is the person whose birthday is closest. Whatever the method, assigning reporters is a simple strategy for promoting classroom fairness and access to sharing ideas for more than just the most extroverted students.
9. Whip (Around)
Actively managing the participation of all students in smaller courses is sometimes well supported by the occasional use of what is termed a “whip around” or more simply just a “whip.” In using a whip, the instructor conveys that hearing an idea from every student in the classroom is an important part of the learning process. Whips can be especially useful toward the beginning of a course term as a mechanism for giving each student practice in exercising his or her voice among the entire group, which for many students is not a familiar experience. The mechanics of the whip are that the instructor poses a question to which each individual student will respond, with each response usually being
See more
Rates
Rate
- J$821
Pack prices
- 5h: J$4105
- 10h: J$8210
online
- J$821/h
Similar Biology teachers in Nawapur
Mubarak-Ahmad
Old Harbour & Online
- J$1,500/hr
- 1st lesson free
De-Andra
Mandeville & Online
- J$2,000/hr
- 1st lesson free
Monique
Kingston & Online
- J$1,916/hr
- 1st lesson free
Joshua
Linstead & Online
- J$2,000/hr
- 1st lesson free
Akshi
London, United Kingdom & Online
- J$10,515/hr
- 1st lesson free
Dr Mahmoud
, United Kingdom & Online
- J$16,824/hr
- 1st lesson free
Habiba
Oxford, United Kingdom & Online
- J$10,515/hr
- 1st lesson free
Chantelle
London, United Kingdom & Online
- J$21,030/hr
Alaa
Richmond Hill, Canada & Online
- J$8,377/hr
Joe
London, United Kingdom & Online
- J$14,721/hr
- 1st lesson free
Dr Sonali
Los Gatos, United States & Online
- J$10,324/hr
Georges
Baltimore, United States & Online
- J$7,942/hr
- 1st lesson free
Pratima
Winterville, United States & Online
- J$3,971/hr
- 1st lesson free
Michael
London, United Kingdom & Online
- J$12,618/hr
- 1st lesson free
Dr Ammar
Dearing, United States & Online
- J$12,707/hr
- 1st lesson free
Christopher
Bend, United States & Online
- J$7,148/hr
- 1st lesson free
Dr Amin
, United Kingdom & Online
- J$7,360/hr
Tabitha
London, United Kingdom & Online
- J$18,927/hr
- 1st lesson free
Jérôme
Paris 7e, France & Online
- J$21,344/hr
- 1st lesson free
Salma
Streatham, United Kingdom & Online
- J$11,566/hr
-
See Biology tutors
