Does it Matter if Students Have the Same Instructor for Both Lecture and Lab Sections? An Analysis of Introductory Biology Students

Main Article Content

Michael Joseph Wise

Abstract

With the goal of increasing the immediacy of the relationship between tenure-track professors and students, science departments in liberal arts colleges may try to arrange their curriculum so that students have the same professor in both the lecture and the lab section of introductory courses. While this goal seems laudable, empirical data are currently lacking to justify the logistical hurdles and professional sacrifices likely required to match professors to students in both lecture and lab sections of large courses. To address this data gap, I analyzed student evaluations and grades from three years of an introductory biology course that included separate lecture and lab sections. There was no evidence that matching a student’s lecture and lab instructor had any benefit on either the students’ perception of the effectiveness of the labs, or on the students’ performance in their lab or lecture sections. In addition, there was no consistent pattern in students’ perceptions of the relative effectiveness of tenure-track professors, visiting professors, and adjunct instructors. This study suggests that students may even benefit from having different instructors in their lecture and lab, whether they are tenured professors, visiting professors, or part-time adjuncts.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
Wise, M. J. (2017). Does it Matter if Students Have the Same Instructor for Both Lecture and Lab Sections? An Analysis of Introductory Biology Students. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 17(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.14434/v17i1.19583
Section
Articles
Author Biography

Michael Joseph Wise, Roanoke College

Department of Biology, Visiting Assistant Professor

References

Allen, D., & Tanner, K. (2005). Infusing active learning into the large-enrollment biology class: seven strategies, from the simple to complex. Cell Biology Education, 4, 262-268. http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.05-08-0113.

Baldwin, R. G., & Wawrzynski, M. R. (2011). Contingent faculty as teachers: what we know; what we need to know. American Behavioral Scientist, 55(11), 1485-1509. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0002764211409194.

Beichner, R. J., & Saul, J. M. (2003). Introduction to the SCALE-UP (student-centered activities for large enrollment undergraduate programs) project. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the International School of Physics, Varenna, Italy. http://www.ncsu.edu/PER/Articles/Varenna_SCALEUP_Paper.pdf.

Benjamin, E. (2002). How over-reliance on contingent appointments diminishes faculty involvement in student learning. Peer Review, 5, 4-10. http://www.aacu.org/publicationsresearch/periodicals/how-over-reliance-contingent-appointments-diminishes-faculty.

Burrowes, P. A., & Nazario, G. M. (2008). Promoting student learning through the integration of lab and lecture: The seamless biology curriculum. Journal of College Science Teaching, 37(4), 18-23. http://www.nsta.org/publications/browse_journals.aspx?action=issue&id=10.2505/3/jcst08_037_ 04.

Gonzalez, B. Y. (2014). A six-year review of student success in a biology course using lecture, blended, and hybrid methods. Journal of College Science Teaching, 43(6), 14-19.

Hoellwarth, C., Moelter, M. J., & Knight, R. D. (2005). A direct comparison of conceptual learning and problem solving ability in traditional and studio style classrooms. American Journal of Physics, 73(5), 459-462. DOI: 10.1119/1.1862633.

Kendall, K. D., & Schussler, E. E. (2012). Does instructor type matter? Undergraduate student perception of graduate teaching assistants and professors. CBE Life Sciences Education, 11, 187-199. http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.11-10-0091

Kendall, K. D., & Schussler, E. E. (2014). The effect of instructor title on student instructional expectations. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 8(1), Article 10. http://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/ijsotl/vol8/iss1/10/?utm_source=digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu%2Fijsotl%2Fvol8%2Fiss1%2F10&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

Kezar, A., Maxey, D., & Eaton, J. (2014). An examination of the changing faculty: Ensuring institutional quality and achieving desired learning outcomes CHEA Occasional Paper. Washington, DC: Institute for Research and Study of Accreditation and Quality Assurance. http://www.chea.org/pdf/Examination_Changing_Faculty_2013.pdf

Klionsky, D. J. (2004). Talking biology: learning outside the book--and the lecture. Cell Biology Education, 3, 204-210.

Knight, J. K., & Wood, W. B. (2005). Teaching more by lecturing less. Cell Biology Education, 4, 298-310. http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/05-06-0082.

Krontiris-Litowitz, J. (2009). Articulating scientific reasoning improves student learning in an undergraduate anatomy and physiology course. CBE Life Sciences Education, 8, 309-315. DOI: 10.1187/cbe.08-11-0066.

LeFebvre, L., & Allen, M. (2014). Teacher immediacy and student learning: an examination of lecture/laboratory and self-contained course sections. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 14(2), 29-45. http://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1034599.

Lents, N. H., & Cifuentes, O. E. (2009). Web-based learning enhancements: video lectures through voice-over PowerPoint in a majors-level biology course. Journal of College Science Teaching, 39(2), 38-46.

Lodish, H. F., & Rodriguez, R. K. (2004). A combination of lectures, problem sets, and recitation sections is an excellent way to teach undergraduate cell biology at a high level. Cell Biology Education, 3, 202-204.

Lumpkin, A., Achen, R. M., & Dodd, R. K. (2015). Student perceptions of active learning. College Student Journal, 49(1), 121-133.

Sundberg, M. D., Armstrong, J. E., & Wischusen, E. W. (2005). A reappraisal of the status of introductory biology laboratory education in U.S colleges & universities. The American Biology Teacher, 67(9), 525-529. DOI: 10.1662/0002-7685(2005)067[0525:AROTSO]2.0.CO;2.

Todd, T. S., Tillson, L. D., Cox, S. A., & Malinauskas, B. K. (2000). Assessing the perceived effectiveness of the basic communication course: an examination of the mass-lecture format versus the self-contained format. Journal of the Association for Communication Administration, 29, 185-195. http://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ622770.

Umbach, P. D. (2007). How effective are they? Exploring the impact of contingent faculty on undergraduate education. The Review of Higher Education, 30(2), 91-123. http://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ754257.

Wildermuth, S. M., French, T., & Fredrick, E. (2013). Finding the right fit: Assessing the impact of traditional v. large lecture/small lab course formats on a general education course. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 7(1), 1-21. http://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/ij-sotl/vol7/iss1/6.