This post will discuss a learning exercise I participated in as part of graduate school through the lens of Chickering and Gamson’s “7 Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education.”
In graduate school I was involved in computer simulation for a Medical Pharmacology course as both a student and an instructor. The purpose of the simulation was to teach students autonomic pharmacology through showing the cardiovascular effects of various drugs on a dog. The simulation showed ‘live recordings’ of a dog’s response to different drugs. Now one non-teaching related advantage of this simulation was that only a few dogs were experimented upon and euthanized for the purpose of teaching autonomic pharmacology by measuring their cardiovascular responses. This simulation is used year after year for medical and graduate students and has gotten rid of the ‘need’ to experiment on a large group of dogs every year. While that’s an important point I want to throw in there let’s look at how well both the entire learning exercise and the computer simulation technology itself promoted student engagement as assessed by the 7 principles of good practice.
1. Did it promote student/faculty contact?
- I could go either way on this one. The students worked in small groups around laptops to complete the assignment. This did not directly involve the faculty. However, they did have to check their answer with the instructor for each question posed before moving on. Moreover, many groups asked the instructor for help when getting stuck…it seemed they were more likely to do this as a group than individually. I would say that while the technology itself did not promote student/instructor contact the group set-up made contact more likely because they could ask questions as a small group instead of as an individual (making them less afraid/nervous).
2. Did it promote cooperation among students?
- Again working in small groups obviously promotes student-student contact and cooperation among students. Did the simulation itself promote more interaction than if it were small groups working on similar problems without the simulation? Now that I am not as sure about. I think most problem-solving exercises in small groups promote this type of interaction with or without technology.
3. Did it encourage active learning?
- I believe working in small groups itself promotes active learning as the students talk to each other about what they are learning and their thought process during problem-solving. I think the simulation promoted active learning on top of the group component by allowing students to experiment with different drugs on the dog and then try to block the effects they caused with one set of drugs using a different set of drugs. They had to talk out the problem-solving required to complete the computer simulation and write down how they solved the problem. In this sense I think both the exercise itself and the technology promoted active learning.
4. Did it encourage prompt feedback?
- This exercise promoted prompt feedback because as soon as the groups thought they had an answer to one of the problems they needed to check with the instructor that both their answer was correct AND how they came to their answer was logical rather than due to just guessing. I would say the technology itself did not enhance the prompt feedback…it could have been setup to do so but that role was given instead to the instructor.
5. Did it emphasize time on task?
- This exercise required spending some time at the beginning of class explaining how to use the computer simulation software which was ‘time away from task’ if you will. Moreover, the simulation software allowed students to just ‘play around’ looking at the effects of various drugs on the cardiovascular system. Now I wouldn’t say that the simulation itself emphasized time on task and in fact in some ways could promote ‘goofing around’ using the software. However, I also think the freedom the software allowed to play around may have helped learning of the effects of certain drugs even if they were not critical to the questions laid out for the students to answer.
6. Did it communicate high expectations?
- The exercise itself communicated high expectations in my opinion as it required the students to both come to the correct solution and show that they got there through logical reasoning and could back up their final answer. Now the simulation itself did not communicate this but the exercise as a whole did. They were not graded on just being present and guessing the right answers, they were also graded on how they problem-solved…I think those are high but acceptable expectations.
7. Did it respect diverse talents and ways of learning?
- The complete exercise involved a short 15-minute lecture on the autonomic nervous system before starting the computer simulation. So students received information verbally, via text on the board, and via visual output from the computer which I think respects at least 2-3 ways of learning. I think the group-work also respected diverse talents as the person in the group best at using technology could be the one running the simulation, while others lead the problem-solving component and others wrote down the logical process that led to the conclusion/answer.
Okay so that was alot, now let’s redux it. Hopefully, you’re seeing a pattern similar to what my brain recognizes from my thoughts above. That is the setup of the learning exercise is what is really critical to promoting good practice/engagement/learning. Now the technology used can either enhance or decrease the value of the exercise but by itself the technology does not really promote good practice. In other words: It’s all in how you use it! You could take a great learning activity and absolutely ruin it with misuse of technology or even overuse of technology. At the same time I don’t think you can take a ‘bad’ learning exercise and make it the bee’s knees just by adding in some technology. I am pretty sure this is the point the instructors are trying to get at in general. While I knew it in the back of my mind already I think through the teaching vignettes and analyzing the learning exercise above this idea was brought to the forefront.
I also noted that not all of the principles were necessarily used by this exercise and I don’t think they needed to be. For instance I’m not sure time on task was emphasized in this case, but I feel the freedom for the students to ‘play around’ with the simulation and learn some things that weren’t necessarily required was just as useful to them overall. To paraphrase a quote that has at least been attributed to Mark Twain ‘Don’t let your schooling interfere with your education.’
Overall, I think the dog simulation was a great exercise and the technology certainly enhanced at least one good practice (promoting active learning). Now it would still be a good exercise based on the set-up without the simulation technology, but not as good. In fact I am not sure that the professor who came up with the exercise has ever even read Chickering, but I do think it’s worth an e-mail to him to let him know that through the lens of the 7 principles and promoting student engagement to enhance learning he’s got a pretty solid exercise. It’s no surprise that the students say the dog simulation is one of their favorite activities in that Pharmacology course, especially considering almost all other classtime is lecture…
What do you think? Does technology promote good practice or does it only enhance the good practices already inherent in an exercise? Could time on task not be all it’s cracked up to be/does allowing for autonomy also promote engagement/learning?
Lifelong Learner 
I enjoyed reading your post. I appreciate the link above but also the “ping” in my comment list–I will need to figure out how to do that because it was very useful.
Regarding the breakdown of your simulation experience–I think you did a great job breaking it all down. The one thing that I didn’t see in your discussion of the simulation (because it really wasn’t applicable to the topic at hand) was the increased transferability of the information learned in simulation compared to non-simulation learning events. This may be more applicable in medical, aviation, and military scenarios than pharm/tox though, I don’t know. I’m curious about your specific situation–was it a “true to life” simulation? Was there a transferability component to it? I guess you aren’t planning to give drugs to a dog (computerized or real) in real life… Why do a computer dog? If you are going simulation, why not make it a simulated person, assuming you guys aren’t training to be vets? hmmm. completely off the subject, I know.
I think your classes are still set up within the pedagogical framework of the teacher dictating what the students need to know, in which case time on task is probably more important than autonomy (but having some time to play around and learn on your own is always good). The andragogical framework is that the adult students get to learn what they want (within the framework of the class of course. If it’s a cooking class we aren’t suddenly going to turn it into a woodworking class. There are always boundaries.) and that the teacher is there as a facilitator to make sure it happens. That’s why autonomy is so important to me.
It sounds like you are supported good, old fashioned, basic good program design and that’s something I can get behind. What you describe–with the bits of new info interspersed into implementation and experimentation–sounds a lot like Jane Vella’s program design and that’s just plain good teaching. I agree–teaching before technology!
Laura,
You’re welcome for the link, I thought since your post had a bit on autonomy at the end it was fitting to send readers there. As far as the pingback in the comments I think that happens automatically when a hyperlink is to a specific post from another blog (i.e. I didn’t do anything other than hyperlink to your post to make that happen.)
As far as the SIM being true-to-life…it was. To explain a bit further this simulation displayed real recordings taken from experiments on live dogs using various drugs recorded previously. So before that class contained a simulation the medical students used to do the experiments on live dogs way back in the day. Some of those recordings were saved and basically became the simulation. So the simulation was on dogs because that’s what was previously used…moreover the cardiovascular effects are similar between dog and man in this case (for the most part).
You’re correct in your point about the exercise still remaining in the pedagogical framework vs. the andragogical framework. One reason I enjoy commenting back and forth with you is that you have a much broader knowledge of the education field and that makes me read/learn things to get up to speed and be able to have a small discussion (e.g. I didn’t know the term andragogy before this class and how it compared to pedagogy). Now the students also have access to this simulation outside of the classroom (it is completely web-based) which would give them a chance to explore drugs within the simulation software that are not a part of the in-class exercise but still relevant to autonomic pharmacology. They are encouraged to do that…that aspect fits better into the andragogical framework from what I can tell though the classtime exercise is still pedagogical (I hope that makes sense since I’m trying out all these fancy new words). 😉
Now you mention about increased transferability of the information from the SIM compared to non-SIM exercises. Now if by that you mean is the information more applicable to ‘real-world situations’ that an MD might encounter, then I would say yes. Information taught about the effects of drugs in a lecture makes very bold/clear statements about effect, but when shown in the recordings of an anesthetized animal things are not as straightforward/clear-cut. I think this is good training for them as drug effects are never as straightforward as textbooks would have you believe and this is one way the students/learners can see that.
Nice analysis of a learning experience through the lens of the 7 Principles. So…you seemed to lay something out that kind of validates the exercise through a post hoc analysis. Which is also what we did in the teaching vignettes we pitched in class. I continue to wonder if the 7 Principles are useful at informing upfront decisions and design when it comes to using technology in teaching. Like you said in a comment on one of Laura’s posts…at least it got you thinking about a rationale for meaningful use.
Jeff,
I’d like to think that you could use the 7 principles as guidelines when generating a learning exercise as opposed to validation after use, but like you I am not so sure it is as effective that way. I feel like you try to use them as a guideline when creating an exercise but you’ll only truly know whether it worked after the exercise is completed and you see how well it worked. For example as you create the exercise it seems like it should hit 5 of 7 principles but in post hoc analysis it only hits 3 or 4. I think there are some things you just won’t know how well they will work until you try them and then analyze and refine afterward. Although I guess that’s the exact kind of answer a scientist would give you (i.e. try the experiment, look at the results and then analyze how well it worked…then refine the experiment and try again). So I think it’s worth trying using the principles as a guideline while generating the learning exercise, just trying to keep in mind it probably won’t work exactly as well as you think the first time at least…doesn’t mean we should throw the baby out with the bathwater though!
I agree, ST. I think it’s a useful to keep the checklist in mind while designing learning activities but it really comes in handy at the end of the day when you are evaluating what you have done (so that you can make changes for next year…) In fact, Jeff, has anyone ever tried to base a student evaluation survey on the 7 prinicples? I mean, think about something as big as the dog lab…(funny, Science Teacher, I actually participated in the “Dog Lab” when it was a real dog lab…when you started giving more details I was like…”ooohhh, THAT lab. Twelve years later and I remember the experience)…why wouldn’t you give the students the opportunity to rate the experience, and what better to incorporate into the evaluation but questions based on the seven principles (as well as some other things…)
Great post and analysis of a exercise presented during your graduate school work. Most science classes at undergraduate universities are separated into lab and lecture classes. While the lab is supposed to coincide with what was taught in the lecture previously, do you feel that experiments such as the one you mentioned above should be incorporated into the classroom? Essentially, should lecture and lab almost be merged to make science more active learning and to explain where concepts/theories/ideas came from as they are being taught (not 3 days later in the lab)? You mentioned that this exercise was to teach about autonomic pharmacology and the cardiovascular response and was the only “hands-on” portion of the class while the rest was lectures. But, this is the class most people remembered and probably still to this day students remember the concept that this experiment was trying to show them. Therefore, do exercises like this one need to be incorporated into dry class lectures in order to employ more of the 7 Principles?
I think it is very important to try and sync the lab schedule with the lecture/class-time schedule. By this I mean performing the lab related to autonomic pharmacology at the end of the week with the lectures on autonomic pharmacology, as an example. Give the learners the basics of the information/principles first and then let them apply it in a hands-on manner through a laboratory/active learning exercise of some sort. Now it would be great/best to do it within the same day (as you suggested), but probably still ok if within the same week in my opinion. I feel if the two were separated by more time than that, then students might not put the link together as well. I think this is why many laboratories have a pre-lab lecture/recap right before you get hands on…as a way of saying “Hey…here’s a reminder of the principles we learned earlier this week and now we’re actively going to apply them in today’s lab via X or Y experiment.” But there may be many labs where that is not done…
I think exercises like the one I mentioned certainly need to be incorporated into dry class lectures to ‘spice them up’ if you will. But it doesn’t necessarily have to be a ‘lab’ as you and I think of one…perhaps a number of active learning techniques, group discussions, or critical thinking using principles just learned might also get the job done. I like to think of active learning techniques as trying to bring ‘the lab’ into the classroom in a way…in the sense of letting them apply the principles you just explained to them via an exercise of some sort.