Professional Development Cases By Shawn Glynn, Thomas Koballa, Dava Coleman, and Peggy Brickman
A professional development case in college science teaching bridges the gap between educational theory and practice. A good case poses an interesting dilemma involving instructors, students, and administrators. Case discussions can help instructors take charge of their own professional development and create a community of shared professional support within their colleges. These discussions help overcome the sense of isolation that many instructors, particularly new ones, can experience.
H
ow do college science instructors, particularly new ones, learn to cope with the dilemmas that routinely arise in their courses? Professional development cases are one way for teachers to prepare themselves for real-world problems that may arise during their teaching careers. Professional development cases usually involve dilemmas designed to stimulate inquiry, reflection, critical thinking, and problem solving. An extensive body of research supports the use of case discussions when learning how to solve complex problems in education (Dinan 2005; Herreid 2005; Lundeberg, Levin, and Harrington 1999). This process of discussing cases can provide new college science faculty with instructional, emotional, and managerial support. Case discusShawn Glynn (
[email protected]) is a professor of educational psychology and instructional technology, Thomas Koballa (
[email protected]) is a professor of science education, Dava Coleman (
[email protected]) is a regional coordinator of the PRISM Project, and Peggy Brickman (
[email protected]) is an assistant professor of plant biology; all at the University of Georgia in Athens, Georgia.
12
JOURNAL of COLLEGE SCIENCE TEACHING
sions can benefit seasoned faculty and administrators as well, providing a means for addressing professional development in science. A professional development case is a narrative about a significant event (e.g., an animal dissection in a biology lab) that leads to a dilemma and may involve instructors, students, and administrators. Cases may be openended, describing an event that leads to an unresolved dilemma, or closed, describing an event and how the dilemma was resolved. Open-ended and closed cases can be equally effective, as long as they lead to a productive discussion. Ideally, a case should be based on an actual event. However, confidentiality and ethical considerations must be paramount when considering a case. Pseudonyms should be substituted for real names, unless the names and events are public knowledge. The professional development case in Table 1 poses a dilemma involving a college biology instructor, a student, and a department head. The names are pseudonyms, and the college data have been changed, but the case is based on an actual incident. Science instructors and adminis-
trators who wish to share cases usually write them up in the form of a narrative, with dialogue similar to that in a screenplay or film script. Incorporating dialogue makes the cases more realistic and engaging than a simple summary of facts. The cases are then read to a small group that includes other instructors and administrators; we have found 4–10 to be good group size. Cases can be presented by other means as well, such as having different people read different dialogue parts and by acting and role-playing. Cases can also be presented through video and interactive software.
Professional development cases pose dilemmas Perhaps the easiest way to write a professional development case is to think of it as telling a story about a teaching dilemma that you experienced and that still puzzles you. The descriptive information you provide should include thoughts and feelings as well as actions. The case in Table 1 is closed, including an account of how the dilemma was actually resolved, but the same case could easily be made openended if that were desirable, by not including the resolution. At the end of the case are samples of the kind of questions that a presenter poses to a group to spark discussion. This case, like many, involves an instructor, a student, and an administrator. In our experience, the presenter typically assumes the role of case facilitator—that is, he or she is responsible for ensuring that the case
TABLE 1 Dr. Maria Perez’s case: Martin protests his BIOL 1107 lab grade I started teaching college biology two years ago. Located in the suburbs north of the city, the college where I work is the fourth largest in the state, with 16,326 students, 528 full-time instructional faculty, 30 buildings, and 52 undergraduate majors—with the biology major being one of the most popular. I teach sections of BIOL 1107 Biological Principles I, a four-hour semester course that includes a lab. The case I’m going to share with you is about an incident that occurred last month, so it’s still fresh in my memory. I was returning to my office after my BIOL 1107 lab when I noticed one of my students, Martin, walking behind me and getting closer. What now? I thought to myself. Martin had spent the first three weeks of the semester politely, but persistently, debating a number of my policies and assignments. I had returned the students’ second lab report today. I was hoping Martin was just passing by, but he wasn’t. “Dr. Perez, can I speak with you about my grade on the biology lab?” Nuts, I thought. I smiled and said,“Of course. Let’s sit down in my office and look at it.” We did and I opened with, “What questions do you have, Martin?” He replied, “I don’t understand why you scored my lab a B. My lab partner, Jon Gillan, got an A on his lab. We did the lab together and you even made more corrections on his report.” I almost said I didn’t know the answer to his question. And, to be truthful, I really didn’t. I had graded 74 lab reports from three lab sections in the past two days. I couldn’t remember his report. But, I was saved by a phone call reminding me that I was supposed to be in a meeting. I asked Martin to leave me his lab report so I could refresh my memory and promised that we would talk about it sometime in the future. Martin started to say something and then apparently decided against it—he then stood up and left. That afternoon I received a call from Bill Jackson, my department head, who said that Martin had come to see him. I didn’t know Bill well—this was my second year at the college and his first year as head of the department. “Martin’s lodged a complaint against you, Maria. He said he met with you about his lab grade and you didn’t go over his lab report with him, at least to his satisfaction. Martin told me he hopes to go to med school and he’s very conscious of his grades because of that.” I said, “I told Martin I’d look over the lab report again, I just haven’t had a chance yet.” Bill said he thought that might be the case and he was only passing along what Martin said to him. I thanked Bill, but was irritated with him, although I wasn’t sure I had a right to be. I guess he’s just doing his job, but I thought he could have been more supportive of me when talking to Martin. I then called Martin who, after some initial fencing, calmed down when I explained that I was in fact taking a close second look at his lab report. Martin had apparently not thought I really would. Assurances and apologies were exchanged and we agreed to meet at 3:00 p.m. tomorrow. I finally got to call it a day. The next morning, as soon as I arrived at my office, I read Martin’s lab report again and compared it to my scoring guide. The lab involved the measurement of enzyme activity—a standard lab in an introductory biology course. My scoring guide listed the components of the report, such as abstract, introduction, materials and methods, results, discussion, and literature cited. Using my scoring guide, I rated each component as being either A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1, or F = 0. I then arrived at an overall evaluation by averaging the components. This time, on Martin’s report, I wrote additional comments, explaining the strengths and
weaknesses. I judged his overall performance to be the same as when I previously graded the report—B, but not A. At 3:00 p.m. Martin came to my office.“Dr. Perez, did you have a chance to read my lab report again?” he asked. “I did, Martin. Let’s go over it, okay?” Armed with my scoring guide, I maneuvered through Martin’s report giving section by section explanations. I explained that although his results were the same as those of his lab partner, the discussion of the results differed in quality. Martin was very attentive as I spoke. I thought I was doing a good job explaining his performance when Martin stopped me dead in my tracks and asked, “But, how many points do I lose for each mistake?” I realized then that Martin wanted an accounting of his score based on an exact point system of, say, 1 point per “mistake.” I explained that I didn’t use a “point per mistake” system; what I did was evaluate each component of the lab report in terms of the four categories (A = 4, B = 3, and so on) and then arrived at an overall score by averaging the component scores. I struggled to avoid words like relative, subjective, or approximate because I thought that would only make matters worse by calling my judgment into question. I said,“Martin, I can’t give you a point by point account because I didn’t evaluate the report like that. Grading 74 lab reports in two days is not an exact science, with minus 2.5 points here and plus 3.75 points there. My evaluation is an approximation—but a good one. I first assigned the components of your lab to one of five performance categories based on the presence or absence of key features and then I determined your overall level of performance.” After a few moments, he said, “I understand that you judged my work on each of the components, and you looked for features, but how many points were each of the features worth? Do the points add up, or what?” I’m still in trouble, I thought, becoming confused and a bit flustered. In my two years of teaching, I hadn’t had a student ask me these kinds of questions before—and so assertively. I hesitated and then replied, “Martin, my assessment may not be perfect, but I try to be as fair as possible.” This was more of a plea than an explanation and I hoped he didn’t smell blood. I could see in his eyes that he was not satisfied with my response. Martin looked hard at me, but did not debate it further. He said he wanted to think about it some more and got up and left. I decided not to bring it up with Martin again, waiting instead for him to bring it up and hoping for a future opportunity to patch up any lingering hard feelings. Martin didn’t bring it up again and didn’t challenge my scoring on future lab reports. After a few weeks, I thought about telling Bill that the “Martin issue” was apparently resolved, but then decided to wait. If Bill remembered it and wanted to follow up, I thought, he could ask me about it. He never did and apparently forgot about it.
Sample questions for discussion 1. What should Maria, the teacher, have said to Martin, the student? 2. How should Maria have scored the lab report? 3. What should Bill, the department head, have said to Martin? 4. What should Maria and Bill have said to each other? 5. What should Maria and Bill have done differently?
SEPTEMBER 2006
13
discussion is a valuable professional development experience for all participants. Although all participants are informed that a case discussion is a form of cooperative learning and they should be respectful of different opinions, sometimes participants forget this when a discussion heats up. A skilled facilitator ensures that the discussion remains positive and that no one dominates it. The facilitator strives to build common understandings among the participants and places the case in a larger context, helping all to see the big picture. A good case provides a bridge between theory and practice in science teaching. It helps instructors to build upon their experience, to better understand important issues, and to view the issues from the perspective of each other, fostering mutual respect. A good case poses a specific dilemma that is credible, engaging, and challenging. Usually, there is more than one way to respond effectively. That’s because the situations that instructors find themselves in are sometimes ambiguous, unpredictable, and downright confusing. Such situations are not unique to college science instructors—physicians, lawyers, and business people experience them too, and that is why case discussions
14
JOURNAL of COLLEGE SCIENCE TEACHING
are used frequently in their fields as well. In these situations, there may be multiple responses that are effective, and the best ones often depend upon a thorough understanding of the local conditions.
Advantages of professional development cases A traditional approach to professional development has been to bring in outside experts to lecture and answer questions. But what about the inside experts? Case discussions capitalize on the expertise of instructors within a department or college. Case discussions facilitate the sharing of strategies and science knowledge. In addition, case discussions are ideally suited to help instructors grapple with the complex issues that confront them daily in their courses. Science instructors can use case discussions to effectively prepare themselves for challenging issues related to teaching methods, curriculum design, assessment, evaluation, student motivation, laboratory safety, and legal responsibilities. They can also use case discussions to help prepare for their students’ questions about highly controversial topics such as the origin of the universe, the evolution of life, the use of natural resources, animal
rights, and genetic engineering, to name a few. In conclusion, case discussions promote professional relationships and provide instructional, emotional, and managerial support in college science teaching. Case discussions can help instructors take charge of their own professional development and create a community of shared inquiry within their colleges. Case discussions also help overcome the sense of isolation that many science instructors, particularly new ones, experience. By emphasizing the sharing of mutual expertise, case discussions make science instructors feel like they are a part of a larger professional community. References
Dinan, F.J. 2005. Laboratory-based case studies: Closer to the real world. Journal of College Science Teaching 35 (2): 27–29. Herreid, C.F. 2005. The interrupted case method. Journal of College Science Teaching 35 (2): 4–5. Lundeberg, M.A., B.B. Levin, and H. Harrington, eds. 1999. Who learns what from cases and how? The research base for teaching and learning with cases. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
