Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Understanding the pedagogical practices of biochemistry and molecular biology academics

  • Published:
The Australian Educational Researcher Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

As higher education transitions from an exclusivist to a more accessible endeavour, class sizes are continuously increasing, prompting academics to explore different strategies to facilitate quality learning. In this paper, we explore the current practices of Australian biochemistry and molecular biology academics to understand how academics cope with the mass education context, and whether there are specific blocks to the introduction of active learning into these classrooms. We utilised inductive thematic analysis to identify the themes underpinning the pedagogical practices of a selection of academics in biochemistry and molecular biology. These data indicated that these academics: (1) consider themselves to be, and are, traditional teachers; (2) believe that their students will learn better the way that they were taught at university; (3) are trying to shift their teaching from traditional to non-traditional; and (4) practice reflective teaching. These findings suggest that these pedagogical practices are primarily influenced by the academics’ own presumptions and educational beliefs on how the specific discipline should be taught. Engagement in professional development appears to be influencing some academics to shift their teaching towards a more active and student-centred focus, but still, a lack of formal education qualification is holding many academics back from fully engaging with current pedagogical best practice. The findings in this study are broadly applicable to many higher education disciplines.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Allen, D., & Tanner, K. (2005). Infusing active learning into the large-enrollment biology class: Seven strategies, from simple to complex. Cell Biology Education, 4(2005), 262–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andrews, T. M., Leonard, M. J., Colgrove, C. A., & Kalinowski, S. T. (2011). Active learning not associated with student learning in a random sample of college biology courses. CBE—Life Science Education, 10(4), 394–405. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.11-07-0061.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Armbruster, P., Patel, M., Johnson, E., & Weiss, M. (2009). Active learning and student-centered pedagogy improve student attitudes and performance in introductory biology. CBE Life Sciences Education, 8(3), 203–213. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.09-03-0025.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Armstrong, N., Chang, S.-M., Brickman, M., & Ebert-May, D. (2007). Cooperative learning in industrial-sized biology classes. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 6(2), 163–171. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.06-11-0200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aspland, T. (n.d.). Transnational education in higher education: Productive pedagogies or pure profit? Retrieved November 20, 2015 from, https://www.education.uwa.edu.au/research/frameworks.

  • Australian Government Department of Education and Training. (2017). Undergraduate applications, offers and acceptances 2017. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bain, J. D. (2000). Celebrating good teaching in higher education: Putting beliefs into practice. In C. Bowie (Ed.), Improving the Quality of Teaching for Learning: Proceedings of the 1998 Conference of the Queensland Branch of HERDSA. Brisbane, Queensland: HERDSA

  • Bain, J., McNaught, C., Mills, C., & Lueckenhausen, G. (1998). Describing computer-facilitated learning environments in higher education. Learning Environments Research, 1, 163–180. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009905832421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ballantyne, R., Bain, J. D., & Packer, J. (1999). Researching university teaching in Australia: Themes and issues in academics' reflections. Studies in Higher Education, 24(2), 237–257. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079912331379918.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becher, T. (1981). Towards a definition of disciplinary cultures. Studies in Higher Education, 6(2), 109–122. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075078112331379362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becher, T. (1989). Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the cultures of diciplines. Milton Keynes: SRHE and Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, S., Thomas, L., Agostinho, S., Lockyer, L., Jones, J., & Harper, B. (2011). Understanding the design context for Australian university teachers: Implications for the future of learning design. Learning, Media and Technology, 36(2), 151–167. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2011.553622.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernstein, D. J. (2008). Peer review and evaluation of the intellectual work of teaching. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 40(2), 48–51. https://doi.org/10.3200/CHNG.40.2.48-51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2007). Teaching for quality learning at university. New York: McGraw Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyatzis, R. E. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyer, E., Altbach, P., & Whitelaw, M. (1994). The academic profession: An international perspective. New Jersey: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bransford, J., Brown, A., & Cocking, R. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bugarcic, A., Zimbardi, K., Macaranas, J., & Thorn, P. (2012). An inquiry-based practical for a large, foundation-level undergraduate laboratory that enhances student understanding of basic cellular concepts and scientific experimental design. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 40(3), 174–180. https://doi.org/10.1002/bmb.20587.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bush, H., Daddysman, J., & Charnigo, R. (2014). Improving outcomes with bloom’s taxonomy: From statistics education to research partnerships. J Biomet Biostat, 5, 1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cavanagh, M. (2011). Students’ experiences of active engagement through cooperative learning activities in lectures. Active Learning in Higher Education, 12(1), 23–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787410387724.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cook, A. L., Snow, E. T., Binns, H., & Cook, P. S. (2015). Self-reported student confidence in troubleshooting ability increases after completion of an inquiry-based PCR practical. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 43(5), 316–323. https://doi.org/10.1002/bmb.20881.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, E. A., Hodgson, Y., & Macaulay, J. O. (2012). Engagement of students with lectures in biochemistry and pharmacology. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 40(5), 300–309. https://doi.org/10.1002/bmb.20627.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeHaan, R. L. (2005). The impending revolution in undergraduate science education. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 14(2), 253–269. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-005-4425-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1998). Introduction: Entering the field of qualitative research. Strategies of Qualitative Inquiry (pp. 1–34). Thousand Oaks: Sage. https://ls-tlss.ucl.ac.uk/course-materials/PUBLGC32_50089.

  • Espinosa, A. A., Verkade, H., Mulhern, T. D., & Lodge, J. M. (2018). Integrating active learning into large class teaching—Lessons from large classes in Biomedical Science. Australia: The University of Melbourne.

    Google Scholar 

  • EYLF Professional Learning Program (2010) 'Intentional teaching' EYLF PLP e-newsletter. 2. Retrieved November 20, 2015 from, https://www.earlychildhoodaustralia.org.au/nqsplp/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/EYLFPLP_E-Newsletter_No2.pdf.

  • Faust, J., & Paulson, D. (1998). Active learning in the college classroom. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 9, 3–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fildes, K., Kuit, T., O'Brien, G., Keevers, L., & Bedford, S. (2015). Leading the way: Changing the focus from teaching to learning in large subjects with limited budgets. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 43(2), 88–99. https://doi.org/10.1002/bmb.20851.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geschwind, L., & Broström, A. (2015). Managing the teaching–research nexus: Ideals and practice in research-oriented universities. Higher Education Research & Development, 34(1), 60–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2014.934332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibbs, G., & Coffey, M. (2004). The impact of training of university teachers on their teaching skills, their approach to teaching and the approach to learning of their students. Active Learning in Higher Education, 5(1), 87–100. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787404040463.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gore, J. M. (2001). Beyond our differences: A reassembling of what matters in teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 52(2), 124–135. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487101052002004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, C. R. (2011). Theoretical considerations for understanding technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK). Computers & Education, 57(3), 1953–1960. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.04.010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Handelsman, J., Ebert-May, D., Beichner, R., Bruns, P., Chang, A., DeHaan, R., et al. (2004). Scientific teaching. Science, 304(5670), 521–522. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1096022.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris, K., Farrell, K., Bell, M., Devlin, M., & James, R. (2008). Peer review of teaching in Australian Higher Education: A handbook to support institutions in developing and embedding effective policies and practices. Retrieved November 6, 2017 from, https://www.cshe.unimelb.edu.au/research/prot.html.

  • Harris, J., Grandgenett, N., & Hofer, M. (2010) Testing a TPACK-based technology integration assessment instrument. In: C. D. Maddux, D. Gibson, & B. Dodge (eds) Research highlights in technology and teacher education 2010. Chesapeake, VA: Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education (SITE), pp. 323–331.

  • Hattie, J., & Marsh, H. W. (1996). The relationship between research and teaching: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 66(4), 507–542. https://doi.org/10.2307/1170652.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hidi, S., Renninger, K. A., & Krapp, A. (2004). Interest: A motivational construct that combines affective and cognitive functioning. In D. Dai & R. Sternberg (Eds.), Motivation, emotion and cognition: Integrative perspectives on intellectual functioning and development (pp. 88–115). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huitt, W. (2011). Bloom et al.'s taxonomy of the cognitive domain Educational Psychology Interactive. Valdosta, GA: Valdosta State University.

  • Kember, D. (1997a). A reconceptualisation of the research into university academics' conceptions of teaching. Learning and Instruction, 7(3), 255–275. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(96)00028-X.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kember, D. (1997b). Teaching beliefs and their impact on students’ approaches to learning. In: B. Dart, & G. Boukton-Lewis (Eds.), Teaching and Learning in Higher Education Camberwell. Victoria: ACER Press.

  • Klopper, C., & Drew, S. (2015). Teaching for learning and learning for teaching: Peer review of teaching in higher education. Dordrecht: Brill Sense.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kober, N. (2015). Reaching students: What research says about effective instruction in undergraduate science and engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolitch, E., & Dean, A. V. (1999). Student ratings of instruction in the USA: Hidden assumptions and missing conceptions about ‘goods teaching. Studies in Higher Education, 24(1), 27–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079912331380128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lenze, L. (1995). Discipline-specific pedagogical knowledge in linguistics and Spanish. In N. Hativa & M. Marincovich (Eds.), Disciplinary differences in teaching and learning: Implications for practice (pp. 65–70). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lodge, J. M., & Bonsanquet, A. (2014). Evaluating quality learning in higher education: Re-examining the evidence. Quality in Higher Education, 20(1), 3–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/13538322.2013.849787.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lucenario, J. L. S., Yangco, R. T., Punzalan, A. E., & Espinosa, A. A. (2016). Pedagogical content knowledge-guided lesson study: Effects on teacher competence and students' achievement in chemistry. Education Research International, 2016, 9. https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/6068930.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macaulay, J. O., Damme, M. P. V., & Walker, K. Z. (2009). The use of contextual learning to teach biochemistry to dietetic students. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 37(3), 137–142. https://doi.org/10.1002/bmb.20283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mate, K., Sim, A., Weidenhofer, J., Milward, L., & Scott, J. (2013). Investigation of the human disease osteogenesis imperfecta: A research-based introduction to concepts and skills in biomolecular analysis. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 41(2), 103–109. https://doi.org/10.1002/bmb.20672.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mevarech, Z. R., & Kramarski, B. (1997). Improve: A multidimensional method for teaching mathematics in heterogeneous classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 34(2), 365–394. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312034002365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyers, C., & Jones, T. (1993). Promoting active learning: strategies for the college classroom. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mills, M., & Goos, M. (2007). Productive pedagogies: Working with disciplines and teacher and student voices. Fremantle: Paper presented at the Australian Association for Research in Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mills, M., Goos, M., Keddie, A., Honan, E., Pendergast, D., Gilbert, R., et al. (2009). Productive pedagogies: A redefined methodology for analysing quality teacher practice (journal article). The Australian Educational Researcher, 36(3), 67–87. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf03216906.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mulryan-Kyne, C. (2010). Teaching large classes at college and university level: Challenges and opportunities. Teaching in Higher Education, 15(2), 175–185. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562511003620001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neumann, R. (2001). Disciplinary differences and university teaching. Studies in Higher Education, 26(2), 135–146. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070120052071.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Postareff, L., Lindblom-Ylänne, S., & Nevgi, A. (2007). The effect of pedagogical training on teaching in higher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(5), 557–571. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2006.11.013.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Postareff, L., Lindblom-Ylänne, S., & Nevgi, A. (2008). A follow-up study of the effect of pedagogical training on teaching in higher education (journal article). Higher Education, 56(1), 29–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-007-9087-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prasad, P., & Turner Mark, S. (2011). What bacteria are living in my food? An open-ended practical series involving identification of unknown foodborne bacteria using molecular techniques. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 39(5), 384–390. https://doi.org/10.1002/bmb.20532.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pratt, D. D. (1992). Conceptions of teaching. Adult Education Quarterly, 42(4), 203–220. https://doi.org/10.1177/074171369204200401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quinlan, K. M. (1999). Commonalities and controversy in context: A study of academic historians’ educational beliefs. Teaching and Teacher Education, 15(4), 447–463. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(98)00066-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramsden, P., & Moses, I. (1992). Associations between research and teaching in Australian higher education (journal article). Higher Education, 23(3), 273–295. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00145017.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robertson, J., & Bond, C. H. (2001). Experiences of the relation between teaching and research: What do academics value? Higher Education Research & Development, 20(1), 5–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/07924360120043612.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rowland, S. L., Smith, C. A., Gillam, E. M. A., & Wright, T. (2011). The concept lens diagram: A new mechanism for presenting biochemistry content in terms of “big ideas”. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 39(4), 267–279. https://doi.org/10.1002/bmb.20517.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rowland, S. L., Lawrie, G. A., Behrendorff, J. B. Y. H., & Gillam, E. M. J. (2012). Is the undergraduate research experience (URE) always best?: The power of choice in a bifurcated practical stream for a large introductory biochemistry class. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 40(1), 46–62. https://doi.org/10.1002/bmb.20576.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Samuelowicz, K., & Bain, J. D. (1992). Conceptions of teaching held by academic teachers (journal article). Higher Education, 24(1), 93–111. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00138620.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Samuelowicz, K., & Bain, J. D. (2001). Revisiting academics' beliefs about teaching and learning (journal article). Higher Education, 41(3), 299–325. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1004130031247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shulman, L. S. (1993). Forum: Teaching as community property. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 25(6), 6–7. https://doi.org/10.1080/00091383.1993.9938465.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, A. C., Stewart, R., Shields, P., Hayes-Klosteridis, J., Robinson, P., & Yuan, R. (2005). Introductory biology courses: A framework to support active learning in large enrollment introductory science courses. Cell Biology Education, 4(2), 143–156. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.04-08-0048.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sun, C. (2013). Probing possibilities of applying productive pedagogy to english teaching in China. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 3(9), 1651–1657.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, A. D., & Mishra, P. (2007). Editors' remarks. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 24(2), 38–64. https://doi.org/10.1080/10402454.2007.10784583.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trigwell, K., & Prosser, M. (1996). Congruence between intention and strategy in university science teachers' approaches to teaching (journal article). Higher Education, 32(1), 77–87. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00139219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trigwell, K., Prosser, M., & Taylor, P. (1994). Qualitative differences in approaches to teaching first year university science (journal article). Higher Education, 27(1), 75–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01383761.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uttl, B., White, C. A., & Gonzalez, D. W. (2017). Meta-analysis of faculty's teaching effectiveness: Student evaluation of teaching ratings and student learning are not related. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 54, 22–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2016.08.007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verkade, H., Lodge, J., Elliot, K., Mulhern, T., Espinosa, A., Cropper, S., et al. 40 (2017) 'Exploring misconceptions as a trigger for enhancing student learning'. In: R. Walker, & S. Bedford Research and Development in Higher Education: Curriculum Transformation. 27–30 June 2017. Sydney, Australia: HERDSA, pp. 392–401.

  • Waldrop, M. (2015). 'Why we are teaching science wrong and how to make it right' Nature. Washington, DC: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This project was approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee of the University of Melbourne, Project Numbers 1545425.1 (for the interview and survey) and 1545924.1 (for the classroom observation and document collection). We thank the academics who participated in the project. We thank our transcriber and inter-rater, Ms Ruth Frances Aston.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Allen A. Espinosa

    Present address: Educational Policy Research and Development Center, Philippine Normal University, Manila, 1000, Philippines

  2. Jason M. Lodge

    Present address: The University of Queensland, Room 625, Social Sciences Building (24), St Lucia, QLD, 4072, Australia

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, 3010, Australia

    Allen A. Espinosa

  2. Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, The University of Melbourne, Room W307, Building 181, Parkville, VIC, 3010, Australia

    Heather Verkade

  3. Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, The University of Melbourne, Room W306, Building 181, Parkville, VIC, 3010, Australia

    Terrence D. Mulhern

  4. Melbourne Centre for the Study of Higher Education, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, 3010, Australia

    Jason M. Lodge

Authors
  1. Allen A. Espinosa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Heather Verkade
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Terrence D. Mulhern
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jason M. Lodge
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Heather Verkade.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix 1: interview questions

Appendix 1: interview questions

  1. 1.

    What type of classes do you teach? Describe a typical lesson in your classes, from the moment you walk in to the end. (Type of classes: lecture, tutorial or practical)

  2. 2.

    What are your views about the use of textbooks? Can you describe your use of textbooks?

  3. 3.

    What content do prospective Biochemistry and Molecular Biology majors need compared to other majors? How does the content differ and how do you address the difference?

  4. 4.

    How do you adjust to content when the class is composed of students from different backgrounds? What’s the basis of that decision? Does this affect your teaching approach?

  5. 5.

    How much do you expect students to do work outside class and what usual form does it take?

  6. 6.

    What teaching resources are available, how do you use them and what are their limitations?

  7. 7.

    Are you aware of some students with learning disabilities? Can you please describe these students?

  8. 8.

    How do you deal with special students in the class who are not learning as fast or have special needs? What do you do with students who fall behind? Do you have intervention plans for these students? Please elaborate.

  9. 9.

    In your teaching, how do you relate concepts in Biochemistry and Molecular Biology to the real world and to other subjects? What are the advantages and limitations to this approach?

  10. 10.

    How do you try to encourage higher order thinking in the students? How do you try to achieve it in both teaching and assessment?

  11. 11.

    What typical assessment do you use in your classes and how often do you assess? What determines type of assessment and what are its advantages and limitations?

  12. 12.

    How do you provide feedback to students after assessing them? What’s the timeline of feedback and what determines the timeline?

  13. 13.

    Do you use the concept of formative and summative assessments in designing your assessment tools? When do you use formative and summative assessments?

  14. 14.

    Do you use formative activities such as tutorials, case studies and online teaching?

  15. 15.

    What do you think of non-test based summative assessment? Do you think it is used enough? Why or why not? (Non-test assessment: practice exercises, case studies, problem-based learning, projects, portfolios, presentations, essays, etc.)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Espinosa, A.A., Verkade, H., Mulhern, T.D. et al. Understanding the pedagogical practices of biochemistry and molecular biology academics. Aust. Educ. Res. 47, 839–856 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-019-00369-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-019-00369-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation