Content uploaded by David Dunbar
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by David Dunbar on Jun 08, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
54
Journal of College Science Teaching
Over the past several years,
a number of initiatives
have sought to improve
the quality of learning in
undergraduate science education by
relying less on content and more on the
process of learning science (Bransford,
Brown, and Cocking 2000; NRC 1996;
Fox and Hackerman 2003). Perhaps
the most significant recommendation
for higher education has been to shift
from a paradigm of teacher-centered
instruction to that of learner-centered
instruction (Barr and Tagg 1995). Al-
though most faculty members agree
that classroom instruction should
become more learner centered, they
are unsure how to make the necessary
changes in their courses.
One of the problems we encountered
while trying to develop learner-centered
courses is the general resistance from
students regarding traditional college
science textbooks. Students frequently
complain that they have a difficult time
sorting through the overabundance of
content and technical jargon. Sadly,
the tone of textbooks—impersonal,
authoritative, and objective—fails to
engage student interest.
The inclusion of science populariza-
tions can help change a course into one
that is more learner centered. In the
Using Science Popularizations to
Promote Learner-Centered Teaching
Alternatives to the Traditional Textbook
By Ivan Shibley, Maureen E. Dunbar, Tami H. Mysliwiec, and David A. Dunbar
Science popularizations can supplement textbooks. Their use offers an alternative
conception of the classroom, one that focuses on the learner instead of the content.
process, popularizations can facilitate
student thinking at higher levels of
Bloom’s taxonomic structure (Anderson
and Krathwohl 2001; Bloom 1956).
Instead of designing the course solely
around knowledge and comprehension
(Bloom’s two lowest cognitive levels),
the inclusion of popularizations encour-
ages more higher-level thinking such
as application, analysis, and synthesis.
Graff (2003) has effectively argued that
too many facts can obfuscate true under-
standing: “Far from helping you enter
higher-order discussions, learning lots of
facts in a vacuum may actually prevent
you from doing so. I have had students
whose minds seemed so cluttered by the
disconnected bits of information they
had crammed that they were unable to
locate the issue that could have orga-
nized their information.” Populariza-
tions can provide a context for students
that helps them to think more critically
about the course content.
The authors have not systematically
studied the use of popularizations in
controlled studies. Instead, this article
attempts to evaluate why populariza-
tions seem to generate positive reac-
tions from learners and why we find
ourselves using popularizations more
and more frequently. In doing a ret-
rospective analysis, the authors have
drawn on the changes advocated in
Learner-Centered Teaching: Five Key
Changes to Practice (Weimer 2003).
The five changes that must occur are
changes in (1) the balance of power,
(2) the function of content, (3) the role
of the teacher, (4) the responsibility
for learning, and (5) the purpose and
process of evaluation (Table 1).
Using Weimer’s framework pro-
vides a window through which to view
the benefits of popularizations. Each
change advocated by Weimer can be
accomplished via science populariza-
tions. The idea of using popular books
is not new to science courses, and it has
been described for other courses such
as physics (Lam 2000) and chemistry
(Carroll and Seeman 2001). In this
article we discuss how science popu-
larizations can be utilized as part of a
learner-centered classroom by looking
at each of Weimer’s five changes.
The balance of power
In a traditional college science class-
room, the teacher makes all of the
decisions regarding what content will
be covered and what reading material
will be assigned. According to Weimer
(2003), this method of instruction does
little to motivate students to become
self-guided learners: “If instruction is
going to be learner centered, assign-
ments must be designed to empower
students and generate enthusiasm
about the course material.”
Incorporation of assignments using
science popularizations can serve to
empower students, because the litera-
ture is often written in a way that allows
students to read and understand the
material on their own. Students seem
much less intimidated by the material
in popularizations; they come to class
ready to discuss the material rather than
prepared to hear the teacher explain what
the textbook covered.
55November/December 2008
The choice of science populariza-
tions helps shift the balance of power
in courses for majors and in general
education courses. In Biology of Can-
cer, a course for biology majors, each
student selects a book early in the
course to begin preparation for a pre-
sentation to the entire class at the end
of the semester (Table 2). The course
is relatively small (15–20 students),
so each student has an opportunity to
present. The presentation includes a
review of the book that covers both
the validity of the scientific content
and a critique of the book’s worth as
reading material for others in the class
who might want more information on
a topic. The hope is that other students
will learn more about cancer by learn-
ing from each other.
The power struggle between
teacher and student has never materi-
alized in this course, partially because
students have some control over what
they will learn. The teacher maintains
control over the traditional textbook
and most topics in the course but
provides students the flexibility to
study a topic in depth. Students have
been genuinely enthusiastic about the
books, as evidenced by their inspired
presentations. This role reversal—
student becoming teacher—seems
to exemplify the way power can be
altered in the classroom.
Providing students control does
not need to occur only in a senior-
level course for majors. In a course
designed for nonscience majors, The
Biochemical Bases of Human Dis-
ease, two popularizations now serve
as the course texts (Table 2), and a tra-
ditional textbook is not used. A short
quiz is given every day in this course
(Monday, Wednesday, Friday for 15
weeks) on the reading that students
just completed. Instead of only factual
information, students are asked more
thought-provoking questions. One
quiz focused on a scenario in Genome
that dealt with a doctor who did not
tell a patient that she had the gene for
Huntington’s disease. Students were
asked three 2-point questions (on a
10-point quiz): What do you think
about the patient’s wish to commit
suicide? Does the doctor have an
obligation to tell the patient about the
diagnosis? Would you want to know
your own diagnosis? The quizzes
are given at the beginning of each
class and serve to prepare the class
for a more detailed discussion of the
biochemistry underlying a particular
disease.
The function of content
Although many teachers claim that
critical thinking is of paramount im-
portance, a study of teaching goals
reported by biology faculty members
found that gaining factual knowledge
represents the single most important
goal for any course (Cashin and
Downey 1995). In courses designed
for science majors, instructors are of-
ten faced with the challenge of trying
to cover the necessary content while
teaching higher-order thinking skills.
In these courses, popularizations can
be used to do both.
As a supplement to a traditional
text, a popularization can lead to ques-
tions at the higher levels of Bloom’s
taxonomy to supplement the knowl-
edge and comprehension that most
traditional textbooks focus on. The
use of a popularization was recently
described for an introductory neu-
roscience course (Lynd-Balta 2006)
where the author found that instead of
diluting the science, inclusion of popu-
larizations into a content-heavy course
enriched the science and motivated
students to learn the relevant science.
In general education science cours-
es, students often leave the course
maintaining the misconception that
science is merely a collection of facts
and technical terms. The way the text-
book explains the subject often rein-
forces this notion. Most students do not
need to know all of the vocabulary or
details to comprehend a topic. Because
the content requirements are often
Key change Central issue What changes
The balance of power Teachers too often make all decisions
about course content.
Students are given a voice in many course-
related issues.
The function of content
Facts are presented to students, and students
must learn the facts without considering how
they learn those facts.
Content is used as a means of helping students
become savvier, more self-actualized learners.
The role of the teacher Teachers stand in front of a class and explain
what is to be learned.
Teachers become facilitators of learning who
craft pedagogically rich educational activities
for each class period.
The responsibility for learning
Teachers try to nd ways to make students
accountable using extrinsic motivation such
as homework, quizzes, papers, and exams.
Teachers work to cultivate a learning envi-
ronment where students are intrinsically
motivated.
The purpose and process of evaluation Evaluation is used primarily to produce a grade. Evaluation is considered rich with possibility
for encouraging students to learn.
TABLE 1
Weimer’s ve key changes to implement more learner-centered teaching (adapted from Weimer 2003).
56
Journal of College Science Teaching
from the popularization. Some of
the activities described above were
developed in response to reflection
about the learning goals of the course.
A popularization can sometimes ef-
fect change simply by stimulating a
reconceptualization of a course.
The responsibility for learning
Weimer’s fourth change dovetails with
the previous change, because when the
teacher alters his or her role in a course,
the alteration often results in placing
more responsibility on the learner.
Students are happy to be passive learn-
ers and many times expect the faculty
members to simply tell them what it
is that they need to learn. If a teacher
accepts the responsibility for creating
lifelong learners, then the curriculum
must be thoughtfully designed to pro-
mote student growth.
Allowing students to select a popu-
larization, such as in the Biology of
Cancer course previously discussed,
transfers the onus of responsibility
for choosing some course materials
onto students—they must decide what
to learn. The grading rubric for the
student presentations helps guide the
students in their preparation without
being prescriptive. Students must
make many of the decisions regard-
ing what information to extract from
inquisitive atmosphere seems to be one
example of the changes possible through
reexamining the function of content.
The role of the teacher
The inquisitive classroom atmosphere
created by popularizations also relates
to Weimer’s third suggested change,
altering the role of the teacher. In many
learner-centered environments, the
instructor must step to the side and al-
low students to become the prominent
voices in the classroom. Because the
instructor plays a more passive role
in the classroom when stepping to the
side, the activities and assignments
must be designed carefully to enhance
the learning process.
The traditional textbook typically
provides end-of-chapter questions
such that the teacher’s role is simply
to choose the most relevant questions.
When using a popularization, the
instructor must create assignments
from scratch. This takes time, but
the process helps redefine the role
of the teacher from being simply the
presenter of information to the creator
of learning activities. The creation of
assignments becomes the teacher’s
primary responsibility. The teacher
spends considerable time creating as-
signments that will engage the learner
and help extract maximum benefit
more relaxed in a course for nonma-
jors, popularizations present an ideal
substitute for a traditional textbook as
described above in The Biochemical
Bases of Human Disease.
In another general education course,
this one an honors course for non-
science majors titled Societal Impacts
and Medicinal Advancements in Bio-
technology, several content areas are
covered, including gene therapy, thera-
peutic cloning, xenotransplantation, and
genetically altered organisms. Students
are assigned chapters in a populariza-
tion that contains 24 stories dealing with
the ethical implications surrounding
recent advances in genetics and bio-
technology (Table 2). Students receive
much of the necessary scientific content
through reading the book and have a
better understanding of how advances
in biotechnology affect not only their
own lives, but society as a whole.
Class time is spent discussing the in-
formation, and class is usually animated.
The teacher serves as an expert who can
answer knowledge and comprehension
questions encountered in the populariza-
tion. The simple decision to switch from
using a traditional textbook to adopting
a popularization has helped cover the
content in a lively, energized format
of questions and answers. Using the
content of the course to create a more
TABLE 2
Popularizations used in dierent courses.
Course title Target audience Level of student Popularizations used
Advanced Genetics Majors Junior/Senior
The Double Helix (Watson 1968)
Time, Love, Memory (Weiner 1999)
The Blank Slate (Pinker 2002)
Genes, Girls and Gamow (Watson 2001)
Remaking Eden (Silver 1997)
Biochemical Bases of
Human Disease General education All Genome (Ridley 1999)
How We Die (Nuland 1993)
Biology of Cancer Majors Junior/Senior
It’s Not About the Bike (Armstrong 2000)
Dr. Folkman’s War (Cooke and Koop 2001)
Living Downstream (Steingraber 1997)
No Time to Die (Tilberis 1998)
Introductory Genetics Majors Sophomore Seven Daughters of Eve (Sykes 2001)
Societal Impacts and Medicinal
Advancements in Biotechnology General education All Abraham Lincoln’s DNA (Riley 2002)
57November/December 2008
Using Science Popularizations to Promote Learner-Centered Teaching
a book, a task that requires much
critical thinking. When a student must
present information to classmates, he
or she has responsibility to others.
This shift in responsibility may help
explain the quality of the student
presentations in Biology of Cancer.
The purpose and process
of evaluation
Underlying the other four key changes
advocated by Weimer is the perpetual
concern about grades. Weimer (2003)
eloquently states the need for careful
consideration of grading:
Currently, when faculty consider evalu-
ation, what typically comes to mind first
focuses on grades more than learning.
The learning is assumed; it occurs auto-
matically, an all but inevitable outcome
of the evaluation process. Learner-
centered teaching abandons tacit as-
sumptions about automatic learning.
Evaluation is used to generate grades
and to promote learning. The new pur-
pose is larger and better balanced.
In many science courses, exams make
up the largest percentage of students’
grades, which makes these exams
high-stakes affairs. Because today’s
college students vary considerably
in their learning styles, a learner-
centered teacher should incorporate
many different assessment tools into
any given course.
Incorporation of popularizations of-
fers the faculty member a rich choice of
pedagogical tools to not only promote
learning but also assess student learn-
ing. Popularizations add substantially
different evaluation methods that can
reduce student anxiety about grades
while motivating students to focus
more on learning the material rather
than just getting an A. The structure
of the assignments is not nearly as
important as long as the assignment
helps stimulate learning rather than
simply assessing learning.
In the course Advanced Genetics,
The Double Helix (Watson 1968) is used
as well as the Nature article by Watson
and Crick describing the discovery
of the structure of DNA (Watson and
Crick 1953). This assignment serves to
demonstrate the different writing styles
employed when the same author writes
for different audiences. Students write
a paper that can be understood by a
general audience. Students soon learn
that when they become an “expert” in a
particular field, it becomes increasingly
difficult (and important) to be able to
communicate those ideas effectively to
a nonscience audience. A clear rubric is
essential for an assignment of this type
so that students feel more in control of
their grades.
Alternative forms of assessment
seem imperative once a teacher begins
using science popularizations. How
does one test for factual recall using
Watson’s book? How much detail
from the book do students really
need to remember? These questions
speak to the heart of learner-centered
teaching by unmasking the often
pedagogically naive proposition that
any information contained in the
textbook is testable information.
Conclusion
Although most college science text-
books do a good job of presenting
the scientific facts, they do so at the
expense of engaging students. The
incorporation of science populariza-
tions into a college science course has
many advantages. First, the writing in
these texts is almost always superior
to the writing in traditional textbooks;
the author’s energy becomes apparent
to students and can help improve stu-
dents’ attitudes toward science courses.
Second, the inclusion of popularizations
allows students to better understand and
appreciate the interdisciplinary nature
of science. Third, popularizations can
expose students to the ethical and moral
issues related to science, issues often
ignored in traditional texts. Finally, and
most importantly, popularizations can
help transform a classroom into a more
learner-centered environment.
It is important to note that incorpora-
tion of popularizations will not, by it-
self, enhance student learning. Rather it
is the activities and assignments related
to the popularization that matter. As-
signments must be carefully designed
to facilitate the five changes advocated
by Weimer. It is imperative for faculty to
use popularizations as a tool to promote
learning rather than another repository
of course content.
One potential drawback to using
popular books is the increased work-
load for students. At the beginning
of the semester, students are often
overwhelmed at the thought of read-
ing an entire book in addition to all
of their other work. However, student
TABLE 3
Science popularizations used as a required text in at least one course described in the article.
Title Author Publication year Description
Abraham Lincoln’s DNA Philip Reilly 2002 Essays on genetics and the ways that genetic studies are used
The Double Helix James Watson 1968 Discovery of DNA; insight into the scientic method (or
lack thereof)
Genome Matt Ridley 2000 Analyses of genetic contributions to disease and well-being
How We Die Sherwin Nuland 1993 Explanation of many of the physiological ways death occurs
The Seven Daughters of Eve Bryan Sykes 2001 Explanation of evolution using mitochondrial DNA
58
Journal of College Science Teaching
comments at the end of the semester
consistently reveal that they actually
enjoy the assignments, and in courses
where popularizations supplement the
text, students report that they learn the
most from the popular readings. One
student commented, “At first I felt
as if the book would be just another
reading assignment, to add on to an
already challenging course. However,
this book made learning about [the
subject] more fun and interesting.”
Another representative comment was,
“When I was first told that we would
be reading a book in a science class,
I was highly stressed…Once I began
to read the book, my attitude changed.
The book read quite quickly, and I ac-
tually found myself reading more than
what was assigned for that day!”
We are always disappointed to learn
that students are not reading outside
of class for their own enjoyment and
strongly believe that encouraging
students to read something other than
a textbook is a noble goal. College
instructors have an opportunity to
encourage a life of the mind, but intel-
lectual pursuits following graduation
almost never involve textbooks. Aside
from science popularizations providing
a means of making the classroom more
learner centered, the popularizations
also provide students with opportunities
to explore quality nonfiction.
When faculty reflect more on the
pedagogy of their courses and less
about the quantity of content, the en-
tire teaching enterprise can be trans-
formed. Instead of teachers viewing
their role only as disseminators of
information, the learner-centered
teacher sees the possibilities in out-
of-class assignments, alternative
evaluation measures, and recon-
figured power alliances. The four
authors contend that we are better
teachers because of the inclusion
of popularizations in our courses.
A teacher wanting to challenge the
traditional pedagogy could easily
begin by simply adding a science
popularization to a course. Using
a popularization might provide the
teacher with a window of opportunity
to become more learner centered.n
References
Anderson, L.W., and D.R. Krathwohl.
2001. A taxonomy for learning,
teaching, and assessing: A revision
of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational
objectives. New York: Addison Wes-
ley Longman.
Armstrong, L. 2000. It’s not about the
bike. New York: Berkley.
Barr, R.B., and J. Tagg. 1995. From
teaching to learning: A new paradigm
for undergraduate education. Change
27 (6): 12–25.
Bloom, B. 1956. Taxonomy of educa-
tional objectives, handbook I: The
cognitive domain. New York: David
McKay.
Bransford, J.D., A.L. Brown, and R.R.
Cocking. 2000. How people learn:
Brain, mind, experience, and school.
Washington, DC: National Acad-
emies Press.
Carroll, F.A., and J.I. Seeman. 2001.
Placing science into its human con-
text: Using scientic autobiography
to teach chemistry. Journal of Chem-
ical Education 78 (12): 1618–22.
Cashin, W.E., and R.G. Downey. 1995.
Disciplinary differences in what is
taught and in students’ perceptions of
what they learn and of how they are
taught. New Directions for Teaching
and Learning 64: 81–92.
Cooke, R., and C.E. Koop. 2001. Dr.
Folkman’s war: Angiogenesis and
the struggle to defeat cancer. New
York City: Random House.
Fox, M., and N. Hackerman. 2003.
Evaluating and improving un-
dergraduate teaching in science,
technology, engineering, and
mathematics. Washington, DC:
National Academy Press.
Graff, G. 2003. Clueless in academe:
How schooling obscures the life
of the mind. New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press.
Lam, L. 2000. Integrating popular
science books into college science
teaching. American Physical Society
Bulletin 45 (1): 117.
Lynd-Balta, E. 2006. Using literature
and innovative assessments to ignite
interest and cultivate critical thinking
skills in an undergraduate neurosci-
ence course. Cell Biology Education
5 (2): 167–74.
National Research Council (NRC).
1996. National science education
standards. Washington, DC: Na-
tional Academy Press.
Nuland, S. 1993. How we die: Reec-
tion on life’s nal chapter. New York:
Random House.
Pinker, S. 2002. The blank slate. New
York: Penguin.
Reidlley, M. 2000. Genome: The autobi-
ography of a species in 23 chapters.
New York: HarperCollins.
Reilly, P.R. 2002. Abraham Lincoln’s
DNA and other adventures in genet-
ics. Cold Spring Harbor, NY: Cold
Spring Harbor Laboratory Press.
Silver, L.M. 1997. Remaking Eden.
New York: Perennial.
Steingraber, S. 1997. Living down-
stream: A scientist’s personal inves-
tigation of cancer and the environ-
ment. New York: Random House.
Sykes, B. 2001. The seven daughers
of Eve: The science that reveals our
genetic history. New York: W.W.
Norton.
Tilberis, L. 1998. No time to die: Liv-
ing with ovarian cancer. New York:
Harper.
Watson, J. 1968. The double helix: A
personal account of the discovery
of the structure of DNA. New York:
Norton.
Watson, J. 2001. Genes, girls and
gamow: After the double helix. New
York: Vintage.
Watson, J., and F. Crick. 1953. A struc-
ture for deoxyribose nucleic acid.
Nature 171: 737–38.
Weimer, M. 2003. Learner-centered
teaching: Five key changes to prac-
tice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Weiner, J. 1999. Time, love, memory:
A great biologist and his quest for
the origins of behavior. New York:
Vintage.
Using Science Popularizations to Promote Learner-Centered Teaching
Ivan Shibley (ias1@psu.edu) is an associate
professor of chemistry, Maureen E. Dunbar
(med1@psu.edu) and Tami H. Mysliwiec
(thm1@psu.edu) are associate professors
of biology at Penn State Berks in Reading,
Pennsylvania. David A. Dunbar (david.
dunbar@cabrini.edu) is an associate profes-
sor of biology at Cabrini College in Radnor,
Pennsylvania.
