Gabriella A. Varga, Animal Science, Penn State, said she uses collaborative learning groups to investigate realistic, detailed case studies in animal sciences. She purposely leaves out critical information so that groups compete with each other to ask the right questions and be the first to "solve the puzzle." Among the important objectives is for students to get a feel for what it is like to work with people from other occupations in order to solve a problem of mutual interest. Gabriella sees this type of a case study as a "detective problem" rather than as a "test case" like the Jessica Banks case, which is designed to assess moral reasoning.
Alan M. Beck, Veterinary Pathobiology, Purdue University, shared a strategy from an animal research ethics class. The discussion facilitator begins by asking students to consider data collected from the Nazi experiments. Is everything studyable? Is there anything that can't be studied? What if you do something wrong? Students typically refuse to believe that anyone other than Nazis would do such things. Then the facilitator tells them about the Tuskegee syphilis study. The lesson: Ethics is ongoing, is not just an artifact of a particular time, but something that must be constantly reviewed.
John W. Folkins, Office of the Provost, University of Iowa, gives students a sense of how scientific research works by preceding instruction in theory with historical background. Specifically, he prefaces instruction about a particular theory by telling students the kind of data that previously had been accepted and the kind of data that eventually disconfirmed the old understandings.
Peter E. Dunn, Assistant Vice President for Research, Purdue University, illustrates the circuitous path of scientific discovery in a biochemistry class by showing the way in which many initial experiments in the field produced sound data despite being flawed.
William C. Birdsall, Social Work, University of Michigan, teaches ethics in a policy class without calling it that. He sets us social situations in which students are "outsiders" who have to solve a problem, e.g., a social worker on a crime scene.
Victoria L. McGuffin, Chemistry, Michigan State University, puts graduate chemistry students in five-member groups that must deal with "discussion situations" similar to those they will encounter when they have to lead meetings, elicit and summarize information, and evaluate expert opinions as faculty members. Three members of each group research the problem and function as "experts" in the discussion situation. One person is a "communicator" who produces a group report. Finally, one person functions as the "leader" who must get the information needed to solve the assigned problem in the time allotted for the task.
Carole J. Bland, Family Practice, University of Minnesota, simulates the grant process by having students review real grant proposals she uses with permission. Later, the students get to compare their decisions with those of the real reviewers. Carole said this exercise raises students' consciousness about how critically their research will be reviewed.
Joseph A. DiPietro, Veterinary Medicine, University of Illinois, has each of his veterinary medicine students videotape a 20-minute scenario in which the student role plays with a professional who has volunteered to be a confederate for the exercise. The students fill out critique forms afterward, identifying the ethical issues, ethical conflicts, etc. Students do not have to share their videotaped scenarios with the rest of the class. Very effective, Joe said, but hard to grade and very time-consuming.
Gail M. Dummer, Physical Education and Exercise Science, Michigan State University, demonstrates to master's students in a research methods course that filling out IRB forms is a routine part of research faculty members' jobs. Students watch videos of data collection in progress and of a faculty member talking to a confederate subject the way he or she would talk to a real research subject. Gail asks students to imagine themselves in the role of research subject. Finally, Gail talks to her students about how to fill out the university's IRB form, which the students have previously reviewed.
Richard Carlson, Psychology, Penn State, presents both normative and empirical models when he teaches the psychology of thinking. He has students agree on principles that should govern thinking, then shows them how their own thinking doesn't follow that principle. A specific trick he likes to play on students is asking them before class how likely they think it is that Penn State will make it through the first round of this year's basketball tournament. Students are horrified when Richard points out that their responses indicate they have assumed he was talking about the men's basketball team -- even though he never once said that.
Steven S. Clark, Human Oncology, University of Wisconsin, doesn't require students in his graduate biology course to take exams, write papers or prepare grant proposals. Instead, he has them reflect each week on questions raised by the readings and class discussions. Sometimes he gives students figures and other information that are not in the assigned readings and requires them to come up with a hypothesis based on the information. Steve says this approach encourages students to think logically and has the advantages of frequent feedback and assessment.
Betsy Foxman, Epidemiology, University of Michigan, also learned something from a group project's unexpected consequence. Betsy said she assigned her 40 students to four groups based on their research skills and interests, after teaching them a bit about group processes. Gender was not one of the factors considered for assigning students to groups. She ended up with one group that had only one woman and one group with only two men. At the end of the semester, Betsy asked her students whether she should have taken gender into account when making group assignments. The woman who was the sole female in her group said no, because having to fight for her say in the group taught her how to overcome her shyness. There were other interesting developments as a result of the gender gap. One group established a rule that no members were to be called "girls." Betsy also noticed that the mostly male groups tended to divvy up responsibilities in relay fashion, with one member doing the bulk of the work at one step, then sitting out the next step while a new "hero" took over the burden of doing the group's work. Betsy paid more attention to group processes when making group assignments in class after this experience.
Last updated: 4 October1996
URL: http://www.indiana.edu/~poynter/tre3-3.html
Comments: pimple@indiana.edu
Copyright 1996, The Trustees of Indiana University