Using Active Learning in a
Studio Classroom to Teach
Molecular Biology
By Luiza A. Nogaj
This article describes the
conversion of a lecture-based
molecular biology course into
an active learning environment
in a studio classroom. Specific
assignments and activities are
provided as examples. The goal
of these activities is to involve
students in collaborative learning,
teach them how to participate in the
learning process, and give them a
more active role in the classroom.
At the end of the semester, student
performance in an active learning
environment is compared with
that of a lecture-based course.
The results show improved student
performance in an active learning
studio classroom. End-of-semester
evaluations also show the positive
response of students to the change
in the way of learning.
50
Journal of College Science Teaching
A
n effective biology course
should successfully teach
content and provide students with the skills to apply their knowledge in later courses
and in life. To accomplish these
goals, biology courses must focus on
developing students’ cognitive skills
as much as their knowledge base.
It has long been recognized that involving students in the active learning
process and making them responsible
for their own learning is more effective than lecturing alone (Armbruster,
Patel, Johnson, & Weiss, 2009; Eberlein et al., 2008; Fischer, 2011; Grant,
Kinnersley, & Field, 2012; Haak,
Hille Ris Lambers, Pitre, & Freeman, 2011; Maskiewicz, Griscom,
& Welch, 2012; Minhas, Ghosh, &
Swanzy, 2012; Montelone, Rintoul, &
Williams, 2008; Sangestani & Khatiban, 2012). The recent publication of
Vision and Change in Undergraduate Biology Education (American
Association for the Advancement
of Science, 2011) recognized the
changes that need to be made and provided resources on how to make those
changes. Emphasis was placed on
using a student-centered approach to
learning and teaching. That approach
has been discussed and exercised in
many classrooms (Beichner, 2003;
Blumberg, 2009; Voet & Voet, 2010;
Weimer, 2002), especially in general
chemistry, biochemistry, and cell biology (Minderhout & Loertscher, 2007;
Satyanarayanajois, 2010; Sumter &
Owens, 2011; American Society for
Cell Biology, http://ascb.org/index.
php?option=com_content&view=
article&id=781&Itemid=391). How-
ever, implementing student-centered
techniques and specific examples on
how to do them have not been well
documented for molecular biology
courses.
To improve student performance
in molecular biology, the active learning methods were used in addition
to the development and conversion
of several lecture halls at Mount St.
Mary’s College into studio classrooms (Figure 1). Studio classrooms
are supplied with round tables, LCD
projectors, a large display screen,
and a Smart Board. Studios are also
equipped with computers for students
to use during class time. Each computer is connected to the central tech
pod that controls all technology in
the studio. In addition, each computer
screen can be displayed on any of the
LCD projectors, display screen, or the
Smart Board.
Here I describe the use of learnercentered methods in a studio classroom to teach molecular biology. I
provide specific exercises that were
used to implement that method. I also
compare the active learning classroom to the traditional lecture-based
molecular biology taught previously.
The approach described here has
been highly successful as evidenced
by exam performance and student
evaluations.
Course goals and design
The molecular biology course described here covers the basic chemical components of the cell; structure
and function of DNA, RNA, and
protein; as well as the central dogma
of biology. Emphasis is placed on
Using Active Learning in a Studio Classroom
replication, transcription, translation, and regulation of gene expression. Such a vast number of topics
and the magnitude of information
presented in the course create a
challenge for the students and the
professor. Some of the topics seem
to be especially difficult for the students to comprehend. For example,
protein structure, function, and the
hierarchy of protein folding seems
especially difficult for students to
understand. Likewise, DNA topology, calculating DNA linking numbers, and the process of transposition all seem to be challenging for
the students.
In the traditional classroom,
students were given complete PowerPoints, and the instructor was
lecturing from them for most of the
class time. In the active learning
studio, the challenging areas in the
course were redesigned into active
learning exercises (about 25% of the
course content). The other 75% of the
course was taught using PowerPoint
lectures given by the professor, and
those PowerPoints were redesigned
as outlines and did not contain the
complete information covered in
class. Many of the slides required
filling in the blanks and others were
used for group work or as points of
discussion. In each setting, students
were provided with the PowerPoints
ahead of time. Throughout the
semester, an attempt was made to
engage the students in collaborative
learning and more active participation in the class. The choice of using
25% of the course as active learning
activities and the other 75% as lecture-based, redesigned PowerPoints
was arbitrary. However, incorporating too many activities could be
counterproductive and could be met
with student resistance (Blumberg,
2009; Weimer, 2002).
The following course goals were
designed for this class:
1. Know the molecular components
of cells as well as their structure
and function (DNA, RNA,
proteins, sugars, and fatty acids).
2. Understand the mechanisms in
the central dogma of biology
(replication, transcription,
translation).
3. Understand the regulation of
gene and protein expression.
4. Become proficient in
collaborative learning (group
work, assigning responsibility,
taking charge of the project, peer
evaluation).
5. Become active in the learning
process (participate).
6. Retain the material by
participating in and completing
active learning exercises.
The first three goals focused on
the content and the knowledge students must have to perform well in
this class and in their future classes.
Goal 4 was designed to provide students with the collaborative learning
skills necessary to succeed in any
professional environment. The round
tables of the studio classroom lend
themselves very well to such learning, but group work can be used in
any other classroom just as easily.
Goal 5 was an especially important area of emphasis for this course.
In the traditional lecture hall students
are prepared to sit and passively
listen. The goal of this class was
to create a safe environment to ask
questions in class. Every 15 to 20
minutes time was given to students
to compare notes and ask each other
questions. Then, unanswered questions were posed to the whole class.
FIGURE 1
A photograph of a studio classroom. (A) Left side of the room is equipped with the podium controlling the
room, the main screen, an LCD projector, computers, and the Smart Board. (B) Right side of the room shows
the Smart Board, round tables, LCD projectors, and the computers.
Vol. 42, No. 6, 2013
51
In addition, at the beginning of the
semester, two to three people per
lecture were assigned for “frontrow duty.” People in that role were
responsible for asking questions and
being active during that class period,
especially if the rest of the class did
not have comments or answers to the
posed questions. Front-row duty and
asking questions in class helped correct problems and clarify material as
it was presented. It also encouraged
students to read the textbook ahead
of time, look over notes to prepare
for the class, take responsibility for
their own learning, and ask questions. This goal can be achieved in a
traditional classroom just as easily.
Goal 6 was designed around the
active learning exercises. Those
exercises involved the scientific
method, computer work, model
building using Play-Doh, watching
videos, and answering questions in
groups. For each of the exercises,
students were instructed to read a
specific concept from the textbook
before coming to class. In class,
students were divided into groups
and given a handout of questions
or problems to work on during the
first 10 to 15 minutes of the class.
Usually, each group was assigned a
different question. For the remainder
of the class, about 30 to 40 minutes,
students were chosen by the professor to answer the questions. Each
group’s work was projected onto
the LCD screens, and every question/problem was answered during
class. After leaving the class, each
student worked on completing the
activity handout and the postactivity
exercise. Two days after the in-class
exercise, all activities were collected
and graded. Special emphasis was
placed on the postactivity portion,
but complete and correct answers to
the in-class activity were also taken
into account. Round tables, computers, and LCD screens in the studio
classroom save some time while
assigning groups and presenting the
52
Journal of College Science Teaching
work. In a traditional setting, groups
can be assigned ahead of time and
student work can be written on the
board or presented orally to the class.
All of these goals were communicated to the students during the
introductory meeting. They were also
stated in the syllabus. A detailed explanation of the goals and the reason
for including active learning into the
class was also discussed in class. The
instructor explained to the students
that their active involvement in the
classroom might help them perform
better. The instructor also gave a
brief summary of the literature supporting such methods.
Methods
Mount St. Mary’s College is a liberal arts institution mainly for women
in the heart of Los Angeles, California. The Mount, through its innovative strategies and implementation
of new classroom technologies, is
committed to educating an ethnically diverse student population. A
typical enrollment in molecular biology ranges from 25 to 50 students.
Molecular biology at Mount St.
Mary’s College is a sophomorelevel course required for all biology
and biochemistry majors. Students
entering this course should have previously completed two semesters of
general biology and two semesters of
general chemistry. A grade of “C” or
above in molecular biology is a prerequisite for all other upper division
biology courses such as genetics, cell
biology, and most upper divisional
elective courses.
Both classes examined here were
taught by the same instructor using
the same textbook, and the same
amount of contact time was available
between the student and the professor. The change was in the delivery of
the material, not in the material covered. Both classes were required to
read the textbook ahead of time, but
only the students taking the course
in the active learning format were
required to complete any form of
homework (postactivity exercises).
The quizzes and exams were similar
between the two courses. The material covered in them was identical,
but the questions were different. The
quizzes and exams were returned to
the students, but the final exam for
each course was kept by the professor. This was the first time students
were exposed to the studio classroom
and active learning techniques.
Implementation
Table 1 compares the active learning
course design of molecular biology
with the traditional lecture-based
course. In the traditional setting,
PowerPoint lectures contained the
complete outlines and explanations
of the chapters. The goal of the
PowerPoint lectures was to provide
students with all the information
necessary to do well on the exam. In
the active learning format, 25% of
the meetings were student-centered
activities and 75% of the class was
still lecture based. However, the
lectures were also redesigned as explained earlier. The same final exam
was given to students in both classes. Specific questions on the final
exam compared the performance
and retention of material between
the two classroom settings.
Each activity was designed by the
instructor based on the information
included in the textbook or in the
Swiss PDB Viewer tutorial. Chosen
active learning activities and sample
questions designed for this class are
explained next. Full exercises are
available at http://www.nsta.org/
college/connections.aspx, and redesigned PowerPoints are available
on request.
Activity 1
Each student was provided with
very basic questions about biology
at the beginning of the class. Some
examples are: What is the definition
of life? What are the similarities
Using Active Learning in a Studio Classroom
and differences between cells? (a
complete list of questions is available at http://www.nsta.org/college/
connections.aspx). What is the
central dogma of biology? During this exercise, students were put
in groups, and each group was responsible for answering one of the
questions. Students could use the
textbook or the available computers to answer the questions. After
10 minutes, each group’s work was
projected to the rest of the class, and
one person from each group presented his or her group’s findings to
the rest of the class. The goal of this
activity was to familiarize the students with active learning and make
them comfortable answering simple
questions about biology.
Activity 2
In this activity, students familiarized themselves with the Swiss
PDB Viewer tutorial (user-friendly
application for protein analysis) and
could download the freely available program on to their personal
computers. In addition, Swiss PDB
Viewer was installed on the departmental computer cluster and each
computer in the studio classroom
for the students to use during the
in-class activity. Before coming to
class, students formed groups of
five to six people and chose a pro-
tein from the list provided by the
instructor. The proteins included in
this exercise were cyclooxygenase
1, HIV-1 protease w/ drug, amyloid
precursor protein, caspase, p53, anthrax toxin, antifreeze protein, glucose oxidase, and thrombin. Using
PubMed, each group was asked to
find a recent research article and a
review article about their chosen
protein and write a brief summary
of their findings before coming to
class. An introduction to PubMed
and its uses is incorporated into the
general biology curriculum.
During class, students were given
detailed instructions on how to find
their protein in the Protein Data Bank
(PDB) and how to download the
PDB file into Deep View. At the end
of the class, each group generated
two images of their protein. These
images were supposed to depict the
unique features of their protein, such
as its shape and active site. After
class, each group compiled a report.
Each group presented its findings to
the rest of the class, and each group
was graded using a rubric provided
ahead of time (see http://www.nsta.
org/college/connections.aspx for
information on report and rubric).
In a traditional setting, the instructor can lead a tutorial on how to use
the Swiss PDB Viewer and how to
generate a protein image. Most of
the work described in the activity
would have to be completed outside
of class. In the lecture-based course
described here, Swiss PDB Viewer
was not introduced. Students learned
about the hierarchy of protein folding
and protein structure from the information available in the textbook.
Activity 3
In this activity, members of each
group of students familiarized
themselves with four of the classic experiments (Griffith, Avery,
Hershey and Chase, Meselson and
Stahl). They had to focus on the
hypothesis, experimental setup, results, and experiment conclusion.
After the class, students answered
problems related to the activity (for
more information, see http://www.
nsta.org/college/connections.aspx).
The goal of the first activity was to
help students review and remember
material reviewed in previous courses. It was also a way to ease them
into the semester and show them how
active learning would be applied in
the course. The second activity was
designed to familiarize students with
proteins and their relationship between structure and function. During
the activity, students learned about
proteins, their structures, and their
role in the cell. The activity also provided students with an opportunity
TABLE 1
Comparison of course design between lecture-based and studio classroom (first column describes the goals
of the courses, second and third columns compare the two course designs).
Year 1
Year 2
Classroom
Traditional setting
Studio classroom
Assessment
3 exams (100 points each)
Cumulative final (200 points)
Weekly quizzes (100 points)
3 exams (100 points each)
Cumulative final (200 points)
Weekly quizzes (100 points)
Active learning activities (150 points)
Participation (50 points)
Course design
Lecture (100%)
Lecture (75%)
Active learning exercises (25%)
Participation
Not considered
Front-row duty
Retention of material
Specific questions on the final exam
Specific questions on the final exam
Vol. 42, No. 6, 2013
53
to write a summary and present their
findings to the rest of the class. The
third activity was an exercise in the
scientific method while incorporating a learning experience about the
history of DNA discovery.
Additional activities used in the
course were focused on DNA topology, DNA and chromatin structure
and its regulation, transposition
mechanisms, and antibiotics and
their role in translation. The last activity of the semester involved gene
regulation and its role in disease. All
activities are available at http://www.
nsta.org/college/connections.aspx,
and other resources used for the class
are available on request.
Assessment/survey results
In addition to weekly quizzes, three
exams, and the cumulative final,
25% of the student’s grade was
dependent on the correct completion of the active learning activities. Student’s knowledge, and the
effectiveness of activities, was assessed through questions on the
final exam. The final exam for the
lecture-based course given the previous year was identical to the active learning molecular biology
exam. The final exam is not returned to the students at the end of
the course, whereas the quizzes and
other exams are. For that reason,
only the final-exam questions were
used as a direct comparison of student performance. Overall, students
performed equally well or better
when active learning was used. The
questions used to compare the effectiveness of both courses were
all short-answer questions designed
and graded by the same instructor.
At the end of the semester of both
courses, nearly all students knew
the general components of the
central dogma. In a lecture-based
course, 63% of students (21 students) answered a question about
protein secondary structure correctly. In the active learning setting,
75% (26 students) got that ques54
Journal of College Science Teaching
tion right (p = .051). The biggest
improvement was observed with
two questions regarding transposition: types of transposons and their
mechanism of action. In the lecture
setting, on average 44% of students
(14 students) answered the questions about transposition correctly.
In the active learning setting, 75%
(26 students) knew the answer (p
< .05). The other questions on the
final exam showed no improvement
in student performance.
In addition, in the traditional
lecture setting, 34% of students (10
students out of 29) did not pass the
course, whereas in the active learning setting, only 9% of students
failed to earn a grade of C or above
(3 students out of 34). This could be
due to the active learning strategies
incorporated into the course, but also
to other opportunities available in
the studio (such as homework and
participation).
Students were very receptive to
the active learning techniques used
in the classroom. On each of the
weekly quizzes, students were asked
to write comments about the course
and the changes that they would
make to improve their success in the
course. In addition, in the middle of
the semester an anonymous survey
was given to check the classroom
environment and the methods used.
At the end of the semester, students
filled out course evaluations. Following are some of the students’
comments:
• Techniques in class (group
work) were very helpful.
• The class was very challenging,
but the active learning activities
made learning the material fun
and interesting.
• The new format of the course
was very effective.
• The course was full of
information, but I thought her
lectures and activities were
helpful to learning the material.
• She was able to grab our interest
in the subject through different
classroom activities, such as the
protein structure active learning
exercise.
• Definitely a very enjoyable
course.
• Continue having the in-class
activities and the weekly
quizzes, they are really useful.
• More group activities.
On the basis of these comments as
well as the overall feedback from
the class, there was no resistance to
the change in teaching or the implementation of active learning.
Discussion and conclusions
Given a similar class size, students
in the studio had many more
opportunities to interact with each
other and were put on the spot
more often than in the lecture-based
course (front-row duty, presenting
the results of the protein activity,
giving answers to in-class activity
questions). They were also required
to read the textbook in preparation
for the activities and complete
homework assignments associated
with the activities. Because of all
these factors, students improved
their performance in areas previously
identified as challenging. They also
responded in a very positive way to
the variety of activities introduced in
the classroom. Setting clear content
goals but also putting emphasis
on participation and collaborative
learning provided students with
skills and confidence that can be
used in other courses and their
future professional careers. n
Acknowledgments
I gratefully acknowledge Mount St. Mary’s
College for encouraging novel teaching
strategies for its faculty and thank Paul
Green and the entire Faculty Learning
Community at the Mount for their
enthusiasm and ideas. I also thank David A.
Moffet from Loyola Marymount University
in Los Angeles for his contributions and
editing of this manuscript.
Using Active Learning in a Studio Classroom
References
American Association for the
Advancement of Science. (2011).
Vision and change in undergraduate
biology education: A call to action.
Retrieved from http:///www.
visionandchange.org
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, 203–213.
Beichner, R. J. (2003). The SCALEUP project: A student-centered
active learning environment for
undergraduate programs. Retrieved
from http://www.ncsu.edu/per/
scaleup.html
Blumberg, P. (2009). Developing
learner-centered teaching: A
practical guide for faculty. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Eberlein, T., Kampmeier, J., Minderhout,
V., Moog, R. S., Platt, T., VarmaNelson, P., & White, H. B. (2008).
Pedagogies of engagement in science:
A comparison of PBL, POGIL, and
PLTL. Biochemistry and Molecular
Biology Education, 36, 262–273.
Fischer, C. N. (2011). Changing
the science education paradigm:
From teaching facts to engaging
the intellect (Science Education
Colloquia Series, spring 2011). Yale
Journal of Biology and Medicine, 84,
247–251.
Grant, A., Kinnersley, P., & Field, M.
(2012). Learning contexts at two UK
medical schools: A comparative study
using mixed methods. BMC Research
Notes, 5, 153.
Haak, D. C., Hille Ris Lambers, J., Pitre,
E., & Freeman S. (2011). Increased
structure and active learning reduce
the achievement gap in introductory
biology. Science, 332, 1213–1216.
Maskiewicz, A. C., Griscom, H. P.,
& Welch, N. T. (2012). Using
targeted active-learning exercises
and diagnostic question clusters to
improve students’ understanding of
carbon cycling in ecosystems. CBE—
Life Sciences Education, 11, 58–67.
Minderhout V., & Loertscher, J.
(2007). Lecture-free biochemistry.
Biochemistry and Molecular Biology
Education, 35, 172–180.
Minhas, P. S., Ghosh, A., & Swanzy, L.
(2012). The effects of passive and
active learning on student preference
and performance in an undergraduate
basic science course. Anatomical
Sciences Education, 5, 200–207.
Montelone, B. A., Rintoul, D. A., &
Williams, L. G. (2008). Assessment
of the effectiveness of the studio
format in introductory undergraduate
biology. CBE—Life Sciences
Education, 7, 234–242.
Sangestani, G., & Khatiban, M. (2012).
Comparison of problem-based
learning and lecture-based learning in
midwifery. Nurse Education Today.
Available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.
gov/pubmed/?term=Sangestani%2C
+Khatiban
Satyanarayanajois, S. D. (2010). Activelearning exercises to teach drugreceptor interactions in a medicinal
chemistry course. American Journal
of Pharmaceutical Education, 74(8),
147.
Sumter, T. F., & Owens, P. M. (2011).
An approach to teaching general
chemistry II that highlights the interdisciplinary nature of science.
Biochemistry and Molecular Biology
Education, 39, 110–116.
Voet, J. G., & Voet, D. (2010). Student
centered education. Biochemistry and
Molecular Biology Education, 38, 133.
Weimer, M. (2002). Learner-centered
teaching: Five key changes to
practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey
Bass.
Luiza A. Nogaj ([email protected]) is
an assistant professor in the Department
of Biological Sciences at Mount St. Mary’s
College in Los Angeles, California.
Column Editors
If you are interested in submitting a manuscript to one of JCST’s columns or have a question or comment
regarding an article, please contact the appropriate editor at the following addresses:
The Case Study
Clyde F. Herreid
Department of Biology
State University of New York
Buffalo, NY 14260-1300
[email protected]
The Two-Year
Community
Research and
Teaching
David M. Majerich
Georgia Institute of Technology
Atlanta, GA 30342
[email protected]
Ann Cutler
Editor
[email protected]
Please submit directly
to JCST’s electronic
submission system
(http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/nsta)
Vol. 42, No. 6, 2013
55