Q 2008 by The International Union of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology
BIOCHEMISTRY AND MOLECULAR BIOLOGY EDUCATION
Vol. 36, No. 2, pp. 159–165, 2008
Biotechnology Education
Crossing Over: An Undergraduate Service Learning Project That
Connects to Biotechnology Education in Secondary Schools*§
Received for publication, July 18, 2007, and in revised form, September 21, 2007
Amy T. Hark¶
From the Biology Department, Muhlenberg College, Allentown, Pennsylvania 18104
The importance of engaging students in science and helping them to become informed citizens has
been highlighted by many groups invested in science education. This report describes a project that furthers both academic and civic goals through the integration of a service learning component into an
undergraduate course. This nonmajors class covers the biology underlying the use of genetic information in today’s society and provides students with the opportunity to discuss related ethical and political
issues. The service learning project itself involved the creation of instructional materials dealing with the
above topics and issues for use in local secondary school classrooms. Students developed materials in
a digital media format to allow for revision in response to peer and community feedback. Outcomes of
this pilot project suggest benefits to undergraduates as well as high school educators and students.
Interdisciplinary collaborations and local educational partnerships have also been developed and
strengthened through this work.
Keywords: Biotechnology, molecular biology, active learning, service learning, preservice teachers.
This project was integrated into a course entitled
‘‘Genes, Genomics, and Society’’ (BIO 118) offered at
Muhlenberg College. This class is typically taken by nonscience majors to fulfill a general academic requirement
at this private, liberal arts institution. The course provides
students with the opportunity to discuss topics such as
genetic testing, reproductive technologies, genetically
modified food, forensic applications, and so forth, with
respect not only to the background science but also the
related societal, political, and ethical issues. With three
hourly meetings per week, sessions in the early part of
the week are primarily lecture-based (although discussion
is encouraged), whereas typically part or all of each Friday’s class is reserved for discussions, for which students have completed a reading and prepared written
notes in advance. Students have consistently reported
that this combination of lecture and discussion is both an
effective and an enjoyable learning modality.
In past offerings, this course also included a component to help students work with the material in ways that
extend beyond the classroom. One notable difference is
that in previous projects, students had worked independ-
* This work was supported by a Muhlenberg College course
development grant.
§Portions of this work were presented at the 2007 Experimental Biology meeting.
¶ To whom correspondence should be addressed. 2400
Chew Street, Allentown, PA 18104; Tel.: þ484-664-3747; Fax:
þ484-664-3002; E-mail: [email protected].
This paper is available on line at http://www.bambed.org
ently, but for this pilot service learning project, students
worked in small groups of three to four individuals. Students were allowed to form their own working groups,
but they were encouraged to make them as diverse as
possible with respect to major area of study and science
background. Course grades were based on exams
(45%), participation in discussion topics—both orally and
in writing (35%), and the group service learning project
(20%).
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND DESCRIPTION
The project was designed to enhance student academic learning by actively involving students, as the benefits of student-centered learning for science education
have been well documented [1, 2]. This service learning
project also strengthened the course aim of preparing
students to act as (scientifically) informed and engaged
participants in our society, a goal that has been highlighted by many groups [3–6]. These outcomes represent
two of the three components of service learning as
defined by the Michigan Journal of Community Service
Learning (MJCSL)1 [3]; see also Fig. 1.
It was of paramount concern that this project be
designed to connect to the community in a useful way, a
sentiment that is reflected in the third aim of service
learning, namely ‘‘relevant and meaningful service with
the community,’’ again as defined by MJCSL [3]. Initial
1
The abbreviation used is: MJCSL, Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning.
159
DOI 10.1002/bmb.20154
160
BAMBED, Vol. 36, No. 2, pp. 159–165, 2008
TABLE I
Reflection (RF) paper topics
RF1
RF2
RF3
RF4
FIG. 1. A description of academic service learning, taken
from the Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning [3].
conversations with area teachers were facilitated by the
author’s attendance at local meetings organized by the
National Science Foundation-supported Math Science
Partnership of Greater Philadelphia [7]. Multiple high
school teachers identified a need to have better exposure to both the techniques and applications of biotechnology, specifically the topics covered in BIO 118, for
both themselves and their students. Recent literature has
documented this as a worldwide view [8, 9]. A review of
the Academic Standards put forth by the Pennsylvania
State Board of Education revealed that it would be
appropriate to cover biotechnology topics in the high
school classroom [10]. In consideration of their needs
and the many demands of a secondary school curriculum, high school educators served as reviewers for the
first iteration of this service learning project. The decision
of whether and how to incorporate materials into their
classes was left to their discretion. Undergraduate students were instructed to create their instructional materials in a digital media format, an intentional design that
allows for modification by an educator to suit his/her
classroom curriculum and students.
RF5
Part I: Service Learning and Civic Engagement
Part II: First Thoughts about the Secondary School
Science Classroom
Part I: Secondary School Science Classroom and
Curriculum
Part II: The Digital Learning Environment and First
Thoughts about Working with Technology
Part I: ‘‘Digital Storytelling’’
Part II: ‘‘With 10 days to go. . .’’
Part I: The finished product
Part II: The assignment itself
Part I: The response (reflection on reviewers’ comments)
Part II: The assignment revisited
enhance and build. . .knowledge management, learning communities, information literacy. . . ’’ [11].
Student reflection on their experiences throughout the
semester was also important in providing a way for both
the instructor and the students themselves to monitor
their development. Students were asked to write five
short reflections (2–3 page journal-type entries) over
the course of the semester, some of which related to
these preparatory topics (see Table I). Some of these
response assignments posed questions that called for
analysis (e.g., ‘‘What surprised you about the approach/
scope/depth of the Biotechnology & You magazine?’’ or
‘‘What types of activities do you think might foster interest or engagement in science for high school students?’’)
while other responses allowed the instructor to gauge
students’ experience levels. Students were also asked to
reflect on their groups’ approach to and progress on the
assignment, their project at the time of submission as
well as after receiving reviewers’ comments, and the
assignment as it related to their learning (Table I).
PREPARATORY AND REFLECTIVE ACTIVITIES
In addition to covering background content-specific
material in class, the design of this course component
included several other kinds of activities to prepare students for this project. Three main types of activities are
highlighted below:
• Students read an article on service learning and
answered questions about their previous community
involvement as preparation for a classroom discussion centered on these materials early in the
semester.
• Students reviewed print publications covering biotechnology topics that are currently used in area
high schools, and had a meeting with a member of
Muhlenberg’s Education Department and high school
science teachers prior to the major development
phase of the project.
• During the development of the projects, a faculty
member in the College’s Media and Communication
Department introduced students to the concept of
digital storytelling, ‘‘the art of using of technology to
THE PROJECTS THEMSELVES
Secondary school educators were surveyed prior to
the course about which topics would be of most use or
interest to their classes (gene therapy, genetic testing,
and medical applications of DNA sequencing were
among the top choices). With consideration of this information as well as the topical basis of the undergraduate
course, very brief suggestions of topics were made in
the project syllabus. Student groups built projects from
suggested topics but also developed their own ideas in
the following areas:
• DNA fingerprinting (DNA sequence variation, short
tandem repeats, PCR, restriction enzymes, gel electrophoresis, Southern blot, ethical concerns)
• Genetic testing (DNA sequencing, central dogma,
disease targets, ethical issues)
• Gene therapy (disease targets, vectors and methods
used, ethical concerns)
• Stem cells (definition, relation to cloning, therapeutic
potential, current debates)
161
FIG. 2. Excerpts from a student project on DNA fingerprinting. Right-hand panels highlight the use of definitions and analogies
for explanatory purposes, while the bottom left panel provides an example of engaging users in a discussion of the related ethical
issues.
• Cancer and chemotherapy (mutagenic effects on
DNA, effects at the cellular level, ethics of treatment
options)
It is important to note that some excellent web-based
tutorials on at least some of these topics exist (as an
example, see [12]). This project is not novel in this
aspect, but it does seek to tap into the creativity and
perspectives of undergraduate nonscience majors. Also
important is the fact that these projects build on local
connections: there is the potential for secondary school
educators to gain face-to-face assistance with or revision
of the materials.
As part of the author’s consideration of what types of
media could be used for this project, teachers as well as
undergraduates were surveyed as to their preferences.
Teachers indicated a preference for Microsoft PowerPointTM presentations (although many also indicated that
web pages would be accessible for them and their students). The undergraduate students generally had the
most experience and highest comfort level with PowerPoint technology, although the technical inexperience of
some students was surprising. Through both required
and optional sessions with a faculty colleague in Muhlenberg’s Media and Communication Department, students
learned how to set up PowerPointTM presentations and
how to integrate elements including timing, video, and
soundtrack into them. Students were also engaged in a
discussion of copyright issues and ethical considerations
when portraying human subjects.
Excerpts from two projects are provided as still images
in Figs. 2 and 3. The depth and scope of the projects
was discussed individually with each group (at least one
meeting with the instructor was required during project
development), with the rough guideline that the undergraduate students should plan a project that high school
students could explore in about 30 min. Most projects
displayed a high degree of flexibility in this regard, incorporating questions for discussion that could be used in
multiple ways by the classroom instructor.
PROJECT REVIEW AND ASSESSMENT
Projects were evaluated in a number of different ways:
by the course instructor, by at least two high school
teachers, and by at least five student peers. The project
grading rubric utilized by the instructor is shown in
Table II. Teachers and undergraduate peers were asked
to comment on the presentation of biology and the highlighting of ethical, social, and political issues in their
review, as well as to describe the greatest strength of the
presentation and name one specific aspect that could be
improved. They were also asked to assign a numerical
ranking to the project based on the scale shown in
Table III. Individual projects received average scores
ranging from 7.3 to 8.9 on a 10-point scale (Table IV).
162
BAMBED, Vol. 36, No. 2, pp. 159–165, 2008
FIG. 3. Excerpts from a student project on cancer and chemotherapy treatment. The top right-hand panel ties chemotherapy
to the basic biology of the cell cycle. Lower panels are designed to engage users, through the use of interviews and discussion
questions.
TABLE II
Instructor grading rubric
Reflections (RFs) 1–5
Submission of group and project
proposal; group meeting
Digital project:
Instructor’s assessment
Presentation of biology/technology
Highlighting of ethical, societal,
and/or policy issues
For both of the above, consider
clarity, informative nature, ability
to generate interest, creativity
Information sources
Appropriate use within
presentation; Bibliography
Reviewer’s assessment
TABLE III
Description of numerical rankings used by reviewers
50 points
10 points
9–10
7–8
40 points
40 points
5–6
1–4
Very good to excellent in all aspects of the digital
presentation.
Strong presentation, with some significant deficits
regarding the presentation of biology or ethical
issues but not both. Material might also present
information accurately, but not be as engaging.
Significant concerns about biology and ethics, but
could be revised.
Material requires significant reworking.
30 points
30 points
200 points total
TABLE IV
Summary of project reviews by undergraduate peers and educators
Project identifier
Topic
Number of reviews
Average score
Appropriate for use in high school classroom?a
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
Genetic testing
Stem cells
DNA fingerprinting
DNA fingerprinting
Gene therapy
Cancer
DNA fingerprinting
7
10
7
9
9
7
8
7.7
7.3
7.9
8
8.2
8.9
8.8
No
Mixed opinion
Yes, with modifications
Mixed opinion
Yes, with modifications
Yes, with modifications
Yes
a
This response was taken only from reviews by high school teachers, who indicated whether they had used or planned to use the project
and whether minor modifications were desirable before in-class presentation. ‘‘Mixed opinion’’ is used to designate that one or more teachers indicated the project was suitable for their classes, whereas other teacher(s) said it was not appropriate.
163
TABLE V
Selected educator comments in reviews
‘‘. . .a very useful presentation. . .images enhance understanding and the issues are presented in a way to generate discussion. . .’’
(Cancer and chemotherapy, Project F)
‘‘Interesting project idea. . .getting kids to consider the ethical/economic/social implications of science very important. . .’’ (Cancer
and chemotherapy, Project F)
‘‘I can envision using this presentation as an interactive computer lab activity in which students progress through the slides at their
own pace, taking in the information and then solving the crime.’’ (Genome fair, Project G)
‘‘An elaboration after this presentation in my classroom could be that teams of students would be given a disease to research. . .’’
(Gene therapy, Project E)
High school teachers saw the majority of projects as
useful (Table IV) and reported that they have successfully
employed many of the projects in their classrooms to
introduce and/or explore topics. While comments were
favorable overall (see Table V for examples), both student
peers as well as high school educators made constructive criticisms that were useful to the project designers
and as recommendations for future development.
Undergraduate students also engaged in evaluation of
their own project at several points in the development
process. The sample questions below are drawn from
reflection paper assignments (Table I):
• Please comment on the progress of your working
group at this point. Where do you feel your strengths
lie? Are there aspects of the project that you are particularly struggling with? (RF3, due 10 days before
the project has to be completed)
• What do you view as the greatest strength(s) of the
digital lesson designed by you and your group?
What aspects of your project do you think could be
improved? Is there anything specific that would have
enabled you to enhance your project? (RF4, due the
week of project submission)
• What aspects or particular comments of the
reviewers do you agree with most (these could be
positive feedback or constructive criticism)? Why?
What comments surprised you the most? Why? (RF5,
due after students had seen reviewers’ comments)
• How well do you feel completion of this assignment
met [our] learning goals? (RF5)
One of the most valuable but surprisingly difficult parts
of this assignment for students was reflecting on the
reviewers’ comments about their projects. The vast majority of students had invested significantly in the development of their projects and it was difficult for them to
embrace constructive comments on their presentation at
first. However, for many this process ultimately allowed
them to view their work more critically and also to recognize different learning styles.
TABLE VI
Undergraduate students’ assessment of project
Met academic learning goals
Increased understanding of biology
Developed presentation skills
Met civic learning goals
Prepared to act as engaged citizens
Contributed to local collaborations
Yes
No
96%
70%
4%
65%
43%
NAa
30%
22%
35%
35%
Students were asked upon completion of the project if through
their work they had achieved stated learning goals. Numbers indicated percentage of students (n ¼ 23) who indicated that goals
were or were not successfully met.
a
NA, not addressed.
A summary of the undergraduate students’ assessment of whether the project met the defined learning
goals is presented in Table VI, with selected comments
from students’ reflections shown in Table VII. The undergraduates overwhelmingly (>95%) indicated that this
work advanced their biological and technological knowledge (Table VI). More than two-thirds of the students
also noted that this project had allowed them to develop
their presentation skills (Table VI). Student feedback on
the project as it contributed to their overall learning in
the course was also very positive, with greater than 90%
of students affirming on an end-of-term evaluation that
this project was both an enjoyable and an effective part
of the class. A majority of the students also responded
that through the project they had increased their ability
to discuss science in a meaningful way with the public
(Table VI). Interestingly, according to students’ selfassessments, the aspect in which the project least met
learning goals was in contributions to local educational
collaborations (Table VI), an issue which is discussed in
more detail later.
INTEGRATING INTO THE SECONDARY SCHOOL CLASSROOM
The Fall 2006 offering of BIO 118 attracted students
interested in education (one-third of the students are formally participating in the College’s teacher education
TABLE VII
Selected student comments from RF5
‘‘The basic biology used in our presentation, such as the relationship between DNA, chromosomes and genes was something I
understood in class but could not picture in my mind. Having to teach this in a visual way challenged my understanding.’’
‘‘. . .I do feel that this was an effective part of the course. It is easy to sometimes lose focus of the practical uses of biology in the
real world. I think that this project helped us use the information we learned in class and apply it to real life scenarios.’’
‘‘Although it was difficult to figure out ways to engage our audience, in doing so I was able to put myself in others’ shoes and think
as both a learner and an instructor.’’
‘‘I’m a bit disappointed that I won’t be able to follow my presentation into the classroom. I think it would add to the experience as a
whole and I hope that someday that might be arranged for future students who take this course.’’
164
program), providing them with an opportunity to develop
their pedagogical skills and apply their knowledge of
educational methods. Given this demographic as well as
general student interest in working in the community, it is
not surprising that many students at least casually
expressed a desire to visit secondary school classrooms.
A few students expressed valid concern about the difficulty in developing effective teaching tools for a ‘‘vague
audience,’’ as one student phrased it.
In attempting to integrate the experiences of the
undergraduate and high school students, there are still
two concerns to be addressed. One continuing challenge
is to adequately prepare undergraduate students within a
semester to develop these educational materials in an
appropriate manner (e.g., accurate presentation of science, unbiased nature) and at an appropriate level (e.g.,
necessary background provided, pitch). One might presume that content corrections would be necessary
because projects were developed by students taking
their first and likely only life science class in college.
Both the high school educators and the author agreed
on the benefits of working with undergraduate nonscience majors and valued their collective variety of
questions and different approaches to science, as well
as their mix of academic interests that is also found in a
conventional high school classroom. However, in the majority of projects, teachers indicated that at least minor
modifications, including corrections in content, would
help prepare the projects for classroom use (Table IV).
This finding supports the importance of the digital platform in making these projects of use to the community.
One interesting route to revision of these biotechnology
projects would be to have them serve as the basis for an
independent project for undergraduates who are training
to become secondary school science teachers. Other
approaches to improving science literacy in preservice
teachers have been described [13–15], highlighting the importance of this educational aim. Future consultation and
collaboration with members of the College’s education program or other experts in the field of education and teacher
training (as suggested in [14, 16]) would aid in structuring this
experience with the maximum benefit for these students.
Also connected to the issue of whether the undergraduate students would go into the high school classroom
or not is the ‘‘stand-alone quality’’ of the presentations.
One educator raised this issue fairly early in the review
process, noting that the design of one project resulted in
more (textual) material than he would prefer embedded
in the presentation. Some student groups identified this
issue independently and chose to address it in part by
creating instructor guides and/or student handouts.
Future projects would likely also benefit from students
exploring ways for the presentations to become more
interactive. For example, web-based projects would
allow programming that permits users to be directed to
various sections of a presentation based on choices they
made. Considering the level of technical expertise
observed in this cohort of traditional age college students, these projects would benefit from collaboration
with Media and Communication or Computer Science
faculty and their undergraduate classes.
BAMBED, Vol. 36, No. 2, pp. 159–165, 2008
As a second outstanding concern about integration, it
is worth noting that having teachers as the community
contact in this pilot avoided the potential difficulty of
coordinating of an undergraduate semester with high
school learning units. If one wished to integrate a school
classroom visit toward the end of a typical undergraduate semester, topic choice would likely be restricted to a
potentially narrow subset that a teacher covers either in
late fall or late spring. In addition, presentations pitched
at an appropriate level for some high school classrooms
might not work for others. This issue was apparent in
reviews of the pilot project as educators from different
school districts (both urban and suburban) judged the
level of the same presentation as appropriate or not
appropriate for their students (resulting in the ‘‘mixed
opinion’’ summary seen in Table IV).
While this project in its pilot form responded to educators’ requests for support and resources in teaching biotechnology topics, it is important to consider classroom
integration as a way to increase impact for students,
both undergraduates as well as high schoolers. There is
research to suggest that such short-term classroom visits
aid in fostering interest in and acceptance of science for
K-12 students [17] as well as undergraduates [1]. Within
the scientific community, organizations such as the
National Science Foundation and National Science Board
have called for coordination between the K-12 and
undergraduate educational levels and for higher education to ‘‘engage in effective equal partnerships with K-12
schools’’ [18]. In a follow-up survey, one local teacher
expressed interest in undergraduate students interacting
in the high school classroom, whereas another cited
scheduling difficulties as a potentially prohibitive. As the
project was developed based on input from secondary
school educators, it will proceed in a meaningful way
with feedback from high school students and teachers
as well as from others with experience in educational
practice or research [19]. In addition to strengthening
these connections, collaborations among those interested in use of technology in education (e.g., faculty in
communications or computer science fields, instructional
technologists) may be developed through extensions of
this work.
Acknowledgments— I thank the high-school science teachers
Steve Baier, Kellie Brady, Luke Shafnisky, and Patricia Waller for
their review of course projects, their permission to share their
comments, and their interest in collaboration. I also thank the
students in the Fall 2006 offering of Genes, Genomics, and Society (BIO 118) at Muhlenberg College for their work and their
permission to present it. I acknowledge Mary Byrne, Lora Taub,
Louise Shive, Valerie Lane, and Martha Stevenson for their contributions to the development and execution of the project.
Finally, I thank Judd Hark and an anonymous reviewer for their
comments on the manuscript.
REFERENCES
[1] J. McDonald, L. Dominguez (2005) Moving from content knowledge
to engagement, J Coll Sci Teach 35, 18–22.
[2] H. Travis, T. Lord (2004) Traditional and constructivist teaching techniques, J Coll Sci Teach 34, 12–18.
[3] J. Howard (ed) (2001) Service Learning Course Design Workbook,
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
165
[4] Science Education for New Civic Engagements and Responsibilities. Available at http://www.sencer.net.
[5] National Research Council (1996) National Science Education
Standards, National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
[6] American Association for the Advancement of Science (1990) Project 2061: Science for All Americans, Oxford University Press, New
York.
[7] Math Science Partnership of Greater Philadelphia. Available at
http://www.mspgp.org/.
[8] G. Leslie, R. Schibeci (2006) Teaching about designer babies & genetically modified foods: Encouraging the teaching of biotechnology
in secondary schools, Am Biol Teach 68, 98–103.
[9] M. Lang, S. Drake, J. Olson (2006) Discourse and the new didactics
of scientific literacy, J Curriculum Stud 38, 177–188.
[10] The Pennsylvania State Board of Education. Available at http://
www.pde.state.pa.us/stateboard_ed/cwp/view.asp?a¼3&Q¼76716
&stateboard_edNav¼|5467|&pde_internetNav¼|.
[11] M. Stanley, M. Ormiston (2003) Digital Storytelling with Powerpoint,
Visions in Technology Education, Eugene, OR.
[12] Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. Available at www.dnai.org.
[13] P. Elliott (2006) Reviewing newspaper articles as a technique for
enhancing the scientific literacy of student-teachers, Int J Sci Educ
28, 1245–1265.
[14] R. Potter, G. Meisels (2005) Enhancing teacher preparation and
improving faculty teaching skills, J Sci Educ Technol 14, 191–
204.
[15] M. Iding, E. B. Klemm (2005) Pre-service teachers critically evaluate
scientific information on the world wide web: What makes information believable?, Comput Sch, 22, 7–18.
[16] J. Gutstein, M. Smith, D. Manahan (2006) A service-learning model
for science education outreach, J Coll Sci Teach 36, 22–26.
[17] S. Laursen, C. Liston, H. Thiry, J. Graf (2007) What good is a scientist in the classroom? Participant outcomes and program design
features for a short-duration science outreach intervention in K-12
classrooms, Cell Biol Educ 6, 49–64.
[18] R. Colwell, E. Kelly (1999) Science learning, science opportunity,
Science 286, 237.
[19] E. L. Dolan, B. E. Soots, P. G. Lemaux, S. Y. Rhee, L. Reiser (2004)
Strategies for avoiding reinventing the precollege education and
outreach wheel, Genetics 166, 1601–1609.