EDUCATION CONNECTION
Hands-on Bugs:
Bringing Insects Up Close and Personal
with Non-Science Majors
Sarah R. Thompson and Clyde E. Sorenson
T
o a business major who had previously never been closer to a large,
recently living insect than the occasional butterfly smashed on her windshield,
the prospect of dissecting the head of a
preserved lubber grasshopper was a pretty
daunting task. But, rolling up her sleeves and
steeling her constitution, the Junior attacked
the challenge, successfully completed her
mission, and discovered that she had had
fun while learning.
Although North Carolina State University is a land-grant institution with a long
and successful commitment to agriculture
and the life sciences, most of the 29,000
plus students are not in a life science degree
program. Entomology (ENT) 201, a lecture
course called “Insects and People,” was
developed in 1993 to give some non-life-science students an interesting, informative, and
entertaining introduction to the discipline.
The more significant goal of the course is to
instill an appreciation for the natural world
and the creatures that live in it. The course
relies on multimedia presentations in a twiceweekly lecture format. Live demonstrations
and in-class experiments figure prominently
in the presentation of course material, but
previously there was no formal laboratory
experience to enhance ENT 201. In the fall
of 2003, we decided to develop a laboratory
component to accompany the lecture course
under the umbrella of NCSU’s Preparing the
Professoriate (PTP) Program.
PTP is a nationally recognized program
that helps train the next generation of college
and university teachers. The backbone of the
program is a mentoring relationship between
a doctoral student and a full-time, tenuretrack faculty member. The faculty member
74
and student develop an individualized plan
for a substantive teaching experience. The
yearlong program includes an observation–preparation semester and a mentored
teaching experience for the graduate student
the following semester.
The framework of PTP provided an excellent opportunity to develop an optional
laboratory experience for ENT 201 students.
With our acceptance into the program, we
decided to tackle this project. Our laboratory course, ENT 495E (entitled “Hands-on
Bugs”), was scheduled as a once-a-week
three-hour course to accompany the lectures
from ENT 201.
One of the first steps in developing the
new lab was to contact faculty members at
other universities who teach similar survey
courses that include a laboratory component.
Using ideas from other professors and the
current ENT 201 lecture units as a starting
point, we chose critical topics and accompanying activities to cover in the laboratory
course (see box, “Hands-On Bugs” Syllabus). We used the lecture syllabus as a basis
for the laboratory activities because students
see the most value in laboratory experiences
that relate to and follow the current lecture
material (Bieron et al. 1996, Wong and
Fraser 1996, Adams 1998). Once the syllabus was outlined, we spent the remainder
of the fall semester developing PowerPoint
presentations, compiling instructions and
lesson plans for activities, and assembling
necessary supplies.
For the first offering of the laboratory
course in the spring of 2004, nine students
who had previously completed or were currently enrolled in ENT 201 registered for
Hands-on Bugs. Classes took place in a labo-
ratory room fully equipped with traditional
lab-related supplies, including dissecting
microscopes.
We emphasized five teaching practices in
developing the activities for the laboratory
section: hands-on learning, inquiry-based
learning, cooperative learning, the use of
the various learning styles, and incorporating the student’s personal interests into the
lessons. Each of these teaching practices has
been shown to increase the effectiveness of
lessons and activities as measured by student
retention and enjoyment. We strived to have
every laboratory lesson effectively reinforce
and expand on the lecture material, while
also incorporating one or more of these five
important strategies.
Hands-on and Inquiry-based Learning
We believe it is critical to incorporate
tactile experiences into the classroom. Although some students learn through direct
instruction (i.e., a lecture format) only,
many others can understand and remember
important concepts better if they experience
activities that demonstrate the concepts.
Most of us learn best by doing (Schamel and
Ayres 1992).
Hands-on activities are those in which
students actively participate. Inquiry-based
activities are those in which the final answer
is unknown (to them), and the students must
participate in the lesson to discover the outcome. By working on lessons that incorporate inquiry, students can learn how scientists
approach problems and come to understand
the nature of scientific thinking (Hall 1997).
Our main objective in developing this laboratory course was to produce such experiences
for the students. Although almost all the
American Entomologist • Summer 2005
Topic
Activity
Arthropod diversity
Field trip to Museum of Natural
Sciences, Raleigh, NC
Exoskeleton and head
Mouthpart functions, Head dissection
Thorax, abdomen, and internal anatomy
External dissection of lubber grasshoppers, Internal dissection of
American cockroaches and grasshoppers
Metamorphosis
Insect races, Set up mealworms to
observe over time (begin Metamorphosis
Journal)
Mating/Reproduction
Territory defense and courtship in
crickets
Communication
Pheromone lures and electronic callers
Insect products and food
Homemade insect candles
Social insects and colonies
Nest mate recognition with Argentine
ants
Insect-vectored diseases
Student presentations
Urban and agricultural pests
Host feeding specificity, Glucose aversion
German cockroaches
Insect control
Muscidifurax parasitoids on housefly
pupae, Predatory insects
Cultural Entomology
Visit to Entomology Special Collections
at D. H. Hill Library (NCSU, Raleigh, NC)
Insects in movies
Watch and critique insect sci-fi movie
lessons are hands-on or inquiry-based in
nature, three lessons particularly exemplify
these teaching practices.
In the communication lesson, students
used pheromones from two very similar
lepidopterans to determine whether these
chemicals are species-specific and to experiment with detection ranges. The outcome was
unknown to the students beforehand; and
by participating in this activity, they were
able to better understand the specificity and
limits of chemical communication in insects.
The students developed a hypothesis, made
observations, asked questions, and came
to a conclusion about the nature of pheromones—all key steps involved in the scientific
method (Gibbs and Lawson 1992).
This also was an example of a guided
inquiry activity because we structured the
lesson with readily observable results (Hall
1997). The observable results from this lesson were not as clear as we had hoped, and
they therefore pointed out the difficulty that
scientists experience when trying to distinguish between sampling, stimulation, and
attraction ranges (Wall and Perry 1987).
Another example of inquiry-based learning occurred in the urban and agricultural
pests lesson. For this class, the students examined the host specificity of agricultural
pests by providing caterpillars with various
American Entomologist • Volume 51, Number 2
plants and observing their feeding preferences. Through this lesson, the students
were better able to understand why some
insects are pests in certain situations and
not in others.
A great example of hands-on learning
was the insect control lesson. By participating in this activity, students discovered
the life cycle of a beneficial parasitoid of
houseflies. They observed oviposition and
feeding of adult Muscidifurax parasitoids,
as well as the development of wasp larvae
over time in house fly pupae. We provided
the students with unparasitized fly pupae
and adult parasitoids and pupae that
had already been parasitized at different
intervals before the class. The students dissected the parasitized pupae to observe the
development of the parasitoid. The lesson
was a great way to demonstrate alternative
methods of insect control.
These last two activities also provided
“real-life” applications, a connection that
is critical in keeping students interested
in the material (Yager and Huang 1994).
Often, students cannot make the connection between their science courses and real
experiences or applications, which makes
the information seem boring or meaningless
(Poole and Kidder 1996). The more that
real-world applications are incorporated into
labs for nonmajors, the more students will
feel that what they are learning is pertinent
and important.
Cooperative Learning Experiences
Another technique that is particularly
effective in teaching is the use of group activities to maximize learning. As the old adage
goes, “Two minds are better than one.” Often, working cooperatively allows students
to see perspectives they might otherwise not
consider; and in some cases, they can accomplish more by sharing the work. The social
atmosphere that develops in the laboratory
setting is something that students appear to
enjoy more than all other aspects of a lab
course (Howard and Boone 1997). The following lessons are examples of cooperative
learning activities that we incorporated into
Hands-on Bugs.
In our internal systems lesson, our initial
plan was to have the students perform multiple dissections on different insects to view
the various internal systems. We quickly
discovered that the students (being nonscientists) did not have much or any experience
in dissections or with dissecting scopes; as a
result, they were only able to perform one
dissection each during the time allotment.
We still wanted the students to have the
opportunity to view the different internal
systems, so we decided that the individual
students would instead perform one dissection and then share with their classmates
what they had accomplished. By changing
to this system, we made it possible for the
students to see all of the dissections; and at
the same time, they taught each other what
they had discovered in their own dissection.
In the end, all of our objectives were accomplished, and the students had the chance to
work cooperatively.
The activity that we created for the social
insect lesson also required cooperative participation. The concept we were illustrating
was nest mate recognition in ant colonies.
Argentine ants from different colonies were
introduced into a complete colony, and the
students observed the reaction of colony
members to the “foreigner.” The first 25
interactions were observed and given a
rating based on the level of aggressiveness
displayed toward the “foreigner.” For this
activity, it was absolutely necessary for the
students to work together to keep track of
the introduced ant and record the data accurately. This lesson not only demonstrated
the scientific concept, but also showed the
students how working together is sometimes
the only feasible way to accomplish goals.
Accommodating Learning Styles
Different students have different styles of
learning. Some people have a more meaning75
ful learning experience if it is tactile; whereas
others learn best through visual stimuli, and
still others learn most effectively through
auditory means. Most students require a
combination of all three. All of our lessons
were designed to accommodate all of these
learning styles by first presenting an introduction to the information through PowerPoint-assisted lectures, which are visual and
auditory, and then engaging the students in
a tactile activity.
One lesson in particular supported our
philosophy on the importance of recognizing and meeting the various learning styles
of students. An activity incorporated into
our metamorphosis lesson was designed to
illustrate the modes of movement insects
use at different life stages. We held “Insect
Races” on a wooden track to compare the
differences between larval and adult insects
of the same species, adult insects of different
species, and larval insects of different species.
The insects were released from the starting
gate and attracted to a food source at the finish line. This lesson was tactile and effectively
showed the various modes of movement in
insects and how locomotion changes as insects develop. It also reinforced the concept
through the students’ conversations, while
they were “just having fun.”
Another component of this lesson was keeping a metamorphosis journal to track the life of
a larval beetle (yellow mealworm) when it was
exposed to varying environmental conditions,
in this case, different temperature regimens.
Each student was given three mealworms:
One was kept at room temperature; one was
kept in a refrigerator; and the third was kept
in an incubator set at 27º C. Every week at the
beginning of class, the students made observations on each of their mealworms, including
overall measurements of length, changes in
life stage, and level of activity, and recorded
this information in their journals. Again, this
activity emphasized tactile and visual learning
as the students examined and measured the
mealworms over time.
Other Interests
Because this course was designed for
nonscience majors, it was important to appeal to some of the students’ other interests.
Most any teacher can attest to the fact that
students enjoy the opportunity to participate
in an activity of personal interest (Schamel
and Ayres 1992). By showing the students
how insects play a role in other disciplines,
the field of entomology becomes less foreign
and intimidating. Two lessons in particular
accomplished this goal.
In our insect products lesson, we included
an activity to stimulate the interest of the
artists in the class. We provided preserved
insect specimens to be incorporated into
76
Fig. 1.
Students visit
entomology
special
collection at
NCSU’s D. H.
Hill Library.
homemade candles. Although the end
product of this lesson was rather simple,
the preactivity PowerPoint presentation
emphasized the larger concept of the incredible influence and pervasiveness of insects
in many segments of our culture. The students chose which insects to include in their
candles, as well as the overall layout and
color scheme. In this project, we were able
to show the students the intrinsic beauty of
insects and how all people can appreciate
this beauty, even those who dislike them.
Although many of the students had seen
or already owned insect-themed products,
none of them had ones that included real
insects. All of them indicated their surprise
and satisfaction in making a product that
they had designed and constructed, which
incorporated actual insects rather than
representations of them.
Another lesson that appealed to the students’ outside interests was the cultural entomology unit (Fig. 1). We visited the campus
library’s special collections, which include
an extensive collection of original insect art
and literature. The students rotated from
one station to the next, trying to discover
what the purpose of each piece was when it
was created. They were encouraged to look
through the materials and determine the
original date of manufacture (if available).
After students had viewed and handled all
the pieces, the librarian and graduate student
engaged the students in a discussion of the
impact of insects on art and literature. This
lesson gave students a chance to view a collection that none of them had seen or were
even aware of; it also reinforced the historical
significance of insects in art and literature.
Positive Response
Overall, the students’ responses to the
course were positive as measured by formal
evaluations and comments. One student said
that the “course helped me better understand
ENT 201; this course was an addition rather
than repetition of ENT 201.” This was good
feedback to receive since one of our goals in
developing ENT 495E, Hands-on Bugs, was
to reinforce the lecture material presented in
ENT 201, rather than repeat it. When asked
whether the class was what the students had
expected, one student responded that the
course was “more fun; I feel I’ve had more
application to real life, which I wasn’t expecting.” Every student enrolled in the laboratory
said they had shared information they learned
with family members or friends. The students
each said that they felt more comfortable
handling and dealing with insects after taking the lab than they had before. All of the
students indicated a greater appreciation of
the natural world and all of the creatures living in it, specifically insects.
In conclusion, the development of a laboratory accompaniment (Hands-on Bugs) for
an undergraduate survey course (ENT 201) at
NCSU was beneficial to everyone involved, including the graduate student, faculty mentor,
and most importantly, the nine undergraduate nonscience majors who enrolled in the
class. We were able to develop a course that
incorporated critical teaching methods, and
at the same time, introduced the students to
an area of life sciences related to their daily
lives, whether they initially realized it or not.
As any effective educator knows, continued
refinement of some of the activities will be
necessary in the future to “iron out the kinks,”
but, overall, the course materials and activities
are ready to be offered as a full-time accompaniment to the lecture. Some of the lessons
that will possibly require revision include the
communication activity (to encourage insect
flight in response to pheromone emission) and
the insect products lesson (to emphasize the
American Entomologist • Summer 2005
key components determining aesthetic appeal
in insect products).
Furthermore, we encourage others who
are considering participation in a mentoring
program to spend the time and effort to do
so. In the end, the quality of undergraduate
education will only continue to improve as
future educators acquire effective planning
and teaching skills.
Acknowledgments
We thank the following members of the
Department of Entomology at NCSU for
their contributions of ideas, specimens, and
materials that were critical to the success
of Hands-on Bugs: Jules Silverman, Wes
Watson, Lew Dietz, J. Chad Gore, Gissella
Vasquez, and Beverley Pagura. We are extremely grateful to May Berenbaum (University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign),
Matthew Draud (Long Island University),
Gregory Zolnerowich (Kansas State University), and Matthew Wallace (East Stroudsburg University) for their willingness to
share their personal course materials with
us during the developmental phase of the
course. We also appreciate the time and
efforts of Bill Reynolds at the North Carolina Museum of Natural Sciences and Anna
Dahlstein in the Special Collections at the
D. H. Hill Library at NCSU. Special thanks
to C. Gerald Van Dyke and Ron Kuhr for
their reviews of this manuscript.
References Cited
Adams, D. L. 1998. What works in the nonmajors’
science laboratory. J. Coll. Sci. Teaching. 28:
103–108.
Bieron, J. F., P. J. McCarthy, and T. W. Kermis.
1996. A new approach to the general chemistry
laboratory. J. Chem. Ed. 73: 1021–1023.
Gibbs, A., and A. E. Lawson. 1992. The nature
of scientific thinking as reflected by the work
of biologists and by biology textbooks. Am.
Biol. Teacher 54: 137–152.
Hall, D.W. 1997. Inquiry learning: a paradigm
from an entomology course. J. Nat. Res. Life
Sci. Ed. 26: 180–182.
Howard, R. E., and W. J. Boone. 1997. What
influences students to enjoy introductory science laboratories? J. Coll. Sci. Teaching 26:
383–387.
Poole, B. J., and S. Q. Kidder. 1996. Making
connections in the undergraduate laboratory.
J. Coll. Sci. Teaching. 26: 34–36.
Schamel, D., and M. P. Ayres. 1992. The
minds-on approach: student creativity and
personal involvement in the undergraduate
science laboratory. J. Coll. Sci. Teaching. 21:
226–229.
Wall, C. and J.N. Perry. 1987. Range of action of
moth sex-attractant sources. Entomol. Exp.
Appl. 44: 5–14.
Wong, A. F. L., and B. J. Fraser. 1996. Environment-attitude associations in the chemistry
laboratory classroom. Res. Sci. Tech. Ed. 14:
91–102.
Yager, R. E., and D. Huang. 1994. An alternative approach to college science education
for nonscience majors. J. Coll. Sci. Teaching
24: 98–100.
Sarah R. Thompson is a Ph.D. candidate
in the Entomology Department at North
Carolina State University, who holds a B.S.
in Science Education from the University of
Maryland and a M.S. in Entomology from
NCSU. Her dissertation research involves
identifying critical factors for biological
control of mole crickets in turfgrass. She
can be contacted via e-mail at sarah_
[email protected]. Clyde E. Sorenson is
an associate professor in the Entomology
Department at North Carolina State University. In addition to teaching both undergraduate and graduate courses, he conducts
research on the ecology and management
of field crop pests. He can be contacted
via e-mail at [email protected],
by phone at (919) 515-8427, or by post:
Department of Entomology, P.O. Box 7630,
North Carolina State University, Raleigh,

NC 27695-7630.
���������������������
��������������������������
�����������������
�������������������������������������������������������
��� ������ ���� ��� ���� ������� ������� ������� ��������� ��� ��� ��������� ����� �� ��������
���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������
������ ��������������� ���� ������ ��� ��������� ���������� ������ ������ ���� ����� ����� ���
��������������������
���������������������������������������������
����������������������������������������������������������
���� ������������ ����� ��� ���� �� ���� ������ �������� ����� ������� ��� ����� ������ �������
���������������������������������
�����������������������������������������
����������������������������������������������������������������������
����������� ��� ���� ����������� ��� ��������� ���� ���� ������� ��� ���� �������
���������� ����� ����� ���� ������� ���� ������ ���� ������� ������ ����
���������������������
�����������������������������������������������������������
���������������������������������������������������������������������
American Entomologist • Volume 51, Number 2
77