This blog was written by Katie LaCommare, with the help of Sarah Silverman and Autumm Caines, as part of the work for the Hub Affiliates program.
Gateway courses need transformation
A student, let’s call her Brianna, walks into her first college class. She works full-time; she has a young daughter; to her, this class is a gate. If she passes and succeeds, she has a 68% chance of returning the following fall (ACT 2015, 2020). If she doesn’t, her chances become a lot less likely (Malcom and Feder 2016). As a result, first year courses are aptly referred to as “gateway courses.” They are figurative gates – barriers to graduation and careers (Ferare 2019, Koch 2017). This is true regardless of major whether it be psychology, history, math, biology chemistry, or business; students like Brianna will face one of these gates – an introductory course (Koch 2017)1.
As faculty, like it or not, we play a role in constructing these gates. In traditional “gateway courses,” exposition or didactic-style teaching places barriers between students and success and disproportionately impacts low-income and minority students (Theobald 2020; Ferare 2019; Malcom and Feder 2016). Although reducing barriers and obstacles to graduation can, does, and should involve institution-wide programs (Campbell and Blankenship 2000) that connect the student to university support systems through increased tutoring, mentoring, counseling, and financial aid (here at UM-Dearborn, these efforts are coordinated by our Office of Student Affairs), faculty can help too. Simply transforming instructional techniques in gateway courses from didactic to constructivist (i.e. active learning) with a fidelity to deliberate practice and a culture of inclusion can increase performance and reduce failure rates (Theobald 2020). Purposeful transformation is particularly powerful in reducing gaps in exam scores (by 33%) and failure rates (by 45%) between under and overrepresented student groups (Theobald 2020).
The question then is not: should faculty transform their introductory course, but how. For faculty that are thinking of either dipping their toes into active learning for the first time or thinking of bigger transformations, utilizing case studies as a tool may be a particularly attractive strategy; instructors like it, students like it; evidence suggests they work.
What is a transformed course and are they better? (Yes!)
Teaching styles are characterized as either didactic – “sage on the stage” – or mostly interactive. In the mostly interactive or “active learning” classroom, students no longer learn by passively listening to a lecture but are “induced to construct knowledge for themselves (Prince and Felder, 2006; p. 125).” In transformed courses, instructors embrace constructivist theories of learning (See Piaget, 1972; Biggs 1996) and create opportunities – in the classroom – for students to incorporate new information into their pre-existing knowledge structures.
There is no right or wrong way to transform an introductory course. The literature is deep and suggestion lists are long. For example, an entire course could be structured around a single problem or project or series of cases, called problem-based, project-based, or case-based learning depending on the expected student product and mode of delivery. (In fact, CASL is actively exploring how to implement practiced-based learning through-out the curriculum, see the PBL White Paper). In other examples, instructors utilize personal response systems (e.g. clickers), worksheets, tutorials, peer instruction, or group problem solving to induce students to interact with class material (for instructors looking for resources our Hub for Teaching and Learning has loads). Whichever specific strategy or sets of strategies are pursued, they are similar in that they put the student at the center of learning and call for the student to construct their own knowledge.
It is now well established that active-learning works! In science, math and engineering disciplines, active learning increases exam scores and reduces failure rates (Freeman et al 2014). In perhaps the most comprehensive metanalysis of 225 studies, Freeman et al. (2014) found that students in a lecture-only style science, math or engineering class were 1.5 times more likely to fail in comparison to classes taught with active learning interventions. Other evidence abounds. In an earlier review of the literature, Prince (2004) found that active learning improves retention, motivation, engagement, attitudes and the list goes on and on and on. (For reviews in non-science and engineering disciplines, see: Hyun et al. 2017, Archer and Miller 2011)
But, there’s a catch. Students’ think they learn more in lecture-only courses. To the great frustration of many instructors, students are blithely unaware that they are actually learning “more and better” in the active learning classroom. Instructors perceive this discontent. It is discouraging and prevents adoption of effective pedagogies.
The case for case studies
Using case-studies as the vehicle for transformation could alleviate the tension between what students need and what they want. For instructors wading into active learning for the first time or for instructors that may want to go beyond think-pair-share and clickers, case studies have three advantages: they work, instructors like them and students like them. This is a powerful combination. Why? High intensity practice coupled with inclusive teaching creates a synergistic environment that helps students learn course content. This “heads and hearts” hypothesis, proposed by Theobald et al. (2020), may explain not just why active-learning works but why it also helps under-represented students succeed disproportionately to their over-represented counterparts. The beauty of case-based instruction is that it incorporates these elements.
What is case-based learning?
Case-based learning (CBL) is a special form of problem-based learning (PBL). In problem-based learning students solve discipline-based, real-world problems by working in teams and using course content. They must reach the solution themselves but they get guidance and help from the instructor (Prince and Felder, 2006). In case-based learning, the problem is contextualized in either a real or simulated story. The story presents students with the background information and context for the dilemma or problem that needs to be solved (Allchin, 2013; Herreid 1994). The narrative also often employs people and characters that are “working out” the same problem that the student is being asked to solve. The hypothetical or historical characters and scenarios allow students to connect course concepts to real-world problems and puts them in the “shoes” of the real-world professionals (Prince and Felder, 2006).
Does it work and why?
Practitioners of medical, law, business and teacher education have a long history with case-based instruction. A wealth of data suggests, in this context, that it promotes critical thinking, problem solving, analytical skills, as well as higher exam scores and measures of declarative knowledge, (Azizi et al 2015; Beech and Domer 2002; Deshpande et al 2019; Flynn and Klein 2001) Assessments of biology students suggests similar findings. Students in an introductory biology course at Kingsborough Community College had higher exam scores on course content taught with case studies (Bonney 2015). Others have reported similar findings for genetics (Murray-Nseula 2011), biochemistry (Cornely 2003), and anatomy and physiology (Cliff and Wright 1996).
In contrast to active learning alone, the students themselves reported that they felt that case studies helped them learn course material more than other types of interventions in the same course (Bonney 2015). In this same class, students also reported that they felt that completing the case studies helped them communicate their knowledge better than other activities and helped them understand connections between the course and “everyday life.” Intriguingly, Bonney (2015) also found that students that felt that case studies were “a great amount of help” had higher exam scores than students that reported otherwise. In a high school chemistry class that relied on case-based instruction, students had higher levels of self-efficacy, motivation and had a better understanding of task value (Yalcinkaya et al 2012). Finally, Flynn and Klein (2001) found that students reported increased motivation and perception of learning in a case-based supply chain management course.
Lastly, faculty like it. In a survey of 152 science faculty that were new adopters of case-based instruction, faculty reported that they believed that their students gained critical thinking skills, a better understanding of content, retained more content, and were able to make connections between content and real-world issues(Yadav et al 2007). Faculty also felt that students appreciated the use of cases. In a survey of faculty that used cases in conjunction with a flipped-classroom model, faculty self-reported that they found using cases as more authentic, flexible, engaging and that they “promote thinking inside and outside of the classroom (Herreid and Schiller 2013).”
The time is now.
Gateway courses need to be transformed. Doing so will help all of our students. More importantly, it could help minoritized student groups more than their over-represented peers and therefore narrow achievement gaps. It will make these courses more equitable and reduce barriers for students like Brianna. Using case-based learning, in particular, may be a powerful tool in the active learning arsenal because evidence suggests it works; students like it; and, faculty like it.
Redesigning a course is difficult. For any given discipline, there are lots of opinions about the content and structure of our introductory courses. But, the benefit to our student body and underrepresented groups, in particular, makes the effort of transformation well worth it.
Special thanks to Sarah Silverman and Autumm Caines for help and feedback on this blog and thinking about case studies and our introductory courses.
- Introductory courses are not the only gateway courses. Courses that have a high enrollment with transfer students can be similarly problematic. But, in this blog, I am focusing on introductory courses.
*Featured Image: Image Credit – Pixabay.com, Pixabay License, Downloaded: April 15, 2021