Reconsidering “What Works”

Abstract

It is a wonderfully exciting time to be involved in undergraduate biology education efforts. The publication of Vision and Change: A Call to Action has motivated many to redouble their efforts in engaging their colleagues and institutions in fundamentally changing the experiences of students in college and university biology classrooms around the country (American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS], 2011 ). In addition, there is a growing community of biologists embarking upon more analytical, scientific, and scholarly approaches to their teaching (Handelsman et al., 2004 ). Journals such as CBE—Life Sciences Education are building a body of evidence and understanding about the complex nature of biology teaching and learning. Most recently, the founding of SABER—the Society for the Advancement of Biology Education Research—is a further step toward fostering a thriving discipline-based biology education research community that encompasses the often-isolated subdisciplines of biology education. Within this excitement and the new wave of biology education reform, though, there often appears to be a central focus on “solving the problems” of undergraduate biology education, and a desire to bring closure by determining the “best way to teach.” Over the past several years, at conferences, on websites, and in scholarly conversations, I increasingly have heard common use of the phrase “what works” in referring to the primary goals of undergraduate biology education reform. However, trying to determine “what works” is problematic in many ways and belies the fundamental complexities of the teaching and learning process that have been acknowledged by scholars for thousands of years, from Socrates, to Piaget, to more recent authors and researchers. As our biology education community expands, it seems worthwhile to return to those lessons from the research literature that caution whether anything as simple as establishing “what works” is even possible in the messy landscape of teaching and learning. Language is powerful. Language can frame the issues in an emerging discipline, define the boundaries of a conversation, and imply the extent to which intellectual ideas are still open for discussion and examination. Below are six perspectives on why the use of the phrase “what works” would seem to hinder, rather than foster, an evidence-based approach to biology education reform and scientific teaching. By articulating these challenges to the assumption that there exists anything as singular and clean as “what works,” we can perhaps reconsider what we really mean when asserting “what works.” In addition, we can perhaps refocus on what has been shown again and again to be the path toward effective teaching and learning: the development of reflective instructors who are analytical about their practice and who make iterative instructional decisions based on evidence from the students sitting right in front of them (e.g., Darling-Hammond, 1997a ; Loucks-Horsley et al., 2003 ). Finally, a reconsideration of “what works” could encourage instructors, researchers, and policy makers to be careful with interpretations of evidence in emerging studies in biology education research, so that we continue to deepen our understanding of the nuances and complexities inherent in teaching and learning, as opposed to declaring our efforts done before we have even really started.