The First Steps Toward a More Meaningful Biology Lab
Todd Nickle

The Problem

Last May, I decided for the first time to get the department to hold a small "debriefing session" for our Introductory Biology instructors. Though we'd had no complaints about the laboratory component of our Intro Bio course, a few instructors had the impression the students weren't carrying their lessons from the lab to courses that followed. We had previously tried tinkering with the curriculum to make some of the content more appealing to students. We made some labs student-directed so that they could experience scientific discovery in a more realistic environment, and tried to make the lab exams more “practical exercise-based” and decreased the “biology content”. The results didn't convince us we were being as effective as possible for long-term learning that could be applied to the courses that followed.  At the meeting, we decided to make the Intro Bio curriculum more discovery based, and let the students learn skills that apply to subsequent courses (and perhaps even their careers!).

The Solution

As luck had it, there was an informal Alberta-wide conference that followed our internal meeting. For over four years, Biology Instructors from across the province of Alberta have met annually to discuss issues of curriculum, communication, and teaching resources.  At the 2002 meeting, Dr. Kevin Piers of Red Deer College practised his ABLE talk about how the "PI Method of Instruction" was being used successfully for his students. We realized that this method of instruction was exactly what we were looking for in our efforts to renew the curriculum.

In the PI system, the students are given a chance to use an experimental system with a previously selected independent variable in the first week. The next week they use the system to investigate an independent variable of their own selection. The students work in groups where one student is in charge; this individual is the Primary Investigator (PI). The PI is responsible for ordering materials, coordinating tasks, and ensuring the experiment gets done. The PI is also responsible for writing up the results in proper scientific format. The assistants are given the best efforts of the PI's first crack at the manuscript and their job is to improve on its quality. They must catch all formatting errors and clarify the text so that it is as professional-looking as possible. The PI then makes the revisions and the final product is submitted for grading. The group shares the mark from the manuscript and students are individually graded on their abilities to carry out the work they should have completed in the process of doing the assignment.  Each member of the group takes a turn at being PI for subsequent discovery-based labs.

The Strategy

When we decided to emulate this model, our goal, first and foremost, was to ensure students who legitimately bought into the process wouldn't get frustrated. There is a lot of work involved in participating in PI labs, and some of the students were sure to resent the independent work and extra library research. The Dean of Science and Technology was very supportive of the initiative, and in fact it was he who indicated that he'd be especially supportive of our program when dealing with students who might approach him with complaints about the new curriculum. We were very gratified to find that not only did students not officially complain about the change in curriculum, but the majority accepted our reasons for why the extra work was in their best interests. Some students grumbled bitterly, but they formed only a very small minority of the participants.

Throughout the initiative, I tried to be especially open with my communication.  All lab instructors met weekly to talk and strategize.  As the author of the lab manual, I had a "vision" of what the procedure would "look like in action".  My job was to communicate this to a group of instructors, the majority of whom had never taught at Mount Royal College before, let alone the Intro Bio labs.  I also kept the students informed that we were piloting the program and were very eager to hear of difficulties or suggestions for improvement.  At the beginning, I perceived cautious interest on the part of the students.  Very few complained about the extra library and background research work that was required.  In addition, we dedicated some of our one-hour tutorials to the process of formal scientific communication.  The rubric (a marking checklist that states the structure and content of all sections of the lab report) was published in the lab manual, along with the mark totals for each section.

Benjamin Cummings, the publisher of the text we adopted for our course, offered a text that describes scientific writing.  This book, A Short Guide to Writing About Biology by Jan Pechenik formed the focal point of our writing standards.  In Pechenik’s book, the process of writing is carefully discussed.  The purpose of each section, tricks for organizing ideas, and checklists for ensuring work is complete and properly rendered are all indicated in the book.  The Amazon entry for this book includes many sample pages which show the usefulness of this resource.  Kevin Piers was also extremely generous with the resources he’s used at Red Deer College for the last few years.  There are a large number of appendices and forms that can be pulled out and used by the students to direct their attention in his lab manual. 

After marking the first round of PI work, it was apparent that most students didn’t follow directions.  Some report formats appeared to be constructs of the students’ own devising.  In many cases, entire sections were missing.  One report consisted of a single very (VERY!) long paragraph.  We were confused about why what we perceived as simple, clear instructions were simply ignored.  The lab manual contained checklists and descriptions of the proper sections to include in a lab report.  The reports were graded according to the published rubric, and the graders were very liberal and comprehensive with comments on all parts of the work.  Overall the scores were very low (roughly a D average).

We explained the problems we saw in the reports to the students.  We showed them the sections in Pechenik that they needed to read and follow, and provided examples of manuscripts found in scientific journals.  In addition, an example of the PI’s first complete draft, an example of a reviewer’s comments, and then a final “A grade” paper were published to the Internet and students were given a chance to follow those examples in their own work.  The turnaround in performance was very good.  Students saw how good papers are structured and they were forced (some of them, for the first time) to publish a complete body of work according to a defined format.  We emphasized to the students that the skills they were working on would be called on again during their science education and perhaps even post-graduation.  It was clear that writing practice and critical feedback on their performance were needed, welcomed, and helpful. 

By the end of the semester, the quality of student work was much improved.  The structure of the reports was in line with the communicated parameters.  Students learned to use their text resources and consult them when they had questions.  On an exit survey, the vast majority of students indicated they’d like to be able to apply their writing skills to assignments done in other courses, particularly when the format remains the same.

The lessons we learned

We intend not only to keep the PI system in place, but to expand it to other courses in biology.  Students need to believe their hard work will bear fruit in the future.  The students worked hard and learned a lot.  They became noticeably more comfortable in expressing themselves, and seemed to have a deeper understanding of the scientific process.  We believe that our students will get more out of subsequent courses because of the skills they used in the PI method.

We modified our model for this semester’s incarnation of the PI system.  We changed our marking rubrics to better assess student performance.  The lab manual sports on its inside cover a table showing report characteristics to look for, along with the relevant pages in Pechenik to consult.  One of our largest changes was to have Julie Lockhart, an instruction specialist in our Learning Skills Centre, give a presentation about the most effective way of “Reading to Learn”.  This workshop deals with effective reading strategies, including ways to use diagrams and their captions, note-taking from the text, and time-management skills.  Surveys completed by students showed they found the workshop useful (several commented that “Reading to Learn” should be mandatory for all freshmen!).  Tutorials are now even more focussed on proper scientific communication.

I personally believe that the difficulties we experienced with the first PI lab were due mostly to students relying on their wits and prior learning to complete the assignment.  When we pointed out the sections of Pechenik, the relevant parts of the Lab Manual, and even examples of manuscripts in the lab, students at first didn’t take us seriously.  The high school experience is quite different than college, and by being held accountable for the resources we indicated, we taught them that it’s important to become aware of the assignment requirements and actually follow them.  Students at first claimed they’d read the Pechenik book.  I believe they did, but not with sufficient engagement with the messages; the reading was probably very passive.  Our “Reading to Learn” workshop will hopefully give the students the message that they must work with the text and not be satisfied with the mere act of page-turning.

I’m a believer in the PI system.  Implementing it in our Intro Bio course last year was intense and exhausting.  However, other instructors now know “how it looks” and are willing to incorporate it into their programs.  Students will spread the word about the requirements, and instructors will be able to be more clear when describing it.  By keeping on top of the whole process, I now feel confident in taking it to courses I’ve not yet taught.  I look forward to hearing if the skills the students acquired have indeed taken root and grown, and if they find it valuable for their future.

Todd Nickle received his BSc (Biology) in 1990 and his MSc (Plant Physiology) in 1993, both at the University of Calgary.  During his education there, he watched Dr. Charles (Chuck) Curry – an ABLE member –  have fun exploring biology and new education techniques, and vowed to “have his job”.   Todd received his PhD (Botany) from Oklahoma State University in 1998, then went on to teach biology at Mount Royal College in his home town of Calgary, Alberta, Canada.  He has Chuck’s job – or rather one just like it – and is enjoying himself immensely.