|
Greater Capital Region
DNA Science Project Survey Results
BACKGROUND
The Greater Capital Region Teacher Center offers professional
development for teachers, by teachers. Funded by the NYS Legislature, teacher centers are governed
by a policy board that has a majority of teachers. GCRTC serves 93
school districts, four BOCES and 68 private schools or approximately
22,000 educators.
In the summer of 1987 a few biology teachers, led by Linda H. Austin,
a high school teacher from Greenwich CSD in rural upstate NY, came to
the Center with a dream of offering high powered professional
development to biology and life science teachers in our region. Fresh from an intensive training in advanced DNA protocols
from the DNA Learning Center at Cold Spring Harbor, these teachers
were searching for a way to both extend the training that they
received and to acquire the expensive equipment necessary to reproduce
the labs for students. The Center supported the design and delivery of
the summer institutes during the early years. In 1993 Center joined
the State University at Albany and Daniel L. Wulff.
Together they wrote a successful Hughes Foundation Grant that
included a teacher-training component. Within five years the Hughes
Foundation Grant ended but the Teacher Center support continued. The
Teacher Center bought the first DNA lab kit for about $15,000.
The lab kit was used to teach the summer institute and was
available for loan to teachers trained in the protocols.
As of August 2002, one hundred and twenty five teachers have
been trained in advanced DNA protocols and seven equipment kits are in
circulation in the Greater Capital Region. As a result of this project thousands of students have
participated in hands on labs at the cutting edge of DNA research.
PURPOSE
In the spring of 2002 the Greater Capital Region Teacher
Center decided to do a program evaluation of the Greater Capital
Region DNA Science Project strand.
The purpose of this program evaluation was to ascertain the
level of impact that these programs have had on teachers and students
in our region and to discover what new challenges face biology and
life science teachers as they work to bring the most relevant and
current research into their classrooms. Initially these labs were
offered to only the brightest and most motivated high school students.
Beginning in 2002, all students were tested on the subject of DNA
science on statewide Regents exams that all students must pass in
order to graduate. The
inclusion of all students in life science and biology courses has
introduced new opportunities and challenges for teachers.
Our evaluation also focused on finding out if our current
support for teachers was still meeting their needs and how we might
refine that support to help them meet new state and national mandates
for student learning.
METHODS
A survey was sent to the 125 life science and biology
teachers who completed coursework on DNA protocols. Fifty-two teachers (41%) completed and returned the survey
before June 30, 2002.
Back to Top
REFLECTIONS /CONCLUSIONS/NEXT STEPS
While the majority of participants in the DNA Science Project
since 1987 have been senior high school science teachers and about 14%
junior high teachers, new state requirements that middle school
students demonstrate in-depth knowledge of DNA will require more
middle school teachers be given this training.
It should be noted that our strongest response came from those
teachers who participated in the program when there was substantial
grant funded financial support. Such
support would undoubtedly deepen and widen our effectiveness.
As
a science teacher, this experience has enabled me to read
current journal articles on Molecular Biology and stay current
with my science student’s research.
It has also helped me to guide and introduce all of my
students to DNA research.
Nearly
90% of the participants felt that their participation in the DNA
Science Project had a significant impact on their professional growth.
Because
of taking this course, I teach a lot more about genetics,
recombinant technology and molecular biology.
It allowed me to understand the concepts so that I could
teach them to my students.
Also taking this course has allowed me to help one of my
science research students whose topic was genetically modified
crops.
Over
eighty percent of the participants felt that the DNA Science Project
increased their confidence to teach about molecular biology labs.
Nearly 80% report they have integrated the knowledge learned
from the DNA Science Workshop into their curriculum, resulting in a
high degree of enhancement in their teaching, in contrast to the more
typical situation where teachers receive excellent professional
development opportunities with great enthusiasm, but find that
translating that new knowledge into the classroom presents
insurmountable challenges. The active barrowing of the seven DNA
equipment kits is testimony to the fact that teachers are implementing
what they have learned in the classroom.
Being
able to borrow the equipment and share my “expertise” with
students has been the most rewarding part of my 26
years in teaching. It
is a truly exciting experience when students have the
opportunity to participate in these labs.
They remember it for years afterwards! That “Eureka”
moment when they see their first gel is so great!
Seventy-three
percent of the participants felt that the DNA Science Project had
provided more hands-on, problem-solving exercises for students,
increasing their interest and motivation.
I
have always found genetic engineering and DNA profiling and DNA
profiling to be fascinating and exciting.
It was probably because I was able to learn so much about
these topics using the GCRTC equipment that I have been
motivated to participate in the Cornell Institute for Biology
Teachers this fall.
More
than half of the participants felt that the DNA Science Project
allowed for a greater opportunity to network with other teachers and
to continue taking other courses and workshops at the Teacher Center.
Nearly half of the participants reported that the Science
Project decreased their sense of isolation and re-ignited their
interest in teaching.
I
had one student graduating this year who decided to go into
molecular biology as a career- she didn’t even know what that
was in September.
Two students who first experiences biotechnology in
my classroom now have their PhD’s in Molecular Biology and
felt this course opened their eyes to that field.
In addition, a recent graduate of Dartmouth College and
Rhodes Scholar, Megan Steven, was inspired to enter biology
after doing the DNA course
Significantly,
almost half of the participants report that students have been
inspired to pursue a career in biotechnology/molecular biology because
of the DNA science labs.
Less than 20% felt they could attribute the DNA Science labs
to improved student performance on tests. Perhaps state exams are not
as accurate a measure of what students know and can do, as we would
like to believe.
There were some barriers to introducing advance biotechnology
into high school classrooms.
Some teachers found that there isn’t enough time to teach
these complex, hands-on labs.
Nearly 10% of those who responded noted the difficulty of
introducing expensive lab equipment to large classes that included all
students.
Some teachers noted the difficulty when purchasing the
chemicals needed to complete labs
Back to Top
Teachers recommended that the Teacher Center:
-
Purchase supplies in bulk and pass the
savings on to schools
-
Train new teachers (many have retired)
-
Offer further assistance in
implementation of labs
RESULTS
Demographics
Respondents were asked a number of demographic questions to
determine their current professional status, when they attended the
workshop, and what grade level they typically taught or currently teach.
Seventy-six percent of those who responded took the workshop
during those years that the Hughes Foundation provided substantial
additional support. The
summer institutes offered from 1993 to 1997 with Hughes Foundation
support provided a stipend, graduate credit, technical support and
materials and supplies.
The majority of participants in the DNA Science Project were
senior high science teachers. The
12% of participants who were science department chairs were also senior
high science teachers. A
small, but substantial amount of participants in the Greater Capital
Region DNA Science Project were junior high science teachers (14% or 7
of the 52 returned surveys).
Eighty percent of the participants generally taught sophomore
year science classes, less than half of the participants taught freshman
level and junior and senior level science classes.
Many participants taught more than one grade level; those who
taught more than one grade level also all taught sophomore year
sciences. Less than 20% of
the participants taught junior level science classes, and none of the
participants taught science classes at a level above high school.
Eighty percent of the participants taught Living
Environment/Biology. This
data coincides with the data stating 80% of the participants taught
sophomore level sciences, because Living Environment/ Biology is a
sophomore level science. Physical
Science is a science course often taught in junior level school and the
percentage relation to the amount of participants who teach junior level
and the amount of participants teaching Physical Science is roughly the
same. Adding together the
percentages of AP Biology and other advanced courses, roughly 47% of the
participants teach advanced level courses to students.
(See Appendix A for complete results)
Table 1: Professional Status of Respondents
Profession
|
Junior High
Science Teachers
|
Senior High
Science Teachers
|
Science
Dept. Chair
|
Retired (yr?)
|
OTHER
|
|
# of people
|
7
|
37
|
6
|
8
|
2
|
|
% of people
|
14%
|
73%
|
12%
|
16%
|
4%
|
Back to Top
Table
2: Grades Taught
Grade level
|
7th
|
8th
|
9th
|
10th
|
11th
|
12th
|
Junior College
|
OTHER
|
|
# of people
|
8
|
5
|
23
|
41
|
16
|
21
|
0
|
0
|
|
% of people
|
16%
|
10%
|
45%
|
80%
|
31%
|
41%
|
0%
|
0%
|
Table 3: Subjects Taught
Subjects
|
Physical Science
|
Life Science
|
Earth Science
|
Living Environment/Biology
|
Chemistry
|
Physics
|
AP Bio
|
Other
|
|
# of people
|
8
|
11
|
8
|
41
|
8
|
2
|
9
|
15
|
|
% of people
|
16%
|
22%
|
16%
|
80%
|
16%
|
4%
|
18%
|
29%
|
Use of GCRTC Lab Equipment
The majority of respondents, over 75% of the
returned surveys, have borrowed equipment from the Greater Capital
Region DNA Science Project.
Ten percent of the respondents reported that they
do not do hands-on molecular biology labs because the size of the class
and the students’ range of responsibility levels are too large, making
it difficult to do these types of labs with such expensive equipment.
Over five percent of the participants feel as if they do not have
enough time to prepare for molecular biology labs.
Over seven percent of participants also gave free answers as
reasons for not doing hands on molecular biology labs, and the themes of
the answers were often related to lack of time and lack of ability to
manage larger lab classes.
Table 4: Equipment Use
|
|
YES
|
NO
|
|
#
of people
|
39
|
13
|
|
%
of people
|
76%
|
25%
|
Back to Top
Table
5: Reasons for failure to use equipment
|
Reasons
|
#
of people
|
%
of people
|
|
My
school has its own equipment
|
5
|
10%
|
|
I
borrow equipment from CIBT
|
1
|
2%
|
|
I
take my students to the DNA Learning Lab at ACC
|
0
|
0%
|
|
The
hands-on molecular labs done do not require specialized equipment
|
3
|
6%
|
|
My
students do not do hands-on molecular biology labs
|
6
|
12%
|
|
There
isn’t enough money in my budget to purchase the necessary
materials and supplies to do hands-on molecular biology labs
|
2
|
4%
|
|
I
don’t have enough time to do the preparation for hands-on molecular
biology labs
|
3
|
6%
|
|
There
isn’t enough time in the curriculum to do hands-on molecular
Biology
labs
|
2
|
4%
|
|
There
isn’t enough emphasis in the Core to justify the time and
expense
it
takes to do hands-on molecular biology labs with expensive
equipment
|
2
|
4%
|
|
Having
all students in class
makes it difficult to do hands-on molecular
biology labs with expensive equipment
|
5
|
10
%
|
|
My
students are too young to do hands-on molecular biology labs
|
1
|
2%
|
|
I
do not teach biology or life science
|
4
|
8%
|
|
OTHER
|
4
|
8%
|
SUMMARY
Based on the responses of the participants it appears that
the workshops and supporting lab equipment have resulted in a number of
positive impacts on what teachers and students know and can do. Positive
impacts include but are not limited to:
-
Improvement in teacher knowledge
-
A high level of integration of new knowledge into
the classroom
-
Improved teacher confidence in mastery of subject
knowledge
-
Increased student interest in science
-
Increased students’ problem solving skills
-
Greater numbers of students entering the field of
science
-
Better preparation for college level course work
in science
-
Decrease in teacher isolation
There were some barriers to introducing advance biotechnology
into high school classrooms.
-
Some teachers found that there isn’t
enough time to teach these complex, hands-on labs
-
Nearly 10% of those who responded noted
the difficulty of introducing expensive lab equipment to large
classes that included all students.
Some teachers noted the difficulty when
purchasing the chemicals needed to complete labs
Teachers recommended
that the Teacher Center
- Purchase supplies in bulk and pass the savings on to
schools
- Train new teachers (many have retired)
- Offer further assistance in implementation of labs
Back to Top
Appendix A Responses to Question 1
Class
|
1987
Recombinant DNA
|
1989
Recombinant DNA
|
1990
Recombinant DNA
|
1991
Recombinant DNA
|
1993
Molecular Biology
|
|
# taking class
|
4
|
6
|
2
|
3
|
6
|
|
% who took class
|
7.8%
|
11.7%
|
3.9%
|
5.8%
|
11.7%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Class
|
1994
Molecular Biology
|
1995
Molecular Biology
|
1996
Molecular Biology
|
1997
Molecular Biology
|
2001
Molecular Biology
|
|
# taking class
|
9
|
6
|
11
|
7
|
7
|
|
% who took class
|
17.6%
|
11.7%
|
21.5%
|
13.7%
|
13.7%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Class
|
OTHER
|
|
|
|
|
|
# taking class
|
10
|
|
|
|
|
|
% who took class
|
19.6%
|
|
|
|
|
Results
(List
for OTHER):
-
Woodrow Wilson Genetics Institute 1993 (2 attended)
-
Hughes Foundation Grant to Bob Parson’s at RPI –
1990 (4
weeks)
-
Summer PCRupulate SUNYA
-
CIBT Molecular Biology institute 1999
-
Sum Rhine Genetics – Aug? Union College – One
week
-
Biology for the New Millennium 2000 Genetics
-
Biology for the New Millennium 2001 Health &
Disease
-
CSH – 1990 @ CSH – 1 wk. course
Back to Top
Appendix B Responses to Question 8
Appendix
C
Responses to
the question
If possible, please
share with us a brief description of a personal experience you have had
that illustrates the impact this project has had on your teaching
career.
-
Several students who did this, went to major in biology and felt
confident doing these labs or types of labs in college – this is a
goal of mine.
-
I learned more about DNA technology to share with my students
-
My
science research students were VERY bright and motivated and they
(and I!!) loved the labs. They
were sorry when they ended. We
preceded the labs with a lot of lecture/discussion on molecular biology
theory. Quite a few of my
students were motivated to pursue careers in biology of chemistry
because of their experience; we also did a few of the labs (i.e.
bacterial transformation) with 9th graders.
It was a reach for them but quite a few were excited about it.
Overall, I loved doing the labs and was very grateful that the
equipment was available through the Teacher Center.
It made me a better teacher.
-
I feel that this material is important general knowledge for every
student and I am the only person on the faculty who has been trained in
using this equipment.
-
Hudson, a poor district, balled at providing microscopes! – We
couldn’t have confirmed the program without access to the materials,
courses, and updates the Teacher Center provided. And, so fewer of our
students would have succeeded at top colleges.
-
With the discussions that arise from cloning and genetic engineering (in
the news), I am able to explain the techniques that are used.
-
It kept me up to date with new procedures, although often in some
classes there isn’t enough time to go into the depth necessary for the
molecular labs. It made them feel like “real” scientists in their worlds.
However, I have been unable to use the equipment the past 3
years, because of budget restraints and time needed to meet new
standards.
-
Didn’t learn this topic as an undergrad of grad school, topic too new
– learned through workshops and personal reading
-
My understanding of molecular biology directly impacts my students. DNA is on the news all of the time and my students ask
questions about what they feel. A
good example was the newest development in the Sam Shepard Case. The students were very interested to learn how they acquitted
him after all these years. Students
learn best when you counter science into their everyday life.
Molecular Biology is something they all should know to help them
in the future (for example, if they sit on a jury and need to understand
the evidence).
-
As a direct result of attending the DNA workshop, I developed a
Biotechnology Course for accelerated 9th grade Bio students.
The course ran for 4 years, until the Living Environment
curriculum came out and all variances were stopped.
It was an excellent experience for both instructors and students.
We had many students go on to major in genetics in college as a
result!
-
I have retired (since 1996). This
lab work left me with a great last experience in teaching – students
were really ignited by this experience.
Very timely – O.J. Simpson Trial – they really liked the
experience.
-
I now incorporate more molecular Biology into my genetics unit.
Although I don’t use the electrophoresis equipment I do a
simulation with the Twigg’s case.
It is more grade appropriate.
I am the only 7th grade teacher to start the genetic
unit – I’ve passed labs and materials onto other teachers.
-
This course was by far the best course that I took as a postgraduate.
Thank you!
-
It is great to interact and share with other teachers – got new ideas
and share mine – increases confidence in a different area.
-
It inspired me to develop a number of lab activities.
I knew that the experience of some of the students who had taken
the DNA summer course was a major force for them to choose the field of
Biotechnology.
-
I’m excited about the opportunity to attend the CIBT Summer Institute
and get $1,500 worth of equipment for the lab.
This would not have been possible without the DNA project
offerings. Thanks!
-
would never have been able to attempt these projects without the class
or the equipment. The
program is great and I really appreciate the GCRTC for making it
possible.
-
Every year the majority of students select the labs done with the DNA
kits as their most memorable time.
-
As a science teacher, this experience has enabled me to read current
journal articles on Molecular Biology and stay current with my science
student’s research. It has also helped me to guide and introduce all of my
students to DNA research.
-
We have developed a thorough and intense forensic project in our school.
The DNA kits are essential to this project! The students always comment every year that they really
enjoyed doing the electrophoresis labs.
-
Watching the student’s excitement when they actually extracted DNA was
a truly worthwhile experience. The
course also gave me the courage to try other courses at my age (50’s).
Last summer I took an endangered species course at the Bronx Zoo
for a week.
-
It’s great to be able to teach the lab on this subject. The
students appreciate my knowledge and time setting it up.
-
I met Linda Austin. She is great! -
Helpful, energetic, and knowledgeable.
She answered questions I had when I needed help with the labs and
even shared her labs with me. Kept
me going when I hit a roadblock.
-
Nothing specific – just general overall confidence as a positive
feeling from being able to transmit this to students.
-
I
know it is minimal, but I make anecdotal references to the course and
its content when I teach genetic engineering, DNA, etc.
If I could take a refresher class – even a 3-hour workshop, I
think that it would benefit others and me.
-
Taking the CSH workshop in ’87 ignited my interest in introducing
hands-on DNA science into the high school classroom.
Working with teachers from other schools to launch the GCR DNA
science project ended my sense of isolation and began a long and
productive association with the Teacher Center!
-
I have always found genetic engineering and DNA profiling to be
fascinating and exciting. It
was probably because I was able to learn so much about these topics
using the GCRTC equipment that I have been motivated to participate in
the Cornell Institute for Biology Teachers institute this summer.
-
Several students became interested and followed careers in genetic
engineering.
-
Allowed me access to materials that I wouldn’t have had.
-
Because
of taking this course, I teach a lot more about genetics, recombinant
technology and molecular biology. It
allowed me to understand the concepts so that I could teach them to my
students. Also taking this
course has allowed me to help one of my science research students whose
topic is genetically modified crops.
-
Motivated me to write, I teach Advanced Forensic Science to seniors
already taught “Crime Lab” to Advanced 10th.
Back to
Top
Appendix
E
Back to
Top |
