Research Problem: High D/W/F rates in undergraduate introductory biology. Indicates a basic lack of biological literacy Loss of students from the biology major Slowing time to degree Pressure from administration Faculty resistant to teaching innovation S ‘11 F ‘11 1 F ‘11 2 F ‘11 3 S ‘12 DWF 44% 52% 62% 47% 43%

Research Question: Research Question: Which pedagogical approach results in a higher student success rate and retention of course material? In class, group active-learning exercise vs. take-home, independent “active-learning” exercises. Context: Introductory biology class for majors on cell and molecular biology Students: non-majors and freshman Each lecture is capped at 72 My question is interesting because: Class size, content, and demographic differs from that reported in the literature Retention of course material has not been examined Resistant faculty We’re not just educating majors, we’re educating voters (!)

Research Methodology: Two sections of the same class taught by the same instructor in the Fall of 2012. Section 1: In-class, group active-learning strategies Section 2: Lecture with the same active-learning exercises given as homework to be done independently Pre-test targeting major course concepts and survey to collect demographic and background information. Post-test (same assessment tool) Compare final grades and % gain. Upper level cell biology students will also be given the assessment tool and survey as a pre-test to gauge retention of material.

Alignment of Research Question & Methodology: Question: Which pedagogical approach results in a higher student success rate and retention of course material? In class, group active-learning exercise vs. take-home, independent “active-learning” exercises. Methodology: Compare success rate and percent gain in section taught with in-class, group active-learning exercises and section taught with take-home, independent, active learning exercises. Gauge retention of material in upper level students. Is it aligned?