Observation of Laura Kraft

Course: Insects and People, ENT 201

Date: Feb. 4, 2020

3:00-4:15p

Observer: Dr. Paula McAvoy

 

Laura Kraft was a student in my course, “Classroom Discussion in Theory and Practice” during the fall semester, 2019. She invited me to observe her the following semester to give her feedback on her teaching. This invitation was initiated by Laura and is an indication of how seriously she takes her role as an instructor.

 

The class was a general education science course for non-majors. The day I observed had 15 students in attendance, and as they entered the room a PowerPoint slide assigned them to a working group for the day. Students sat at tables of four to five students.

 

The objective for the session was to review and deepen the students’ understanding of life cycles, partially in preparation for the upcoming test. More specifically, the lesson was designed to help the students make the connection between how knowledge of insect life cycles helps humans to manage agricultural and domestic pests.

 

The lesson began with an introduction to the “bug of the day,” the mayfly. Laura then reviewed bug life cycles and the relationship between temperature and movement through the cycle. She paused and posed a warm-up question to the class, “How could you use this information to control pest insects? What kind of pests?” She also asked them to make their best guess about what “diapause” might mean. She gave students two minutes to write down their answers and another two minutes to share their responses within their small groups.

 

She then brought the whole group back together to share out answers and go over the meaning of diapause. During this exchange, Laura drew them out with things she had overhead in the groups, “I heard a couple of people mention bed bugs…” or “What about agriculture?” Students were very willing to participate. She concluded this review by introducing the class to “degree days,” and explained how the measure allows growers to predict the appearance of some pests.

 

Next, she turned to the relationship between hormones and movement through the life cycle. Using a visual, she talked through juvenile hormone and molting hormone. She then informed the class about the main activity for today, the “Shark Tank Grant Panel.” She explained that groups would have 20 minutes to: 1. Identify a pest problem and think about how one could use a chemical hormone to manage it 2. Design a research project using the 4-step scientific method to test whether it works, and 3. Create a two-minute “Shark Pitch” for funding. Groups got right to work and identified a variety of pests such as head lice, bed bugs, termites, and two agricultural pests.

 

In the last 12 minutes of class, each group presented their pitch to Laura and the teaching assistant in the room, who then asked clarifying and probing questions about the project. The class ended after they declared the winning project.

 

Throughout the class, Laura demonstrated a number of effective teaching moves:

 

1. Scaffolding. Moving from short lectures to short problems in the beginning nicely scaffolded learning so that students were ready to work on the grant activity by the second part of the class. Further, in a post-discuss I learned that the test later that week included a question that asked students to design a study for a different problem.

2. Connecting with students. Laura called on students by name and was clearly interested in the students and their ideas. The atmosphere was warm and productive.

3. Timing and cues. Laura had a clear plan for the day and kept the pace by announcing when an activity had one minute left and indicated that they had 20 minutes to prepare their presentations. These cues kept students focused, and I saw very little distracted behavior.

4. The activity deepened learning. The Shark Tank activity reinforced the content, vocabulary, and aims of the course (to learn the scientific method, think about the relationship between bugs and society). As students worked I overheard them using terms like “pupae,” and “molts.”

5. Modeled professional science in a relatable way. The activity asked the students to quickly identify a problem that can be solved with hormones, come up with a possible use and then design a study. This was an effective way to model scientific thinking. Framing this around Shark Tank gave the students an immediate (and entertaining) example for making a pitch and added an element of creativity. As I eavesdropped on the head lice group, one woman paused a lively discussion about the research design to say, “This [thinking about study design] is kind of fun. I like this.”

6. Enthusiasm. Laura was very engaged with the groups as they worked through the main activity and circulated to pose problems, drop hints, and push their thinking. She asked pointed questions to each presenting group to make them think on their feet and also highlighted a strength in each design. Her enthusiasm for bugs was obvious.

7. Demonstrated deep knowledge. Laura was able to answer questions and deliver the content very clearly and effectively. She also provided relevant examples when appropriate and connected learning to interesting stories from science and society.