STARTUP/ CLASS

OUR WORKFLOW

^(a) PLAN

We embraced the PLAN mindset, recognizing strategic planning as a core component of the course design process.

IDEATE/ STRATEGIZE

We also imposed boundaries so as to focus the directionality of the workflow, ensure agility, and ultimately support cohesive instruction.

We organized our course—BIOL 485B: “Hitting the Snooze Button on Biological Aging”— into 3 distinct, albeit complementary, modules:

We communicated— within the syllabus, on the UW Canvas course page, and during virtual class sessions—the learning goals and objectives for the course and each of its modules.

• I am going to introduce one such goal so I can refer to it, as I go through the workflow, to illustrate how we effectively executed the “startup mindset” within the classroom.

Lesson Goal: To get students to model conversations of working scientists so as to be encouraged to openly debate and critique research findings as well as collaborate for the collective development and testing of hypotheses.

We varied our take on selected content and instruction delivery method to ensure the aforementioned lesson goal was adequately addressed throughout the course.

• For example, we capitalized on the Jigsaw classroom construct for cooperative learning to help students cultivate topic-specific knowledge along with expertise to teach one another.
• On the other hand, we opted to use Padlet when wanting to foster a deeper level of individual thinking and an appreciation for how it assimilates into group discussions.

We called on the following assessment metrics to optimize for active learning:

• Bloom’s Taxonomy levels: To inform the cognitive rigor of a lesson
• Reformed Teaching Observation Protocol (RTOP): To inform the extent of deployed interactive and student-centered techniques

^(b) LEAN

We leveraged the LEAN mindset to implement the predefined lesson plans, testing along the way the efficacy of our teaching methodology

BUILD/ IMPLEMENT

• Video conferencing via Zoom: To synchronize class discussions and breakout room activities in real-time.
• Digital communication modes such as Canvas, Google Slides, and Screencastify: To share content asynchronously, organize assignments, and gather written deliverables
• Online collaborative tools such as Padlet, Google Docs, Flipgrid, and Poll Everywhere: To converse, brainstorm, and set up live polls

MEASURE/ OBSERVE

We met after each class to review observation notes regarding learning goals, class plan and timing, instruction presentation, student participation and feedback, and homework assignments.

We optimized for student engagement by striving for:

• A high percentage of Analyze, Evaluate, and Create  Bloom’s levels coverage.
• Category III-V for RTOP to indicate student-centered instruction.

LEARN

We marked the classroom activities we found the most helpful as well as those that needed further work and revision prior to reimplementation.

We also documented key findings regarding students’ active participation.

• For example, we remarked that students exhibited signs of disengagement—withthe class material and their peers—when asked to independently work through alengthy Padlet exercise that predominantly consisted of high Bloom’s-level questions.
• This pattern resurfaced during a separate Jigsaw activity, in which students had to turn in individual worksheets, summarizing findings that pertained to their assigned group.With less time dedicated to post-activity class discussion, students didn’t get the chanceto exchange perspectives and thereby struggled to assemble the puzzle and accordingly respond to synthesis-level questions. They were, in essence, stripped of being able to dig deeper into the analysis of the allocated research papers.
• We posit this issue is especially exacerbated in distance learning due to the lack of face-to-face interactions that inherently make for organic conversations and team bonding.

^(c) AGILE

With an AGILE mindset , we tried to streamline the processing of student feedback so we can adapt instruction—if and when needed— in a near-synchronous manner.

ITERATE/ ADAPT

We consolidated earlier learning points and referenced them to inform such refinements.

LEARN:  We had already discovered that learning activities that are loaded with higher-order questions can be taxing—mentally and procedurally—and thus highly discouraging.

ADAPT: To alleviate this issue in following classes, we decided to break down multifactorial activities into more digestible “chunks”, with a varying blend of individual, cooperative, and collaborative tasks.

We applied this approach in Lesson #7 in order to prompt the students to propose novel aging-related applications for CRISPR and stem cells.

We first used the Jigsaw technique to assign students to groups so they can reenact the experimental design process. The goal was to conceptualize and draft a graphical abstract that conveyed the scope and novelty of the proposal. We advocated this form of cooperative learning due to its efficacy in fostering:

• Positive interdependence and individual accountability: Designating team member roles to cultivate a sense of responsibility, along with mutual support and motivation, and to invite more equal participation by students.
• Promotive interaction and group processing: Having students brainstorm to collectively solve a given problem and, in doing so, inspiring inventive thinking that is critical in early stages of the experimental design.

Afterwards, we asked the students to partake in a peer review collaborative session. We wanted them to harness what they had learned in class to systematically measure and judge other proposals and to share in decision making.

We wrapped up this activity with a “Blitz” round of presentations (“Lightning Talks”), with each group delivering a 2-3-minute targeted presentation followed by a 5-minute Q&A class discussion. We wanted students to learn how to efficiently introduce their work and to actively engage in each other’s learning experience.

INNOVATE

Given that we now live in a virtual world, we decided to step up our game to get the students even more excited about the final project.

We concluded the course with a Shark Tank competition as our grand finale.

Students were asked to design novel solutions—both scientifically backed and commercially viable—to help us turn back the clock on aging. They would have to refer to class material to theoretically develop those solutions and include additional literature and research findings to support any associated claims and strategies.

The final project was divided into weekly “chunks” of assignments that are easier to manage and lend to ongoing progress, feedback, and support. It then culminates in a single day of competition, in which each student delivers a 5-minute pitch of the proposal to try to win $1 million in seed funding. This was, thankfully, a hypothetical award!

We wanted, through gamification (game-based learning) as our pedagogical method of choice, to closely mirror the life of an academic and, by challenging students, to instilla sense of agency regarding aging and longevity. Using this approach, we also wantedto render student learning more enjoyable, engaging, and inclusive of its various forms.

• Individual inquiry-based learning: Students separately devised creative solutions to real-life problems and experimented with how to best convey their message and sell their science.
• Small-group peer assessment and cooperative learning: Students participated in a group-based preliminary round of judging, alternating judge-presenter roles to evaluate presentations and tallying the scores to selecta group finalist.
• Class peer assessment and collaborative learning: Group finalists then presented their proposals in front of the entire class so students can collectively decide on an overall winner. In an attempt to furtherenrich this experience, we also tried to elicit constructive criticism by encouraging students to contribute additional questions and/or suggestions for improvement.