PRINCIPLES OF GOOD PRACTICE IN INTRODUCTORY STEM COURSES: LISTENING TO THE VOICES OF FACULTY AND STUDENTS Association for the Study of Higher Education Charlotte, North.

Download Report

Transcript PRINCIPLES OF GOOD PRACTICE IN INTRODUCTORY STEM COURSES: LISTENING TO THE VOICES OF FACULTY AND STUDENTS Association for the Study of Higher Education Charlotte, North.

PRINCIPLES OF GOOD PRACTICE IN
INTRODUCTORY STEM COURSES:
LISTENING TO THE VOICES OF
FACULTY AND STUDENTS
Association for the Study of Higher Education
Charlotte, North Carolina
November 17, 2011
Gina A. Garcia
Josephine Gasiewski
Sylvia Hurtado
Background


Focus on introductory STEM courses since the mid-1990’s (National
Research Council 1996, 1999; National Science Foundation, 1996;
Seymour & Hewitt, 1997; Tobias, 1990)
 Large class sizes
 Lecture-based courses that encourage passive learning
 Lack of engaging pedagogy
Numerous teaching and learning techniques employed, often by
research scientists teaching introductory courses
 Student Response Systems (“clickers”)
 Just in Time Teaching (JiTT)
 Web-based pedagogy
 Peer-based learning (PBL)
Background


Criticism of curriculum continues in 2000’s (Alberts, 2005; DeHaan,
2005; Handelsman et al., 2004; McWilliam et al., 2008)
 Lacks exploration of the real world of science
 Lacks ways for students to learn about the discovery of science
 Lacks creativity and innovation
Promising Practices in Undergraduate STEM Education (NRC, 2011)
 Goals and purposes of STEM teaching and learning innovations
have varied tremendously
 Large scale assessment of in class techniques is lacking
 Froyd (2008) promising practices in STEM undergraduate
education
Purpose of Study


Highlight the ways in which undergraduate students
and university professors at eight institutions make
meaning of good teaching practices in introductory
STEM courses
Provide practical suggestions for improving teaching
and learning in introductory STEM courses using
empirical data
Methods

Sample
8 Institutions (diverse by type, size, and control)
 41 Student Focus Groups (n = 239)
 25 STEM Faculty Interviews


Data Collection
60-90 min in-depth interviews/focus groups
 9 main student questions centering on motivation, STEM
course structure, learning, instruction, and assessment
 7 main faculty questions centering on course goals and
objectives, pedagogical approaches, STEM course structure,
forms of assessment, and institutional support for teaching

Analysis



Interviews digitally recorded and transcribed verbatim
NVivo 8 qualitative software
Six researchers open coded raw data for salient themes
using constant comparative method




Developed first-order categories
Intercoder reliability 80-85% (Kappa coefficient)
Re-validated and developed additional categories
Developed second-order themes within individual institutions


Compared student and faculty data, looking for similarities and
differences
Compared across institutional types, looking for broad themes
FINDINGS
Three Main Themes:
1.
In-class techniques
2.
Out-of-class techniques
3.
Context for learning
Southwestern Private Research
University
Students


Formal classroom techniques

Real world application

Clickers
Faculty

Formal classroom techniques



Out of class techniques


Online homework


Study groups


Formal & informal SI

Out of class techniques

Context for Learning

Competitive classroom environment

Predominance of pre-health majors

Early warning system

Student centered focus
Real world application
Working problems on board
Skeleton notes
Class discussions
Groups projects
ELMO





Online homework
Study groups
Formal & informal SI
Office hours
Blackboard
Student Success Center
Predominance of Pre-Health Students

I think in a lot of my like introductory, or at least the
pre-med courses, there was like a tendency of, well, you
can fail ‘cuz that means that my shot is better. It’s way
more, I think, cutthroat. I mean, you still help each other,
but it’s definitely like – Yeah, it’s definitely competitive
like, you’re like, I’m going to be at every class. It’s, and
I think that kind of helps foster education because it,
you know, it’s like these are, you know, med school is
competitive to get into, so it’s like, you know, you need
to be going to every single class, being able to easily
do the information, but I would definitely agree. It’s
definitely, it’s pretty hard. (Brendan)
Real World Examples

I’ve had chemistry professors and calculus
professors, like classes that were really dry and
potentially really boring were made a lot more
interesting simply because the professor absolutely
loved their subject and would relate it to all sorts of
things going on in the news and just, you know,
relate it to all sorts of practical things that wouldn’t
come up in the curriculum. (Karl)
Midwestern Public Research University
Students


Formal classroom techniques
Faculty

Formal classroom techniques

Real world application

Real world application

Clickers

Clickers

Traditional lecture
Out of class techniques

Grad student led discussion groups

Pair work

Instructor led review sessions

YouTube clips

Undergrad led study groups
Context for Learning

Out of class techniques

Grad student led discussion groups

Course websites

Online quizzes

Challenges of large class sizes

Discussion boards

Highly motivated students

Podcasts

Collaborative culture
Lecture + Other Resources


The approach that Midwestern Public Research University has taken
regarding lecture—you know, lots of schools have been working
ways to improve lecture. We know that lecture is good for some
learning goals; it’s not so good for all sorts of other learning goals.
Midwestern Public Research University’s approach has been to
figure out what lecture is good for, what does the research say
lecture is good for, and do that, and do that as well as we can and
then add other resources to the course, to try get at some of those
other learning goals. (Professor Eko)
I feel like in lecture you don't really learn that much. Maybe I've
learned like 10% of everything that I've learned in lecture.
Everything else I get from attending like, the student led study
groups, and like, on my own or with friends. (Dylan)
Student Study Groups

I think that for me, I really like the study groups, but
my study group leader I don't think is very good.
The benefit to me is that there's other students there
that are taking the class, and so, I'll go over the
problems with them, not the study group leader.
And so, just sort of having a forced, I guess, way
that you have to meet with people two hours every
week, is really beneficial to me. (Timmy)
Southeastern Public Master’s College
Students


Formal classroom techniques

Tablet PC’s

DYNO

Clickers
Faculty

Formal classroom techniques




Out of class techniques


Online homework


Textbook websites


Context for Learning

Lack of student engagement

Lack of student preparation


Tablet PC’s
DYNO
Real world application
Team teaching
In-class problem solving
Visuals
Think/Pair/Share
Animations
Action research
Out of class techniques



Online homework
Virtual labs
Formal & informal SI
In-class Technology

Well, my class, we had clickers and the tablet and I
don’t think it was, I think it – if the professor took a
different approach when he used them it could have
been successful, but at the time I don’t think it was,
really they made too much of a difference. And as
far as the tablets go, I think that’s kind of the same.
I don’t really like, I would have preferred the
board, the regular white board over my teacher
actually doing it on a tablet. It was, it was, I don’t
see, I don’t see the benefit of it. (Franny)
Lack of Preparation

I find that many of the students just don’t have the
preparation. They don’t have the language and so
they find it difficult to cope. You can present it,
PowerPoint presentation, one-on-one discussion and
so on, but if you don’t know the language, it
becomes difficult to operate. It means you have to
go back and start from scratch. (Professor Norris)
Northeastern Private Master’s College
Students


Formal classroom techniques
Faculty

Formal classroom techniques

Workshops

Workshops

Clickers

Clickers
Out of class techniques

Peer instructional model

Online homework

Visuals

SI sessions

Real world application

Group projects

Context for Learning

Special interest housing

Cohort centered course content

Teaching focused

Collaborative culture
Out of class techniques

Online homework

SI sessions
Emphasis on Experiential Learning

As I said, we are a place that has a deep tradition
of experiential learning, deep tradition of quality
teaching and most of us have the mindset that we’re
teachers. The growth for us or the growing pains is
to have a culture which is more blended, which is
more the inclusion of the scholarship and the
scholarship expectations. (Professor Langner)
Workshops

But the workshop’s really helpful ‘cuz we’re, I was in
a group with four people, and we were given like
20 problems, and we’d have to finish 15 in the hour.
So we kind of split up and did them, and then at the
end we’d kind of look through and see which ones
we had trouble with, and we’d help each other
out…and then, like, everyone would look through it
to make sure they had a basic understanding of
how everything worked. (Irving)
Comparison of Institutions
Theme
Institutions
Strong emphasis on
teaching
Southeastern Private Master’s College; Northeastern Private
Master’s College; Western Private Master’s College
Strong emphasis on
research
Western Public Research University
Large classes
Midwestern Pubic Research University; Southwestern Public
Research University
Small classes
Southeastern Private Master’s College, Northeastern Private
Master’s College
Extremely competitive
Southwestern Private Research University; Southeastern Private
Master’s College; Western Public Research University
Extremely collaborative
Midwestern Pubic Research University; Northeastern Private
Master’s College; Western Private Master’s College
SI/study groups part of
culture
Midwestern Pubic Research University; Northeastern Private
Master’s College; Western Private Master’s College
Discussion

Students and faculty have varying opinions about
the use of innovation and technology
 There
is no universal technique for all students/faculty
 Techniques should include multiple modalities

Professors describe more innovation and use of
active learning strategies than students describe
experiencing
 Innovation
is not standard practice
 Innovation relies upon efforts of individuals
 Innovation is not institutionalized
Discussion

Strategies should emphasize:
Student interaction and collaboration
 Increased time on task outside of the classroom
 Real world application for research and practice


Strategies for improving the experience of introductory
STEM courses must consider differences in the context
for learning
Competitive vs. collaborative environment
 Size of classroom
 Student characteristics
 Institutional support
 Institutional focus-research vs. teaching

Contact Info
Faculty/Co-PIs:
Sylvia Hurtado
Mitchell Chang
Postdoctoral Scholars:
Kevin Eagan
Josephine Gasiewski
Administrative Staff:
Dominique Harrison
Graduate Research Assistants:
Tanya Figueroa
Gina Garcia
Felisha Herrera
Bryce Hughes
Cindy Mosqueda
Juan Garibay
Papers and reports are available for download from project website:
http://heri.ucla.edu/nih
Project e-mail: [email protected]
Acknowledgments: This study was made possible by the support of the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009 through the National Institute of General Medical Sciences, NIH Grant
1RC1GM090776-01. This independent research and the views expressed here do not indicate
endorsement by the sponsors.