More Like this

1. Making a First Impression: Exploring What Instructors Do and Say on the First Day of Introductory STEM Courses

   https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.20-05-0098  

   Lane, A. Kelly ; Meaders, Clara L. ; Shuman, J. Kenny ; Stetzer, MacKenzie R. ; Vinson, Erin L. ; Couch, Brian A. ; Smith, Michelle K. ; Stains, Marilyne ( March 2021 , CBE—Life Sciences Education)

   Momsen, Jennifer L (Ed.)

   Student impressions formed during the first day of class can impact course satisfaction and performance. Despite its potential importance, little is known about how instructors format the first day of class. Here, we report on observations of the first day of class in 23 introductory science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) courses. We first described how introductory STEM instructors structure their class time by characterizing topics covered on the first day through inductive coding of class videos. We found that all instructors discussed policies and basic information. However, a cluster analysis revealed two groups of instructors who differed primarily in their level of STEM content coverage. We then coded the videos with the noncontent Instructor Talk framework, which organizes the statements instructors make unrelated to disciplinary content into several categories and subcategories. Instructors generally focused on building the instructor–student relationship and establishing classroom culture. Qualitative analysis indicated that instructors varied in the specificity of their noncontent statements and may have sent mixed messages by making negatively phrased statements with seemingly positive intentions. These results uncovered variation in instructor actions on the first day of class and can help instructors more effectively plan this day by providing messages that set studentsmore »up for success.« less
2. Evaluating the impact of malleable factors on percent time lecturing in gateway chemistry, mathematics, and physics courses

   https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-022-00333-3  

   Yik, Brandon J. ; Raker, Jeffrey R. ; Apkarian, Naneh ; Stains, Marilyne ; Henderson, Charles ; Dancy, Melissa H. ; Johnson, Estrella ( February 2022 , International Journal of STEM Education)

   Active learning used in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) courses has been shown to improve student outcomes. Nevertheless, traditional lecture-orientated approaches endure in these courses. The implementation of teaching practices is a result of many interrelated factors including disciplinary norms, classroom context, and beliefs about learning. Although factors influencing uptake of active learning are known, no study to date has had the statistical power to empirically test the relative association of these factors with active learning when considered collectively. Prior studies have been limited to a single or small number of evaluated factors; in addition, such studies did not capture the nested nature of institutional contexts. We present the results of a multi-institution, large-scale (N = 2382 instructors;N = 1405 departments;N = 749 institutions) survey-based study in the United States to evaluate 17 malleable factors (i.e., influenceable and changeable) that are associated with the amount of time an instructor spends lecturing, a proxy for implementation of active learning strategies, in introductory postsecondary chemistry, mathematics, and physics courses.

   Regression analyses, using multilevel modeling to account for the nested nature of the data, indicate several evaluated contextual factors, personal factors, and teacher thinking factors were significantly associated with percent of class time lecturing when controlling formore »other factors used in this study. Quantitative results corroborate prior research in indicating that large class sizes are associated with increased percent time lecturing. Other contextual factors (e.g., classroom setup for small group work) and personal contexts (e.g., participation in scholarship of teaching and learning activities) are associated with a decrease in percent time lecturing.

   Given the malleable nature of the factors, we offer tangible implications for instructors and administrators to influence the adoption of more active learning strategies in introductory STEM courses.

   « less
3. Instructor Use of Movable Furniture and Technology in Flexible Classroom Spaces

   Johnson, A.W. ; Swenson, J.E.S. ; Wiwel, C.R. ; Finelli, C.J. ( June 2019 , ASEE annual conference & exposition proceedings)

   Flexible classroom spaces, which have movable tables and chairs that can be easily rearranged into different layouts, make it easier for instructors to effectively implement active learning than a traditional lecture hall. Instructors can move throughout the room to interact with students during active learning, and they can rearrange the tables into small groups to facilitate conversation between students. Classroom technology, such as wall-mounted monitors and movable whiteboards, also facilitates active learning by allowing students to collaborate. In addition to enabling active learning, the flexible classroom can still be arranged in front-facing rows that support traditional lecture-based pedagogies. As a result, instructors do not have to make time- and effort-intensive changes to the way their courses are taught in order to use the flexible classroom. Instead, they can make small changes to add active learning. We are in the second year of a study of flexible classroom spaces funded by the National Science Foundation’s Division of Undergraduate Education. This project asks four research questions that investigate the relationships between the instructor, the students, and the classroom: 1) What pedagogy do instructors use in a flexible classroom space? 2) How do instructors take advantage of the instructional affordances (including the movablemore »furniture, movable whiteboards, wall-mounted whiteboards, and wall-mounted monitors) of a flexible classroom? 3) What is the impact of faculty professional development on instructors’ use of flexible classroom spaces? and 4) How does the classroom influence the ways students interpret and engage in group learning activities? In the first year of our study we have developed five research instruments to answer these questions: a three-part classroom observation protocol, an instructor interview protocol, two instructor surveys, and a student survey. We have collected data from nine courses taught in one of ten flexible classrooms at the University of Michigan during the Fall 2018 semester. Two of these courses were first-year introduction to engineering courses co-taught by two instructors, and the other seven courses were sophomore- and junior-level core technical courses taught by one instructor. Five instructors participated in a faculty learning community that met three times during the semester to discuss active learning, to learn how to make the best use of the flexible classroom affordances, and to plan activities to implement in their courses. In each course we gathered data from the perspective of the instructor (through pre- and post-semester interviews), the researcher (through observations of three class meetings with our observation protocol), and the students (through conducting a student survey at the end of the semester). This poster presents qualitative and qualitative analyses of these data to answer our research questions, along with evidence based best practices for effectively using a flexible classroom.« less
4. Characteristics of interactive classrooms that first year students find helpful

   https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-022-00354-y  

   Vroom, Kristen ; Gehrtz, Jessica ; Apkarian, Naneh ; Alzaga Elizondo, Tenchita ; Ellis, Brittney ; Hagman, Jessica ( June 2022 , International Journal of STEM Education)

   Implementing research-based teaching practices has been repeatedly cited as an important factor for student success in university mathematics courses. Many research-based practices increase the amount of student–student and/or student–instructor interaction. However, some instructors are hesitant to implement such practices because they anticipate their students reacting negatively to experiencing an interactive classroom. As part of a larger project studying introductory undergraduate mathematics courses in the United States, we investigated students’ perceptions of the helpfulness of various classroom characteristics, particularly those that require interaction.

   From analyzing quantitative student data, we found that students reported interactive classroom characteristics (e.g., group work) as less prevalent than other classroom characteristics (e.g., lecture). Moreover, the students tended to regard characteristics that they reported experiencing often as helpful for their learning. From analyzing qualitative data from student focus groups, we found that students considered several indicators when identifying if a characteristic was helpful for their learning. In particular, students suggested that they can identify a characteristic as helpful for their learning when it supported them in solving assigned problems and understanding why the procedures work, earning good grades, building on their knowledge or applying it in different contexts, and teaching others.

   The key finding from ourmore »work is that students are likely to view classroom characteristics that they experience more often as more helpful for their learning and are less likely to view characteristics that they rarely experience as helpful for their learning. Students view the characteristics that they regularly experience as helping them to solve problems and understand why the procedures work, earn good grades, build on their knowledge or apply it in different contexts, and teach others. We discuss important implications for practice, policy, and research as it relates to both student and instructor buy-in for increasing interactions in class.

   « less
5. “What Will I Experience in My College STEM Courses?” An Investigation of Student Predictions about Instructional Practices in Introductory Courses

   https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.19-05-0084  

   Meaders, Clara L. ; Toth, Emma S. ; Lane, A. Kelly ; Shuman, J. Kenny ; Couch, Brian A. ; Stains, Marilyne ; Stetzer, MacKenzie R. ; Vinson, Erin ; Smith, Michelle K. ; Offerdahl, Erika ( December 2019 , CBE—Life Sciences Education)

   The instructional practices used in introductory college courses often differ dramatically from those used in high school courses, and dissatisfaction with these practices is cited by students as a prominent reason for leaving science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) majors. To better characterize the transition to college course work, we investigated the extent to which incoming expectations of course activities differ based on student demographic characteristics, as well as how these expectations align with what students will experience. We surveyed more than 1500 undergraduate students in large introductory STEM courses at three research-intensive institutions during the first week of classes about their expectations regarding how class time would be spent in their courses. We found that first-generation and first-semester students predict less lecture than their peers and that class size had the largest effect on student predictions. We also collected classroom observation data from the courses and found that students generally underpredicted the amount of lecture observed in class. This misalignment between student predictions and experiences, especially for first-generation and first-semester college students and students enrolled in large- and medium-size classes, has implications for instructors and universities as they design curricula for introductory STEM courses with explicit retention goals.