skip to main content

Attention:

The NSF Public Access Repository (NSF-PAR) system and access will be unavailable from 11:00 PM ET on Thursday, June 13 until 2:00 AM ET on Friday, June 14 due to maintenance. We apologize for the inconvenience.


Title: Look Who's Talking: Teaching and Discourse Practices across Discipline, Position, Experience, and Class Size in STEM College Classrooms
Abstract Students are more likely to learn in college science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) classrooms when instructors use teacher discourse moves (TDMs) that encourage student engagement and learning. However, although teaching practices are well studied, TDMs are not well understood in college STEM classrooms. In STEM courses at a minority-serving institution (MSI; n = 74), we used two classroom observation protocols to investigate teaching practices and TDMs across disciplines, instructor types, years of teaching experience, and class size. We found that instructors guide students in active learning activities, but they use authoritative discourse approaches. In addition, chemistry instructors presented more than biology instructors. Also, teaching faculty had relatively high dialogic, interactive discourse, and neither years of faculty teaching experience nor class size had an impact on teaching practices or TDMs. Our results have implications for targeted teaching professional development efforts across instructor and course characteristics to improve STEM education at MSIs.  more » « less
Award ID(s):
1832538
NSF-PAR ID:
10295250
Author(s) / Creator(s):
; ; ; ; ;
Date Published:
Journal Name:
BioScience
ISSN:
0006-3568
Format(s):
Medium: X
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. This paper will highlight a small subsection of a larger scale project that focuses on increasing the use of active learning in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) classrooms. Our overall project goals seek to expand the adoption of active learning in STEM classrooms. Active learning has been shown to improve student grades, retention rates, and overall understanding of course material. We define active learning as any time an instructor goes beyond lecturing to their students (e.g., think-pair-shares, class discussions). Research has shown adoption of active learning in STEM courses has been slow with one common cited reason for not implementing active learning in their courses is the fear of student resistance. Student resistance can be defined as any negative student reaction to active learning (e.g., distracting others, giving lower course evaluations, or refusing to participate in the activity). For this study, we recruited instructors from across the nation in the Summer of 2021 and collected data from instructors and students from Fall 2021-Winter 2022. During recruitment, we paid particular attention on ensuring we were recruiting instructors from a broad swath of institution types, including doctoral granting institutions, community colleges, and everything in between. While much of the research on active learning has focused on 4-year schools, this research aims to elucidate what active learning looks like in community colleges, as well as community college student perspectives on these activities. Additional data will share common strategies used for implementing active learning that differ between community college and four-year settings. This paper focuses on how instructors teaching at community colleges are using active learning in their classrooms and their attitudes towards active learning. Additionally, we will explore the instructor’s self-efficacy towards using active learning in the hopes of having a better overall understanding of what is occurring in STEM community college classrooms and where potential improvements can be made in terms of faculty development. 
    more » « less
  2. The 2021 return to face-to-face teaching and proctored exams revealed significant gaps in student learning during remote instruction. The challenge of supporting underperforming students is not expected to abate in the next 5-10 years as COVID-19-related learning losses compound structural inequalities in K-12 education. More recently, anecdotal evidence across courses shows declines in classroom attendance and student engagement. Lack of engagement indicates emotional barriers rather than intellectual deficiencies, and its growth coincides with the ongoing mental health epidemic. Regardless of the underlying reasons, professors are now faced with the unappealing choice of awarding failing grades to an uncomfortably large fraction of classes or awarding passing grades to students who do not seem prepared for the workforce or adult life in general. Faculty training, if it exists, addresses neither the scale of this situation nor the emotional/identity aspects of the problem. There is an urgent need for pedagogical remediation tools that can be applied without additional TA or staff resources, without training in psychiatry, and with only five or eight weeks remaining in the semester. This work presents two work-in-progress interventions for engineering faculty who face the challenges described above. In the first intervention, students can improve their exam score by submitting videos of reworked exams. The requirement of voiceover forces students to understand the thought process behind problems, even if they have copied the answers from a friend. Incorporating peer review into the assignment reduces the workload for instructor grading. This intervention has been successfully implemented in sophomore- and senior-level courses with positive feedback from both faculty and students. In the second intervention, students who fail the midterm are offered an automatic passing exam grade (typically 51%) in exchange for submitting a knowledge inventory and remediation plan. Students create a glossary of terms and concepts from the class and rank them by their level of understanding. Recent iterations of the remediation plan also include reflections on emotions and support networks. In February 2023, the project team will scale the interventions to freshman-level Introductory Programming, which has 400 students and the highest fail/withdrawal rate in the college. The large sample size will enable more robust statistics to correlate exam scores, intervention rubric items, and surveys on assignment effectiveness. Piloting interventions in a variety of environments and classes will establish best pedagogical practices that minimize instructors’ workload and decision fatigue. The ultimate goal of this project is to benefit students and faculty through well-defined and systematic interventions across the curriculum. 
    more » « less
  3. Evidence has shown that facilitating student-centered learning (SCL) in STEM classrooms enhances student learning and satisfaction [1]–[3]. However, despite increased support from educational and government bodies to incorporate SCL practices [1], minimal changes have been made in undergraduate STEM curriculum [4]. Faculty often teach as they were taught, relying heavily on traditional lecture-based teaching to disseminate knowledge [4]. Though some faculty express the desire to improve their teaching strategies, they feel limited by a lack of time, training, and incentives [4], [5]. To maximize student learning while minimizing instructor effort to change content, courses can be designed to incorporate simpler, less time-consuming SCL strategies that still have a positive impact on student experience. In this paper, we present one example of utilizing a variety of simple SCL strategies throughout the design and implementation of a 4-week long module. This module focused on introductory tissue engineering concepts and was designed to help students learn foundational knowledge within the field as well as develop critical technical skills. Further, the module sought to develop important professional skills such as problem-solving, teamwork, and communication. During module design and implementation, evidence-based SCL teaching strategies were applied to ensure students developed important knowledge and skills within the short timeframe. Lectures featured discussion-based active learning exercises to encourage student engagement and peer collaboration [6]–[8]. The module was designed using a situated perspective, acknowledging that knowing is inseparable from doing [9], and therefore each week, the material taught in the two lecture sessions was directly applied to that week’s lab to reinforce students’ conceptual knowledge through hands-on activities and experimental outcomes. Additionally, the majority of assignments served as formative assessments to motivate student performance while providing instructors with feedback to identify misconceptions and make real-time module improvements [10]–[12]. Students anonymously responded to pre- and post-module surveys, which focused on topics such as student motivation for enrolling in the module, module expectations, and prior experience. Students were also surveyed for student satisfaction, learning gains, and graduate student teaching team (GSTT) performance. Data suggests a high level of student satisfaction, as most students’ expectations were met, and often exceeded. Students reported developing a deeper understanding of the field of tissue engineering and learning many of the targeted basic lab skills. In addition to hands-on skills, students gained confidence to participate in research and an appreciation for interacting with and learning from peers. Finally, responses with respect to GSTT performance indicated a perceived emphasis on a learner-centered and knowledge/community-centered approaches over assessment-centeredness [13]. Overall, student feedback indicated that SCL teaching strategies can enhance student learning outcomes and experience, even over the short timeframe of this module. Student recommendations for module improvement focused primarily on modifying the lecture content and laboratory component of the module, and not on changing the teaching strategies employed. The success of this module exemplifies how instructors can implement similar strategies to increase student engagement and encourage in-depth discussions without drastically increasing instructor effort to re-format course content. Introduction. 
    more » « less
  4. Abstract Background

    There is overwhelming evidence that evidence-based teaching improves student performance; however, traditional lecture predominates in STEM courses. To provide support as faculty transform their lecture-based classrooms with evidence-based teaching practices, we created a faculty development program based on best practices, Consortium for the Advancement of Undergraduate STEM Education (CAUSE). CAUSE paired exploration of evidence-based teaching with support for classroom implementation over two years. Each year for three years, CAUSE recruited cohorts of faculty from seven STEM departments. Faculty met biweekly to discuss evidence-based teaching and receive feedback on their implementation. We used the PORTAAL observation tool to document evidence-based teaching practices (PORTAAL practices) across four randomly chosen class sessions each term. We investigated if the number of PORTAAL practices used or the amount of practices increased during the program.

    Results

    We identified identical or equivalent course offerings taught at least twice by the same faculty member while in CAUSE (n = 42 course pairs). We used a one-way repeated measures within-subjects multivariate analysis to examine the changes in average use of 14 PORTAAL practices between the first and second timepoint. We created heat maps to visualize the difference in number of practices used and changes in level of implementation of each PORTAAL practice. Post-hoc within-subjects effects indicated that three PORTAAL practices were significantly higher and two were lower at timepoint two. Use of prompting prior knowledge and calling on volunteers to give answers decreased, while instructors doubled use of prompting students to explain their logic, and increased use of random call by almost 40% when seeking answers from students. Heat maps indicated increases came both from faculty’s adoption of these practices and increased use, depending on the practice. Overall, faculty used more practices more frequently, which contributed to a 17% increase in time that students were actively engaged in class.

    Conclusions

    Results suggest that participation in a long-term faculty development program can support increased use of evidence-based teaching practices which have been shown to improve student exam performance. Our findings can help prioritize the efforts of future faculty development programs.

     
    more » « less
  5. Abstract Background

    An instructor’s conceptions of teaching and learning contribute to the establishment of learning environments that may benefit or hinder student learning. Previous studies have defined the continuum of teaching and learning conceptions, ranging from limited to complete, as well as the instructional practices that they help to inform (instructor-centered to student-centered), and the corresponding learning environments that these conceptions and practices establish, ranging from traditional to student-centered. Using the case of one STEM department at a research-intensive, minority serving institution, we explored faculty’s conceptions of teaching and learning and their resulting instructional practices, as well as uncovered their perspectives on the intradepartmental faculty interactions related to teaching. The study participants were drawn from both teaching-focused (called Professors of Teaching, PoTs) and traditional research (whom we call Research Professors, RPs) tenure-track faculty lines to identify whether differences existed amongst these two populations. We used interviews to explore faculty conceptions and analyzed syllabi to unveil how these conceptions shape instructional environments.

    Results

    Overall, PoTs exhibited complete conceptions of teaching and learning that emphasized student ownership of learning, whereas RPs possessed intermediate conceptions that focused more on transmitting knowledge and helping students prepare for subsequent courses. While both PoTs and RPs self-reported the use of active learning pedagogies, RPs were more likely to also highlight the importance of traditional lecture. The syllabi analysis revealed that PoTs enacted more student-centered practices in their classrooms compared to RPs. PoTs appeared to be more intentionally available to support students outside of class and encouraged student collaboration, while RPs focused more on the timeliness of assessments and enforcing more instructor-centered approaches in their courses. Finally, the data indicated that RPs recognized PoTs as individuals who were influential on their own teaching conceptions and practices.

    Conclusions

    Our findings suggest that departments should consider leveraging instructional experts who also possess a disciplinary background (PoTs) to improve their educational programs, both due to their student-centered impacts on the classroom environment and positive influence on their colleagues (RPs). This work also highlights the need for higher education institutions to offer appropriate professional development resources to enable faculty to reflect on their teaching and learning conceptions, aid in their pedagogical evolution, and guide the implementation of these conceptions into practice.

     
    more » « less