skip to main content

Title: What Questions Are on the Minds of STEM Undergraduate Students and How Can They Be Addressed?
Addressing common student questions in introductory STEM courses early in the term is one way that instructors can ensure that their students have all been presented with information about how to succeed in their courses. However, categorizing student questions and identifying evidence-based resources to address student questions takes time, and instructors may not be able to easily collect and respond to student questions at the beginning of every course. To help faculty effectively anticipate and respond to student questions, we 1) administered surveys in multiple STEM courses to identify common student questions, 2) conducted a qualitative analysis to determine categories of student questions (e.g., what are best practices for studying, how can in- and out-of- course time be effectively used), and 3) collaboratively identified advice on how course instructors can answer these questions. Here, we share tips, evidence-based strategies, and resources from faculty that instructors can use to develop their own responses for students. We hope that educators can use these common student questions as a starting point to proactively address questions throughout the course and that the compiled resources will allow instructors to easily find materials that can be considered for their own courses.
Authors:
; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; more » ; ; ; ; ; « less
Award ID(s):
1712060 1712074
Publication Date:
NSF-PAR ID:
10302303
Journal Name:
Frontiers in Education
Volume:
6
ISSN:
2504-284X
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. 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
  2. An enormous reserve of information about the subglacial bedrock, tectonic and topographic evolution of Marie Byrd Land (MBL) exists within glaciomarine sediments of the Amundsen Sea shelf, slope and deep sea, and MBL marine shelf. Investigators of the NSF ICI-Hot and NSF Linchpin projects partnered with Arizona Laserchron Center to provide course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs) for from groups who do not ordinarily find access points to Antarctic science. Our courses enlist BIPOC and gender-expansive undergraduates in studies of ice-rafted debris (IRD) and bedrock samples, in order to impart skills, train in the use of research instrumentation, help students to develop confidence in their scientific abilities, and collaboratively address WAIS research questions at an early academic stage. CUREs afford benefits to graduate researchers and postdoctoral scientists, also, who join in as instructional faculty: CUREs allow GRs and PDs to engage in teaching that closely ties to their active research, yet provides practical experience to strengthen the academic portfolio (Cascella & Jez, 2018). Team members also develop art-science initiatives that engage students and community members who may not ordinarily engage with science, forging connections that make science relatable. Re-casting science topics through art centers personal connections and humanizes science, to promotemore »understanding that goes beyond the purely analytical. Academic research shows that diverse undergraduates gain markedly from the convergence of art and science, and from involvement in collaborative research conducted within a CURE cohort, rather than as an individualized experience (e.g. Shanahan et al. 2022). The CUREs are offered as regular courses for credit, making access equitable via course enrollment. The course designation carries a legitimacy that is sought by students who balance academics with part-time employment. Course information is disseminated via STEM Bridge programs and/or an academic advising hub that reaches students from groups that are insufficiently represented within STEM and cryosphere science. CURE investigation of Amundsen Sea and WAIS problems is worthy objective because: 1) A variety of sample preparation, geochemical methods, and scientific best-practices can be imparted, while educating students about Antarctica’s geological configuration and role in the Earth climate system. 2) Individual projects that are narrowly defined can readily scaffold into collaborative science at the time of data synthesis and interpretation. 3) There is a high likelihood of scientific discovery that contributes to grant objectives. 4) Enrolled students will experience ambiguity and instrumentation setbacks alongside their faculty and instructors, and will likely have an opportunity to withstand/overcome challenges in a manner that trains students in complex problem solving and imparts resilience (St John et al., 2019). Based on our experiences, we consider CUREs as a means to create more inclusive and equitable spaces for learning to do research, and a basis for a broadening future WAIS community. Our groups have yet to assess student learning gains and STEM entry in a robust way, but we can report that two presenters at WAIS 2022 came from our 2021 CURE, and four polar science graduate researchers gained experience via CURE teaching. Data obtained by CURE students is contributing to our NSF projects’ aims to obtain isotope, age, and petrogenetic criteria with bearing on the subglacial bedrock geology, tectonic and landscape evolution, and ice sheet history of MBL. Cited and recommended works: Cascella & Jez, 2018, doi: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.7b00705 Gentile et al., 2017, doi: 10.17226/24622 Shanahan et al. 2022, https://www.cur.org/assets/1/23/01-01_TOC_SPUR_Winter21.pdf Shortlidge & Brownell, 2016, doi: 10.1128/jmbe.v17i3.1103 St. John et al. 2019, EOS, doi: 10.1029/2019EO127285.« less
  3. The emphasis on conceptual learning and the development of adaptive instructional design are both emerging areas in science and engineering education. Instructors are writing their own conceptual questions to promote active learning during class and utilizing pools of these questions in assessments. For adaptive assessment strategies, these questions need to be rated based on difficulty level (DL). Historically DL has been determined from the performance of a suitable number of students. The research study reported here investigates whether instructors can save time by predicting DL of newly made conceptual questions without the need for student data. In this paper, we report on the development of one component in an adaptive learning module for materials science – specifically on the topic of crystallography. The summative assessment element consists of five DL scales and 15 conceptual questions This adaptive assessment directs students based on their previous performances and the DL of the questions. Our five expert participants are faculty members who have taught the introductory Materials Science course multiple times. They provided predictions for how many students would answer each question correctly during a two-step process. First, predictions were made individually without an answer key. Second, experts had the opportunity to revisemore »their predictions after being provided an answer key in a group discussion. We compared expert predictions with actual student performance using results from over 400 students spanning multiple courses and terms. We found no clear correlation between expert predictions of the DL and the measured DL from students. Some evidence shows that discussion during the second step made expert predictions closer to student performance. We suggest that, in determining the DL for conceptual questions, using predictions of the DL by experts who have taught the course is not a valid route. The findings in this paper can be applied to assessments in both in-person, hybrid, and online settings and is applicable to subject matter beyond materials science.« less
  4. Over the past two decades, educators have used computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) to integrate technology with pedagogy to improve student engagement and learning outcomes. Researchers have also explored the diverse affordances of CSCL, its contributions to engineering instruction, and its effectiveness in K-12 STEM education. However, the question of how students use CSCL resources in undergraduate engineering classrooms remains largely unexplored. This study examines the affordances of a CSCL environment utilized in a sophomore dynamics course with particular attention given to the undergraduate engineering students’ use of various CSCL resources. The resources include a course lecturebook, instructor office hours, a teaching assistant help room, online discussion board, peer collaboration, and demonstration videos. This qualitative study uses semi-structured interview data collected from nine mechanical engineering students (four women and five men) who were enrolled in a dynamics course at a large public research university in Eastern Canada. The interviews focused on the individual student’s perceptions of the school, faculty, students, engineering courses, and implemented CSCL learning environment. The thematic analysis was conducted to analyze the transcribed interviews using a qualitative data analysis software (Nvivo). The analysis followed a six step process: (1) reading interview transcripts multiple times and preliminary in vivomore »codes; (2) conducting open coding by coding interesting or salient features of the data; (3) collecting codes and searching for themes; (4) reviewing themes and creating a thematic map; (5) finalizing themes and their definitions; and (6) compiling findings. This study found that the students’ use of CSCL resources varied depending on the students’ personal preferences, as well as their perceptions of the given resource’s value and its potential to enhance their learning. For example, the dynamics lecturebook, which had been redesigned to encourage problem solving and note-taking, fostered student collaborative problem solving with their peers. In contrast, the professor’s example video solutions had much more of an influence on students’ independent problem-solving processes. The least frequently used resource was the course’s online discussion forum, which could be used as a means of communication. The findings reveal how computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) environments enable engineering students to engage in multiple learning opportunities with diverse and flexible resources to both address and to clarify their personal learning needs. This study strongly recommends engineering instructors adapt a CSCL environment for implementation in their own unique classroom context.« less
  5. Abstract Background

    STEM instructors who leverage student thinking can positively influence student outcomes and build their own teaching expertise. Leveraging student thinking involves using the substance of student thinking to inform instruction. The ways in which instructors leverage student thinking in undergraduate STEM contexts, and what enables them to do so effectively, remains largely unexplored. We investigated how undergraduate STEM faculty leverage student thinking in their teaching, focusing on faculty who engage students in work during class.

    Results

    From analyzing interviews and video of a class lesson for eight undergraduate STEM instructors, we identified a group of instructors who exhibited high levels of leveraging student thinking (high-leveragers) and a group of instructors who exhibited low levels of leveraging student thinking (low-leveragers). High-leveragers behaved as if student thinking was central to their instruction. We saw this in how they accessed student thinking, worked to interpret it, and responded in the moment and after class. High-leveragers spent about twice as much class time getting access to detailed information about student thinking compared to low-leveragers. High-leveragers then altered instructional plans from lesson to lesson and during a lesson based on their interpretation of student thinking. Critically, high-leveragers also drew on much more extensive knowledge ofmore »student thinking, a component of pedagogical content knowledge, than did low-leveragers. High-leveragers used knowledge of student thinking to create access to more substantive student thinking, shape real-time interpretations, and inform how and when to respond. In contrast, low-leveragers accessed student thinking less frequently, interpreted student thinking superficially or not at all, and never discussed adjusting the content or problems for the following lesson.

    Conclusions

    This study revealed that not all undergraduate STEM instructors who actively engage students in work during class are also leveraging student thinking. In other words, not all student-centered instruction is student-thinking-centered instruction. We discuss possible explanations for why some STEM instructors are leveraging student thinking and others are not. In order to realize the benefits of student-centered instruction for undergraduates, we may need to support undergraduate STEM instructors in learning how to learn from their teaching experiences by leveraging student thinking.

    « less