More Like this

1. Integrating evidence-based teaching practices into the Mammalogy classroom

   https://doi.org/10.1093/jmammal/gyad011  

   Patrick, Lorelei E ; Duggan, Jennifer M ; Dizney, Laurie ( February 2023 , Journal of Mammalogy)

   Powell, Roger (Ed.)

   Abstract The teaching practices used in college science classrooms have a profound influence on which students pass their courses (and continue to major in science) and which are ‘weeded out.’ Students from traditionally marginalized backgrounds have lower grades and learning gains compared to their nonmarginalized peers in courses that rely heavily on lecture and high-stakes exams. This achievement gap narrows or disappears when instructors use student-centered, evidence-based teaching practices. These teaching practices can include actions that shape our classroom environment, communicate course material, and assess student learning. In this paper, we provide a summary of the evidence supporting the use of student-centered teaching practices, followed by examples of several effective evidence-based teaching practices that can be integrated into organismal courses. Examples include faculty mindset for inclusion, teaching practices to increase student confidence and to reduce stereotype threat, increasing course structure by spreading points among several different types of activities, several active learning methods, jigsaws, Scientist Spotlights, course-based undergraduate research experiences, and inquiry-based labs. Each example is linked to supporting resources to help instructors easily implement these practices in their classrooms. The American Society of Mammalogists endeavors to be equitable and inclusive through numerous initiatives, and modifying our teaching practices can increase equity and inclusion of future mammalogists into our own classrooms. 

   more » « less
2. 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 movable 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. 

   more » « less
3. Am I getting through? Surveying students on what messages they recall from the first day of STEM classes

   https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-021-00306-y  

   Meaders, Clara L. ; Senn, Lillian G. ; Couch, Brian A. ; Lane, A. Kelly ; Stains, Marilyne ; Stetzer, MacKenzie R. ; Vinson, Erin ; Smith, Michelle K. ( August 2021 , International Journal of STEM Education)

   The first day of class helps students learn about what to expect from their instructors and courses. Messaging used by instructors, which varies in content and approach on the first day, shapes classroom social dynamics and can affect subsequent learning in a course. Prior work established the non-content Instructor Talk Framework to describe the language that instructors use to create learning environments, but little is known about the extent to which students detect those messages. In this study, we paired first day classroom observation data with results from student surveys to measure how readily students in introductory STEM courses detect non-content Instructor Talk.

   To learn more about the instructor and student first day experiences, we studied 11 introductory STEM courses at two different institutions. The classroom observation data were used to characterize course structure and use of non-content Instructor Talk. The data revealed that all instructors spent time discussing their instructional practices, building instructor/student relationships, and sharing strategies for success with their students. After class, we surveyed students about the messages their instructors shared during the first day of class and determined that the majority of students from within each course detected messaging that occurred at a higher frequency. For lower frequency messaging, we identified nuances in what students detected that may help instructors as they plan their first day of class.

   For instructors who dedicate the first day of class to establishing positive learning environments, these findings provide support that students are detecting the messages. Additionally, this study highlights the importance of instructors prioritizing the messages they deem most important and giving them adequate attention to more effectively reach students. Setting a positive classroom environment on the first day may lead to long-term impacts on student motivation and course retention. These outcomes are relevant for all students, but in particular for students in introductory STEM courses which are often critical prerequisites for being in a major.

    

   more » « less
4. Faculty Use of Active Learning in Community Colleges

   Chasen, A.* ( June 2023 , Proceedings 2023 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition)

   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
5. Connecting Activity Implementation Characteristics to Student Buy-In Toward and Utilization of Formative Assessments Within Undergraduate Biology Courses

   https://doi.org/10.1007/s41979-021-00054-2  

   Brazeal, Kathleen R. ; Brown, Tanya L. ; Couch, Brian A. ( December 2021 , Journal for STEM Education Research)

   Abstract While formative assessments (FAs) can facilitate learning within undergraduate STEM courses, their impact likely depends on many factors, including how instructors implement them, whether students buy-in to them, and how students utilize them. FAs have many different implementation characteristics, including what kinds of questions are asked, whether questions are asked before or after covering the material in class, how feedback is provided, how students are graded, and other logistical considerations. We conducted 38 semi-structured interviews with students from eight undergraduate biology courses to explore how various implementation characteristics of in-class and out-of-class FAs can influence student perceptions and behaviors. We also interviewed course instructors to provide context for understanding student experiences. Using thematic analysis, we outlined various FA implementation characteristics, characterized the range of FA utilization behaviors reported by students, and identified emergent themes regarding the impact of certain implementation characteristics on student buy-in and utilization. Furthermore, we found that implementation characteristics have combined effects on student engagement and that students will tolerate a degree of “acceptable discomfort” with implementation features that contradict their learning preferences. These results can aid instructor reflection and guide future research on the complex connections between activity implementation and student engagement within STEM disciplines. 

   more » « less