More Like this

1. When do the effects of single‐session interventions persist? Testing the mindset + supportive context hypothesis in a longitudinal randomized trial

   https://doi.org/10.1002/jcv2.12191  

   Hecht, Cameron A.; Gosling, Samuel D.; Bryan, Christopher J.; Jamieson, Jeremy P.; Murray, Jared S.; Yeager, David S. (August 2023, JCPP Advances)

   Abstract BackgroundSingle‐session interventions have the potential to address young people's mental health needs at scale, but their effects are heterogeneous. We tested whether themindset + supportive contexthypothesis could help explain when intervention effects persist or fade over time. The hypothesis posits that interventions are more effective in environments that support the intervention message. We tested this hypothesis using the synergistic mindsets intervention, a preventative treatment for stress‐related mental health symptoms that helps students appraise stress as a potential asset in the classroom (e.g., increasing oxygenated blood flow) rather than debilitating. In an introductory college course, we examined whether intervention‐consistent messages from instructors sustained changes in appraisals over time, as well as impacts on students' predisposition to try demanding academic tasks that could enhance learning. MethodsWe randomly assigned 1675 students in the course to receive the synergistic mindsets intervention (or a control activity) at the beginning of the semester, and subsequently, to receive intervention‐supportive messages from their instructor (or neutral messages) four times throughout the term. We collected weekly measures of students' appraisals of stress in the course and their predisposition to take on academic challenges. Trial‐registration: OSF.io; DOI: 10.17605/osf.io/fchyn. ResultsA conservative Bayesian analysis indicated that receiving both the intervention and supportive messages led to the greatest increases in positive stress appraisals (0.35SD; 1.00 posterior probability) and challenge‐seeking predisposition (2.33 percentage points; 0.94 posterior probability), averaged over the course of the semester. In addition, intervention effects grew larger throughout the semester when complemented by supportive instructor messages, whereas without these messages, intervention effects shrank somewhat over time. ConclusionsThis study shows, for the first time, that supportive cues in local contexts can be the difference in whether a single‐session intervention's effects fade over time or persist and even amplify. 

   more » « less
2. How drawing prompts can increase cognitive engagement in an active learning engineering course

   https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20354  

   Wu, Sally P. W.; Van Veen, Barry; Rau, Martina A. (September 2020, Journal of Engineering Education)

   Abstract BackgroundRecent engineering education research has found improved learning outcomes when instructors engage students actively (e.g., through practice problems) rather than passively (e.g., in lectures). As more instructors shift toward active learning, research needs to identify how different types of activities affect students' cognitive engagement with concepts in the classroom. In this study, we investigate the effects of prompting novice students to draw when solving problems, a professional practice of engineers. PurposeWe investigate whether implementing instructional prompts to draw in an active learning classroom (a) increases students' use and value of drawing as a problem‐solving strategy and (b) enhances students' problem‐solving performance. MethodWe compared survey data and exam scores collected in one undergraduate class that received prompts to draw in video lectures and in‐class problems (drawing condition) and one class that received no drawing prompts (control condition). ResultsAfter drawing prompts were implemented, students' use and value of drawing increased, and these effects persisted to the end of the semester. Students were more likely to draw when provided drawing prompts. Furthermore, students who received prompts outperformed students who did not on exam questions that target conceptual understanding. ConclusionsOur findings reveal how implementing drawing prompts in an active learning classroom may help students engage in drawing and solve problems conceptually. This study contributes to our understanding of what types of active learning activities can improve instructional practices in engineering education. Particularly, we show how prompts that foster authentic engineering practices can increase cognitive engagement in introductory‐level engineering courses. 

   more » « less
3. Linked classroom communities can increase student success: Lessons learned from a randomized controlled trial

   Ramsey, Laura; Kling, Thomas (January 2024, AAC&U)

   Many campuses have utilized linked-course communities, wherein students take two or more courses with the same peers, in an effort to enhance learning and build community among students. Previous research on the effectiveness of linked-course communities have utilized quasi-experimental designs that are subject to selection bias – the communities may be effective due to which students volunteered to join the communities. This research session reports findings from a randomized controlled trial that eliminated selection bias by randomly assigning first-time first-year College of Science and Math students to linked-course communities or a control group. Findings demonstrate that students in the communities earned higher GPAs and more STEM credits in their first semester than students in the control group. Session participants will identify a curricular intervention and consider the feasibility of conducting a randomized controlled trial to assess effectiveness. 

   more » « less
4. How are undergraduate STEM instructors leveraging student thinking?

   https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-022-00336-0  

   Gehrtz, Jessica; Brantner, Molly; Andrews, Tessa C. (February 2022, International Journal of STEM Education)

   Abstract BackgroundSTEM 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. ResultsFrom 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 of 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. ConclusionsThis 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. 

   more » « less
5. 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