Search for: All records

Contribution: In this work-in-progress paper we describe the process of creating and validating a conceptual assessment in the field of sedimentology for undergraduate geoscience courses. The mechanism can aid future geoscience educators and researchers in the process of academic assessment development aligned with learning objectives in these courses. Background: Prior literature review supports the benefits of using active learning tools in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) courses. This paper is part of a larger project to develop and incorporate research-based active learning software in sedimentology and other geoscience courses to improve grade point average (GPA) and time to graduation for Hispanic students at Texas A&M University. To evaluate the novel tool, we designed and validated the conceptual assessment instrument presented in this work. Research Question: What is the process to develop and validate a conceptual assessment for sedimentology? Methodology: This paper follows quantitative analysis and the assessment triangle approach and focuses on cognition, observation, and interpretation to design and evaluate the conceptual assessment. In the cognition element of the triangle, we explain the mechanism for creating the assessment instrument using students' learning objectives. The observation element explains the mechanism of data collection and the instrument revision. The interpretation element explains the results of the validation process using item response theory and reliability measures. We collected the conceptual assessment data from 17 participants enrolled in two courses where sedimentology topics are taught. Participants were geology majors in one of the courses and engineering majors in the other. Findings: The team developed a conceptual assessment that included eight multiple-choice (MCQ) and four open-ended response questions. The results of the design process described the conceptualization of questions and their validation. Also, the validity of created rubrics was established using inter-rater reliability measures, which showed good agreement between raters. Additionally, the results of the validation process indicated that the conceptual assessment was designed for students with average abilities. 

Hispanic student performance indicators are markedly different from students of other ethnicities, with Hispanic students consistently having lower GPAs at graduation. SedimentSketch application will be a visual, personalized, and dual language tool that will combine new curricular materials and sketch recognition algorithms to improve student learning through sketching exercises and automatic, instantaneous feedback. We are currently working on development of SedimentSketch software, and only control group data are being collected. We hypothesize that SedimentSketch can transform the higher-education geoscience curriculum for Hispanic Serving Institutions (HSI) by enabling geoscience students to interact with the material and receive helpful feedback outside of class and by cultivating a more inclusive learning environment. The goal of this project is to use SedimentSketch application to help close the gap between Hispanic and non-Hispanic students’ GPAs, situational interest in geoscience courses, and STEM career trajectories. 

Abstract Recent calls for reform in K‐12 science education and the National Academy of Engineering's Grand Challenges for Engineering in the 21st Century emphasize improving science teaching, students' engagement, and learning. In this study, we designed and implemented a curriculum unit for sixth‐grade students (i = 1305). The curriculum unit integrated science and engineering content and practices to teach ecology, water pollution, and engineering design. We investigated the designed integrated STEM unit's effectiveness in students' science learning outcomes on pre‐, post‐, and delayed post‐assessments. We collected pre‐and post‐assessment data of students' science learning outcomes for both the baseline group (taught via existing district‐adopted curriculum) and an intervention group (taught with integrated life science and engineering curriculum). We used a quasi‐experimental research design and examined differences between baseline and intervention groups. We used ANCOVA to explore differences in students' learning in baseline and intervention groups. Furthermore, for students in the intervention group, we conducted repeated‐measures ANOVA to investigate knowledge retention. Our analyses also accounted for students' gender and People of Color (POC) status. We conducted multiple regression analyses to explore the relationship between students' gender, POC status, and their learning outcomes. The results indicated that the intervention group students performed significantly better than the students in the baseline group. The repeated measures ANOVA showed that students in the intervention group retained science knowledge after 8 weeks of instruction. Finally, the regression analysis for the baseline group showed that gender and POC status were not significant predictors of their post‐assessment scores. However, POC status was a significant predictor of post‐assessment scores and knowledge retention for the intervention group. Overall, this study provides valuable findings on how an integrated STEM curriculum designed with engineering design and practices improves students' science learning outcomes.