Search for: All records

Large enrollment, introductory science and engineering classes at research universities are frequently the subject of Discipline-Based Education Research projects and are commonly taught by non-tenure track faculty. However, tenure-track and nontenure-track faculty may encounter different institutional structures that impact their implementation of, or intention to use, evidence-based instructional practices. We used a multiple nested case study framed by the Teacher-Centered Systemic Reform model to identify structural, cultural, and personal components of reform that differed by faculty position and home academic department in the context of a discipline based education research project. Structural, cultural, and personal drivers and barriers to reform differed between position types and among departments but there were interactions between these two effects, suggesting both need to be considered in reform efforts and research projects. Overall, involvement in the discipline-based education research project served as a positive experience, addressed barriers and enhanced drivers for adopting EBIP. Our study highlights factors that promote and prevent the integration of evidence-based practices, and we suggest that involvement in discipline-based education research can encourage the adoption of student-centered pedagogy in science and engineering classes. 

Abstract BackgroundUsing simulations in science instruction can help make abstract topics more concrete and boost students' understanding. AimsThe current research examined whether using a simulation as an exploratory learning activity before an accompanying lecture has additional learning and motivational benefits compared to a more common lecture‐then‐simulation approach. SamplesParticipants (Experiment 1,N = 168; Experiment 2,N = 357) were undergraduate students in several sections of a first‐year chemistry course. MethodsStudents were randomly assigned to explore a simulation on atomic structure either before a lecture (explore‐first condition) or after the lecture (instruct‐first condition). In Experiment 1, the simulation activity time was limited (15 min) and the activity varied in whether self‐explanation (‘why’) prompts were included. In Experiment 2, the activity time was lengthened (20 min), and only ‘why’ prompts were used. After the activity and lecture, students completed a survey and posttest. ResultsIn Experiment 1, students in the explore‐first condition scored lower on posttest conceptual knowledge scores and reported lower curiosity compared to students in the instruct‐first condition. Scores for basic facts and transfer knowledge, and self‐reported situational interest, self‐efficacy, and competence, were equal between conditions. No effects of prompt condition were found. In Experiment 2, with longer activity time, the results reversed. Students in the explore‐first condition scored equally on basic facts and higher on conceptual knowledge and transfer measures, while also reporting higher curiosity, situational interest, self‐efficacy, competence, and cognitive engagement. ConclusionWhen properly designed, placing simulations before—rather than after—lecture can deepen learning, motivation, and competence. 

This WIP paper presents new research on exploratory learning, an educational technique that reverses the order of standard lecture-based instruction techniques. In exploratory learning, students are presented with a novel activity first, followed by instruction. Exploratory learning has been observed to benefit student learning in foundational math and science courses such as calculus, physics, and statistics; however, it has yet to be applied to engineering topics such as programming. In two studies, we tested the effectiveness of exploratory learning in the programming unit of a first-year undergraduate engineering course. We designed a new activity to help students learn about different python error types, ensuring that it would be suitable for exploration. Then we implemented two different orders (the traditional instruct-first versus exploratory learning’s explore-first) across the six sections of the course. In Study 1 (N=406), we did not detect a difference between the instruct-first and explore-first conditions. In Study 2 (N=411), we added more scaffolding to the activity. Students who received the traditional order of instruction followed by the activity scored significantly higher on the assessment. These findings contradict the exploratory learning benefits typically shown, shedding light on potential boundary conditions to this effect. 

Queer identities are often ignored in diversity initiatives, yet there is a growing body of research that describes notable heterosexist and gender-normative expectations in STEM that lead to unsupportive and discriminatory environments and to the lower persistence of queer individuals. Research on the experiences of queer-spectrum individuals is limited by current demographic practices. In surveys that are queer-inclusive there is no consensus on best practices, and individuals with queer genders and queer sexual, romantic, and related orientations are often lumped together in a general category (e.g. LGBTQ+). We developed two queer-inclusive demographics questions and administered them as part of a larger study in undergraduate engineering and computer science classes (n = 3698), to determine which of three survey types for gender (conventional, queered, open-ended) provided the most robust data and compared responses to national data to determine if students with queer genders and/or queer sexual, romantic, and related orientations were underrepresented in engineering and computer science programs. The gender survey with queer-identity options provided the most robust data, as measured by higher response rates and relatively high rates of disclosing queer identities. The conventional survey (male, female, other) had significantly fewer students disclose queer identities, and the open-ended survey had a significantly higher non-response rate. Allowing for multiple responses on the survey was important: 78% of those with queer gender identities and 9% of those with queer sexual, romantic and related orientations selected multiple identities within the same survey question. Queer students in our study were underrepresented relative to national data. Students who disclosed queer gender identities were 7/100ths of the expected number, and those with queer orientations were under-represented by one-quarter. Further work developing a research-based queered demographics instrument is needed for larger-scale changes in demographics practices, which will help others identify and address barriers that queer-spectrum individuals face in STEM. 

This study tested whether exploring with simulations before instruction offers the conceptual benefits of “productive failure,” compared to a more traditional lecture-then-practice method. Undergraduate students (N=218) in introductory chemistry courses completed an activity using an online simulation about atomic structure. Students either completed the simulation activity before (explore-first condition) or after (instruct-first condition) a lecture on the topic. Students in both conditions scored equally on an assessment of basic facts taught in the instruction. However, students in the explore-first condition scored significantly higher on assessments of conceptual understanding and transfer to a new concept, compared to students in the instruct-first condition. Students in the explore-first condition also reported experiencing greater competence and curiosity during the learning activities. A guided simulation activity prior to instruction can have both motivational benefits and deepen students’ understanding.