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. 

Background: Using simulations in science instruction can help make abstract topics more concrete and boost students' understanding. Aims: The 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. Samples: Participants (Experiment 1, N = 168; Experiment 2, N = 357) were undergraduate students in several sections of a first-year chemistry course. Methods: Students 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. Results: In 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. Conclusion: When properly designed, placing simulations before—rather than after—lecture can deepen learning, motivation, and competence. 

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. 

This work in progress paper discusses preliminary research testing the causal effectiveness of exploratory learning in undergraduate STEM courses. Exploratory learning is an active-learning technique that has been shown to improve students’ conceptual understanding, and is therefore well suited for STEM education. This method reverses the order of traditional lecture-then practice methods, by having students explore a novel problem prior to instruction. Participants (N=150) were first-year engineering students enrolled in an introductory engineering calculus course. Students were taught about two-dimensional vectors in an online, asynchronous learning module. Students were randomly assigned to one of two conditions. In the instruct-first condition, students viewed the instruction and then completed a Geogebra™ activity. In the explore-first condition, students completed the activity and then viewed the instruction. Thus, the exact same activities were given to students, allowing us to test the causal effectiveness of reversing the placement of the activity. Afterwards, all students completed an online quiz and a later Vector test. A number of students opened but did not complete the activity. Of those students, no effects of condition were found. For the students who completed the activity, those in the explore-first condition scored higher on the quiz than those in the instruct-first condition. Scores were trending in a similar direction on the vector test. These results demonstrate the potential of exploratory learning to improve understanding in engineering mathematics, and in an online module format. This research also suggests that Geogebra™ may be a useful tool for developing an exploration activity students can complete online.