Search for: All records

Abstract BackgroundActive learning, on average, increases student performance in STEM courses. Yet, there is also large variation in the effectiveness of these implementations. A consistent goal of active learning is moving students towards becoming active constructors of their knowledge. This emphasis means student engagement is of central importance. Thus, variation in student engagement could help explain variation in outcomes from active learning. In this study, we employ Pekrun’s Control–Value Theory to examine the impact of four aspects of course social and cultural environments on student engagement. This theory posits that social and cultural features of the course environment influence students’ appraisals of their ability to control their academic outcomes from the course and the value they see in those outcomes. Control and value in turn influence the emotions students experience in the course and their behaviors. We selected four features of the course environment suggested in the literature to be important in active learning courses: course goal structure, relevance of course content, students’ trust in their instructor, and perceived course competition. ResultsWe surveyed students in 13 introductory STEM courses. We used structural equation modeling to map how features of the course environment related to control, value, and academic emotions, as well as how control, value, and academic emotions influenced engagement. We found engagement was positively related to control and value as well as the emotion of curiosity. Engagement was negatively related to the emotion of boredom. Importantly, features of the course environment influenced these four variables. All features influenced control: goal structure, relevance, and instructor trust increased it, while competition decreased it. All features except competition were related positively to value. Relevance and instructor trust increased curiosity. Goal structure, relevance, and instructor trust all reduced boredom, while competition increased it. ConclusionOverall, our study suggests that the way instructors structure the social and cultural environment in active learning courses can impact engagement. Building positive instructor–student relationships, reducing course competition, emphasizing mastery and the relevance of the course to students can all increase engagement in course activities. 

In this essay, we review how counter-stereotypical scientists have been featured in life science courses and discuss the benefits and costs of developing and interacting with these materials from the perspectives of three groups: students, instructors, and the featured scientists. 

In a large ( n =383) mixed methods study in a community college, students in classes that use warm random call report benefits (e.g., engagement, eustress) and drawbacks of being called on (e.g., distress, anxiety), and perceive more peer interaction. This urges continued investigation of warm random call and possible context-dependent effects. 

One critical step in the challenging process of curricular reform is determining how closely a curriculum aligns with national recommendations. Here, we examine the alignment of teaching, assessment, and student experience in undergraduate biology courses with the Vision and Change core competency recommendations. We applied the intended–enacted–experienced curriculum model to obtain a more complete, multiperspective view of the curriculum. First, we developed and piloted the BioSkills Curriculum Survey with more than 100 biology instructors across five institutions. Using multilevel logistic regression modeling of the survey data, we found that instructors were equally likely to report teaching all competencies; however, they reported assessing some competencies more than others. After adding course characteristics to our model, we found that the likelihood of teaching certain competencies depended on course type. Next, we analyzed class materials and student perceptions of instruction in 10 biology courses in one department. Within this smaller sample, we found that instructors messaged a narrower range of competency learning outcomes on their syllabi than they reported teaching on the survey. Finally, modeling revealed that inclusion of an outcome on assessments, but not syllabi, increased the likelihood that students and their instructor agreed whether it was taught.