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. 

Rule enforcement is critical in democratic, self-governing societies. Many political disputes occur when citizens do not understand the fundamental rationales for enforcement (e.g., COVID-19 pandemic). We examined how naïve groups learn and develop wise enforcement systems. Based on theories from behavioral economics, political science, psychology, and education, we predicted that groups need to experience failure of an enforcement system, but be guided on restorative justice principles to collectively learn from this failure. Undergraduate students (N= 288) from a Midwestern U.S. metropolitan university self-governed a simulated common-pool resource with real financial payoffs. Groups began with one of three conditions designed to create different experiences with enforcement and regulatory failure: (a) no enforcement (no communication or peer sanctioning), (b) lax enforcement (communication with peer-sanctioning), or (c) regulatory abuse (peer sanctioning without communication). Half then received facilitated guidance on restorative justice principles (e.g., discuss whether/why to use sanctions). To examine cooperation, we measured how well participants maintained the resource. To examine group learning, we created a novel coding system, which tracked groups’ constitutional decisions about conservation agreements and enforcement, conceptual understanding, and the enforcement systems they created. The no-enforcement and lax-enforcement conditions quickly yielded moderate cooperation via voluntary agreements. However, such agreements prevented groups from discovering how and why to use enforcement (peer sanctioning) to improve performance. Initial exposure to regulatory failure had different effects depending on facilitation. Unfacilitated groups fixated on initial misconceptions, causing them to abandon or create less sophisticated enforcement systems, hindering cooperation. Facilitated groups learned from prior failure—discovering principles of wise enforcement (e.g., collective efficiency, self-restraint)—and created more sophisticated enforcement systems (e.g., coordinated sanctions) that improved cooperation. Guidance on restorative justice principles and experience with regulatory abuse may be necessary preconditions for naïve individuals to understand and develop wiser collective enforcement systems. 

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. 

STEM undergraduate instructors teaching remote courses often use traditional lecture-based instruction, despite evidence that active learning methods improve student engagement and learning outcomes. One simple way to use active learning online is to incorporate exploratory learning. In exploratory learning, students explore a novel activity (e.g., problem solving) before a lecture on the underlying concepts and procedures. This method has been shown to improve learning outcomes during in-person courses, without requiring the entire course to be restructured. The current study examined whether the benefits of exploratory learning extend to a remote undergraduate physics lesson, taught synchronously online. Undergraduate physics students (N = 78) completed a physics problem-solving activity either before instruction (explore-first condition) or after (instruct-first condition). Students then completed a learning assessment of the problem-solving procedures and underlying concepts. Despite lower accuracy on the learning activity, students in the explore-first condition demonstrated better understanding on the assessment, compared to students in the instruct-first condition. This finding suggests that exploratory learning can serve as productive failure in online courses, challenging students but improving learning, compared to the more widely-used lecture-then-practice method. 

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. 

Individuals typically prefer the freedom to make their own decisions. Yet, people often trade their own decision control (procedural utility) to gain economic security (outcome utility). Decision science has not reconciled these observations. We examined how decision-makers’ efficacy and security perceptions influence when, why, and how individuals exchange procedural and outcome utility. Undergraduate adults ( N = 77; M age = 19.45 years; 73% female; 62% Caucasian, 13% African American) were recruited from the psychology participant pool at a midwestern U.S. metropolitan university. Participants made financial decisions in easy and hard versions of a paid card task resembling a standard gambling task, with a learning component. During half the trials, they made decisions with a No-Choice Manager who controlled their decisions, versus a Choice Manager who granted decision control. The hard task was designed to be too difficult for most participants, undermining their efficacy and security, and ensuring financial losses. The No-Choice Manager was designed to perform moderately well, ensuring financial gains. Participants felt greater outcome satisfaction (utility) for financial gains earned via Choice, but not losses. Participants (85%) preferred the Choice manager in the easy task but preferred the No-Choice Manager (56%) in the hard task. This change in preference for choice corresponded with self-efficacy and was mediated by perceived security. We used Decision Field Theory to develop potential cognitive models of these decisions. Preferences were best described by a model that assumed decision-makers initially prefer Choice, but update their preference based on loss-dependent attentional focus. When they earned losses (hard task), decision-makers focused more on economic payoffs (financial security), causing them to deemphasize procedural utility. Losses competed for attention, pulling attention toward economic survivability and away from the inherent value of choice. Decision-makers are more likely to sacrifice freedom of choice to leaders they perceive as efficacious to alleviate perceived threats to economic security.