Joinfeature
Virtual Field Trips
Pivoting Cross-Curricular Experiential Learning to an Online Platform
The Science Teacher—July/August 2021 (Volume 88, Issue 6)
By Heather McPherson, Gregory Frank, Rebecca Pearce, and Ernest Hoffman
feature
Collaboration Crushes Competition!
Preparing High School Research Students for Success in Big Science Careers
The Science Teacher—July/August 2021 (Volume 88, Issue 6)
By Lucinda Hemmick, Dame Forbes, Robert Bolen, Mary Kroll, Dianna Gobler, John Halloran, Vivian Stojanoff, and Aleida Perez
feature
Who Is Most Affected By COVID-19?
Using StoryMaps With Student Investigations
feature
Media Literacy in the Age of COVID and Climate Change
The Science Teacher—July/August 2021 (Volume 88, Issue 6)
By Jocelyn Miller, Linda Rost, Connor Bryant, Robyn Embry, Shazia Iqbal, Claire Lannoye-Hall, and Missie Olson
Resource Rendezvous
Soldiers of Science
The Science Teacher—July/August 2021 (Volume 88, Issue 6)
By Holly Amerman
FOCUS ON PHYSICS
Crunching Cans and Generating Power
The Science Teacher—July/August 2021 (Volume 88, Issue 6)
By Paul G. Hewitt
Citizen Science
Learning on Location With NASA GLOBE Observer
The Science Teacher—July/August 2021 (Volume 88, Issue 6)
By Jill Nugent
Editor's Corner
COVID-19: One Year Later
The Science Teacher—July/August 2021 (Volume 88, Issue 6)
By Ann Haley MacKenzie
Research and Teaching
Adding Necessary Rigor to Engineering Pedagogical Change
Instructional Innovation Versus Research-Informed Counter-Resistance
Journal of College Science Teaching—July/August 2021 (Volume 50, Issue 6)
By Yonghee Lee, Carl Lund, and Randy Yerrick
In this study, we explore the teaching of an acclaimed engineering education professor and his struggles to transform his classroom in light of the National Academy of Engineering standards. We argue that pedagogical changes, particularly in contexts where students have been highly successful, may be preemptively abandoned in response to students’ floundering. We offer three instances in which direct counter-resistance to students’ responses to pedagogical innovation allowed this expert instructor to achieve his long-term goal of students’ higher-level thinking. Implications for future teaching and research are discussed.
In this study, we explore the teaching of an acclaimed engineering education professor and his struggles to transform his classroom in light of the National Academy of Engineering standards. We argue that pedagogical changes, particularly in contexts where students have been highly successful, may be preemptively abandoned in response to students’ floundering. We offer three instances in which direct counter-resistance to students’ responses to pedagogical innovation allowed this expert instructor to achieve his long-term goal of students’ higher-level thinking.
In this study, we explore the teaching of an acclaimed engineering education professor and his struggles to transform his classroom in light of the National Academy of Engineering standards. We argue that pedagogical changes, particularly in contexts where students have been highly successful, may be preemptively abandoned in response to students’ floundering. We offer three instances in which direct counter-resistance to students’ responses to pedagogical innovation allowed this expert instructor to achieve his long-term goal of students’ higher-level thinking.
Research and Teaching
STEM Bridge Program
Underrepresented Minority Students’ Perceptions of Louis Stokes Alliance for Minority Participation Program Impact
Journal of College Science Teaching—July/August 2021 (Volume 50, Issue 6)
By Anna Brady and Dorinda Gallant
We explored underrepresented minority (URM) students’ perceptions of the merit and worth of a summer STEM bridge program. The Ohio State Louis Stokes Alliance for Minority Participation program facilitated a three-week residential program for three consecutive summers with the goal of social and academic integration of first-year URM students into the Ohio State University. We were interested in understanding students’ perception of the impact of the bridge program. Through qualitative data analysis, our findings revealed five impacts of the program: acclimation to college, confidence, self-awareness, connections with others, and college preparation. In addition to exploring students’ perception of the program impacts, we asked students to identify elements of the program that were most beneficial and elements of the program to change. Our findings revealed that students found the introduction to college, facilitation of connections, and autonomy to be the most beneficial aspects of the program. Interestingly, students disagreed on elements of the bridge program to change. In light of our findings, we highlight the importance of ongoing evaluations of bridge programs, particularly evaluations that emphasize students’ perceptions of the impact of programs.