JoinRESEARCH AND TEACHING
Concept Maps for Structuring Instruction and as a Potential Assessment Tool in a Large Introductory Science Course
Journal of College Science Teaching—July/August 2020 (Volume 49, Issue 6)
By Carl-Georg Bank and Heidi Daxberger
Concept maps make connections between ideas apparent, and thus would seem ideally suited to demonstrate learning. Yet, they are not widely used by instructors, particularly in large university classes. In this paper we review the strengths and rationale behind concept maps and provide examples we have used to structure content for one of our introductory courses. A rubric that focuses on propositions was used to grade student-created concept maps on a final exam administered to 293 students. These grades are compared to those of multiple-choice questions, short answers, and an essay on the same exam. We find poor correlation between concept maps and the other instruments, and stronger correlations between short answers and multiple choice, as well as between short-answer content grades and essay writing grades. We speculate that concept maps may be less influenced by student language skills and short-term memory than written answers, and that concept maps should be used as an alternative assessment of higher order thinking skills.
Concept maps make connections between ideas apparent, and thus would seem ideally suited to demonstrate learning. Yet, they are not widely used by instructors, particularly in large university classes. In this paper we review the strengths and rationale behind concept maps and provide examples we have used to structure content for one of our introductory courses. A rubric that focuses on propositions was used to grade student-created concept maps on a final exam administered to 293 students.
Concept maps make connections between ideas apparent, and thus would seem ideally suited to demonstrate learning. Yet, they are not widely used by instructors, particularly in large university classes. In this paper we review the strengths and rationale behind concept maps and provide examples we have used to structure content for one of our introductory courses. A rubric that focuses on propositions was used to grade student-created concept maps on a final exam administered to 293 students.
RESEARCH AND TEACHING
Measuring Computational Thinking Teaching Efficacy Beliefs of Preservice Elementary Teachers
Journal of College Science Teaching—July/August 2020 (Volume 49, Issue 6)
By Erdogan Kaya, Anna Newley, Ezgi Yesilyurt, and Hasan Deniz
With the release of the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS), assessing K–12 science teachers’ self-efficacy in Computational Thinking (CT) is an important research gap to study. Bandura defines self-efficacy as awareness of the individual’s potential and capabilities to accomplish a goal. Teaching efficacy beliefs is a significant identifier of teachers’ performance and motivation in teaching the specific content successfully; however, K–12 science teachers’ CT teaching efficacy beliefs are rarely discussed. Participating preservice elementary teachers (PSET) were enrolled in an undergraduate elementary science teaching methods course during the spring and summer 2018 semesters in a southwestern state university. We administered a CT teaching efficacy beliefs survey at the beginning and end of the related unit (i.e., the intervention). During the intervention, the PSET followed the CT practices by building educational robots, coding visual block-based programs, and solving puzzles in the video game “Zoombinis.” In this paper, we report the impact of the intervention on teaching efficacy beliefs of PSET. We used SPSS software to analyze our quantitative results. We performed paired samples t-test for the two teaching efficacy beliefs subscales, Personal Computational Thinking Teaching Efficacy (PCTTE) and Computational Thinking Teaching Outcome Expectancy (CTTOE), to measure if there is a significant difference in teaching efficacy beliefs. Our research findings suggest that introducing CT increases PSET CT teaching efficacy beliefs. Furthermore, based on the results of our exploratory research with PSET, we propose implications of the study for K–12 CT teaching efficacy beliefs and CT education research.
With the release of the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS), assessing K–12 science teachers’ self-efficacy in Computational Thinking (CT) is an important research gap to study. Bandura defines self-efficacy as awareness of the individual’s potential and capabilities to accomplish a goal. Teaching efficacy beliefs is a significant identifier of teachers’ performance and motivation in teaching the specific content successfully; however, K–12 science teachers’ CT teaching efficacy beliefs are rarely discussed.
With the release of the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS), assessing K–12 science teachers’ self-efficacy in Computational Thinking (CT) is an important research gap to study. Bandura defines self-efficacy as awareness of the individual’s potential and capabilities to accomplish a goal. Teaching efficacy beliefs is a significant identifier of teachers’ performance and motivation in teaching the specific content successfully; however, K–12 science teachers’ CT teaching efficacy beliefs are rarely discussed.
RESEARCH AND TEACHING
Negative Student Response to Active Learning in STEM Classrooms:
A Systematic Review of Underlying Reasons
Journal of College Science Teaching—July/August 2020 (Volume 49, Issue 6)
By Prateek Shekhar, Maura Borrego, Matt DeMonbrun, Cynthia Finelli, Caroline Crockett, and Kevin Nguyen
Recent research has supported the use of student-centered teaching practices, such as active learning, because of its effectiveness in improving student learning and retention when compared with traditional, lecture-based teaching practices. Despite evidence supporting the effectiveness of active learning in improving STEM undergraduate education, the adoption of active learning by instructors has been slow for reasons, including negative student response to active learning. In this systematic literature review, we examine students’ negative responses to active learning and reasons for the negative responses noted in 57 published STEM studies. Our findings identify three types of negative responses: affect, engagement, and evaluation. The reasons behind negative response represented six overarching categories based on student feedback: limited value, lack of time, difficulty and increased workload, lack of guidance, logistical difficulties, unfamiliarity with active learning, lack of preparation, and confidence. We leverage different theoretical perspectives to explain the reasons behind negative responses and offer insights for lowering the barrier for instructors to adopt active learning in STEM classrooms.
Recent research has supported the use of student-centered teaching practices, such as active learning, because of its effectiveness in improving student learning and retention when compared with traditional, lecture-based teaching practices. Despite evidence supporting the effectiveness of active learning in improving STEM undergraduate education, the adoption of active learning by instructors has been slow for reasons, including negative student response to active learning.
Recent research has supported the use of student-centered teaching practices, such as active learning, because of its effectiveness in improving student learning and retention when compared with traditional, lecture-based teaching practices. Despite evidence supporting the effectiveness of active learning in improving STEM undergraduate education, the adoption of active learning by instructors has been slow for reasons, including negative student response to active learning.
feature
Student Perceptions of Open Educational Resources Video-Based Active Learning in University-Level Biology Classes:
A Multi-Class Evaluation
Journal of College Science Teaching—July/August 2020 (Volume 49, Issue 6)
By Gary D. Grossman and Troy N. Simon
We quantified student perceptions of an active learning exercise, based on open-educational video resources, in both a first-year seminar class (Natural Environment of Athens and Georgia, three sections), and a larger lecture class (Natural History of Georgia [FANR 1200, two sections), designed for nonscience majors. Evaluation of STEM pedagogical techniques over multiple classes and levels are uncommon. In general, the frequencies of students in different majors within classes did not differ. In all classes, except FANR 2015, students reported more positive than negative answers in Likertscale questionnaires, although even in the latter class 55% of students responded positively to doing scientific research. Students did not display a preference for different aspects of the exercise (four of five classes), and previous experience in science also did not affect positive responses to the questionnaire. In FANR 1200, year in school had a contradictory effect on positive responses. Triangulation interview trend analyses indicated that a high proportion of students (mean 65%, range 41–89%) stated the exercise was both new and represented deeper learning. These results confirm that active learning exercises may help recruit new students to STEM disciplines.
We quantified student perceptions of an active learning exercise, based on open-educational video resources, in both a first-year seminar class (Natural Environment of Athens and Georgia, three sections), and a larger lecture class (Natural History of Georgia [FANR 1200, two sections), designed for nonscience majors. Evaluation of STEM pedagogical techniques over multiple classes and levels are uncommon. In general, the frequencies of students in different majors within classes did not differ.
We quantified student perceptions of an active learning exercise, based on open-educational video resources, in both a first-year seminar class (Natural Environment of Athens and Georgia, three sections), and a larger lecture class (Natural History of Georgia [FANR 1200, two sections), designed for nonscience majors. Evaluation of STEM pedagogical techniques over multiple classes and levels are uncommon. In general, the frequencies of students in different majors within classes did not differ.
feature
Qualitative Analysis of Ray Optics in a College Physics Laboratory: A 5E Lesson
This paper describes an alternative approach to teaching and learning practices in an undergraduate physics laboratory. The instructor plans and implements the 5E instructional model into the laboratory instruction. The article includes an example of the 5E lesson for the laboratory component of a physics course, which has separate lecture and laboratory sections. Through the use of a learning model, students could make predictions, exchange ideas, collect and analyze data, and construct evidence-based explanations about the ray optics topic. This approach of teaching in a physics laboratory promoted students’ engagement in scientific practices and learning of the fundamental concepts. The design of the lesson can be used as a model of a physics laboratory instructor’s attempt to put inquirybased instructional strategies into practice through the 5E cycle. This model can be useful for other instructors who are willing to improve or change their teaching practices and students’ learning experiences.
This paper describes an alternative approach to teaching and learning practices in an undergraduate physics laboratory. The instructor plans and implements the 5E instructional model into the laboratory instruction. The article includes an example of the 5E lesson for the laboratory component of a physics course, which has separate lecture and laboratory sections. Through the use of a learning model, students could make predictions, exchange ideas, collect and analyze data, and construct evidence-based explanations about the ray optics topic.
This paper describes an alternative approach to teaching and learning practices in an undergraduate physics laboratory. The instructor plans and implements the 5E instructional model into the laboratory instruction. The article includes an example of the 5E lesson for the laboratory component of a physics course, which has separate lecture and laboratory sections. Through the use of a learning model, students could make predictions, exchange ideas, collect and analyze data, and construct evidence-based explanations about the ray optics topic.
feature
Barriers to Learning Assistant Engagement
An Investigation Into Student Encounters Learning Assistants Find Challenging and Developing Training to Navigate Those Challenges
Journal of College Science Teaching—July/August 2020 (Volume 49, Issue 6)
By Alicia Purtell, Robert Talbot, and Michael E. Moore
Learning Assistants (LAs) help students develop a deeper understanding of content and are particularly effective during active learning instruction. A foundational pillar of the LA model is the LA pedagogy course, which teaches LAs about evidence-based instruction and about how students learn (Otero et al., 2010). From LA survey responses, this study identifies interactions between LAs and students that have the potential to negatively impact the classroom environment and how other students learn—what we call “challenging interactions.” Challenging interaction training was developed for LAs taking the pedagogy course by using scenarios that LAs can act out and reflect on in class. This training aims to guide LAs as they develop their own strategies for how to properly navigate these interactions. Because of the potential negative impacts of these interactions, training LAs to address and manage these situations is important. If LAs can properly navigate these challenging interactions, they will be better able to facilitate deeper learning in their respective LA-supported classrooms.
Learning Assistants (LAs) help students develop a deeper understanding of content and are particularly effective during active learning instruction. A foundational pillar of the LA model is the LA pedagogy course, which teaches LAs about evidence-based instruction and about how students learn (Otero et al., 2010).
Learning Assistants (LAs) help students develop a deeper understanding of content and are particularly effective during active learning instruction. A foundational pillar of the LA model is the LA pedagogy course, which teaches LAs about evidence-based instruction and about how students learn (Otero et al., 2010).
feature
Show Your Students How to Be More Persuasive When They Write
Journal of College Science Teaching—July/August 2020 (Volume 49, Issue 6)
By David J. Slade and Susan K. Hess
After a grueling grading campaign, a chemist asked a writing and rhetoric specialist for help improving formal reports in the introductory organic chemistry lab. Together, we realized that the very best student reports employ many persuasive moves in the combined results and discussion subsection, whereas weaker papers omit the persuasive language. To make students aware of the need for persuasive language throughout their reports, we then developed a reworked assignment prompt and a lab-period-long workshop, in which we highlight persuasive moves by walking students through three key steps: oral argument, analysis of key rhetorical patterns (color-coded) that should be present in both a combined results/discussion section and an introduction section, and peer review for those key rhetorical patterns. Set in the context of discussions of the argumentative and rhetorical functions of each subsection of a lab report, this workshop helps illustrate the purpose—to convince a skeptical audience of the most plausible interpretation of some collection of data—behind many chemistry writing conventions. After the workshop, student work shows modest but visible improvement in their use of evidence in science writing; student understanding of their task shows appreciable (and appreciated) improvement.
After a grueling grading campaign, a chemist asked a writing and rhetoric specialist for help improving formal reports in the introductory organic chemistry lab. Together, we realized that the very best student reports employ many persuasive moves in the combined results and discussion subsection, whereas weaker papers omit the persuasive language.
After a grueling grading campaign, a chemist asked a writing and rhetoric specialist for help improving formal reports in the introductory organic chemistry lab. Together, we realized that the very best student reports employ many persuasive moves in the combined results and discussion subsection, whereas weaker papers omit the persuasive language.
TWO-YEAR COMMUNITY
Backward Redesign of a Nonmajors’ Biology Course at a Two-Year Technical College
Journal of College Science Teaching—July/August 2020 (Volume 49, Issue 6)
By Margaret Long, Adrienne Cottrell-Yongye, and Tyler Huynh
Gwinnett Technical College (GTC), established in 1984, is the second-largest technical college in Georgia. As a two-year open-access college, GTC and other technical and community colleges are significant in educating STEM and non-STEM majors in the scientific process and scientific literacy. To increase the success of students enrolled in nonmajors Biology I, three GTC biology faculty collaborated to redesign the course, using a backward design method. Grade analysis performed inference about two population proportions and descriptive statistics to interpret data. After course redesign, there was a statistically significant decrease in the D, F, Withdrawal (DFW) rates and a significant increase in students passing with a C average. Further analysis showed first-semester “beginning” students, traditional-aged students, and minority students benefitted most from the curriculum redesign. The backward design model for curriculum redesign was effective in increasing learning and retention in biology at the technical college level. The redesign helped students in jeopardy of failing or withdrawing from the course, especially in groups of students considered “at risk.” This study contributes to the growing body of knowledge regarding the design of STEM curriculum at the technical college level.
Gwinnett Technical College (GTC), established in 1984, is the second-largest technical college in Georgia. As a two-year open-access college, GTC and other technical and community colleges are significant in educating STEM and non-STEM majors in the scientific process and scientific literacy. To increase the success of students enrolled in nonmajors Biology I, three GTC biology faculty collaborated to redesign the course, using a backward design method. Grade analysis performed inference about two population proportions and descriptive statistics to interpret data.
Gwinnett Technical College (GTC), established in 1984, is the second-largest technical college in Georgia. As a two-year open-access college, GTC and other technical and community colleges are significant in educating STEM and non-STEM majors in the scientific process and scientific literacy. To increase the success of students enrolled in nonmajors Biology I, three GTC biology faculty collaborated to redesign the course, using a backward design method. Grade analysis performed inference about two population proportions and descriptive statistics to interpret data.
Freebies for Science Teachers, Week of July 20, 2020
By Debra Shapiro
