National Academies Press: OpenBook
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2003. Improving Undergraduate Instruction in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics: Report of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10711.
×
Page R1
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2003. Improving Undergraduate Instruction in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics: Report of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10711.
×
Page R2
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2003. Improving Undergraduate Instruction in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics: Report of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10711.
×
Page R3
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2003. Improving Undergraduate Instruction in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics: Report of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10711.
×
Page R4
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2003. Improving Undergraduate Instruction in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics: Report of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10711.
×
Page R5
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2003. Improving Undergraduate Instruction in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics: Report of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10711.
×
Page R6
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2003. Improving Undergraduate Instruction in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics: Report of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10711.
×
Page R7
Page viii Cite
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2003. Improving Undergraduate Instruction in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics: Report of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10711.
×
Page R8
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2003. Improving Undergraduate Instruction in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics: Report of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10711.
×
Page R9
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2003. Improving Undergraduate Instruction in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics: Report of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10711.
×
Page R10
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2003. Improving Undergraduate Instruction in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics: Report of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10711.
×
Page R11
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2003. Improving Undergraduate Instruction in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics: Report of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10711.
×
Page R12

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

IMPROVING UNDERGRADUATE INSTRUCTION IN SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS REPORT OF A WORKSHOP Steering Committee on Criteria and Benchmarks for Increased Learning from Undergraduate STEM Instruction Richard A. McCray, Robert L. DeHaan, and Julie Anne Schuck, Editors Committee on Undergraduate Science Education Center for Education Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS Washington, D.C. www.nap.edu

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20001 NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance. This study was supported by Contract/Grant No. ESI-0102582 between the National Academy of Sciences and National Science Foundation. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the organizations or agencies that provided support for the project. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Improving undergraduate instruction in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics : report of a workshop / Steering Committee on Criteria and Benchmarks for Increased Learning from Undergraduate STEM Instruction, Committee on Undergraduate Science Education, Center for Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education ; Richard A. McCray, Robert L. DeHaan, and Julie Anne Schuck, editors. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 0-309-08929-8 (pbk.) 1. Science—Study and teaching (Higher)—United States—Evaluation—Congresses. 2. Technical education—United States—Evaluation—Congresses. 3. Engineering—Study and teaching (Higher)—United States—Evaluation—Congresses. 4. Mathematics—Study and teaching (Higher)—United States—Evaluation—Congresses. I. McCray, Richard. II. DeHaan, Robert L. (Robert Lawrence), 1930- III. Schuck, Julie Anne. IV. National Research Council (U.S.). Steering Committee on Criteria and Benchmarks for Increased Learning from Undergraduate STEM Instruction. Q183.3.A1I493 2003 507′.1′173—dc21 2003009499 ISBN 0-309-50968-8 (PDF) Additional copies of this report are available from The National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, N.W., Lockbox 285, Washington, DC 20055; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313 (in the Washington metropolitan area); Internet, http://www.nap.edu. Printed in the United States of America. Copyright 2003 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Suggested citation: National Research Council. (2003). Improving undergraduate instruction in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics: Report of a workshop. Steering Committee on Criteria and Benchmarks for Increased Learning from Undergraduate STEM Instruction. Richard A. McCray, Robert DeHaan, and Julie Anne Schuck (Eds). Committee on Undergraduate Science Education, Center for Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scien- tific and technical matters. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its adminis- tration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsi- bility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineer- ing programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Wm. A. Wulf is president of the National Academy of Engineer- ing. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initia- tive, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associ- ate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowl- edge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts and Dr. Wm. A. Wulf are chair and vice chair, respec- tively, of the National Research Council. www.national-academies.org

STEERING COMMITTEE ON CRITERIA AND BENCHMARKS FOR INCREASED LEARNING FROM UNDERGRADUATE STEM INSTRUCTION (2003) RICHARD A. McCRAY (Chair), Department of Astrophysics, University of Colorado, Boulder BONNIE J. BRUNKHORST, Institute for Science Education, California State University, San Bernardino SARAH C.R. ELGIN, Department of Biology, Washington University, St. Louis, MO RONALD J. HENRY, Office of the Provost, Georgia State University JOHN R. JUNGCK, Department of Biology, Beloit College, WI ALAN C. KAY, Viewpoints Research Institute Inc., Glendale, CA ISHRAT M. KHAN, Department of Chemistry, Clark Atlanta University RAMON E. LOPEZ, Department of Physics, University of Texas, El Paso LILLIAN C. McDERMOTT, Department of Physics, University of Washington, Seattle ROBERT F. OLIN, College of Arts and Sciences, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa JAMES W. SERUM, SciTek Ventures, West Chester, PA SUSAN R. SINGER, Department of Biology, Carleton College, Northfield, MN CARL E. WIEMAN, JILA and Department of Physics, University of Colorado, Boulder ROBERT DeHAAN, Study Director MARY ANN KASPER, Senior Project Assistant JULIE ANNE SCHUCK, Research Associate v

Preface The Committee on Undergraduate Improving Undergraduate Teaching in Science Education (CUSE) has been an Science, Technology, Engineering, and integral component of the Center for Mathematics (NRC, 2003). Science Education (CFE) of the National Re- Teaching Reconsidered was meant as a search Council (NRC) since it was practical handbook designed for college established in 1993. Charged by the teachers who want to explore new ways NRC with responsibility for seeking to enhance student learning. It drew on ways to improve scientific literacy for all the current knowledge of both teachers undergraduates, this standing commit- and learning scientists to inform college tee has worked to identify, develop, and instructors teaching undergraduate promote implementation of science courses. The 1999 report postsecondary programs that enrich presents six vision statements for students’ understanding and compre- improving undergraduate education in hension of science, and that enhance science, technology, engineering, and the scientific reasoning skills that they mathematics (STEM) and multiple need for continued learning and success strategies for academic officers, faculty as scientifically literate citizens. members, and departments to imple- To date, CUSE has been involved with ment these visions. Vision two of that several reports, among them Science report, for example, calls for the devel- Teaching Reconsidered: A Handbook opment of introductory college courses (NRC, 1997); Transforming Undergradu- that would present content information ate Education in Science, Mathematics, in ways that engage undergraduates in Engineering, and Technology (NRC, exploring the fundamental and unifying 1999); and most recently Evaluating and concepts and processes of science, vii

emphasizing real problems, applications ogy and sociology, national policy, to related areas of knowledge, and the information technology, and education evolving processes of scientific thought research. Focusing on the question: and inquiry. The more recent report “how is undergraduate instruction to be (NRC, 2003) recommends importantly assessed?” panel members and discus- that evidence of student learning be sants were required to ask what consti- used as a benchmark for evaluating tutes effective instruction. On the logic teaching effectiveness. That report also that effective instruction is that which stresses the utility of ongoing self-study maximizes student learning of specified and evaluation by STEM departments learning outcomes, attendees were and suggests a series of questions for asked to consider a diverse set of goals: departments to use in this process. how to establish worthy learning objec- In 2002, with new leadership and tives, how to take into consideration largely new membership, CUSE set student pre-conceptions about a subject, about to build upon this background by what teaching strategies elicit compre- convening a 2-day workshop covering hension rather than memorization, the instruction in the four major scientific characteristics of effective teachers, and disciplines (biology, chemistry, physics, the organizational and incentive struc- geosciences) with the primary goal of tures of departments and institutions developing criteria and benchmarks for that promote effective instruction. evaluating undergraduate STEM pro- The committee sees this workshop gram effectiveness. According to the and resulting report as timely efforts. charge from the NRC, the resulting Pressures from within and beyond the workshop report was to include descrip- academic community (business and tions of general learning goals that industry, state legislatures, federal could be refined by any department for legislation) are mounting to improve each discipline, and a framework for student learning and to increase institu- developing instruments with which to tional accountability for that learning. assess achievement of those goals, uses Especially in lower division courses, of evidence, programmatic costs, and expectations are that departments will other criteria, as well as descriptions of enhance learning by a new emphasis on selected exemplary programs. teaching with curriculum revision and This report is the product of that improved instruction. In this report, the gathering of some fifty expert partici- committee explores many of the ques- pants in fields ranging from the scien- tions raised by those expectations. tific disciplines to educational psychol- We would like to thank the workshop viii P R E FA C E

participants, listed in Appendix D, who process. We wish to thank the following gave life to this gathering. The frank- individuals for their review of this ness and thoughtfulness of their contri- report: Deborah Allen, Department of butions, both verbal and written, added Biological Sciences, University of greatly to the value of the vigorous Delaware; Robert J. Beichner, Depart- discussions that characterized the ment of Physics, North Carolina State event. Within the NRC, the committee University; Thomas R. Berger, Depart- wishes to thank Julie Anne Schuck, ment of Mathematics, Colby College, CUSE research associate, for her skillful Waterville, ME; Jerry P. Gollub, Natural writing and dedicated editorial work on Sciences and Physics, Haverford Col- the report, Mary Ann Kasper, senior lege, Haverford, PA; David Gosser, program assistant for her able logistical Department of Chemistry, The City coordination of the workshop and College of CUNY, New York, NY; and committee meetings, and Kirsten Lillian Tong, Center for Biology Educa- Sampson Snyder, for guiding us through tion, University of Wisconsin-Madison. the intricacies of the review and publica- Although the reviewers listed above tion process. The committee extends its have provided many constructive deep appreciation to Jay Labov, deputy comments and suggestions, they were director of CFE, for sharing his experi- not asked to endorse the final draft of ence and perspective on this project the report before its release. The review from its inception. of this report was overseen by Melvin This report has been reviewed in D. George, President Emeritus, Univer- draft form by individuals chosen for sity of Missouri, Columbia. Appointed their diverse perspectives and technical by the NRC, he was responsible for expertise, in accordance with proce- making certain that an independent dures approved by the NRC’s Report examination of this report was carried Review Committee. The purpose of this out in accordance with institutional independent review is to provide candid procedures and that all review com- and critical comments that will assist the ments were carefully considered. institution in making its published Responsibility for the final content of report as sound as possible and to this report rests entirely with the ensure that the report meets institu- authoring committee and the institution. tional standards for objectivity, evi- dence, and responsiveness to the study Richard McCray, Chair charge. The review comments and draft Robert L. DeHaan, Director manuscript remain confidential to Committee on protect the integrity of the deliberative Undergraduate Science Education P R E FA C E ix

Contents 1 Introduction 1 2 Identifying Desired Student Learning Outcomes 10 3 Evaluating Effective Instruction 25 4 Promoting Effective Instruction at Departmental and Institutional Levels 50 5 General Discussion 69 6 Epilogue 78 References 82 Appendixes A Commissioned Papers 87 B Reference Paper 127 C Workshop Agenda 140 D Workshop Participants 144 E Biographical Sketches of Workshop Attendees 148 xi

Next: 1 Introduction »
Improving Undergraduate Instruction in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics: Report of a Workshop Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $54.00 Buy Ebook | $43.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

Participants in this workshop were asked to explore three related questions: (1) how to create measures of undergraduate learning in STEM courses; (2) how such measures might be organized into a framework of criteria and benchmarks to assess instruction; and (3) how such a framework might be used at the institutional level to assess STEM courses and curricula to promote ongoing improvements. The following issues were highlighted:

  • Effective science instruction identifies explicit, measurable learning objectives.
  • Effective teaching assists students in reconciling their incomplete or erroneous preconceptions with new knowledge.
  • Instruction that is limited to passive delivery of information requiring memorization of lecture and text contents is likely to be unsuccessful in eliciting desired learning outcomes.
  • Models of effective instruction that promote conceptual understanding in students and the ability of the learner to apply knowledge in new situations are available.
  • Institutions need better assessment tools for evaluating course design and effective instruction.
  • Deans and department chairs often fail to recognize measures they have at their disposal to enhance incentives for improving education.

Much is still to be learned from research into how to improve instruction in ways that enhance student learning.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!