National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: Front Matter
Suggested Citation:"1 Introduction." 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 1
Suggested Citation:"1 Introduction." 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 2
Suggested Citation:"1 Introduction." 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 3
Suggested Citation:"1 Introduction." 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 4
Suggested Citation:"1 Introduction." 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 5
Suggested Citation:"1 Introduction." 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 6
Suggested Citation:"1 Introduction." 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 7
Suggested Citation:"1 Introduction." 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 8
Suggested Citation:"1 Introduction." 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 9

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.

1 Introduction RATIONALE sion, or testing of ideas. Do instructors have readily available information about What students learn and how they are instructional techniques shown to be taught in college science, technology, more effective in eliciting students’ engineering, and mathematics (STEM) understanding and in helping them courses are issues that have occupied develop useful knowledge? Are they educators for many years (Dwyer, 1972; afforded opportunities to learn about Arons, 1983) and have been the focus of alternative teaching strategies? Do previous National Research Council barriers and disincentives at the institu- (NRC) studies (e.g., 1997, 1999, 2003). tional/departmental levels discourage These studies point to the growing body faculty from adopting such strategies? of empirical research showing that These were some of the questions learning can be enhanced when college that prompted the NRC’s Committee on instructors incorporate teaching strate- Undergraduate Science Education gies that are student-centered, interac- (CUSE) to organize the present work- tive, and structured around clearly shop. A steering committee (biographi- stated measurable learning outcomes. cal sketches in Appendix E) was estab- A crucial question, then, is why lished to develop a workshop with introductory science courses in many invited presenters and small working colleges and universities still rely groups that were asked to explore three primarily on lectures and recipe-based related issues: (1) how appropriate laboratory sessions where students measures of undergraduate learning in memorize facts and concepts, but have STEM courses might be developed; (2) little opportunity for reflection, discus- how such measures might be organized 1

into a framework of criteria and bench- indicator of the effectiveness of a par- marks to assess instruction; and (3) how ticular course or an instructional ap- departments and institutions of higher proach. Further, still using student learning might use such a framework to learning outcomes as a criterion of assess their STEM programs and to success, workshop participants were promote ongoing improvements. challenged to identify characteristics Workshop participants would focus and indicators that should be included on four questions regarding under- in a comprehensive evaluation instru- graduate STEM education at the class- ment or framework for recognizing a room, departmental, and institutional hypothetical “exemplary” STEM course. level: (a) what characteristics and To investigate how departments and indicators should be included in a institutions of higher learning might use comprehensive evaluation instrument such a framework to assess their STEM that could serve as the basis for recog- programs, workshop participants were nizing exemplary STEM courses and instructed to identify qualities of organi- academic programs; (b) what are the zation, governance, and incentive desired student outcomes of such structures at the departmental and STEM courses that can indicate course institutional levels that promote quality effectiveness; (c) what qualities of STEM education, and to consider how organization, governance, and incentive such qualities could be used to create a structures can be identified at the set of indicators and benchmarks for the departmental and institutional levels evaluation of institutions and depart- that promote quality STEM education; ments. and (d) how can such qualities be used As an initial step in thinking about as the basis for creating indicators and appropriate measures of undergraduate benchmarks for the evaluation of institu- learning in STEM disciplines, workshop tions and departments? participants were asked first to identify To sharpen and focus these ques- a few “exemplary” programs that were tions, breakout groups at the workshop known by reputation to be effective in were asked to define “appropriate achieving desired learning outcomes. measures of undergraduate learning” by Participants then outlined characteris- developing a list of desired student tics that would enable an observer to learning outcomes for each science classify these programs as effective. discipline. The logic here was that These characteristics, which are sum- student success in achieving defined marized in Chapter 3, could be included learning outcomes could serve as an in a comprehensive evaluation instru- 2 I M P R O V I N G U N D E R G R A D U AT E I N S T R U C T I O N

ment that would serve as the basis for reaching consensus on a set of criteria assessing STEM courses and academic suitable for each institution difficult. programs. Broken into groups by Readers of this report may choose to discipline (physics, chemistry, life organize the characteristics of effective sciences, geosciences), the participants programs and instructional strategies were then asked to enumerate the outlined in Chapter 3 into a framework desired learning outcomes that indicate of criteria and benchmarks suitable for course effectiveness. The groups chose their own institutions. not to emphasize any content-specific Instead of deliberating on how institu- lists of outcomes, but instead focused on tions and departments would use such a the cross-disciplinary outcomes. The framework (issue 3), workshop partici- reported outcomes were remarkably pants focused their discussions on the similar across groups. These outcomes personality traits of faculty as well as the are summarized in Chapter 2. The qualities of organization, governance, process of developing appropriate and incentive structures at departmen- learning outcomes as well as measures, tal and institutional levels that promote which includes designating working effective STEM education. They also teams, asking appropriate questions, discussed institutional characteristics and collaborating to answer these that are barriers to the implementation questions, was described by several of effective instruction. These qualities, workshop presenters (see Chapters 2 which are summarized in Chapter 4, can and 4) and exemplified by participants serve as the basis for creating indicators during the workshop. and benchmarks for the evaluation of The organization of a framework of institutions and departments. Several criteria and benchmarks, as specified in presenters described approaches that issue 2, was not accomplished at the faculty, departments, and institutions workshop. A recent NRC report Evalu- can take to develop and incorporate ating and Improving Undergraduate qualities that promote quality STEM Teaching in Science, Technology, Engi- education (see Chapter 4). neering, and Mathematics (2003) points Throughout the workshop, partici- out that development of a universal pants voiced many concerns that have evaluation instrument is difficult if not been raised in earlier studies; however, impossible since academic institutions they also presented new efforts, argu- vary greatly in mission and demograph- ments, and evidence. Buttressed by ics. The workshop participants repre- recent studies, this report documents sented a variety of institutions and found more convincingly than earlier reviews INTRODUCTION 3

that instruction based primarily on focus less on what instructors teach and lectures may be useful for transferring more on what students learn and are factual information but is much less able to do with their new knowledge. effective at achieving more complex They also focus less on terms and facts conceptual learning outcomes. It pro- that students memorize and more on vides a new approach to promoting students’ conceptual understanding and effective STEM instruction by examin- their ability to apply knowledge in novel ing the personality traits of faculty— contexts. For higher education, a those characteristics that allow faculty primary objective is that “all under- to respond to institutional/departmental graduates have learning experiences changes as well as those that directly or that motivate them to persist in their indirectly affect the culture of the studies and consider careers in these department and institution. The report fields” (Project Kaleidoscope, 2002, p. advances the argument for increased 1). The requirements of the Accredita- collaboration among faculty and admin- tion Board for Engineering and Technol- istrators and provides illustrative ex- ogy (2002), for example, state that amples of effective collaborative efforts. students should gain an ability “to apply The rest of this section provides knowledge of mathematics, science, and background to the body of research engineering; to design and conduct supporting the concerns of the steering experiments as well as to analyze and committee and raises additional ques- interpret data; to function on tions that prompted the development of multidisciplinary teams; and to commu- this workshop. nicate effectively.” The American Psychological Associa- Student Learning Outcomes tion standards for undergraduate Starting with A Nation at Risk (Na- education in that discipline expect that tional Center for Excellence in Educa- students “will understand and apply tion, 1983), with its “Imperative for basic research methods…including Educational Reform,” hundreds of research design, data analysis, and reports—at the rate of almost one per interpretation; will respect and use week according to Tobias (1992)—by critical and creative thinking, skeptical national associations, blue-ribbon inquiry and when possible the scientific committees, commissions, and accredit- approach to solve problems…; [and] ing boards have produced visions of will be able to communicate effectively improved STEM education. These new in a variety of formats” (2002). visions, remarkable in their agreement, A panel convened by Sigma Xi, The 4 I M P R O V I N G U N D E R G R A D U AT E I N S T R U C T I O N

Scientific Research Society, concluded or technology in their postsecondary that introductory STEM courses should education. Between 1970 and 1998 enable students “to understand science, enrollment in computer and information mathematics and engineering as pro- sciences as well as agriculture and cesses of investigation—as ways of health-related sciences rose by an knowing; to have hands-on experience average of 250 percent (although with investigations and to discover the physical sciences and mathematics joy and satisfaction of discovery; to actually lost students over that period) understand the powers and limitations (Snyder, 2001, pp. 295–296). As recently of science mathematics and engineer- noted in a related NRC report (Hudson, ing; [and]…to understand the syner- 2002, p. 37), “In general, the shift in the gisms among science disciplines and past three decades appears to be away the synergisms among science, math- from the humanities and hard [physical] ematics and engineering” (1990, p. 9). sciences toward business, technical, and With each passing year, the need for health fields.” These students, those still faculty to define and learn how to elicit selecting science and technology and appropriate learning outcomes among many who pursue fields outside of students in undergraduate STEM science or technology, are required to courses has gained in importance. The take college science courses at the percentage of high school graduates introductory level. who choose to enter college has in- The rise in number and diversity of creased dramatically in the past two students intensifies the need for faculty decades—from about 50 percent to 66 to see introductory courses for both percent between 1980 and 1998 (Na- majors and nonmajors as a critical part tional Center for Education Statistics of the undergraduate curriculum. Such [NCES], 2000). During those same courses can serve not only as vehicles years the number of fall semester for providing students with the facts and enrollees represented by minorities concepts of science but also as opportu- increased from 16.5 percent to 26.6 nities to develop their understanding percent (Snyder, 2001, pp. 295–296). and appreciation of the processes of Spurred in part by an increasing science as well as cognitive skills such “college wage premium” that promises as posing and solving problems, making far higher earnings from degrees in sense of data, and reasoning and argu- specific fields (NCES, 2000, p. 144), ing from evidence—all of which are many of these students declare their crucial to decision making no matter intentions to pursue an aspect of science what field of endeavor a student enters INTRODUCTION 5

after graduation. Introductory science facts from recent lectures and chapters. courses can also be designed to prop- An important result of this shift away erly prepare those who wish to continue from science and math courses during in science as a profession, those who the upper division undergraduate years will affect the science education of is a striking decline in students choos- future students as K–12 teachers, ing advanced or graduate courses administrators, or policy makers, and leading to STEM professions. From those who desire to be informed citizens 1993 to 2000, enrollment in STEM in this increasingly scientific and tech- graduate programs decreased by more nological world. than 14 percent, with three areas, math Unfortunately, this vital education in (32 percent), engineering (25 percent), science is reaching too few of today’s and the physical sciences (18 percent) undergraduates (Seymour and Hewitt, suffering the most prominent losses 1997). Many students leave science-rich (Zumeta and Raveling, 2003, p. 37). fields for other areas of interest after their first lower-division college science Effective Instruction courses or drop out of higher education Reacting to reports indicating that completely. According to Seymour and new knowledge is assimilated through Hewitt’s (1997) comprehensive study, a interaction with existing knowledge loss of over half of the students who (summarized in NRC, 2000), workshop enter college intending to pursue majors participants considered how an instruc- in the natural sciences occurs within tor might be encouraged to provide two years of taking their first college opportunities for students to become science or mathematics classes, a actively involved in creating new under- problem of wastage that affects both standings. Recent evidence suggests minority and majority students. Stu- that students who sit passively in lec- dents reported being dissatisfied with tures for an entire course may fail to what they perceived as poor teaching replace their prior misconceptions with and other negative experiences in new knowledge; the conceptual difficul- “weed-out” science courses. Frequent ties they have when they enter a course complaints were heard about courses are likely to persist if instruction does and textbooks that are filled with facts not address their difficulties specifically that students are expected to memorize (King, 1994; Mestre, 1994; Loverude et with little opportunity for conceptual al., 2002; Marchese, 2002). For many development, and tests that only assess students the traditional didactic lecture, students’ abilities to remember such when applied as the primary instruc- 6 I M P R O V I N G U N D E R G R A D U AT E I N S T R U C T I O N

tional method in science courses, fails to and engineering departments is one that provide opportunities for integrating values the productive investigator more new and old knowledge. Lectures may than the effective teacher. In an effort to lead to memorization of factual informa- counteract that emphasis, the NRC tion but often do not succeed well in report Transforming Undergraduate eliciting comprehension of complex Education in Science, Mathematics, concepts (Terenzini and Pascarella, Engineering, and Technology (1999) 1994; Honan, 2002; Loverude, Kautz, presents six vision statements and and Heron, 2002). multiple strategies for implementing Despite such evidence, according to a these visions. The vision statements are broad survey of 123 research-intensive designed to assist academic officers, (Research I and II) universities nation- faculty members, and departments in wide by The Reinvention Center at their efforts to improve STEM educa- Stony Brook (2001), only about 20 tion. percent of R-I and R-II universities Vision two of that report calls for the provide opportunities for active learning development of introductory college or real-world problem solving for their courses that would present content students in a substantial number of information in ways that engage under- introductory science courses. On a graduates in exploring the fundamental majority of campuses the instructor as a and unifying concepts and processes of didactic lecturer remains typical prac- science. These courses would empha- tice in STEM courses. As noted by size real problems, applications to Alison King (1994), “Much of what related areas of knowledge, and the transpires in today’s college classrooms evolving processes of scientific thought is based on the outdated transmission and inquiry. Vision three calls on all model of teaching and learning: the colleges and universities to continually professor lectures and the students take and systematically evaluate the efficacy notes, read the text, memorize the of their STEM courses and programs. material, and regurgitate it later on an The NRC report Evaluating and Improv- exam” (p. 15). ing Undergraduate Teaching in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathemat- Role of Academic Departments in ics (2003) recommends that evidence of Improving Teaching Effectiveness student learning be used as a bench- The personal experiences of a num- mark for evaluating teaching effective- ber of workshop participants confirmed ness. That report also stresses the that the current culture of many science utility of ongoing self-study and evalua- INTRODUCTION 7

tion by STEM departments and sug- in advance of the workshop to further gests a series of questions for depart- discussion of the guiding questions, and ments to use in this process. were then asked to modify and expand their papers based upon the discussion at the workshop (revised papers are OBJECTIVES AND provided in Appendix A). ORGANIZATION OF THE PROJECT The workshop was held in Washing- ton, D.C., November 19–20, 2002, at the Against the background outlined in National Academies. (The Workshop the preceding paragraphs, CUSE Agenda can be found in Appendix C.) established a steering committee to Commissioned papers were distributed develop the present workshop. Eleven to registered participants within the experts in STEM education and/or week before the workshop. Fifty-one institutional reform accepted invitations invited participants, including present- to present at the workshop as a means ers and facilitators, attended the work- of informing the committee and cata- shop along with NRC staff and other lyzing discussion among attendees. interested parties. Names and institu- Additional experts were assigned as tional affiliations of registered partici- facilitators to two breakout sessions. pants and steering committee members The breakout sessions were planned to are listed in Appendix D. capture the interactions among the attendees, who brought with them much relevant experience. The facilita- ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT tors, two per group, were asked to keep their groups focused on the questions, This report is based on the presenta- to make sure that everyone’s voice was tions and papers commissioned for the heard, to promote a supportive atmo- workshop and on the discussion that sphere that evoked creative ideas emerged from the workshop itself. The without overorganizing the conversa- commissioned papers as revised by the tion, and to record the discussions in authors following the workshop are order to report a summary during the reprinted intact in Appendix A, so they plenary session. Additional authorities are not summarized in the report. on STEM education were sent work- However, authors also formally pre- shop announcements and encouraged to sented material found in their papers as attend. In addition, three of the present- part of the plenary sessions, and those ers were asked to prepare short papers aspects of the papers appear in that 8 I M P R O V I N G U N D E R G R A D U AT E I N S T R U C T I O N

context in the following chapters. identifies characteristics and indicators Participants in this workshop were that can be included in a comprehensive charged with examining student learn- evaluation instrument for rating exem- ing outcomes in the sciences, exem- plary STEM instructional programs plary instructional practices, and the (question a) and tools for assessing the barriers as well as the enablers to quality of faculty instruction. Chapter 4 instructional reform at the institutional examines characteristics of organiza- level. Through presentations by plenary tion, governance, and incentive struc- speakers and the discussions that tures identified at the personal, depart- followed, reports from breakout ses- mental, and institutional levels that sions, and general discussions through- promote quality STEM education out the workshop, major themes (question c). It also considers qualities emerged. In this report, a summary of that serve as barriers to implementation the workshop presentations and subse- of effective instruction and describes quent discussion, participants’ state- approaches to promote such instruction ments, and the resulting themes are at the institutional/departmental level. organized around the workshop’s Chapter 5 summarizes the general guiding questions into three related discussion that occurred at the end of areas: identifying desired learning the workshop, highlighting qualities outcomes, evaluating effective instruc- that could be used as the basis for tion, and promoting effective instruction creating indicators and benchmarks for at institutional and departmental levels. the evaluation of institutions and depart- The following chapters focus on the ments (question d). In an Epilogue four guiding questions (a-d) regarding (Chapter 6), overriding concerns that undergraduate STEM education pre- participants voiced repeatedly serve as a sented at the beginning of this chapter. summary of the major issues in the Chapter 2 addresses question b—what report. are the desired student outcomes of References to specific programs and such STEM courses that can indicate initiatives that were discussed by course effectiveness—by examining the workshop participants are included process of developing such learning throughout this report. These programs outcomes. It outlines some of those are cited for information purposes only; outcomes defined as most important by such citation does not imply endorse- the workshop participants. Chapter 3 ment by the NRC. INTRODUCTION 9

Next: 2 Identifying Desired Student Learning Outcomes »
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!