National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: 1 Introduction
Suggested Citation:"2 Identifying Desired Student Learning Outcomes." 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 10
Suggested Citation:"2 Identifying Desired Student Learning Outcomes." 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 11
Suggested Citation:"2 Identifying Desired Student Learning Outcomes." 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 12
Suggested Citation:"2 Identifying Desired Student Learning Outcomes." 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 13
Suggested Citation:"2 Identifying Desired Student Learning Outcomes." 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 14
Suggested Citation:"2 Identifying Desired Student Learning Outcomes." 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 15
Suggested Citation:"2 Identifying Desired Student Learning Outcomes." 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 16
Suggested Citation:"2 Identifying Desired Student Learning Outcomes." 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 17
Suggested Citation:"2 Identifying Desired Student Learning Outcomes." 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 18
Suggested Citation:"2 Identifying Desired Student Learning Outcomes." 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 19
Suggested Citation:"2 Identifying Desired Student Learning Outcomes." 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 20
Suggested Citation:"2 Identifying Desired Student Learning Outcomes." 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 21
Suggested Citation:"2 Identifying Desired Student Learning Outcomes." 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 22
Suggested Citation:"2 Identifying Desired Student Learning Outcomes." 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 23
Suggested Citation:"2 Identifying Desired Student Learning Outcomes." 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 24

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.

2 Identifying Desired Student Learning Outcomes This chapter considers evidence program effectiveness. The working concerning how to develop and define groups, segregated by discipline, were student learning outcomes. In the unable in the time allotted to define lists workshop, participants were asked to of content-specific outcomes. But they identify outcomes that would confirm a came to broad agreement on a set of program’s effectiveness. We define important cross-disciplinary skills and effective programs here as those that competencies as learning outcomes for are able to elicit and measure students’ introductory science courses. conceptual understanding and their The workshop participants drew ability to transfer knowledge to new attention to challenges in achieving contexts. In an opening presentation, these outcomes. Instruction that relies Barbara Baumstark, Georgia State solely on lectures and recipe-based labs University (GSU), outlined the process would need to change to achieve the for developing learning outcomes. First, proposed learning outcomes. Students an academic team, including administra- are often resistant to changes in instruc- tors and faculty, needs to be designated. tional approaches. Many have become Second, the team asks appropriate accustomed to memorizing terms and questions and solicits input from other facts and receiving information from the peers and instructors. Third, the team instructor in a one-way fashion and have collaborates to write down their pro- developed strategies to succeed in such posed learning outcomes. The work- courses. These strategies often fail in shop participants exemplified this courses with more learner-centered process in their own effort to identify forms of instruction. A second challenge learning outcomes that would indicate lies with students’ preconceptions, 10

which are unlikely to change unless those learning outcomes?” Yet answers specifically addressed by instructional to the latter questions are critical in strategies. Persistent preconceptions determining what is taught and how it is often limit student’s conceptual under- taught (Wiggins and McTighe, 1998; standing and ability to apply new knowl- Huba and Freed, 2000; NRC, 2001). This edge appropriately to new contexts. is not a new or radical view. In a now In the pages below an expanded classical text on instructional methods, summary of Baumstark’s presentation, Tyler (1949) describes the logic of the learning outcomes proposed by starting with learning outcomes: “Edu- workshop participants, as well as addi- cational objectives become the criteria tional ideas and cautions put forward by by which materials are selected, content participants during plenary discussions, is outlined, instructional procedures are are detailed. developed, and texts and examinations are prepared…[the objectives] indicate the kinds of changes in the student to STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES be brought about so that instructional activities can be planned and developed When a conscientious college instruc- in a way likely to attain these objectives” tor designs a course for undergraduates, (pp. 1, 45). the usual questions are: “What topics do I need to cover for these particular The Process of Developing students? What are the prerequisites for Learning Outcomes the course, and do they serve as prereq- Barbara Baumstark, Georgia State uisites for other courses? What textbook University (GSU) or materials should I use? Should the What then are the processes by which course include a lab experience? If so, to a college instructor develops a series of what extent is it possible to correlate the learning outcomes for a course? In her material covered in the lecture with that workshop presentation Wandering in the lab?” Through the World of Standards, Rarely, however, is much thought Baumstark described her experiences given to answering two other crucial with Quality in Undergraduate Educa- questions: “What, explicitly, do I want tion (QUE) (http://www. the students to know and be able to do pewundergradforum.org/ at the end of the course?” and “How will project9.html). I assess whether they have achieved IDENTIFYING DESIRED STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES 11

Designating the Academic Team knowledge. To prepare standards for A national project, QUE engages Level 14, Baumstark and her colleagues faculty at selected four-year public solicited input from both upper and institutions and their partner two-year lower division instructors, asking them colleges in drafting voluntary discipline- to describe the knowledge and skills based standards for student learning for they would like students to have before undergraduate majors. Her university entering their upper division courses partnered with Georgia Perimeter and similarly those that they wanted College to develop standards to be students to gain from their introductory achieved by the end of the sophomore classes. year (Level 14) in biology and history. In the discussion, Michael Zeilik, University of New Mexico, pointed to Asking Appropriate Questions the need to identify the audiences of Baumstark’s group, which developed introductory science courses, which the standards for biology, began by often include future scientists, students trying to establish its own definition of who will pursue studies outside the the term “standards,” and soon decided sciences, and preservice teachers. His that the meaning commonly used by K– concern was about how to integrate 12 educators was adequate: “what a these diverse students and meet their student should know and be able to do.” needs in the same set of courses. They considered whether the standards Writing Down the Outcomes should represent minimum levels of competency. Realizing that the QUE Baumstark directed workshop partici- effort was looking for more than mini- pants to the QUE website as she pointed mums, they determined that their out that those involved with the QUE standards should not be limited to a list project found “the process of writing the of content terms, but should instead standards [in] itself rich and stimulat- comprise a mutually supportive frame- ing.” The GSU faculty agreed that three work of facts, concepts, thinking skills, areas of learning are critical: scientific and abilities. They wanted their stan- process, content, and application. As dards to represent learning as a process defined by Baumstark, scientific process of asking questions, drawing on one’s describes students’ familiarity with “the background not only in biology but also hypotheses, [experimental] techniques, in an array of disciplines (including and data analysis that have formed the perhaps history and literature), and basis for what the upper division [fac- relating new knowledge to existing ulty] were going to teach [as well as] 12 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

currently accepted scientific principles.” become proficient in scientific process Content refers to the essential knowl- skills through a focus in these areas. To edge base required to facilitate assimila- their surprise, when the group exam- tion of new concepts; application repre- ined the current GSU biology curricu- sents the skills students develop as they lum, lower to upper division, they apply their understanding to solve new discovered that the scheduling of upper problems or extend their investigations. division specialty electives caused them Some of the standards, or “learning to conflict with one another: students outcomes” as they were later called by often took random electives that fit their her team, included students’ demonstra- schedules rather than selecting those tions that they have developed the skills that might form a coherent approach to necessary for scientific inquiry, reason- the subfields of interest. ing, and communication; a knowledge of The group then assembled faculty in the history and nature of biology; a each subfield (for example, neurobiol- recognition of the correlation of biology ogy) to identify courses they would with other sciences and technology; a recommend to interested students. recognition of the personal and societal Once these courses were classified, the impacts of developments in biology; and GSU biology program took steps to the knowledge of appropriate informa- schedule specialty electives such that tion content to facilitate assimilation of those in a given subfield would not new concepts and content in the future. conflict with each other. By considering outcomes for a program, faculty not only Discussing the Program, Not Just identified a scheduling problem that was Individual Courses easy to fix, they started important In her presentation, Baumstark conversations, developed relationships emphasized the importance of defining with colleagues, and learned from each desired learning outcomes for entire other. Baumstark pointed this out in programs, not just individual courses. recounting her experiences: “We identi- Baumstark’s QUE project group had fied courses that we thought would be determined that by Level 14 students very good for our students in molecular should have had opportunities to take genetics to take, and also by discussing ownership of a knowledge base suffi- these courses, we began to realize what cient for further study and the skills the other courses had to offer. Faculty necessary to use this knowledge. By tend to be very proprietary about their Level 16, students will have identified courses, but when you think of it as we areas of interest within biology and are all working toward a common goal, IDENTIFYING DESIRED STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES 13

…we would start sharing with each tives and the opportunities to demon- other. This is an example of something I strate the desired outcomes. found worked in my course. Maybe you Sarah Elgin, Washington University, can adapt it to another course.” agreed that a program should be exam- ined as a whole, as an interconnecting The Mapping of Learning sequence of individual courses. She Outcomes Across a Four-Year suggested that departments examine Curriculum course prerequisites by considering the Gloria Rogers, Rose-Hulman Institute of reasons for such requirements and Technology developing a progression of learning Rogers, in her presentation outlining outcomes throughout programs. the process for evaluating student David Brakke, James Madison Uni- outcomes (see detailed presentation in versity, extended this idea by suggest- Chapter 3), also stressed the impor- ing that institutions should seek input tance of examining (“mapping”) the from their own faculty and administra- entirety of the four-year curriculum in tion about what they are trying to order to identify courses where students accomplish in the programs they offer. have opportunities to learn and demon- An inward look by college faculty and strate the desired knowledge and skills. administrators (as also proposed in Through such mapping, a program will NRC, 2003), would lead to examination be able to define and articulate what of existing policies and programs and skills and knowledge a graduate of their raise appropriate questions regarding program will have achieved in four student learning outcomes. Brakke years. It can identify within the curricu- pointed to undergraduate research lum what is already being done appro- programs as an example of effective priately and where gaps persist. learning environments when conducted Through continuous mapping, feed- correctly. The compositions of and back, and program adjustment, the reasons for adopting undergraduate faculty can demonstrate to themselves research are wide-ranging, according to that desired outcomes are being Brakke. Many institutions support and achieved within their program. Rogers include undergraduate research experi- suggested that if a program takes the ences on their campuses; however, few final step of presenting the map to stop to think why they offer such students, the students would also programs or what larger goals they are become aware of their learning objec- trying to achieve. 14 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

LEARNING OUTCOMES or calculus-based introductory physics PROPOSED BY WORKSHOP courses and confirmed the agreement PARTICIPANTS that already exists within physics communities on the content for these Examples of desired learning out- courses. Cross-disciplinary learning comes were presented throughout the outcomes are described at the end of workshop in formal presentations and in this section following the summary of the breakout summaries. For example, discussion stemming from the work of in the second breakout session, the the breakout groups. discipline groups were assigned two The participants representing chemis- tasks: to prepare a consensus list of try and those representing the geo- student outcomes for the discipline and sciences combined as one working to identify conceptual and cognitive group for the second breakout session. outcomes that might serve as cross- David Brakke and Michael Zeilik disciplinary learning goals. summarized the discussions of this joint group. The group reported learning The Summaries of Breakout outcomes already developed in the Groups chemistry department at St. Mary’s Paula Heron, University of Washing- College of California and through a ton, and Jack Wilson, UMassOnline, project of the American Astronomical summarized the discussions of the Society bringing together chairs of physics working group. The group astronomy departments (Partridge and identified the following learning out- Greenstein, 2001). By examining these comes as necessary for appreciating the outcomes, the group distinguished nature of physics: students should between learning outcomes specific to recognize (1) the experimental applica- particular disciplines and those appro- bility and universality of a few idealized priate to all science disciplines. Those models to a wide range of phenomena in learning outcomes traversing disciplines physics and other disciplines; (2) the are described at the end of this section. value of physical meanings of formal Katayoun Chamany, Eugene Lang representations such as mathematical College, and Gordon Uno, University of equations, diagrams, and graphs; (3) the Oklahoma, summarized the discussions inevitability of uncertainty in measure- of the life sciences group. Rather than ment; and (4) physics as an ongoing “reinventing the wheel,” that group human endeavor. The group also de- looked at learning outcomes that had scribed content appropriate for algebra- already been published by previous IDENTIFYING DESIRED STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES 15

programs and projects1 and generated educators to develop a myriad of ap- its ideas from these (the recorded proaches to teach a particular topic, outcomes are described below). They with each instructor choosing to empha- used the Summary from University of size different aspects or perspectives. Wisconsin Forum on Teaching Biology Therefore, the group decided to divide for Breadth (see Tables 2-1 and 2-2) as a learning outcomes into broad categories starting point for their discussion. Many of content, skills, application, and members felt the content outcomes epistemology. listed in this table did not have to be Although workshop participants were achieved in every introductory biology successful at developing and defining course. The group chose to focus on desired learning outcomes, they did not process goals such as those listed in the pursue in the available time how best to table as “Ways of Thinking.” Uno noted measure these outcomes. Possible that professionals within the life sci- measurement tools include Likert scales ences argue endlessly about content. M. as well as methods detailed in Rogers’ Patricia Morse, University of Washing- booklet (2002) and listed in Chapter 3. ton, commented that since biology is continually changing, consensus about The Desired Learning Outcomes the content of introductory courses is The learning outcomes identified by difficult to establish. The life sciences the breakout groups are described field appears to consist of a collection of below. Though the groups worked topics, according to Chamany, that independently, the outcomes were exhibit a complexity that permits remarkably similar across the disciplin- ary groups, as noted by Carl Wieman, University of Colorado. While some of the desired learning outcomes ex- pressed by workshop participants were content- or discipline-specific, the 1 The programs and projects identified included Beyond Bio101: The Transformation of emphasis remained on the skills that Undergraduate Biology Education (Jarmul and transcend scientific disciplines, and Olson, 1996; Available: http://www.hhmi.org/ BeyondBio101/); BIO2010 (NRC, 2002a); those are the ones listed. After an Biological Sciences Curriculum Study (Available: introductory science course, students http://www.bscs.org/); Coalition for Education should know that: in the Life Sciences (Available: http://www.wisc. edu/cels/); Quality in Undergraduate Education (Available: http://www.pewundergradforum. • Science is an evidence-based org/project9.html); and Science as a Way of Knowing (Moore, 1999). way of thinking about the natural 16 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

TABLE 2-1 Question: “What, if any, might be the concepts, information, and issues that every biologically literate citizen needs to know?” Concept Information Issues Evolution Living systems change through time, resulting in Preservation of species diversity (process of evolution, natural selection, biodiversity) Interdependence Ecological interactions (organism/organism, Human population and interaction organism/environment) explosion, place in the biosphere, human- animal interactions Basic genetics Generations of living systems are related to each Genetic engineering, other by passing on genetic material through nature vs. nurture reproduction (molecular genetics) Cell biology Machinery within cells and interactions between cells define the properties of living organisms Energy and matter How living systems generate energy from their Nutrition foodstuff: energy and matter is required for maintenance of the organism (metabolism) Organization and Living systems can be complex and require Health and disease operation in living organization and regulation to maintain themselves systems (information flow, structure/function, development) SOURCE: Data from summary of reports from a total of 55 UW-Madison faculty and staff (9 small groups of 5–7) and discussion, Forum on Teaching Biology for Breadth, January 18, 1995, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Undergradu- ate Biology Education Committee (UBEC) and Center for Biology Education. Reprinted with permission. world and understanding how it with currently accepted models, they operates. A scientific viewpoint about have to modify their models or find the physical world is different than appropriate rationale to dismiss the other viewpoints (for example, a reli- evidence or observations. gious viewpoint), in that ideas and • Science is a process with rules opinions are based on observation, of operation that allow our under- evidence, and theories (or models). standing of the natural world to When scientists are faced with evidence evolve. The process of science is or observations that are not consistent ongoing. It successively revises tenta- IDENTIFYING DESIRED STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES 17

TABLE 2-2 Question: “What, if any, might be the ways of thinking that every biologi- cally literate citizen needs to know?” Ways of Thinking Process of science Process of gaining and evaluating information, “thrill of the hunt,” scientific method (experimental and comparative), quantitative analysis, and reasoning (inductive and deductive) Progress of science Science changes with time, modeling, and Patterns and trends continual revision within specific discipline Critical thinking Integration of concepts, assessment of scientific Link importance to information, decision making, healthy skepticism everyday life and based on reason societal issues SOURCE: Data from summary of reports from a total of 55 UW-Madison faculty and staff (9 small groups of 5–7) and discussion, Forum on Teaching Biology for Breadth, January 18, 1995, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Undergradu- ate Biology Education Committee (UBEC) and Center for Biology Education. Reprinted with permission. tive conclusions and ideas about the nonreproducibility. Any measurement world. Science has not been all figured must be seen as only an approximation, out. Scientists continue to explore the because no matter how accurate a physical world and develop models measurement of some quantity may about it. Students should understand seem, new methods will inevitably be how to record data, how to put together found for measuring the same quantity evidence and observations to create with even greater precision. Also, some models, and how to test models. The observations, such as astronomical process includes experimental methods events that took place in the past, are and systematic observations as well as historical. These cannot be reproduced, communication and collaboration. yet they can be used to develop and • Science is based on reproduc- revise current models. ible evidence and observations that • The sciences are related to contain uncertainties. Uncertainty in each other, mathematics, and ever y- science arises from two major sources: day life. To teach effectively, faculty measurement error and need to make these connections clear 18 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

and devote more attention to how their After introductory science courses, discipline uses models and concepts students should be able to demonstrate: from other disciplines. • Science is driven by globaliza- • Ability to think critically and tion, technology, and new instru- apply knowledge to new problems. mentation and measurement tools. Participants often spoke in terms of The relation between technology and students developing a functional under- science is reciprocal; developments in standing. Functional understanding was science produce new technologies, and defined as the ability to apply concepts these new tools allow further progress or principles to situations that had not and developments in science. been previously considered. • Scientific meanings of theor y • Confidence in and ability to do and law are different than popular the process of science at an intro- meanings. Many incoming students ductor y level. Students should under- believe that theories are speculative and stand what constitutes an explanation laws are proven or absolute. To scien- and be able to construct a logical argu- tists, a theory (or model) is a way of ment. They should be able to distin- explaining an aspect of nature and guish between observation and infer- making predictions about it. After a ence. They should be able to identify the theory has withstood many tests, it may data required to answer simple ques- be referred to as a law2 (the law of tions and which techniques would best gravitation, for example), but even laws gather that data. are subject to revision if new evidence • Ability to design a simple requires it. experiment. Students should be able to perform a simple experiment, analyze the results, and identify approximations and sources of uncertainty. They should develop an understanding of variables 2 These are the definitions verbalized by and demonstrate knowledge of instru- participants during the workshop. The reader should note that the NRC (1998) report Teaching ments needed. about Evolution and the Nature of Science • Ability to communicate with publishes different definitions: “Laws are multiple representations. Students generalizations that describe [how aspects of the natural world behave under stated circumstances should be able to express their ideas (p. 5)], whereas theories explain [the behaviors]. through equations, graphs, and dia- Laws, like facts and theories, can change with better data. But theories do not develop into laws grams and be able to describe the with the accumulation of evidence. Rather, physical meanings of these representa- theories are the goal of science” (p. 56). tions. IDENTIFYING DESIRED STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES 19

• Capacity to know when they do tent in science fields is growing so not understand. Students need to be rapidly that it has become virtually able to distinguish between understand- impossible to transmit it all. ing and familiarity. To do this they need Some students are beginning to to have had the experience of under- recognize the importance of learning standing a body of material at a deep skills and are placing less demand on level. content. Katayoun Chamany recalled the survey at her institution that asked The Outcomes as a Set of students what they needed to learn in Learning Skills biology to be a contributive member of Throughout the workshop, many society. Expecting responses regarding other participants reinforced the idea content, she was surprised to discover that desirable outcomes should include that many students thought they should helping students to learn how to learn, learn skills to critically evaluate informa- to appreciate learning for its own sake, tion and to make personal and policy and to develop the skills necessary to decisions. understand both when they have Robert Zemsky, University of Penn- learned and when they do not under- sylvania, whose experience is with stand.3 Richard McCray, University of institutional reform of medical and Colorado, emphasized that introductory business schools, recognized the science courses need to focus on stu- emphasis medical schools now place in dents’ learning skills in scientific rea- their curricula on information transfer, soning and information gathering as to the extent that their publications much as on science content, and on speak in terms of teaching and develop- helping students take greater responsi- ing skills that resemble those of librar- bility for their own learning. The con- ians. New physicians are trained to know how to ask the question, how to find the answer through resources, and how to determine the appropriateness of the answer within known constraints. 3 Learning scientists often refer to this ability Such changes reflect the recognition in of students to assess their own learning and what recent decades that the goals of educa- still needs to be learned as “metacognition.” A tion must change from teaching science large body of scholarly research has examined the development of metacognition in students to equipping students to learn science. and how the education process can foster its According to Lillian McDermott, development (White and Frederickson, 2000; Klahr, Chen, and Toth, 2001). University of Washington, these learn- 20 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

ing skills are most effectively taught understand…motion, theory of natural through discipline-specific examples. selection, or whatever.” Agreeing with McDermott, Priscilla Laws of Dickinson College noted that her past efforts to create introductory THE CHALLENGES TO ACHIEVING interdisciplinary courses ended up as DESIRED LEARNING OUTCOMES survey courses where students failed to learn the techniques or modes of In his welcoming comments to the thinking that they can transfer later to workshop participants, Bruce Alberts, other fields. She prefers to identify key President of the National Academy of concepts in introductory physics that Sciences, identified several barriers to will be useful to both students who instructional reform in colleges and continue in physics and those who universities. He drew attention to the choose other fields. problems of incoming students and the Robert DeHaan, National Academies, often inadequate science backgrounds added that some courses simply cover they bring with them. In K–12 science the nature or philosophy of science and courses, students are typically faced are so abstracted from anything real in with covering every fact of each topic in science that students often do not a rapid didactic mode. Alberts noted develop a functional understanding of that many K–12 science teachers do not science. He expressed concern that the have a true feel for the nature of science importance of content within each and have never experienced inquiry- specific discipline would decrease in the based instruction in their own educa- face of an emphasis on general learning tions. Consequently their students skills. Brian Reiser, Northwestern rarely have opportunities for such University, put the workshop partici- experiences themselves. Many students pants’ effort into perspective: “I agree have become accustomed to didactic with [McDermott’s] point that you are teaching even though they find many not going to get at these [learning lectures boring and difficult to follow. skills] by starting [with them]. You have to bring them out of specific examples. Students Are Accustomed to The reason to put them on a list like Didactic Teaching and Resistant this…is to remind us that we don’t to Change usually get [from the specific topic to Throughout the discussions at the the general learning skill]. We usually workshop, participants continued to stop at making sure [students] identify aspects of students’ attitudes IDENTIFYING DESIRED STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES 21

that, as a result of their educational that they might not articulate the “right” conditioning, influence their reactions to answers and thought processes in front changes in curriculum. Teaching by of their peers. Moreover, students tend inquiry methods, learning through to be suspicious of instructors who collaborative work with peers, and using admit that they do not know the answer; continuous student feedback to adapt many may believe teachers know all of curriculum, all approaches cited in the answers and should supply them. earlier NRC reports (1999, 2002b), Reiser found this attitude of students an represent strategies that evoke resis- extension of current grading practices tance in many students, according to that encourage students to focus on the Elaine Seymour, University of Colorado. products, assignments and exams. Since In her presentation (see Chapter 4), exams are often graded on final an- Seymour further explained that since swers, one would naturally seek out the students equate learning with memori- “right” answers and worry less about zation and perceive delivery from demonstrating how one arrived at them. instructors as an important source of information, they fear practices that Students’ Preconceptions and deviate from their expectations. To offer Prior Beliefs Affect Learning an explanation for students’ resistance Several workshop participants men- to reformed instruction, McCray added tioned that their groups considered that many students place responsibility students’ preconceptions when they for learning on teachers and may thus were developing appropriate learning expect them to teach in the form of outcomes and discussed effective lectures. Proposing another explanation, instructional methods. How would Alan Kay, Viewpoints Research Institute, students’ preconceptions conflict with Inc., commented that the established their ability to achieve desired learning practice of curve grading, which pits outcomes? What type of instruction or students against one another, might project would surprise students such encourage them to resist collaboration that they would reconsider their previ- and group learning activities. ously held beliefs? For over a decade, Probing more deeply into the issue of scientists, psychologists, and science undergraduate resistance to alternative educators have researched how stu- teaching methods, Reiser argued that dents learn science concepts, particu- students may be uncomfortable about larly in physics (Halloun and Hestenes, sharing ideas and participating in 1985; see Appendix B, this volume). collaborative activities because they fear They have discovered that persistent 22 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

difficulties, stemming from strongly and can take ownership of specific held preconceptions and beliefs that learning objectives. Learning outcomes conflict with science concepts, are should not be limited to a list of content common and are not easily overcome terms, but should comprise a mutually by instruction. Presenting the correct supportive framework of facts, central information, either orally or in written concepts, reasoning skills, and compe- form, is seldom effective in achieving tencies in three areas of learning: desired learning outcomes (Minstrell, content, scientific process, and applica- 1989; Mestre, 1994; NRC, 2003). This tion (learning how to learn). evidence has shown that to be effective, Faculty collaboration is required to instruction must directly confront and ensure that learning outcomes are deliberately address students’ precon- mapped out for entire programs, depart- ceptions and difficulties. Such instruc- ments, or even for a complete four-year tional methods are discussed in curriculum, rather than only for indi- Chapter 3. vidual courses. Frequent problems in mapping learning outcomes across courses are: (1) faculty’s sense of SUMMARY proprietary ownership of individual courses; (2) disagreements about how The following is a summary of the to meet the needs of diverse audiences major ideas voiced by workshop partici- such as majors, nonmajors, and pants regarding how to define desired preservice teachers; and (3) differences learning outcomes. An essential first of opinion regarding the need for step for faculty in preparing any pro- prerequisites for courses. gram is to identify explicit learning Drawing on their own experience and outcomes—what students should know expertise, workshop participants from and be able to do at the end of each different science disciplines were able course or instructional unit and the to come to agreement on a set of learn- program. Clearly defined learning ing outcomes and competencies for outcomes become the criteria by which students in any introductory science to select materials, make decisions course. The group concurred that about content, develop instructional desirable outcomes should include procedures, and prepare learning helping students to learn how to learn, assessments. Educational value is to appreciate learning for its own sake, gained by sharing learning outcomes and to develop the skills necessary to with students so they become aware of understand both when they have IDENTIFYING DESIRED STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES 23

learned and when they do not under- students’ preconceptions can be highly stand. Participants identified two chal- resistant to change, even with instruc- lenges in achieving these desired tion that provides strong evidence that outcomes. First, many students are their interpretation is incorrect. As we resistant to learner-centered instruction, will illustrate in the next chapter, care- often because they have had little fully designed science education re- opportunity prior to college to develop search4 identifies specific student independent learning skills or because difficulties and develops instructional they have been trained to focus on strategies that are effective in correct- memorizable facts rather than on ing such misconceptions. conceptual understanding. Second, 4 To distinguish between disciplinary research conducted in the subject area of specific science fields and research conducted on teaching and learning of the discipline, the terms “science research” and “science education research” are used respectively. If implemented according to well-established principles, both kinds of research can be “scientific” (NRC, 2002c). 24 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

Next: 3 Evaluating Effective Instruction »
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!