National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: 4 Promoting Effective Instruction at Departmental and Institutional Levels
Suggested Citation:"5 General Discussion." 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 69
Suggested Citation:"5 General Discussion." 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 70
Suggested Citation:"5 General Discussion." 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 71
Suggested Citation:"5 General Discussion." 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 72
Suggested Citation:"5 General Discussion." 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 73
Suggested Citation:"5 General Discussion." 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 74
Suggested Citation:"5 General Discussion." 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 75
Suggested Citation:"5 General Discussion." 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 76
Suggested Citation:"5 General Discussion." 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 77

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.

5 General Discussion In preparation for organizing their instructional strategies described in ideas into a framework of criteria and Chapter 3, and be judged by their benchmarks, participants spent much of success in utilizing such strategies. To the concluding discussion of the work- further the pursuit of effective instruc- shop identifying qualities that institu- tion, institutions and departments would tions or departments could use to form education leadership groups such measure the effectiveness of courses that faculty could share teaching experi- and educational programs. One such ences and resources with colleagues quality, for example, would be a focus on and become familiar with the literature students’ success in learning the skills of education research. Communication of scientific reasoning and information feedback loops and dissemination gathering. Another measure would of mechanisms were identified as impor- course be students’ understanding of tant aspects of promoting effective science content. As noted by Richard teaching at institutional and departmen- McCray, University of Colorado, work- tal levels (see Chapter 4). These ideas shop participants had already identified are also elaborated in some detail in the two other critically important learning National Research Council (NRC) outcomes: gains in students’ demon- report Evaluating and Improving Under- strated abilities to learn on their own graduate Teaching in Science, Technol- and to recognize when they have ogy, Engineering, and Mathematics learned. (2003). To achieve these desired learning Several participants pointed out that outcomes, faculty engaged in effective departments should support faculty’s teaching would employ some of the collaboration outside their own institu- 69

tions, such as faculty participation in content needed by someone who will workshops to educate them on effective become a biologist or a K–12 teacher. instructional practices and dissemina- Thus, teaching the skills necessary to tion of instructional experiences learn on one’s own is most important. through professional societies and other The faculty’s role is to help students regional and national organizations. understand the skills necessary to learn Many participants felt that developing on their own—to seek out resources, support structures within science make decisions based on evidence, departments for effective research in assess one’s understanding of these science education was an important step skills and abilities, and apply these skills toward improving science education. to relevant content—and to promote This chapter summarizes participants’ students’ taking responsibility for their discussions in regards to the institu- own learning. Anton Lawson, Arizona tional or departmental qualities listed State University, added that instructors above. should be aware of the reasoning skills and abilities students have when they enter the classroom and the need to FOCUS ON STUDENTS’ SKILLS focus on developing those to a higher FOR LEARNING ON THEIR OWN level throughout the course. Students should also leave science courses with How does one measure gains in an appreciation and understanding of students’ abilities to learn on their own? the nature of science. McCray emphasized that introductory science courses need to focus on stu- dents’ learning skills of scientific rea- INSTITUTIONAL SYSTEMS soning and information gathering as THAT PROMOTE EFFECTIVE much as on science content, and on INSTRUCTION helping students take greater responsi- bility for their own learning. The con- Ramon Lopez, University of Texas at tent in science fields is growing so El Paso, acknowledged these were rapidly, he noted, that it has become important learning objectives, but virtually impossible to transmit it all. In suggested that efforts focused only on addition, the paths chosen by students individual instructors are insufficient to are very diverse; the specific content bring about the required level of needed by a student who will go on to change. He called on Jack Wilson, medical school is different from the UMassOnline, to describe further how 70 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

he had initiated change to improve traditional lecture courses. On its education at the institutional level at website the center now states the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI). following as its three most important educational principles: “Learning should Administrative Support, Common be active, not passive”; “Most of the Vision, and Effective Strategies basic science facts and information can Create Success be learned in the context of clinical Wilson recalled that the transforma- problems, an approach that highlights tion was catalyzed by four intersecting relevance for basic science knowledge”; forces: the vision of RPI’s new president, and “Faculty time should be used to the retirement of faculty members who introduce, to clarify, to discuss, to had been responsible for the traditional stimulate, to guide, to impart and imbue curriculum in introductory physics, the the student with enthusiasm for the fact that a number of faculty had be- topic at hand” (http://meded.utmb.edu/ come frustrated with their unsuccessful faq/principles.htm). efforts in teaching the introductory According to Robert Zemsky, Univer- courses, and the convenient availability sity of Pennsylvania, some medical of the new Studio Physics program as schools place great emphasis in their an alternative. Physics faculty members new curricula on information transfer, to became supportive of the reform efforts the extent that their publications speak when they discovered that they could in terms of teaching and developing work with students in smaller and less skills that resemble those of librarians. intimidating groups, that the new New physicians are trained to know how structure required less preparation, that to ask the question, how to find the students demonstrated better under- answer through resources, and how to standing of concepts, and that they determine the appropriateness of the enjoyed the teaching experience more. answer within known constraints. Such Michael Zeilik, University of New changes reflect the recognition in recent Mexico, suggested that medical and law decades that the goals of medical schools could serve as examples of education must change from teaching institutions that have demonstrated science to equipping students to learn successful innovations by changing not science. just selected courses but their entire Katayoun Chamany, Eugene Lang curricular structure and teaching vision. College, wondered if successful reforms For example, the University of Texas might result from new efforts by institu- Medical Branch has virtually abandoned tions to think more about learning GENERAL DISCUSSION 71

outcomes. When faculty begin to envi- Lack of Administrative Support sion the environments and activities that and Rewards Triggers Failure their students will experience in the Turning away from successful re- future, they may feel the responsibility forms at institutions, Clyde Herreid, to offer subject matter that is relevant to State University of New York at Buffalo, the students and to provide capabilities voiced concern over failed efforts at and skills needed for them to function reform. He noted that problem-based effectively in these environments and learning programs that began with activities. Expanding on the need for great fanfare have not been sustained at relevance, Chamany also pointed out some medical schools. He attributed that when instructors choose subject many of these failures to lack of admin- matter that is useful and has a direct istrative buy-in and nonexistent reward bearing on students’ lives, students are systems. The efforts of small, enthusias- more likely to assimilate the facts, tic faculty groups were lost for lack of concepts, and skills being taught. appropriate administrative support. She promoted the approach that is Lack of success is not limited to medical taken by programs such as Science school endeavors. Education for New Civic Engagement Carl Wieman, University of Colorado, and Responsibilities (SENCER) of the pointed out that the current system in American Association of Colleges and science departments rewards discovery- Universities (http://www.aacu-edu.org/ based and applied research with little SENCER/overview.cfm), which offers consideration given to teaching respon- program modules and case studies as sibilities. Science faculty are encour- techniques for connecting subject aged to devote most of their time and matter to students’ interests. Referring energy to their research projects be- to the report Leadership Reconsidered by cause funding and rewards are directed the W.K. Kellogg Foundation (2000), toward research. In a recent meta- David Gosser, City College of New York, analysis of 122 studies of standards- added that if students are treated as based school reform programs between participants (or leaders at some level) in 1991 and 2001, Chatterji (2002) found course design and empowered to offer that “these reforms have been largely input on content and teaching methods, unfocused and nonsystemic in design as is common in the Peer-Led Team and have thereby failed to help indi- Learning workshop model (http:// vidual schools, school systems, and www.pltl.org), they are likely to perceive statewide systems to develop in the their education experience as relevant. directions that are consistent with the 72 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

mission of the reform movement” (p. in traditional research departments. M. 345). Patricia Morse, University of Washing- ton, agreed that an institutional influ- Research Defines Need and ence on improving education is to Direction advance a structure that accepts the Strengthening his focus on strategies scholarship of science education re- that would apply at the national and search as equivalent to discovery institutional level, Lopez stated that it is research conducted in science fields. important for researchers and change She also agreed that some science agents to examine both the successes faculty need to be involved in science and failures of institutional reform. He education research, and they need to be cited the calculus reform effort as one based in science departments. Many in which panels of objective observers participants saw the value of carrying have provided carefully balanced re- out science education research within views that describe both successful science departments, in the context of a aspects and those in need of improve- science discipline. ment (e.g., NRC, 2002b, pp. 246–249). However, David Brakke, James McCray emphasized a point that had Madison University, raised the question been made several times during the of whether a traditional science depart- workshop, that efforts to improve ment could support a “critical mass” of instruction should be targeted espe- faculty whose scholarship lies in science cially at large introductory science education research (i.e., a large enough courses where the need for change is group to sustain high-quality research often greatest. on teaching and learning). Currently, noted Lawson, in some Support Systems for Science Education departments individual faculty members Research Requested persist by collaborating with colleagues Paula Heron, University of Wash- at other institutions engaged in similar ington, suggested that one way to research and by earning respect within promote effective teaching at the institu- their own department or institution for tional/departmental level is to hire and the external grant support that they find ways of supporting faculty whose receive and their reputation as educa- research focuses on the learning and tion researchers. Lillian McDermott, teaching of the science discipline University of Washington, pointed out represented. Such faculty should be that the number of faculty in a depart- able to thrive, and receive recognition, ment with a focus on science education GENERAL DISCUSSION 73

research would depend on the range of research and those whose scholarship programs and research projects under- lies in science education research can taken in the department. Different engage in scholarly teaching. numbers of individuals would be needed Earlier in the workshop, Wieman had to sustain teacher education programs, remarked that the characteristics of curriculum development efforts, or education innovators, presented by large or small research projects on Susan Millar, University of Wisconsin, learning and teaching of the discipline are similar to those of many successful subject matter. scientists. Several participants had agreed with his remarks. Zemsky Role of Faculty in Science Education commented that it is important to define Research Addressed the distinction between a research Throughout the workshop, partici- leader and an educational leader. He pants recognized different roles of wondered if one person could play both science faculty with regard to teaching roles. Referring to examples provided and research. Three kinds of roles by Millar and Elaine Seymour, Univer- sparked repeated discussions: scholar- sity of Colorado, Zemsky pointed out ship taken in science research, scholar- that even when one person has assumed ship taken in science education re- both leadership roles, the roles are search, and efforts aimed at scholarly usually undertaken at separate stages of teaching (by which most participants that person’s career. meant instruction that is directed at Zemsky’s remarks spurred a number specific learning goals, relies on re- of comments from other participants. search about how people learn, and James Serum, SciTek Ventures, noted employs ongoing evaluation of learning that he agreed with Wieman’s observa- as well as teaching). One question tion and added the important distinction raised by the above discussion was how that education innovators feel personally appropriate and feasible is it for faculty rewarded when they observe students in science departments to devote their understanding new concepts. Successful scholarship to science education re- researchers feel satisfaction when they search rather than—or in addition to— make discoveries in their own laborato- science research? Continued discussion ries. Priscilla Laws, Dickinson College, set out to define the characteristics of echoed Serum’s observation and took individuals who assume these different the opportunity to clarify the terminol- roles and to determine how both faculty ogy regarding effective teaching and whose scholarship lies in science research in teaching. Certainly, innova- 74 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

tors in education and innovators in collaborate with their colleagues and science are likely to have similar quali- provide them with resources about ties, but they usually do not possess, by teaching. Assessment of learning nature of their choice of scholarship, the objectives and actual learning outcomes same passions and talents. Most faculty is an ongoing process within their members with research appointments courses as well as within disciplinary are expected to conduct research and programs, departments, and institutions also to teach. that they can influence. Referring to her own dean’s distinc- Wieman conceded that developing tion between teaching and research, structures for effective research in Laws noted that every faculty member science education may be an important at her institution is responsible for step toward improving science educa- effective teaching within his or her own tion, but he felt that the more important classroom. But those efforts in the issue was to discuss efforts necessary classroom do not constitute research, or to develop and train science faculty who scholarship, unless they are extended to are not likely to be involved in education include evaluation, written articles, and research but who are nonetheless dissemination beyond the institution effective science instructors. He drew (Boyer, 1990; Glassick, Huber, and attention to the fact that the workshop’s Maeroff, 1997; NRC, 2003). Insofar as focus was on improving science educa- such an effort adheres to agreed prin- tion, not establishing science education ciples of scientific research (Shulman, research. 1997; NRC, 2002c), the distinction Robert DeHaan, National Academies, between those who have been called questioned whether science education education innovators and those who research would have an impact in the have been called successful scientists or near future in terms of disseminating researchers is only their choice of effective instructional practices and research fields; they are both in fact advancing professional development for researchers (scientists). young science faculty. Heron and McCray noted that common charac- McDermott responded that they are teristics of the two sets of faculty are the currently conducting research into this ability to disseminate information and to question in their physics department at collaborate with colleagues. McCray the University of Washington (see also pointed out that instructors who are McDermott’s paper in Appendix B). recognized to have effective courses or McDermott pointed out that an impor- programs make conscious efforts to tant issue for the Physics Education GENERAL DISCUSSION 75

Group is to discover the connections nity to learn, try new things, and inter- between science education research and act with colleagues. instructional practices. She noted that developing reliable answers to such questions requires a process of pre- and IMPERATIVE FOR posttests, iterations, and testing in other COLLABORATION AND FEEDBACK places, and therefore takes time. After their many years of research, they The above discussions indicate that presently conduct workshops for sci- collaboration among faculty members ence faculty to educate them on effec- and administrators, dissemination of tive instructional practices, covering science education research, and ongo- aspects of course design based on ing assessment and reevaluation of Physics by Inquiry (McDermott, Shaffer, educational efforts are key in promoting and Rosenquist, 1996). Heron offered effective instruction at the institutional that faculty could save time and effort level. Morse remarked that institutions while improving science education by should encourage faculty to strive for a adopting materials developed by those higher level of collaboration through engaged in science education research. their professional societies; all science In their workshops, they encourage faculty should continually receive and participants to determine whether the reevaluate the information they need to materials are appropriate and useful for be effective teachers through work- their institutions. shops, professional meetings, and Heron also identified a national journal papers. In agreement, John program, funded by the National Sci- Jungck, Beloit College, added that ence Foundation and the American learning about the existing knowledge Association of Physics Teachers, that is base in science education also provides exposing young physics faculty to opportunities for faculty members to recent research on the learning of appreciate problems that exist in the physics and the implications such field and to discover new techniques information has on instructional prac- and programs that they can use in their tices (American Association of Physics own institutions. Jungck acknowledged Teachers, 2001). Heron’s suggestions that what has been discovered with echoed Millar’s findings (described in regard to education in one science field Chapter 4) that effective instructors find likely has applications to other science teaching an ongoing creative effort, fields. intellectually exciting, and an opportu- McCray took this idea one step 76 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

further by suggesting that faculty members share a common vision that should be encouraged to develop focuses their efforts on students’ learn- leadership groups on campuses with ing and helping students take greater members representing different depart- responsibility for their own learning. ments. The goal of these faculty groups Institutional systems reward faculty for would be to share educational experi- their efforts to improve teaching and ences and take steps to expand effective encourage collaboration. The value of instruction throughout their campuses education research that adheres to and other institutions. Jungck asserted accepted principles of scientific investi- that in addition to formulating new gation is respected and acknowledged. research questions appropriate for the Interdepartmental education leadership improvement of science education, groups are formed to share teaching faculty leadership groups would also experiences and resources with col- have the opportunity to examine current leagues and become familiar with the science education research in ways that literature of education research. Faculty recognize the connections between continually seek feedback from students disciplines. and colleagues about their teaching and use that information to reevaluate and improve their performance. Faculty and SUMMARY administrators promote change in STEM education beyond their own The following is a summary of the institutions through their professional major ideas voiced by workshop partici- societies and other regional and national pants during this final wrap-up session. organizations. They may contribute For the most part, they mirror and nationally by applying strategies of underscore what was expressed in the effective programs at their own institu- earlier sessions. tions, disseminating information about Workshop participants identified their own courses, both successes and qualities that institutions or depart- failures, and working with colleagues to ments could use to measure the effec- formulate research questions dealing tiveness of courses and educational with teaching and learning. programs. Administrators and faculty GENERAL DISCUSSION 77

Next: 6 Epilogue »
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!