. "3 Surveying Promising Practices." Promising Practices in Undergraduate Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Education: Summary of Two Workshops. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2011.
The following HTML text is provided to enhance online
readability. Many aspects of typography translate only awkwardly to HTML.
Please use the page image
as the authoritative form to ensure accuracy.
Promising Practices in Undergraduate Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Education: Summary of Two Workshops
Expectations decision: How will I articulate and communicate my expectations for student learning?
Student organization decision: How will students be organized as they participate in learning activities?
Content organization decision: How will I organize the content for my course? What overarching ideas will I use?
Feedback decision: How will I provide feedback to my students on their performance and growth?
Gathering evidence for grading decision: How will I collect evidence on which I will base the grades I assign?
In-classroom learning activities decision: In what learning activities will students engage during class?
Out-of-classroom learning activities decision: In what learning activities will students engage outside class?
Student-faculty interaction decision: How will I promote student-faculty interaction?
The next component of Froyd’s framework relates to two types of standards against which faculty members are likely to evaluate a promising practice: (1) implementation standards and (2) impact standards. Implementation standards include the relevance of the promising practice to the course, resource constraints, faculty comfort level, and the theoretical foundation for the promising practice. Student performance standards relate to the available evidence on the effectiveness of the promising practice, which may include comparison studies or implementation studies.
Froyd then identified eight promising practices related to teaching in the STEM disciplines and analyzed each in terms of his implementation and student performance standards (see Table 3-1).
Jeanne Narum (Project Kaleidoscope) identified three characteristics of institutional-level promising practices in STEM, noting that they (1) connect to larger goals for what students should know and be able to do upon graduation, (2) focus on the entire learning experience of the student, and (3) are kaleidoscopic (Narum, 2008). She explained that promising practices can focus on student learning goals at the institutional level, the level of the science discipline, and the societal level. To illustrate these points, Narum described examples of institutional transformation at the University of Maryland’s Baltimore Campus, Drury University, and the University of Arizona. As she explained, each institution set specific learning goals, designed learning experiences based on the goals, and assessed the effectiveness of the learning experiences. Narum also provided examples of other institutions engaged in promising practices related to assessment and pedagogies of engagement. In closing, Narum said that the best institutional practices arise when administrators and faculty share a common