This research presentation addresses the rationale and cultural and institutional challenges associated with implementing reformed science and engineering teaching practices, student impacts related to a pilot program in student-centered science learning, and recommendations for broadening supportfor novel learning contexts among key stakeholders. Undergraduate science and engineering instruction has often been characterized by a traditional pedagogical approach, where instructor-centered contexts diminish active engagement, attitudes towards science, and comprehension. Furthermore, important groups of students (women, underrepresented minorities, and high school teachers) have not been well served by traditional models of science and engineering teaching. The context for this study is a research university in the U.S., where students shared their views on their introductory science and engineering classroom experiences. Survey data indicated a perceived lack of alignment between theoretical and experimental aspects of their courses, and a general negative view towards instructor-centered approaches. Consequently, a new instructional model was implemented to promote active learning and peer instruction. Students in introductory physics were given the option to enroll in Studio Physics, with more hands-on learning, collaborative problem solving, and instructor support. Lecture, laboratory, and recitation were seamlessly integrated to facilitate frequent student interactions where science knowledge was constructed socially. Pre-service science teachers were recruited to serve as teaching assistants, improving pedagogical skills while observing trained faculty and interacting with students. Data revealed improved student engagement, self-efficacy, physics sense making, and recognition of the relevance of physics in their everyday lives. However, such novel pedagogical approaches often encounter resistance without sustained institutional support. Implications for the development and implementation of undergraduate science and engineering teaching reforms are discussed.
Keywords: Engineering education, Physics education research, Teacher education, Teaching reform, Science education, Undergraduate education;
References
[1] Robinson, J. O. “Psychology of Visual Illusion”, Dover, Dover Publications, 2013.
[2] Keil, F. C. & Wilson, R. A. “The MIT Encyclopaedia of the cognitive sciences”, Cambridge, The MIT Press, 2005.
[3] Balzac, H. D. “Illusions perdues”, Paris, Hachette/Librairie Générale Francaise,1837-1843/1983.
[1] National Academies of Sciences. “Rising above the gathering storm,” Washington, DC, National Academic Press, 2007.
[2] President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology [PCAST]. “Engage to excel: Producing one million additional college graduates with degrees in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics,” Washington, DC, PCAST, 2012.
[3] National Research Council. “Adapting to a changing world: Challenges and opportunities in undergraduate physics education,” Washington, DC, National Academies of Sciences, 2013.
[4] Popkin, G. “History of APS involvement in education,” College Park, MD, American Physical Society, 2012.
[5] Brewe, E. “Modeling theory applied: Modeling instruction in introductory physics,” American Journal of Physics, 76(12), 2008, pp. 1155-1160.
[6] Handelsman, J., Elbert-May, D., Beichner, R., Bruns, P., Chang, A., DeHaan, R., Gentile, J., Lauffer, S., Stewart, J., Tilghman, S., & Wood, W.B. “Scientific teaching,” Science, 304(5670), 2004, pp. 521-522.
[7] Dori, Y.J., & Belcher, J. “How does Technology-Enabled Active Learning affect undergraduate students’ understanding of electromagnetism concepts?” Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(2), 2005, pp. 243-279.
[8] Watkins, J., & Mazur, E. “Retaining students in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) majors,” Journal of College Science Teaching, 42(5), 2013, pp. 36-41.
[9] Hake, R.R. “Interactive engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses,” American Journal of Physics, 66(1), 1998, pp. 64-74.
[10] Coryn, C. L. S., & Hobson, K. A. “Using nonequivalent dependent variables to reduce internal validity threats in quasi-experiments: Rationale, history, and examples from practice,” New Directions for Evaluation,” 131, 2011, pp. 31-39.
[11] Smith, M. K., Jones, F. H., Gilbert, S. L., & Wieman, C. E. “The Classroom Observation Protocol for Undergraduate STEM (COPUS): A new instrument to characterize university STEM classroom practices,” CBE – Life Sciences, 12, 2013, pp. 618-627.
[12] Adams, W. K., Perkins, K. K., Podolefsky, N. S., Dubson, M., Finkelstein, N. D., & Wieman, C. E. “New instrument for measuring student beliefs about physics and learning physics: The Colorado Learning Attitudes about Science Survey,” Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 2(1), 2006, 010101.
Pixel International Conferences
