Advertisement

Student Responses to Problematic STEM Teaching Methods

  • Raquel P. HarperEmail author
  • Timothy J. Weston
  • Elaine Seymour
Chapter
  • 150 Downloads

Abstract

In this first of four chapters that examine student learning experiences in STEM courses, we draw on two data sources that provide student assessments of the extent, nature, and consequences of teaching methods and course design that students define as of poor quality. The qualitative analysis is drawn from interview accounts from STEM switchers, relocators, and persisters that reference all four academic years. Both experiences with STEM instructors and with teaching assistants are discussed. The findings from the Student Assessment of their Learning Gains (SALG) survey reflect student assessments from a matched set of 80 foundational courses across the six study sites. This chapter is mirrored by Chap.  8, which presents positive student accounts of STEM learning experiences from the same two data sources. In both chapters, we compare findings with those reported in 1997 in the original study: Talking about Leaving: Why Undergraduates Leave the Sciences.

References

  1. Akiki, T. K. (2014). A review on effective teaching and learning in higher education. European Scientific Journal, 1, 159–164.Google Scholar
  2. Aronson, J., Fried, C., & Good, C. (2002). Reducing the effects of stereotype threat on African-American college students by shaping theories of intelligence. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology., 38, 113–125.Google Scholar
  3. Association of American Universities. (2013). Framework for systemic change in undergraduate STEM teaching and learning (p. 2013). Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
  4. Association of American Universities. (2017a). Essential questions and data sources for continuous improvement of undergraduate STEM teaching and learning. Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
  5. Association of American Universities. (2017b). Aligning practice to policies: Changing the culture to recognize and reward teaching at research universities. Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
  6. Balschweid, M., Knowbloch, N. A., & Hains, B. J. (2014). Teaching introductory life sciences courses in colleges of agriculture: Faculty experiences. Journal of Agricultural Education, 55(4), 162–175.Google Scholar
  7. Barr, D. A., Gonzales, M. E., & Wanat, S. F. (2008). The leaky pipeline: Factors associated with early decline in interest in premedical studies among underrepresented minority undergraduate students. Academic Medicine, 83(5), 503–511.Google Scholar
  8. Beichner, R. J., Saul, J. M., Abbott, D. S., Morse, J. J., Deardorff, D. L., Allain, R. J., … Risley, J. S. (2007). The student-centered activities for large enrolment undergraduate programs (SACALE-UP) project. In E. Redish & P. J. Cooney (Eds.), Research-based reform of university introductory physics. College Park, MD: American Association of Physics Teachers. Retrieved April, 2015, from: http://www.per-central.org/document/ServeFile.cfm?ID=4517Google Scholar
  9. Benjamin, E. (2002). How over reliance upon contingent appointments diminishes faculty involvement in student learning. Peer Review, 5, 4–10.Google Scholar
  10. Biggers, M., Brauer, A., & Yilmaz, T. (2008, March). Student perceptions of computer science: A retention study comparing graduating seniors vs. CS leavers. Paper presented at the 39th SIGCSE technical symposium on computer science education, Portland, OR.  https://doi.org/10.1145/1352135.1352274
  11. Blackwell, L., Trzesniewski, K., & Dweck, C. S. (2007). Implicit theories of intelligence predict achievement across an adolescent transition: A longitudinal study and an intervention. Child Development, 78, 246–263.Google Scholar
  12. Canning, E. A., Muenks, K., Green, D. J., & Murphy, M. C. (2019). STEM faculty who believe ability is fixed have larger racial achievement gaps and inspire less student motivation in their classes. Science Advances, 5(2), eaau4734.  https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aau473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chiang, S.-Y. (2009). Dealing with communication problems in the instructional interactions between international teaching assistants and American college students. Language and Education, 23(5), 461–478.Google Scholar
  14. Crisp, G., Nora, A., & Taggart, A. (2009). Student characteristics, pre-college, college, and environmental factors as predictors of majoring in and earning a STEM degree: An analysis of students attending a Hispanic-serving institution. American Educational Research Journal, 46(4), 924–942.Google Scholar
  15. Crouch, C. H., & Mazur, E. (2001). Peer instruction: Ten years of experience and results. American Journal of Physics, 69, 970.  https://doi.org/10.1119/1.1374249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dancy, M. H., & Henderson, C. (2008). Barriers and promises in STEM reform. Commissioned Paper for the National Academies Workshop: Evidence on Promising Practices in Undergraduate Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Education. Retrieved November 2, 2010, from http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bose/PP_Commissioned_Papers.html
  17. DeAngelo, L., Franke, R., Hurtado, S., Pryor, J. H., & Tran, S. (2011). The American freshman: National norms for fall 2009. Los Angeles, CA: Higher Education Research Institute, UCLA.Google Scholar
  18. Dotger, S. (2010). Offering more than “here is the textbook”: Teaching assistants’ perspectives on introductory science courses. Journal of College Science Teaching, 39(3), 71–76.Google Scholar
  19. Drane, D., Smith, H. D., Light, G., Pinto, L., & Swarat, S. (2005). The gateway science workshop program: Enhancing performance and retention in the sciences through peer-facilitated discussion. Journal of Science Education & Technology., 14(3), 337–352.Google Scholar
  20. Dweck, C. (2015). Carol Dweck revisits the growth mindset. Education Week, 35(5), 20–24.Google Scholar
  21. Dweck, C. S. (2008). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York, NY: Random House Digital, Inc.Google Scholar
  22. Ejiwale, J. A. (2012). Facilitating teaching and learning across STEM fields. Journal of STEM Education, 13(3), 87–94.Google Scholar
  23. Ellis, J., Fosdick, B. K., & Rasmussen, C. (2016). Women 1.5 times more likely to leave STEM pipeline after calculus compared to men: Lack of mathematical confidence a potential culprit. PLoS One, 11(7), e0157447.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0157447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Felder, R. M., & Brent, R. (2016). Teaching and learning STEM: A practical guide (1st ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, a Wiley Brand.Google Scholar
  25. Ferrare, J. J. (2019). A multi-institutional analysis of instructional beliefs and practices in gateway courses to the sciences. CBE-Life Sciences Education.  https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.17-12-0257Google Scholar
  26. Ferrare, J. J., & Miller J. (2017). Cultural models of persistence and inequality in introductory STEM courses. Annual Meeting of the Sociology of Education Association, Monterey, CA.Google Scholar
  27. Ferrare, J. J., & Hora, M. T. (2014). Cultural models of teaching and learning in math and science: Exploring the intersections of culture, cognition, and pedagogical situations. The Journal of Higher Education, 85(6), 792–825.Google Scholar
  28. Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(23), 8410–8415.Google Scholar
  29. Foertsch, J. M., Millar, S. B., Squire, L., & Gunter, R. (1997). Persuading professors: A study in the dissemination of educational reform in research institutions. Report to the NSF education and human resources directorate, Division of Research, Evaluation, and Communication. Washington DC: University of Wisconsin-Madison, LEAD Center.Google Scholar
  30. Gardner, G. E., & Jones, M. G. (2011). Pedagogical preparation of the science graduate teaching assistant: Challenges and implications. Science Educator, 20(2), 31–41.Google Scholar
  31. Gravois, J. (2005). Teach impediment. The Chronical of Higher Education, 51(31), A10.Google Scholar
  32. Henderson, C., Beach, A., & Finkelstein, N. (2011). Facilitating change in undergraduate STEM instructional practices: An analytic review of the literature. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(8), 952–984.Google Scholar
  33. Hora, M. T., Oleson, A., & Ferarre, J. J. (2013) Teaching dimensions observation protocol (TDOP) user’s manual” Wisconsin Center for Education Research, University of Wisconsin.Google Scholar
  34. Hora, M. T. (2013). Exploring the use of Teaching Dimensions Observation Protocol to develop fine-grained measures of interactive teaching in undergraduate science classrooms (WCER Working Paper No. 2013-6 October).Google Scholar
  35. Hurtado, S., Eagan, K., Pryor, J. H., Whang, H., & Tran, S. (2012). Undergraduate teachign faculty: The 2010-2011 HERI Faculty Survey. Los Angeles, CA: Higher Education Research Institute, UCLA.Google Scholar
  36. Hurtado, S., Eagan, K., & Chang, M. (2010a). Degrees of success: Bachelor’s degree completion rates among initial STEM majors. Los Angeles, CA: Higher Education Research Institute, University of California.Google Scholar
  37. Hurtado, S., Newman, C. B., Tran, M. C., & Chang, M. J. (2010b, Winter). Improving the rate of success for underrepresented racial minorities in STEM fields: Insights from a national project. New Directions for Institutional Research, (148), 5–15.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ir.357Google Scholar
  38. Johnson, A. C. (2011). Accomplishments and challenges for women in STEM: Implications for future research and programs. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 71(1), 5–10.Google Scholar
  39. Kang, O., Rubin, D., & Lindemann, S. (2015). Mitigating U.S. undergraduates’ attitudes toward international teaching assistants. Tesol Quarterly, 49(4), 681–706.Google Scholar
  40. Kendall, K. D., & Schussler, E. E. (2012). Does instructor type matter? Undergraduate student perception of graduate teaching assistants and professors. CBE – Life Sciences Education, 11, 187–199.Google Scholar
  41. Kurdziel, J. P., & Libarkin, J. C. (2003). Research methodologies in science education: Training graduate teaching assistants to teach. Journal of Geoscience Education, 51, 347–351.Google Scholar
  42. Lotter, C., Harwood, W. W., & Bonner, J. J. (2007). The influence of core teaching conceptions on teachers’ use of inquiry teaching practices. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(9), 1318–1347.Google Scholar
  43. Lund, T. J., & Stains, M. (2015). The importance of context: An exploration of factors influencing the adoption of student-centered teaching among chemistry, biology and physics faculty. International Journal of STEM Education, 2(1), 13.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-015-0026-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Matyas, M. L., Ruedi, E. A., Engan, K., & Chang, A. L. (2017, Spring). Life science professional societies expand undergraduate education efforts. CBE Life Sciences Education, (16)1.  https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-01-0019Google Scholar
  45. Mazur, E. (1997). Peer instruction: A user’s manual. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  46. McCray, R. A., DeHaan, R. L., Schuck, J. A., & National Research Council (U.S.). (2003). Improving undergraduate instruction in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics: Report of a workshop. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  47. Mulnix, A. B., & Vandergrift, E. V. H. (2014). A tipping point in STEM education reform. Journal of College Science Teaching, 43(3), 14–16.Google Scholar
  48. National Research Council. (2012). Discipline-based education research: Understanding and improving learning in undergraduate science and engineering. In S. Singer, N. R. Nielsen, & H. A. Schweingruber (Eds.), Committee on the staus, contributions, and future directions of discipline-based education research. Board of Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  49. Nielsen, N., National Academies Press, & National Research Council. (2010). Planning Committee on Evidence on Selected Innovations in Undergraduate STEM Education. Promising practices in undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education: Summary of two workshops. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  50. Olson, S., & Riordan, D. G. (2012). Engage to excel: Producing one million additional college graduates with degrees in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Report to the President. Executive Office of the President1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC. Web site: http://www.whitehousegov
  51. Pickering, L. (2004). The structure and function of intonational paragraphs in native and nonnative speaker instructional discourse. English for Specific Purposes, 23, 19–43.Google Scholar
  52. Ruiz, N. G. (2014). The geography of foreign students in U.S. higher education: Origins and destinations. Accessed February 5, 2018 from https://www.brookings.edu/interactives/the-geography-of-foreign-students-in-u-s-higher-education-origins-and-destinations/
  53. Seymour, E., & Hewitt, N. M. (1997). Talking about leaving: Why undergraduates leave the sciences. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  54. Seymour, E., & Fry, C. F. (2016). The reformers’ tale: Determining progress in improving undergraduate STEM education. In G. C. Weaver, W. D. Burgess, A. L. Childress, & L. Slakey (Eds.), Transforming institutions: Undergraduate STEM education for the 21st Century. Purdue, IN: Purdue University Press.Google Scholar
  55. Seymour, E., & DeWelde, C. (2016). Why doesn’t knowing change anything? Constraints and resistance, leverage and sustainability. In G. C. Weaver, W. D. Burgess, A. L. Childress, & L. Slakey (Eds.), Transforming institutions: Undergraduate STEM education for the 21st century. Purdue, IN: Purdue University Press.Google Scholar
  56. Seymour, E. (2007). The US experience of reform in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) undergraduate education. Paper presented at the Policies and Practices for Academic Enquiry: An International Colloquium, Marwell Conference Centre, Winchester, UK.Google Scholar
  57. Seymour, E., Melton, G., Pedersen-Gallegos, L., & Wiese, D. J. (2005). Partners in Innovation: Teaching assistants in college science courses. Boulder, CO: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
  58. Seymour, E., & Hunter, A.-B. (1998). Talking about disability: The education and work experiences of graduates and undergraduates with disabilities, in science, mathematics and engineering. Washington, DC: AAAS.Google Scholar
  59. Stains, M., Harshman, J., Barker, M. K., Chasteen, S. V., Cole, R., DeChenne-Peters, S. E., … Young, A. M. (2018). Anatomy of STEM teaching n North American universities. Science, 359(6382), 1468–1470.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aap8892CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Strayhorn, T. L., Long, L. III, Kitchen, J. A., Williams, M. S., & Stenz, M. E. (2013). Academic and social barriers to black and Latino male Collegians’ success in engineering and related STEM fields. In Proceedings, 2013 ASEE annual conference and exposition, Atlanta, GA. Retrieved from https://commons.erau.edu/publication/295
  61. Sundberg, M. D., Armstrong, J. E., & Wischusen, E. W. (2005). A reappraisal of the status of introductory biology laboratory education in U.S. colleges and universities. The American Biology Teacher, 67, 526–529.Google Scholar
  62. Suresh, R. (2007). The relationship between barrier courses and persistence in engineering. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory, and Practice, 8(2), 215–239.Google Scholar
  63. Thiry, H., Hug, S., & Weston, T. J. (2011). The Computing Alliance of Hispanic-Serving Institutions: Enhancing the success of Hispanic undergraduates in computing disciplines. Journal of Enrollment Management, 5(1), 32–56.Google Scholar
  64. Travers, P. L. (1989). Better training for teaching assistants. College Teaching, 37, 147–149.Google Scholar
  65. Wieman, C., Perkins, K., & Gilbert, S. (2010). Transforming science education at large research universities: A case study in progress. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 42(2), 7–14.Google Scholar
  66. Williams, J. (1992). Planning, discourse marking, and the comprehensibility of international teaching assistants. TESOL Quarterly, 26, 693–711.Google Scholar
  67. Woodbury, S., & Gess-Newsome, J. (2002). Overcoming the paradox of change without difference: A model of change in the arena of fundamental school reform. Educational Policy, 16(5), 763–782.Google Scholar
  68. Yoder, G., & Cook, J. (2014). Rapid conversion of traditional introductory physics sequences to an activity-based format. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research, 15(2), 16.Google Scholar
  69. Zehnder, C. (2016). Assessment of graduate teaching assistants enrolled in a teaching techniques course. Journal of College Science Teaching, 46(1), 76–83.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Raquel P. Harper
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Timothy J. Weston
    • 1
    • 3
  • Elaine Seymour
    • 1
  1. 1.Ethnography and Evaluation Research (E&ER)University of Colorado BoulderBoulderUSA
  2. 2.Center for STEM LearningUniversity of Colorado BoulderBoulderUSA
  3. 3.National Center for Women and Information Technology (NCWIT)University of Colorado BoulderBoulderUSA

Personalised recommendations