Advertisement

Constructive Alignment Beyond Content: Assessing Professional Skills in Student Group Interactions and Written Work

  • Renée ColeEmail author
  • Gil Reynders
  • Suzanne Ruder
  • Courtney Stanford
  • Juliette Lantz
Chapter

Abstract

Many recent reports have called for the development of professional skills as part of a quality undergraduate experience to better prepare college graduates to enter the workforce; this preparation requires more explicit assessment of these skills in chemistry and other STEM fields. While professional skills may be part of programmatic goals, the development and assessment of these skills must largely take place as part of course experiences. However, skill development remains an implicit component of coursework that is not addressed in a meaningful way due to a lack of tools and strategies for assessing skill development and providing feedback to students. To address this need, rubrics were developed as part of the Enhancing Learning by Improving Process Skills in STEM (ELIPSS) Project to assess evidence of information processing, critical thinking, problem solving, communication, teamwork, management, and metacognition skills in student written work and group interactions. Here, we report a broad overview of how the rubrics have been implemented in multiple learning environments including detailed descriptions of two case studies. Results from faculty surveys and analysis of these case studies indicate that instructors have changed their curricula to include more explicit assessment of professional skills using a variety of instructional practices. Interviews with teaching assistants and students indicate that while the teaching assistants obtained a clearer understanding of how to assess professional skills in both written work and group interactions, the students continue to need more specific feedback in order to improve their skills.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported in part by the National Science Foundation under collaborative grants #1524399, #1524936, and #1524965. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. We thank members of our Primary Collaboration Team and Implementation Cohorts for collecting and sharing data. We also thank all the students who have allowed us to examine their work and provided feedback.

References

  1. ABET Engineering Accreditation Commission. (2016). Criteria for accrediting engineering programs. http://www.abet.org/accreditation/accreditation-criteria/criteria-for-accrediting-engineering-programs-2016-2017/. Accessed February 2017.
  2. American Chemical Society Committee on Professional Training. (2015). Undergraduate professional education in chemistry: ACS guidelines and evaluation procedures for bachelor’s degree programs. Washington, DC: American Chemical Society. https://www.acs.org/content/dam/acsorg/about/governance/committees/training/2015-acs-guidelines-for-bachelors-degree-programs.pdf. Accessed December 2018.
  3. Association of American Colleges & Universities. (2010). VALUE rubric development project. https://www.aacu.org/value/rubrics. Accessed February 2017.
  4. Ausubel, D. P., Novak, J. D., & Hanesian, H. (1978). Educational psychology: A cognitive view. New York: Holt, Rinehart, Winston.Google Scholar
  5. Biggs, J. (1996). Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment. Higher Education, 32(3), 347–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Biggs, J. (2003, April). Aligning teaching and assessing to course objectives. Teaching and learning in higher education: New trends and innovations, 2, 13–17.Google Scholar
  7. Biggs, J. (2014). Constructive alignment in university teaching. HERDSA Review of Higher Education, 1(1), 5–22.Google Scholar
  8. Bodner, G. M. (1986). Constructivism: A theory of knowledge. Journal of Chemical Education, 63(10), 873–878.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Borrego, M., & Henderson, C. (2014). Increasing the use of evidence-based teaching in STEM higher education: A comparison of eight change strategies. Journal of Engineering Education, 103(2), 220–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cole, R., Lantz, J., & Ruder, S. (2016). ELIPSS: Enhancing Learning by Improving Process Skills in STEM. http://elipss.com/. Accessed February 2017.
  11. Cole, R., Lantz, J., Ruder, S., Reynders, G. J., & Stanford, C. (2018, June). Enhancing learning by assessing more than content knowledge. Paper presented at the 2018 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Salt Lake City, Utah.Google Scholar
  12. Coll, R. K., & Zegwaard, K. E. (2006). Perceptions of desirable graduate competencies for science and technology new graduates. Research in Science & Technological Education, 24(1), 29–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Drummond, H. P., & Selvaratnam, M. (2009). Intellectual skills needed for the effective learning and application of chemical knowledge. South African Journal of Chemistry, 62(1), 179–184.Google Scholar
  14. Hanson, S., & Overton, T. (2010). Skills required by chemistry graduates and their development in degree programmes. Higher Education Academy, UK Physical Sciences Centre. http://www.rsc.org/learn-chemistry/resources/business-skills-and-commercial-awareness-for-chemists/docs/skillsdoc1.pdf. Accessed December 2018.
  15. Hart Research Associates. (2015). Falling short? College learning and career success. https://www.aacu.org/sites/default/files/files/LEAP/2015employerstudentsurvey.pdf. Accessed December 2018.
  16. Hart Research Associates. (2018). Fulfilling the American dream: Liberal education and the future of work (p. 21). https://www.aacu.org/sites/default/files/files/LEAP/2018EmployerResearchReport.pdf. Accessed December 2018.
  17. Hill, M. A., Overton, T. L., Thompson, C. D., Kitson, R. R. A., & Coppo, P. (2019). Undergraduate recognition of curriculum-related skill development and the skills employers are seeking. Chemistry Education Research and Practice.  https://doi.org/10.1039/c8rp00105g.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kober, N. (2015). Reaching students: What research says about effective instruction in undergraduate science and engineering. Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  19. Kondo, A. E., & Fair, J. D. (2017). Insight into the chemistry skills gap: The duality between expected and desired skills. Journal of Chemical Education, 94(3), 304–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Moog, R. S., Creegan, F. J., Hanson, D. M., Spencer, J. N., & Straumanis, A. R. (2006). Process-oriented guided inquiry learning: POGIL and the POGIL project. Metropolitan Universities, 17(4), 41–52.Google Scholar
  21. Moog, R. S., & Spencer, J. N. (2008). Process oriented guided inquiry learning (POGIL). Washington, DC: ACS Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. National Research Council. (2012). Discipline-based education research: Understanding and improving learning in undergraduate science and engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  23. Ruder, S. (2015). Organic chemistry: A guided inquiry. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  24. Ruder, S., Stanford, C., & Gandhi, A. (2018). Scaffolding STEM classrooms to integrate key workplace skills: Development of resources for active learning environments. Journal of College Science Teaching, 47(5), 29–35.Google Scholar
  25. Sarkar, M., Overton, T., Thompson, C., & Rayner, G. (2016). Graduate employability: Views of recent science graduates and employers. International Journal of Innovation in Science and Mathematics Education, 24(3), 31–48.Google Scholar
  26. Shepherd, T., Grushow, A., Hunnicutt, S. S., & Moog, R. S. (2017) Thermodynamics & statistical mechanics: A guided inquiry. Unpublished educational materials.Google Scholar
  27. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. M. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.Google Scholar
  28. The Royal Society. (2014). Vision for science and mathematics education. London: The Royal Society Science Policy Centre. https://royalsociety.org/~/media/education/policy/vision/reports/vision-full-report-20140625.pdf. Accessed December 2018.

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Renée Cole
    • 1
    Email author
  • Gil Reynders
    • 1
  • Suzanne Ruder
    • 2
  • Courtney Stanford
    • 3
  • Juliette Lantz
    • 4
  1. 1.University of IowaIowa CityUSA
  2. 2.Virginia Commonwealth UniversityRichmondUSA
  3. 3.Ball State UniversityMuncieUSA
  4. 4.Drew UniversityMadisonUSA

Personalised recommendations