Collaborative Engagement across Science and Engineering (CESE): A pre-service teacher education initiative Michael Loverude Department of Physics, Catalyst.

Collaborative Engagement across Science and Engineering (CESE): A pre-service

teacher education initiative

Michael LoverudeDepartment of Physics, Catalyst Center

California State University Fullerton

Thanks to…• CESE team:

- Joel Abraham, Biology, Bechtel project PI

- Megan Tommerup, Biology

- Tish Butcher, Kris Weaver-Bowman, Geology

- Sissi Li, Chemistry and Catalyst Center

- Binod Tiwari, Garrett Struckhoff, Engineering

• 102 course authors Roger Nanes, Barbara Gonzalez

• Deans of NSM and ECS, chairs esp. Kathy Dickson, Biology

• Other supportive faculty; Ruth Yopp-Edwards, Jim Hoffmann

What we know of our students Survey of previous science coursework for students inPhys / Chem 102 (self-reported, N = 124)

• Approximately 20% completed at least three years of HS science with at least one honors or AP course

• Approximately 30% completed a HS physics course (conceptual physics, standard physics, honors or AP)

On the other hand,

• Approximately 40% completed the bare minimum of two years of HS science

What we know of our students

In a separate study of K-8 credential candidates at CSUF, Spring 2005 – 2009, transcript analysis revealed :

• AT MOST 20% completed a college level physics OR chemistry course as part of their bachelor’s degree.

Except for Phys / Chem 102, most of those would belarge-lecture GE survey courses.

The history of the 102 courses

Project ConCEPT (DUE-9652800), PI Roger Nanes

NSF-funded project to develop science content courses for pre-service teachers (BIOL 102, GEOL 102, PHYS/CHEM 102) :

• Inquiry-oriented courses with little lecture and extensive hands-on instruction

• Courses built around engaging contexts, e.g., kitchen science (physical), medical exams (biology)

• Collaboration with area two-year colleges in course development and implementation

However, 102 courses had little in the way of cross-cutting connections and no engineering..

Response: Collaborative Engagement Across Science and

Engineering (CESE)Partner with ENGR 100: Introduction to Engineering Course:

• Taught by faculty from four engineering disciplines

• Uses experiential learning to introduce students to engineering tools and practices and working in interdisciplinary teams

Increase collaboration among 102 instructors:

• Project team meetings to jointly plan assignments and the culminating activity

• Assignments throughout semester that are shared across courses (e.g., BIOL 102 students write blogs to be read by GEOL 102 students)

Culminating activity: Landfill siting

Students from all courses assemble in interdisciplinary teams:

• Two each BIOL, GEOL, CHEM, with ENGR sprinkled throughout

• Teams asked to evaluate two (fictitious) sites for proposed landfill, consider factors related to each discipline

• Groups complete a matrix showing features of each site that make it more or less suitable for a landfill

• Groups present findings and argue for one site or the other

Culminating activity: Landfill siting

Alignment of problem to NGSS.

Culminating activity: Landfill siting

The Challenge“The Town of Tiwari is growing and needs a new landfill. City planners have two sites in mind, and commissioned preliminary investigations to evaluate them. Your multidisciplinary team must use the next hour (or so) to evaluate the two options and decide which site is the best choice for the Town AND be able to defend/justify your choice based on scientific and/or engineering reasoning.”

Culminating activity: Landfill siting

Your Deliverables“Your team must pick a site based on your understanding of a variety of biological, chemical, geological and engineering concepts. You and your group will complete the Matrix for your group. Additional prompts and follow-up questions are in this packet. You will need to complete this packet and turn in at the end of the session to your instructor. Your instructor may require you to do additional follow-up work, e.g. a Summary of your reasons for yourchoice and/or a reflection on this experience.”

Post-activity survey

“I really liked the collaboration, and feeling like the disciplines could work together to solve problems”

“Seeing how everything worked together and how not one class…was more important than the other”

Likert scale item:The CESE activities made me more confident in my

ability to teach science and engineering to students. 3.8 / 5 (N = 32)

Additional assessment work: CLASS family of surveys

CESE activities did not appear to impact science attitudes of

GEOL 102 students as measured by SPESS survey. SPESS categories: Conceptual Problem Solving, Human-Science

Interaction, Memorization, Personal Interest, Skeptical Reasoning, Science and Society. Data from BIOL 102 and

CHEM 102 still being analyzed.

Next Steps1. Complete data analysis of survey data,

observations for all participating courses.

2. Revise CESE activities based on results of pilot study.

3. Develop new Culminating Activity.

a. Target different NGSS, course concepts

b. Better balance among disciplines

“I wish there had been more for Biology and Chemistry. I felt that the majority of the project had to do with Geology.”

4. Revise assessment to collect individual student data to better measure changes in attitude and content knowledge.

In summary

A tentative success, given the first implementation of the project. Some key features that have made it work:

• Team very committed to course, project.

• Existing courses already reflect good practices and provide strong infrastructure for improvement.

• Support from multiple departments and colleges, as well as researchers from the Catalyst Center, made for a truly interdisciplinary project.

• We have a collective sense that preparation of teachers is an important part of our mission.