Teaching Methods Related to Student Progress in Lower-level STEM Courses Steve Benton, Ph.D. Senior Research Officer IDEA Emeritus Professor, Kansas State.

Teaching Methods Related to Student Progress in Lower-level STEM Courses

Steve Benton, Ph.D.Senior Research OfficerIDEAEmeritus Professor, Kansas State [email protected]

Role of student ratings IDEA systemDescription of sampleLearning outcomes in STEM classesTeaching styles/methods in STEM classes

Student motivation in STEM classes

Session Overview

Measuring Teaching Eff ectiveness: Include Multiple forms of Assessment

Instructional Delivery

Instructional

Assessment

Course Manageme

nt

Content Expertise

Instructional Design

Learning Outcomes

BalancedPlan for SummativeEvaluation

Measuring Teaching Eff ectiveness: Include Multiple Feedback Sources

Instructional Delivery

(Students)

Instructional Assessment

(Peers)

Course Management(Administrato

r)Content

Expertise(Peers)

Instructional Design(Peers)

Learning Outcomes (Students,

Peers)

BalancedPlan for SummativeEvaluation

Purpose of IDEA

IndividualDevelopmentEducationalAssessment

Teaching ImprovementFaculty Evaluation

Curriculum ReviewProgram AssessmentAccreditation

Underlying Philosophy of IDEA

Teaching effectiveness is determined primarily by students’ progress on the types of learning the instructor targets.

Faculty Information Form

Faculty Information Form(FIF)

Learning Objective Category

Item Number

Basic Cognitive Background

1, 2

Applications of Learning 3, 4

Expressiveness 6, 8

Intellectual Development 7, 10, 11

Lifelong Learning 9, 12

Team Skills 5

Teaching Style Category Item Number

Stimulating Student Interest

4, 8, 13, 15

Fostering Student Collaboration

5, 16, 18

Establishing Rapport 1, 2, 7, 20

Encouraging Student Involvement

9, 11, 14,19

Structuring Classroom Experiences

3, 6, 10, 12, 17

Classes using IDEA in academic years 2009-2013

STEM Classes - 171,306 Science – 82,200 Computer science – 21,188 Engineering – 12,444 Math – 55,474

Non-STEM Classes – 810,277

Description of Sample

Which learning objectives do faculty select in lower-level (first-year/sophomore) STEM courses?

THINK-PAIR-SHARE

Learning Objectives Selected in Lower-level STEM versus non-STEM Classes

Learning Objectives Selected in Lower-level Science,Math, Engineering, and Computer Science Classes

On which learning objectives do students in lower-level STEM courses report the most progress?

THINK-PAIR-SHARE

Student Progress in Lower-level STEM versus non-STEM Classes

Student Progress in Lower-level Science, Math, Engineering, and Computer Science Classes

Which teaching styles do students observe most frequently in lower-level STEM courses?

THINK-PAIR-SHARE

Teaching Styles Emphasized in Lower-level STEM and non-STEM Classes

Teaching Styles Emphasized in Lower-level Science,Math, Engineering, and Computer Science Classes

Which individual teaching methods are most important in lower-level STEM courses?

Teaching Methods Associated with Student Progress on Relevant

Objectives

Used BMA to test multiple modelsOnly included classes where instructor rated objective as relevant

Compared models in first-year/sophomore STEM versus all other classes

Compared models between first-year/sophomore STEM general education classes versus majors

Bayesian Model Averaging (BMA)

Explained Material Clearly/Concisely

Especially important for:• Gaining factual

knowledge• Learning fundamental

principles• Developing skills (gen.

ed.)• Problem solving• Finding/using resources

(gen. ed.)• Critical thinking

Helped Students Answer Own Questions

Especially important for:• Developing skills and

competencies

Inspired Students to Achieve Challenging Goals

Especially important for:• Critical thinking

Asked Students to Share Experiences

Especially important for:• Finding and using

resources

Required Original/Creative Thinking

Especially important for:• Problem solving• Finding and using

resources

“Explained course material clearly and concisely” Objectives 1, 2, 3, 11 (knowledge, problem solving,

critical thinking)“Found ways to help students answer their own

questions” Objective 4 (professional skills/competencies)

“Inspired students to set and achieve challenging goals” Objective 11 (critical thinking)

“Asked students to share ideas and experiences” Objective 9 (information literacy)

“Gave projects, tests, or assignments that required original or creative thinking” Objectives 3, 9 (problem solving, information literacy)

Key Teaching Methods in Lower-Level STEM Courses

Especially important for gen. ed. students in:

Acquiring an interest in learning more

Stimulated Students to Intellectual Effort

POD-IDEA NotesIDEA Website

POD-IDEA Notes

What percent of lower-level students express a strong desire to take their current STEM course?

Students’ Desire to Take the Course

Lower-level Students’ Desire to Take STEM versus non-STEM Courses

Lower-level Students’ Desire to Take Science, Math, Engineering, and Computer Science Courses

STEM instructors emphasize basic cognitive information and applications of knowledge

Least emphasis on team skills, expressiveness, intellectual development

Summary: Learning Outcomes Emphasized in Lower-level STEM

Courses

Student progress highest in basic cognitive information/applications

Student progress lowest in expressiveness and intellectual development

Summary: Student Progress in Lower-level STEM Courses

Frequent STEM teaching styles: stimulating interest, establishing rapport, and establishing course structure

Least frequent STEM teaching style: fostering collaboration

Key teaching method: Clarity and conciseness

Summary: Teaching Methods in Lower-level STEM Courses

STEM students’ desire to take course comparable to non-STEM

Students’ desire to take course lowest in math

Summary: Student Motivation in Lower-level STEM Courses

• Which results confi rmed what you might think • about STEM courses?• Which results were surprising?• What additional insights or questions • do you have?

Discussion

Questions?

Steve Benton, Ph.D.Senior Research OfficerIDEA