“What will i experience in my college STEM courses?” An investigation of student predictions about instructional practices in introductory courses

CBE Life Sciences Education

Volumn 18, Issue 4, 2019, Pages

  Meaders, Clara L ^a   Toth, Emma S ^b   Kelly Lane, A ^d,e   Kenny Shuman, J ^e   Couch, Brian A ^d   Stains, Marilyne ^e   Stetzer, Mackenzie R ^b,c   Vinson, Erin ^b   Smith, Michelle K ^a  

^a Cornell University ^*  (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MAINE   (United States)

^c University of Nebraska–Lincoln ^*  (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA   (United States)

^e UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA LINCOLN   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CURRICULUM; EDUCATION; ENGINEERING; HUMAN; MATHEMATICS; QUESTIONNAIRE; SCIENCE; STUDENT; TECHNOLOGY; UNIVERSITY;

CURRICULUM; ENGINEERING; HUMANS; MATHEMATICS; SCIENCE; STUDENTS; SURVEYS AND QUESTIONNAIRES; TECHNOLOGY; UNIVERSITIES;

EID: 85075038316     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19317913     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1187/cbe.19-05-0084     Document Type: Article

References (72)

1. Akiha, K., Brigham, E., Couch, B. A., Lewin, J., Stains, M., Stetzer, M. R., … & Smith, M. K. (2018). What types of instructional shifts do students experience? Investigating active learning in science, technology, engineering, and math classes across key transition points from middle school to the university level. Frontiers in Education, 2, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2017.00068
2. Allen, D., & Tanner, K. (2005). Infusing active learning into the large-enrollment biology class: Seven strategies, from the simple to complex. Cell Biology Education, 4(4), 262–268. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.05-08-0113
3. Alting, A., & Walser, A. (2007). Retention and persistence of undergraduate engineering students: “What happens after the first year?” ASEE, 2007, 9.
4. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2011). Vision and change in undergraduate biology education: A call to action. Washington, DC.
5. Bajak, A. (2014, May 12). Lectures aren’t just boring, they’re Ineffective, too, study finds. Retrieved from sciencemag.org/news/2014/05/lectures-arent-just-boring-theyre-ineffective-too-study-finds
6. Ballen, C. J., Wieman, C., Salehi, S., Searle, J. B., & Zamudio, K. R. (2017). Enhancing diversity in undergraduate science: Self-efficacy drives performance gains with active learning. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 16(4), ar56. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-12-0344
7. Barton, K. (2019). MuMIn: Multimodel inference (Version 1.43.6). Retrieved March 18, 2019, from https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/MuMIn/index.html
8. Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-ef-fects models using {lme4}. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01
9. Brazeal, K. R., Brown, T. L., & Couch, B. A. (2016). Characterizing student perceptions of and buy-in toward common formative assessment techniques. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 15(4), ar73. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-03-0133
10. Brazeal, K. R., & Couch, B. A. (2017). Student buy-in toward formative assessments: The influence of student factors and importance for course success. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, 18(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1128/jmbe.v18i1.1235
11. Brown, T. L., Brazeal, K. R., & Couch, B. A. (2017). First-year and non-first-year student expectations regarding in-class and out-of-class learning activities in introductory biology. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, 18(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1128/jmbe.v18i1.1241
12. Burgoon, J. K. (1978). A communication model of personal space violations: Explication and an initial test. Human Communication Research, 4(2), 129–142. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1978.tb00603.x
13. Cash, C. B., Letargo, J., Graether, S. P., & Jacobs, S. R. (2017). An analysis of the perceptions and resources of large university classes. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 16(2), ar33. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-01-0004
14. Cataldi, E. F., Bennett, C. T., Chen, X., & Simone, S. A. (2018). Stats in brief first-generation students (college access, persistence, and postbache-lor’s outcomes) (pp. 1–31). National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2018/2018421.pdf
15. Cavanagh, A. J., Aragón, O. R., Chen, X., Couch, B., Durham, M., Bobrownic-ki, A., … & Graham, M. J. (2016). Student buy-in to active learning in a college science course. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 15(4), ar76. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-07-0212
16. Chang, M. J., Cerna, O., Han, J., & Sàenz, V. (2008). The contradictory roles of institutional status in retaining underrepresented minorities in biomedical and behavioral science majors. Review of Higher Education: Journal of the Association for the Study of Higher Education, 31(4), 433–464. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/rhe.0.0011
17. Chen, X. (2013). STEM attrition: College students’ paths into and out of STEM fields (NCES 2014-001). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
18. Collier, P. J., & Morgan, D. L. (2008). “Is that paper really due today?”: Differences in first-generation and traditional college students’ understandings of faculty expectations. Higher Education, 55(4), 425–446. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-007-9065-5
19. Cooper, J. L., & Robinson, P. (2000). The argument for making large classes seem small. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2000(81), 5–16. https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.8101
20. Cox, M. D. (2004). Introduction to faculty learning communities. New Directions for Teaching and Learning 2004(97), 5–23. doi:10.1002/tl.129
21. Crouch, C. H., & Mazur, E. (2002). Peer instruction: Ten years of experience and results. American Journal of Physics, 69(9), 970–977. https://doi. org/10.1119/1.1374249
22. Deslauriers, L., Schelew, E., & Wieman, C. (2011). Improved learning in a large-enrollment physics class. Science, 332(6031), 862–864. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1201783
23. Durham, M. F., Knight, J. K., Bremers, E. K., DeFreece, J. D., Paine, A. R., & Couch, B. A. (2018). Student, instructor, and observer agreement regarding frequencies of scientific teaching practices using the Measurement Instrument for Scientific Teaching-Observable (MISTO). International Journal of STEM Education, 5(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-0128-1
24. Eagan, K., Hurtado, H., Figueroa, T., & Hughes, B. (2014, April 2015). Examining STEM Pathways among Students Who Begin College at Four-Year Institutions. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences. (Commis-sioned paper prepared for the Committee on Barriers and Opportunities in Completing 2-and 4-Year STEM Degrees).
25. Eddy, S. L., & Hogan, K. A. (2014). Getting under the hood: How and for whom does increasing course structure work? CBE—Life Sciences Education, 13(3), 453–468. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.14-03-0050
26. Engle, J., & Tinto, V. (2008). Moving beyond access: College success for low-income, first-generation students. Washington, DC: Pell Institute.
27. Erdmann, R. M., & Stains, M. (2019). Classroom as genome: Using the tools of genomics and bioinformatics to illuminate classroom observation data. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 18(1), es1. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.18-07-0116
28. Exeter, D. J., Ameratunga, S., Ratima, M., Morton, S., Dickson, M., Hsu, D., & Jackson, R. (2010). Student engagement in very large classes: The teach-ers’ perspective. Studies in Higher Education, 35(7), 761–775. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070903545058
29. Felder, R. M., & Brent, R. (1996). Navigating the bumpy road to student-cen-tered instruction. College Teaching, 44(2), 43–47. https://doi.org/10.108 0/87567555.1996.9933425
30. Fox, J., & Weisberg, S. (2011). An {R} companion to applied regression (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
31. 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 USA, 111(23), 8410–8415. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319030111
32. Gaffney, J. D. H., Gaffney, A. L. H., & Beichner, R. J. (2010). Do they see it coming? Using expectancy violation to gauge the success of pedagogical reforms. Physical Review Special Topics–Physics Education Research, 6(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.6.010102
33. Gaffney, J. D. H., & Whitaker, J. T. (2015). Making the most of your first day of class. Physics Teacher, 53(3), 137–139. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.4908079
34. Gavassa, S., Benabentos, R., Kravec, M., Collins, T., & Eddy, S. (2019). Closing the achievement gap in a large introductory course by balancing reduced in-person contact with increased course structure. CBE— Life Sciences Education, 18(1), ar8. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.18-08-0153
35. Griffith, A. L. (2010). Persistence of women and minorities in STEM field majors: Is it the school that matters? Economics of Education Review, 29(6), 911–922. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2010.06.010
36. Haak, D. C., HilleRisLambers, J., Pietre, E., & Freeman, S. (2011). Increased structure and active learning reduce the achievement gap in introductory biology. Science, 332(6034), 1213–1216. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1204820
37. Hill, F. (1995). Managing service quality in higher education: The role of the student as primary consumer. Quality Assurance in Education, 3(3), 10–21.
38. Hora, M. T., Bouwma-Gearhart, J., & Park, H. J. (2017). Data driven deci-sion-making in the era of accountability: Fostering faculty data cultures for learning. Review of Higher Education, 40(3), 391–426. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2017.0013
39. Horowitz, G. (2019). Teaching STEM to first generation college students: A guidebook for faculty & future faculty. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
40. Keeley, S. M. (2014). Coping with student resistance to critical thinking: What the psychotherapy literature can tell us. College Teaching, 43(4), 140–145.
41. Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B., & Christensen, R. H. B. (2017). lmerTest package: Tests in linear mixed effects models. Journal of Statistical Software, 82(13), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v082.i13
42. Lang, J. M. (2019). How to teach a good first day of class. Retrieved May 2, 2019, from www.chronicle.com/interactives/advice-firstday
43. Lent, R. W., Sheu, H. Bin, Singley, D., Schmidt, J. A., Schmidt, L. C., & Gloster, C. S. (2008). Longitudinal relations of self-efficacy to outcome expectations, interests, and major choice goals in engineering students. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 73(2), 328–335. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jvb.2008.07.005
44. Lewin, J. D., Vinson, E. L., Stetzer, M. R., & Smith, M. K. (2016). A campus-wide investigation of clicker implementation: The status of peer discussion in STEM classes, CBE—Life Sciences Education, 15, ar6. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.15-10-0224
45. Lowe, H., & Cook, A. (2003). Mind the gap: Are students prepared for higher education? Journal of Further and Higher Education, 27(1), 53–76.
46. Mazur, E. (1997). Peer instruction: A user’s manual. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
47. Mervis, J. (2011). Undergraduate science: Weed-out courses hamper diversity. Science, 334(6061), 1333. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.334.6061.1333
48. Messineo, M., Gaither, G., Bott, J., & Ritchey, K. (2007). Inexperienced versus experienced students’ expectations for active learning in large classes. College Teaching, 55(3), 125–133. https://doi.org/10.3200/CTCH.55.3.125-133
49. Michael, J. (2007). Faculty perceptions about barriers to active learning. College Teaching, 55(2), 42–47, DOI: 10.3200/CTCH.55.2.42-47.
50. National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics. (2017). Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering (Special Report NSF 17-310). Arlington, VA. Retrieved from www.nsf.gov/ statistics/wmpd/
51. Pearson, R. (2016). Goodman Kruskal: Association analysis for categorical variables. Retrieved May 2, 2019, from https://cran.r-project.org/package=GoodmanKruskal
52. Pelletreau, K. N., Knight, J. K., Lemons, P. P., Mccourt, J. S., Merrill, J. E., Nehm, R. H., … & Smith, M. K. (2018). A faculty professional development model that improves student learning, encourages active-learning instructional practices, and works for faculty at multiple institutions. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 17(2), es5. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.17-12-0260
53. President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. (2012). Engage to excel: Producing one million additional college graduates with degrees in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Office of Science and Technology (pp. 36–38).
54. RStudio Team. (2015). RStudio: Integrated development for R. Boston, MA: RStudio, Inc. www.rstudio.com/
55. Sander, P., Stevenson, K., King, M., & Coates, D. (2000). University students’ expectations of teaching. Studies in Higher Education, 25(3), 309–323. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070050193433
56. Sawtelle, V., Brewe, E., & Kramer, L. H. (2012). Exploring the relationship between self-efficacy and retention in introductory physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(9), 1096–1121. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21050
57. Seidel, S. B., & Tanner, K. D. (2013). “What if students revolt?”—Considering student resistance: Origins, options, and opportunities for investigation. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 12(4), 586–595. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe-13-09-0190
58. Seymour, E., & Hewitt, N. M. (1997). Talking about leaving: Why undergraduates leave the sciences. Boulder, CO: Westview.
59. Shaw, E. J., & Barbuti, S. (2010). Patterns of persistence in intended college major with a focus on STEM majors. NACADA Journal, 30(2), 19–34. https://doi.org/10.12930/0271-9517-30.2.19
60. Sithole, A., Chiyaka, E. T., McCarthy, P., Mupinga, D. M., Bucklein, B. K., & Kibirige, J. (2017). Student attraction, persistence and retention in STEM programs: Successes and continuing challenges. Higher Education Studies, 7(1), 46. https://doi.org/10.5539/hes.v7n1p46
61. Smith, M. K., Jones, F. H. M., Gilbert, S. L., & Wieman, C. E. (2013). The Classroom Observation Protocol for Undergraduate STEM (COPUS): A new instrument to characterize university STEM classroom practices. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 12(4), 618–627. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.13-08-0154
62. Smith, M. K., Vinson, E. L., Smith, J. A., Lewin, J. D., & Stetzer, M. R. (2014). A campus-wide study of STEM courses: New perspectives on teaching practices and perceptions. CBE Life Sciences Education, 13(4), 624–635. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.14-06-0108
63. Smith, M. K., Wood, W. B., Krauter, K., & Knight, J. K. (2011). Combining peer discussion with instructor explanation increases student learning from in-class concept questions. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 10(1), 55–63. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.10-08-0101
64. Stains, M., Harshman, J., Barker, M. K., Chasteen, S. V., Cole, R., DeCh-enne-Peters, S. E., … & Young, A. M. (2018). Anatomy of STEM teaching in North American universities. Science, 359(6383), 1468–1470. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aap8892
65. Stephens, N. M., Fryberg, S. A., Markus, H. R., Johnson, C. S., & Covarrubias, R. (2012). Unseen disadvantage: How American universities’ focus on independence undermines the academic performance of first-generation college students. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(6), 1178–1197. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027143
66. Sultan, P., & Wong, H. Y. (2010). Service quality in higher education—a review and research agenda. International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences, 2(2), 259–272. https://doi.org/10.1108/17566691011057393
67. Tharayil, S., Borrego, M., Prince, M., Nguyen, K. A., Shekhar, P., Finelli, C. J., & Waters, C. (2018). Strategies to mitigate student resistance to active learning. International Journal of STEM Education, 5(7). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-0102-y
68. Theobald, E. (2018). Students are rarely independent: When, why, and how to use random effects in discipline-based education research. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 17(3), rm2. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.17-12-0280
69. Watkins, B. J., & Mazur, E. (2019). Retaining students in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) majors, 42(5), 36–41.
70. Wickham, H. (2016). ggplot2: Elegant graphics for data analysis. New York: Springer-Verlag. http://ggplot2.org
71. Wieman, C. E. (2014). Large-scale comparison of science teaching methods sends clear message, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 111(23), 8319–8320. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1407304111
72. Yee, A. (2016). The unwritten rules of engagement: Social class differences in undergraduates’ academic strategies. Journal of Higher Education, 87(6), 831–858. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2016.11780889