Confronting the challenges of participatory culture

/pdf/academically-adrift-limited-learning-on-college-campuses-232nuz2woh.pdf

Academically Adrift: Limited Learning on College Campuses

Rethinking Education in the Age of Technology: The Digital Revolution and Schooling in America

Research has shown that active learning promotes student learning and increases retention rates of STEM undergraduates. Yet, instructors are reluctant to change their teaching approaches for several reasons, including a fear of student resistance to active learning. This paper addresses this issue by building on our prior work which demonstrates that certain instructor strategies can positively influence student responses to active learning. We present an analysis of interview data from 17 engineering professors across the USA about the ways they use strategies to reduce student resistance to active learning in their undergraduate engineering courses. Our data reveal that instructor strategies for reducing student resistance generally fall within two broad types: explanation and facilitation strategies. Explanation strategies consist of the following: (a) explain the purpose, (b) explain course expectations, and (c) explain activity expectations. Facilitation strategies include the following: (a) approach non-participants, (b) assume an encouraging demeanor, (c) grade on participation, (d) walk around the room, (e) invite questions, (f) develop a routine, (g) design activities for participation, and (h) use incremental steps. Four of the strategies emerged from our analysis and were previously unstudied in the context of student resistance. The findings of this study have practical implications for instructors wishing to implement active learning. There is a variety of strategies to reduce student resistance to active learning, and there are multiple successful ways to implement the strategies. Importantly, effective use of strategies requires some degree of intentional course planning. These strategies should be considered as a starting point for instructors seeking to better incorporate the use of active learning strategies into their undergraduate engineering classrooms.

/pdf/strategies-to-mitigate-student-resistance-to-active-learning-ye3dlmf61p.pdf

Strategies to mitigate student resistance to active learning

Background
Ample research provides evidence about the influence of effective teaching practices on student success Yet the adoption of such practices has been slow at many institutions Efforts to bridge the gap between research and practice are needed

Purpose
We describe an institutional change plan we developed to bridge this research-to- practice gap Our plan is grounded in research and theories about faculty motivation and organizational change, and we designed it using local evidence from the University of Michigan College of Engineering

Design/Method
We collected local data from three sources to provide context for our institutional change plan First, faculty focus groups allowed us to determine factors that influence faculty adoption of effective teaching practices Second, classroom observations allowed us to ascertain current teaching practices Third, a student survey allowed us to identify teaching practices perceived by students to enhance their success We used this local evidence with a “who/what/how” decision-making process to design our change plan

Results
Our institutional change plan for accelerating the adoption of effective teaching practices comprises a faculty action plan and an administrative change plan Although still evolving, there is evidence of the success of both parts

Conclusions
Local evidence is critical in our change plan Change agents wishing to bridge the research-to-practice gap at their own institutions can design a plan that adapts our process and integrates relevant research and theory with their own local data

/pdf/bridging-the-research-to-practice-gap-designing-an-542x0dr5le.pdf

Bridging the Research‐to‐Practice Gap: Designing an Institutional Change Plan Using Local Evidence

An oft-cited maxim in higher education is that “faculty teach the way they were taught” because they receive little formal training in teaching before entering the classroom. However, little is known about the origins of faculty knowledge about teaching or the role their prior experiences play in the development of their teaching practices. In this exploratory study, we interviewed and observed 53 science, technology, engineering, and mathematics faculty at three research institutions. Using qualitative analysis methods (i.e., thematic and causal network analysis), we find that faculty do not only model their teaching after previous instructors, but also draw upon a varied repertoire of knowledge and prior experiences. These include knowledge derived from their experiences as instructors (46 respondents), their experiences as students (22 respondents), their experiences as researchers (9 respondents), and from their non-academic roles (10 respondents). In-depth analyses of two faculty members elaborate on the relationship between these varied types of prior experiences and how they interact with other factors including beliefs about teaching, instructional goals, and features of the organizational context to ultimately shape their classroom practice. The results suggest that instead of assuming that faculty lack any knowledge about teaching and learning, professional developers and policymakers should instead acknowledge and build upon their preexisting “craft” knowledge as professional teachers. Future research should focus on relationships between specific types of knowledge and teaching practice and how these varied experiences influence identity formation.

Teaching the way they were taught? Revisiting the sources of teaching knowledge and the role of prior experience in shaping faculty teaching practices

A growing body of research in cognitive psychology and education research is illuminating which study strategies are effective for optimal learning, but little descriptive research focuses on how undergraduate students in STEM courses actually study in real-world settings. Using a practice-based approach informed by situated cognition theory, we analyzed data from 61 STEM students about their study habits. Results indicate that studying is a multi-faceted process that is initiated by instructor- or self-generated cues, followed by marshaling resources and managing distractions, and then implementing study behaviors that include selecting a social setting and specific strategies. Variations in some study behaviors are also evident according to the timing of their studying (e.g., cramming), course level, discipline, and social setting. Three cases of individual student practices reveal how studying is also shaped by how the course is designed and taught, students’ own beliefs about studying, and aspects of their personal lives. The results indicate that studying involves various social, digital, and curricular resources, that many students persist in utilizing low-impact study strategies (e.g., re-reading text), and that the use of study strategies varies across different situations. We suggest that the focus on changing teaching behaviors that is dominant within STEM education be broadened to include a focus on instructional design that supports student self-regulatory behaviors and the adoption of high-impact study strategies. The stages of studying across three cases: Brianna, Larry, and Angelica.

/pdf/examining-study-habits-in-undergraduate-stem-courses-from-a-otbmz6jl36.pdf

Examining study habits in undergraduate STEM courses from a situative perspective

/pdf/findings-from-classroom-observations-of-58-math-and-science-3m7rw9inqj.pdf

Findings from classroom observations of 58 math and science faculty

/pdf/stem-how-a-poorly-defined-acronym-is-shaping-education-and-1uze1fosaf.pdf

STEM: How a Poorly Defined Acronym Is Shaping Education and Workforce Development Policy in the United States. WCER Working Paper No. 2014-2.

for teaching and learning undermine employer, student, and societal interests. (WCER Working Paper No. 2016-9). Retrieved from University of Wisconsin–Madison, Wisconsin Center for Education Research website: http://www.wcer.wisc.edu/publications/workingPapers/papers.php Beyond the skills gap: How the lack of systemic supports for teaching and learning undermines employer, student, and societal interests

/pdf/beyond-the-skills-gap-how-the-lack-of-systemic-supports-for-2040tmo4uq.pdf

Beyond the Skills Gap: How the Lack of Systemic Supports for Teaching and Learning Undermines Employer, Student, and Societal Interests. WCER Working Paper No. 2016-9.

Amanda K. Oleson

Papers

Teaching the way they were taught? Revisiting the sources of teaching knowledge and the role of prior experience in shaping faculty teaching practices

Examining study habits in undergraduate STEM courses from a situative perspective

Findings from classroom observations of 58 math and science faculty

STEM: How a Poorly Defined Acronym Is Shaping Education and Workforce Development Policy in the United States. WCER Working Paper No. 2014-2.

Beyond the Skills Gap: How the Lack of Systemic Supports for Teaching and Learning Undermines Employer, Student, and Societal Interests. WCER Working Paper No. 2016-9.