Improving STEM Retention through Instruction: Leveraging Faculty Expertise

第二阶段项目的目的是通过重新制定核心课程顺序的教学来提高本科生在生物科学方面的留存率。此前一项针对全国样本的研究表明，90%离开STEM专业的本科生表示，糟糕的教学是主要原因。此外，74%的STEM项目成功毕业的学生认为糟糕的教学是一个主要障碍(Seymour和Hewitt，1997)。这项研究采用双盲设计，检验了科学问题解决中缺乏明确指导是STEM保留率低的主要因素这一假设。通常，某一领域的专家(如生物科学教授)在多年的培训和专业实践中实现了程序性知识的自动化(Anderson，2005；Bereiter和ScarDamalia，1993；Feldon，正在出版中)。因此，当他们通过讲座或辅导对话提供指导时，他们经常省略完成一道题所需的许多步骤，而不一定意识到他们正在这样做(Chao和Salveny，1994；Feldon，2006)。然而，认知任务分析(CTA)正在成为从专家那里获得准确和完整的信息作为高效教学的基础的一种可行的手段(Feldon，正在出版)。该项目的智力价值在于它将认知科学研究中的可靠发现应用于STEM教学。几十年来，认知心理学家一直呼吁在设计复杂教学时更多地考虑技能的自动性(例如，Schneider，1985；Clark和Estes，1996；Rogers，Maurer，Salas和Fisk，1997)。事实证明，那些明确容纳了主题专家知识的默契的培训系统比那些没有默契的培训系统要有效得多(例如，Merrill，2002；Schaafstal，Schragen和van Berlo，2000；Velmahos等人，2004)。然而，基于大学的STEM教学并没有反映出在教学设计中对这些进步的任何考虑(van Merrienboer，1997)。由此导致的教学内容的差距导致学习者的认知负荷更高，这通常会导致学习效率低下，对挑战性材料的动机显著下降(Britt，2005；Kirschner，Sweller和Clark，2006；Paas，Tuovinen，van Merrienboer和Darabi，2005)。由于这项研究包括遗传学、分子和细胞生物学核心实验室课程的教学设计过程和实施，因此它能够很好地(1)记录基于技能的STEM教学中通常包括的知识差距，(2)系统地消除治疗组中的这些差距，以及(3)纵向跟踪每个教学条件在学生的生物学本科课程过程中的影响。预计接受CTA治疗的学生将更有可能在以实验室为基础的课程中表现更好，并在更大程度上留在生物科学专业。这一项目的广泛影响存在于两个层面。首先，它决定了明确、全面的问题解决教学在多大程度上有助于STEM留住。以前的描述性研究提供了强有力的相关性证据，但很少有实验研究检验直接因果关系(Seymour，2001)。其次，该项目正在验证STEM学科教学设计的一般模式，该模式可以很容易地在不同领域和机构之间转移和调整。利用认知任务分析方法识别和生成课程的教学设计方法在许多非学术领域对复杂技能培训的有效性和效率产生了重大影响(Clark等人，在出版社)。这项研究可以验证和利用其优势来加强对未来科学家的准备，并为进入科学相关领域的大学毕业生提供更强的科学推理技能。

The purpose of this STEP Type 2 project is to improve undergraduate retention in the biological sciences through the reformulation of instruction in the core course sequences. Prior research using a national sample indicates 90% of undergraduates who leave STEM majors cite poor instruction as a primary cause. Further, 74% of students successfully graduating from their STEM programs identify poor instruction as a major obstacle (Seymour and Hewitt, 1997). Using a double-blind design, the proposed study is testing the hypothesis that the lack of explicit instructions in scientific problem solving is a major factor in low STEM retention. Typically, experts in a field (e.g., professors in biological sciences) have automated their procedural knowledge during years of training and professional practice (Anderson, 2005; Bereiter and Scardamalia, 1993; Feldon, in press). As such, when they provide instruction through lectures or mentoring conversations, they frequently omit many of the steps necessary to complete a problem without necessarily realizing that they are doing so (Chao and Salvendy, 1994; Feldon, 2006). However, cognitive task analysis (CTA) is emerging as a viable means to elicit accurate and complete information from experts to serve as the basis for highly effective instruction (Feldon, in press).The Intellectual Merit of the project is its application of robust findings in cognitive science research to STEM instruction. For several decades, cognitive psychologists have called for greater consideration of skill automaticity in the design of complex instruction (e.g., Schneider, 1985; Clark and Estes, 1996; Rogers, Maurer, Salas, and Fisk, 1997). Those training systems that have explicitly accommodated the tacit nature of their subject matter experts' knowledge have proven to be significantly more effective than those that have not (e.g., Merrill, 2002; Schaafstal, Schraagen, and van Berlo, 2000; Velmahos et al., 2004). However, university based STEM instruction has not reflected any consideration of these advances in instructional design (van Merrienboer, 1997). The resulting gaps in instructional content induce a much higher level of cognitive load in learners that typically results in less effective learning and significant drops in motivation for challenging material (Britt, 2005; Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark, 2006; Paas, Tuovinen, van Merrienboer, and Darabi, 2005). Because this study encompasses the instructional design process and implementation for core laboratory courses in genetics, molecular, and cell biology, it is well-positioned to (1) document the knowledge gaps typically included in skill-based STEM instruction, (2) systematically eliminate those gaps in the treatment group, and (3) longitudinally track the impact of each instructional condition over the course of students' undergraduate coursework in biology. It is expected that students in the CTA treatment condition will be more likely to perform better in lab-based coursework and remain in the biological sciences major to a greater degree than their counterparts in the control condition.The Broad Impacts of this project exist at two levels. First, it is determining the extent to which explicit, comprehensive problem solving instruction contributes to STEM retention. Previous descriptive studies provide strong evidence of a correlation, but few experimental studies have examined the direct causal relationship (Seymour, 2001). Second, this project is validating a general model of instructional design for STEM disciplines that can be easily transferred and adapted across fields and institutions. Instructional design methods that utilize cognitive task analysis methods to identify and generate curriculum have had a major impact on the effectiveness and efficiency of complex skills training in many non-academic arenas (Clark et al., in press). This study can validate and leverage its strengths to enhance the preparation of future scientists and provide stronger scientific reasoning skills for college graduates who enter the workforce in science-related fields.