Improving STEM Retention through Instruction: Leveraging Faculty Expertise

通过教学提高 STEM 保留率：利用教师的专业知识

• 批准号: 0653160
• 负责人: David Feldon
• 金额: --
• 依托单位: University South Carolina Research Foundation
• 依托单位国家: 美国
• 项目类别: Standard Grant
• 财政年份: 2007
• 资助国家: 美国
• 起止时间: 2007-10-01 至 2010-02-28
• 项目状态: 已结题
• 来源: https://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward?AWD_ID=0653160&HistoricalAwards=false
• 关键词: Improving; STEM; Retention; through; Instruction

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.

这个STEP 2项目的目的是通过重新制定核心课程序列的教学来提高生物科学本科生的保留率。先前的一项全国样本研究表明，90%离开STEM专业的本科生认为，教学质量差是主要原因。此外，74%成功地从STEM项目毕业的学生认为，糟糕的教学是一个主要障碍（Seymour和Hewitt， 1997）。该研究采用双盲设计，旨在验证这样一种假设，即在解决科学问题方面缺乏明确的指导是STEM保留率低的主要因素。通常，某一领域的专家（例如，生物科学教授）在多年的培训和专业实践中已经自动化了他们的程序知识（Anderson, 2005； Bereiter和Scardamalia, 1993; Feldon, in press）。因此，当他们通过讲座或指导对话提供指导时，他们经常忽略完成问题所需的许多步骤，而不一定意识到他们正在这样做（Chao和Salvendy, 1994; Feldon, 2006）。然而，认知任务分析（CTA）正在成为一种可行的手段，从专家那里获得准确和完整的信息，作为高效教学的基础（Feldon, in press）。该项目的智力价值在于它将认知科学研究的有力发现应用于STEM教学。几十年来，认知心理学家呼吁在设计复杂教学时更多地考虑技能自动性（例如，Schneider, 1985; Clark and Estes, 1996; Rogers, Maurer, Salas, and Fisk, 1997）。那些明确地适应其主题专家知识的隐性性质的培训系统已被证明比那些没有的培训系统更有效（例如，Merrill, 2002; Schaafstal, Schraagen, and van Berlo, 2000; Velmahos et al., 2004）。然而，以大学为基础的STEM教学并没有反映出教学设计中对这些进步的任何考虑（van Merrienboer, 1997）。由此产生的教学内容的差距导致学习者的认知负荷水平更高，这通常会导致学习效率降低，并且对具有挑战性的材料的动机显著下降（Britt, 2005; Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark, 2006; Paas, Tuovinen, van Merrienboer, and Darabi, 2005）。由于本研究涵盖了遗传学、分子生物学和细胞生物学核心实验课程的教学设计过程和实施，因此它很好地定位于(1)记录基于技能的STEM教学中通常包含的知识差距，(2)系统地消除治疗组中的这些差距，以及(3)纵向跟踪每种教学条件对学生生物学本科课程的影响。预期在CTA治疗条件下的学生将更有可能在以实验为基础的课程中表现更好，并且在更大程度上留在生物科学专业，而不是在控制条件下的学生。本项目的广泛影响存在于两个层面。首先，它决定了明确的、全面的问题解决指导对STEM保留的贡献程度。先前的描述性研究提供了相关性的有力证据，但很少有实验研究检验了直接因果关系（Seymour, 2001）。其次，该项目正在验证STEM学科教学设计的通用模型，该模型可以轻松地跨领域和机构进行转移和调整。利用认知任务分析方法来识别和生成课程的教学设计方法对许多非学术领域复杂技能培训的有效性和效率产生了重大影响（Clark等人，出版中）。本研究可以验证和发挥其优势，以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能力。