Explore the vast range of titles available.

Many calls to improve science education in college and university settings have focused on improving instructor pedagogy. Meanwhile, science education at the K-12 level is undergoing significant changes as a result of the emphasis on scientific and engineering practices, crosscutting concepts, and disciplinary core ideas. This framework of \"three-dimensional learning\" is based on the literature about how people learn science and how we can help students put their knowledge to use. Recently, similar changes are underway in higher education by incorporating three-dimensional learning into college science courses. As these transformations move forward, it will become important to assess three-dimensional learning both to align assessments with the learning environment, and to assess the extent of the transformations. In this paper we introduce the Three-Dimensional Learning Assessment Protocol (3D-LAP), which is designed to characterize and support the development of assessment tasks in biology, chemistry, and physics that align with transformation efforts. We describe the development process used by our interdisciplinary team, discuss the validity and reliability of the protocol, and provide evidence that the protocol can distinguish between assessments that have the potential to elicit evidence of three-dimensional learning and those that do not.

High-stakes exams significantly impact introductory physics students' final grades and have been shown to be inequitable, often to the detriment of students identifying with groups historically marginalized in physics. Certain types of exam questions may contribute more than other types to the observed equity gaps. The primary objective of this study was to determine whether complex multiple-choice (CMC) questions may be a potential cause of inequity. We used four years of data from Problem Roulette, an online, not-for-credit exam preparation program, to address our objective. This data set included 951 Physics II (Electricity and Magnetism) questions, each of which we categorized as CMC or non-CMC. We then compared student performance on each question type and created a multi-level logistic regression model to control individual student and question differences. Students performed 7.9 percentage points worse on CMC questions than they did on non-CMC questions. We find minimal additional performance differences based on student performance in the course. The results from mixed-effects models suggest that CMC questions may be contributing to the observed equity gaps, especially for male and female students, though more evidence is needed. We found CMC questions are more difficult for everyone. Future research should examine the source of this difficulty and whether that source is functionally related to learning and assessment. Our data does not support using CMC questions instead of non-CMC questions as a way to differentiate top-performing students from everyone else.

The importance of improving STEM education is of perennial interest, and to this end, the education community needs ways to characterize transformation efforts. Three-dimensional learning (3DL) is one such approach to transformation, in which core ideas of the discipline, scientific practices, and crosscutting concepts are combined to support student development of disciplinary expertise. We have previously reported on an approach to the characterization of assessments, the Three-Dimensional Learning Assessment Protocol (3D-LAP), that can be used to identify whether assessments have the potential to engage students in 3DL. Here we present the development of a companion, the Three-Dimensional Learning Observation Protocol (3D-LOP), an observation protocol that can reliably distinguish between instruction that has potential for engagement with 3DL and instruction that does not. The 3D-LOP goes beyond other observation protocols, because it is intended not only to characterize the pedagogical approaches being used in the instructional environment, but also to identify whether students are being asked to engage with scientific practices, core ideas, and crosscutting concepts. We demonstrate herein that the 3D-LOP can be used reliably to code for the presence of 3DL; further, we present data that show the utility of the 3D-LOP in differentiating between instruction that has the potential to promote 3DL from instruction that does not. Our team plans to continue using this protocol to evaluate outcomes of instructional transformation projects. We also propose that the 3D-LOP can be used to support practitioners in developing curricular materials and selecting instructional strategies to promote engagement in three-dimensional instruction.

The National Research Council’s Framework for K-12 Science Education and the subsequent Next Generation Science Standards have provided a widespread common language for science education reform over the last decade. These efforts have naturally been targeted at the K-12 levels, but we have argued that the three dimensions outlined in these documents—scientific practices, disciplinary core ideas, and crosscutting concepts (together termed three-dimensional learning)—are also a productive route for reform in college-level science courses. However, how and why college-level faculty might be motivated to incorporate three-dimensional learning into their courses is not well understood. Here, we report a mixed-methods study of participants in an interdisciplinary professional development program designed to support faculty in developing assessments and instruction aligned with three-dimensional learning. One cohort of faculty ( N  = 8) was interviewed, and four cohorts of faculty ( N  = 33) were surveyed. Using expectancy-value theory as an organizational framework, we identified themes of perceived values and costs that participants discussed in implementing three-dimensional learning. Based on a cluster analysis of all survey participants’ motivational profiles, we propose that these themes apply to the broader population of participants in this program. We recommend specific interventions to improve faculty motivation for implementing three-dimensional learning: emphasizing the utility value of three-dimensional learning in effecting positive learning gains for students; drawing connections between the dimensions of three-dimensional learning and faculty’s disciplinary identities; highlighting scientific practices as a key leverage point for faculty ability beliefs; minimizing cognitive dissonance for faculty in understanding the similarities and differences between the three dimensions; focusing on assessment writing as a keystone professional development activity; and aligning local evaluation practices and promotion policies with the 3DL framework.

Background Large introductory lecture courses are frequently post-secondary students’ first formal interaction with science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) disciplines. Grade outcomes in these courses are often disparate across student populations, which, in turn, has implications for student retention. This study positions such disparities as a manifestation of systemic inequities along the dimensions of sex, race/ethnicity, income, and first-generation status and investigates the extent to which they are similar across peer institutions. Results We examined grade outcomes in a selected set of early STEM courses across six large, public, research-intensive universities in the United States over ten years. In this sample of more than 200,000 STEM course enrollments, we find that course grade benefits increase significantly with the number of systemic advantages students possess at all six institutions. The observed trends in academic outcomes versus advantage are strikingly similar across universities despite the fact that we did not control for differences in grading practices, contexts, and instructor and student populations. The findings are concerning given that these courses are often students’ first post-secondary STEM experiences. Conclusions STEM course grades are typically lower than those in other disciplines; students taking them often pay grade penalties. The systemic advantages some student groups experience are correlated with significant reductions in these grade penalties at all six institutions. The consistency of these findings across institutions and courses supports the claim that inequities in STEM education are a systemic problem, driven by factors that go beyond specific courses or individual institutions. Our work provides a basis for the exploration of contexts where inequities are exacerbated or reduced and can be used to advocate for structural change within STEM education. To cultivate more equitable learning environments, we must reckon with how pervasive structural barriers in STEM courses negatively shape the experiences of marginalized students.

Grade point average in “other” courses (GPAO) is an increasingly common measure used to control for prior academic performance and to predict future academic performance. In previous work, there are two distinct approaches to calculating GPAO, one based on only courses taken concurrently (term GPAO) and one based on all previous courses taken (cumulative GPAO). To our knowledge, no one has studied whether these methods for calculating the GPAO result in equivalent analyses and conclusions. As researchers often use one definition or the other without comment on why that choice was made, if the two calculations of GPAO are different, researchers might be inducing systematic error into their results and publishing potentially inaccurate conclusions. We looked at more than 3,700 courses at a public, research-intensive university over a decade and found limited evidence that the choice of GPAO calculation affects the conclusions. At most, one in seven courses could be affected. Further analysis suggests that there may be situations where one form of GPAO may be preferred over the other when it comes to examining inequity in courses or predicting student grades. However, we did not find sufficient evidence to universally recommend one form of GPAO over the other.

Focus on core ideas, crosscutting concepts, and scientific practices Models for higher education in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) are under pressure around the world. Although most STEM faculty and practicing scientists have learned successfully in a traditional format, they are the exception, not the norm, in their success. Education should support a diverse population of students in a world where using knowledge, not merely memorizing it, is becoming ever more important. In the United States, which by many measures is a world leader in higher education, the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) recommended sweeping changes to the first 2 years of college, which are critical for recruitment and retention of STEM students ( 1 ). Although reform efforts call for evidence-based pedagogical approaches, supportive learning environments, and changes to faculty teaching culture and reward systems, one important aspect needs more attention: changing expectations about what students should learn, particularly in college-level introductory STEM courses. This demands that faculty seriously discuss, within and across disciplines, how they approach their curricula.

Core chemistry ideas can be useful tools for explaining biological phenomena, but students often have difficulty understanding these core ideas within general chemistry. Connecting these ideas to biologically relevant situations is even more difficult. These difficulties arise, in part, from a lack of explicit opportunities in relevant courses for students to practice connecting ideas across disciplines. We are developing activities that examine students' abilities to connect core chemistry ideas with biological phenomena, the overall goal being to develop a set of assessments that ask students to connect their knowledge across introductory chemistry and biology courses. Here, we describe the development and testing of an activity that focuses on concepts about energy in bond breaking, bond forming, and ATP coupling. The activity was completed by 195 students in an introductory cell and molecular biology course at Michigan State University; students were either co-enrolled or previously enrolled in General Chemistry I. Follow-up interviews to assess the validity of the activity (among others) showed that students interpreted the questions as intended and that they valued the activity as an opportunity to connect ideas across courses.

In this article, we examine how students in a general education quantitative literacy course reason with public issues when unprompted to use quantitative reasoning. Michigan State University, like many institutions, not only has a quantitative literacy requirement for all undergraduates but also offers two courses specifically for meeting the requirement. A central goal of the courses is for students to use pertinent mathematical tools in the analysis of public issues. In teaching and observing the course, we found that students often approached public issues in complex ways, calling upon prior knowledge, a sense of justice, or other disciplinary habits. This diverse tool set simultaneously serves as a lever for insight into public issues while also potentially impeding the traditional goal of detached analysis in many mathematics classrooms. Drawing upon interviews with five students as they reasoned with media artifacts concerning public issues, we provide evidence of this tension and highlight possibilities afforded by inviting such a tool kit for full use in a general education quantitative literacy course. Our conclusion is that quantitative literacy courses that focus on public issues appear to be ideal spaces for fostering a host of skills supported in general education courses—not just mathematical content itself.

Core chemistry ideas can be useful tools for explaining biological phenomena, but students often have difficulty understanding these core ideas within general chemistry. Connecting these ideas to biologically relevant situations is even more difficult. These difficulties arise, in part, from a lack of explicit opportunities in relevant courses for students to practice connecting ideas across disciplines. We are developing activities that examine students’ abilities to connect core chemistry ideas with biological phenomena, the overall goal being to develop a set of assessments that ask students to connect their knowledge across introductory chemistry and biology courses. Here, we describe the development and testing of an activity that focuses on concepts about energy in bond breaking, bond forming, and ATP coupling. The activity was completed by 195 students in an introductory cell and molecular biology course at Michigan State University; students were either co-enrolled or previously enrolled in General Chemistry I. Follow-up interviews to assess the validity of the activity (among others) showed that students interpreted the questions as intended and that they valued the activity as an opportunity to connect ideas across courses.