A multidimensional assessment of reformed teaching practice in geoscience classrooms

Abstract

This study analyzed quantitative and qualitative data from classroom observations combined with instructor survey results to characterize the application of reformed teaching practices in undergraduate geoscience classes in the United States. Trained observers used the Reformed Teaching Observation Protocol (RTOP) to score 204 geoscience classes. Observed faculty represent a diversity of institutions, teaching rank, and years of experience. Classrooms observed included introductory and upper-level undergraduate courses that ranged in size from 6 to 275 students. Total RTOP scores do not correlate with class size, class level, institution type, instructor gender, instructor rank, or years of teaching experience. Classroom instruction was separated into three categories based on total RTOP scores: Teacher Centered (≤30), Transitional (31-49), or Student Centered (≥50). Statistical analyses of RTOP subscales and individual item scores are used to identify the instructional practices that are characteristic of each category. Instructor survey responses and qualitative classroom observations provide additional details about instructional practices common within each instructional category. Results of these analyses provide a coherent picture of instructional strategies used in geoscience classrooms. Instruction in the most Student Centered classrooms differs from that in Transitional and Teacher Centered classrooms in at least one of three ways. Student Centered classes are more likely to include (1) students engaged in class activities with one another; (2) activities in which instructors assess student learning and adjust lessons accordingly; and (3) opportunities for students to answer and pose questions that determine the focus of a lesson.

Exploring STEM postsecondary instructors’ accounts of instructional planning and revisions

“…1c), it was common for them to report lecture as a primary mechanism when we asked about methods of engaging their students (as opposed to asking what the instructor would be doing). This also fits with a number of recent studies that have characterized the heavy utilization of lecture-based instruction within higher education STEM classrooms (Apkarian & Kirin, 2017;Stains et al, 2018;Teasdale et al, 2017).…”

“…Recent studies have begun to illuminate population-level patterns in learning experiences within the postsecondary STEM classroom. In geoscience, survey results were combined with classroom observation data to characterize over 200 courses (Teasdale et al, 2017). Within this broad sample, 25% of classes were classified as student centered, 45% of classes were classified as transitional, and 30% of classes were classified as teacher centered.…”

“…These surveys reveal that, while STEM faculty are aware of EBIPs, the majority do not implement these practices. Recently, two large-scale studies focused on characterizing instructional practices in STEM courses through classroom observations have corroborated this limited uptake and the predominance of lecturing (Stains et al, 2018;Teasdale et al, 2017).…”

The Role of Introductory Geoscience Courses in Preparing Teachers—And All Students— For the Future: Are We Making the Grade?

“…2). Although both of the data sets examined in this study are self-reported, Teasdale et al (2017) found a strong correlation between self-reports of the frequency of use of in-class exercises and observations of student-student interactions, group work, and discussion. The classrooms where these behaviors were observed were classified as "student-centered," which constituted 25% of the total they observeda similar proportion to the proportion of instructors who reported using in-class exercises and/or small-group discussion in every class in 2016 (Fig.…”

Environmental influences and individual characteristics that affect learner-centered teaching practices

“…In higher education, instructors are faced with overlapping professional obligations and teaching support and constraints from their institution, department, and peers [14,15]. While past research has explored some of these influences on teaching practices, few studies have taken a multidimensional approach to exploring the factors that influence teaching of learner-centered courses [16][17][18]. As part of a longitudinal study of the Faculty Institutes for Reforming Science Teaching (FIRST) IV program [19,20], we sought to tease apart the relative factors that drive the implementation of learnercentered teaching practices.…”