Interpret with Caution: COPUS Instructional Styles May Not Differ in Terms of Practices That Support Student Learning

Abstract

The Classroom Observation Protocol for Undergraduate STEM (COPUS) instructional styles reliably distinguish between frequency patterns of classroom behaviors, but do not readily discern differences in formative assessment and feedback. Given the positive relationship between formative assessment and student learning, this study highlights the limitations of the COPUS in documenting the results of STEM reform.

Brief Training and Intensive Mentoring Guide Postdoctoral Scholars to Student-Centered Instruction

“…, 2013 ), an instrument that, perhaps because of its popularity, has been subject to criticism ( Lund et al. , 2015 ; Hora, 2015 ; McConnell et al. , 2021 ).…”

“…This evaluation of the teaching methods that STEP-WISE postdocs apply relies on the use of the COPUS (Smith et al, 2013), an instrument that, perhaps because of its popularity, has been subject to criticism (Lund et al, 2015;Hora, 2015;McConnell et al, 2021). Critics of the instrument find that it is too coarse (Hora, 2015), despite the fact that it documents 25 behaviors (Lund et al, 2015), and that it does not distinguish among forms of assessment that instructors use (McConnell et al, 2021). For simplicity's sake the COPUS assumes that the behaviors exhibited are implemented as intended, for example, that the group work students take part in is appropriately structured (Theobald et al, 2017;.…”

Response to “Interpret with Caution: COPUS Instructional Styles May Not Differ in Terms of Practices That Support Student Learning,” by Melody McConnell, Jeffrey Boyer, Lisa M. Montplaisir, Jessie B. Arneson, Rachel L. S. Harding, Brian Farlow, and Erika G. Offerdahl

“…Echoing the caution expressed by McConnell et al (2021), I note here that the COPUS should be recognized for what it is and is not. It is a blunt instrument that is easy to use reliably and captures some aspects of classroom activities that reflect teaching quality, but it misses many others.…”

“…

To the Editor: The article by McConnell et al (2021) brings attention to an issue that I, as a leader in the development of the Classroom Observation Protocol for Undergraduate STEM (COPUS), have been increasingly concerned about. That issue is the ascribing more meaning to COPUS results than is appropriate or correct.

…”

“…The final result, COPUS, was an observation protocol that achieved our primary goal of allowing quickly trained observers (including nonexperts in the discipline) to generally characterize how the students and the instructor were spending their time in class, primarily as a check on the TPI information. However, this was done with the explicit recognition that this goal was achieved at a cost of not capturing many issues that are important in determining the quality of instruction, including those discussed in McConnell et al (2021). I believe it is likely that many of these missing elements can be captured by the TPI information, but that is a different issue, as the COPUS has come to be used so widely on its own.…”