Symbols are a cornerstone of the written language of physics and mathematics but inconsistencies in their use pose a challenge to students. This article reports on interviews held with first-year undergraduate physics students, focused on their early experiences with symbols in university physics. Students reported being confused by the symbolic aspects of their studies in physics over and above the concepts being taught. Many students commented on experiencing difficulties, as the symbolic notation used in high school mathematics and physics differed to their tertiary experiences. Additionally, the extent of the multiple uses of a single symbol, and the multiple symbols used for a single concept were at times problematic for students. These experiences highlight the need for greater attention to be focused on early undergraduate students’ prior symbolic knowledge, and the formation of explicit connections between the varied nomenclature both within physics, and between physics and mathematics. Additional informationNotes on contributorsMeredith BeggMeredith Begg (meredith@meric.id.au) was formerly a research assistant, Melbourne Graduate School of Education at the University of Melbourne in Carlton, Australia.Robyn PierceRobyn Pierce is an associate professor, Melbourne Graduate School of Education at the University of Melbourne in Carlton, Australia.
Interdisciplinary education offers a collaborative approach to multifaceted topics, such as environmental sustainability. In this article, we present the conceptual framework and lessons learned from a teamtaught course, entitled Sustainability, Energy, and the Green Economy (SEGE). Faculty from the departments of Physics, Chemistry, and Biology offered the course during the 2015–2016 and 2016–2017 academic years at Bronx Community College (BCC). The described interdisciplinary approach was intended to engage students through research-driven, project-based learning using life cycle analysis (LCA) of a simple consumer product. By teaching solutionoriented approaches, SEGE translates complex real-world problems into classroom learning for non-STEM majors. As compared to student performance and engagement data from three 100-level STEM courses at BCC, analyses of C or above grade performance, passing rate, and withdrawal rate indicate that SEGE effectively engaged and retained students. Additionally, student surveys are presented, and were used to guide instructional strategy for effective team teaching and assessment. Additional informationNotes on contributorsMonika SikandMonika Sikand (monika.sikand@bcc.cuny.edu) is an assistant professor in the Department of Engineering, Physics, and Technology at Bronx Community College in Bronx, New York.Claudio MazzatentaClaudio Mazzatenta is a professor in the Department of Biological Sciences at Bronx Community College in Bronx, New York.Keith WongKeith Wong is a corporate responsibility and sustainability professional in the private sector.Joseph BushJoseph Bush is vice president of business development at Battery Resourcers in Worcester, Massachusetts.Aaron M. SochaAaron M. Socha is an associate professor in the Department of Chemistry and Environmental Science at Queens University of Charlotte in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Project-based learning (PBL) instructional methods attempt to make connections between students and their ability to solve real problems. We framed our qualitative study within sociocultural theory and used the Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats (SWOT) model to define the positive and negative factors occurring during a PBL activity. We followed 22 rural community college chemistry students during a garden-based PBL activity and collected data through discussions, observations, open-ended exam questions, semi-structured interviews, and reflective journals. Our goal was to identify the social influences on groups in real time, meaning defining group interactions as they were occurring, and organize the findings within a SWOT framework. We discovered four strengths (discussions, groups, instructor support, and knowledge/experience), six weaknesses (absences, collaboration, communication, dominant member, motivation, and procrastination), four opportunities (Canvas and Google Docs, community members/family, out-of-class communication/discussions, and websites), and two threats (animosity and personal issues/ignoring the group). The results offer insight into the complex network of social interactions within the peer group. We include strategies for finding the right balance between SWOT factors. Additional informationNotes on contributorsPatricia G. PatrickPatricia G. Patrick (trish.patrick.ise@gmail.com) is an associate professor of educational research in the College of Education and Health Professions at Columbus State University in Columbus, Georgia.William BryanWilliam Bryan is the division chair for science, math and health, physical education, recreation, and dance at Seward County Community College in Liberal, Kansas.Shirley M. MattesonShirley M. Matteson is the interim associate dean for research and faculty/staff development and an associate professor of middle level education in the Department of Curriculum and Instruction at Texas Tech University in Lubbock, Texas.
Metacognition and self-regulated learning are skills that contribute to student success, but few studies have examined these topics within a community college context. We addressed this lack of understanding by asking community college biology students to metacognitively reflect on their learning strategies. We took a novel approach in our analysis by investigating how learning strategies potentially differed based on race, age, gender, and final course grade. With some exceptions, we found little evidence to suggest that such differences existed. Notably, we found that learning strategies did not differ between high-achieving and low-achieving students, which contradicts previous studies. We offer several possible explanations for these preliminary results, which include misrepresentation by students in their reflecctions, external and internal barriers to studying, potential flaws in our survey instrument, and students not effectively using learning strategies. We suggest replication of this study with methodological changes to further investigate any potential differences that may exist among these groups of students. Our research is an example of how classroom action research can provide insight into how students learn, which empowers us to make evidence-based changes in our teaching. Additional informationNotes on contributorsMatthew R. FisherMatthew R. Fisher (matthew.fisher@ oregoncoast.edu) is an instructor in the Department of Biology at Oregon Coast Community College in Newport, Oregon.Deborah ColeDeborah Cole is an academic specialist-programming associate at the STEM Education Innovation and Research Institute at IUPUI in Indianapolis, Indiana.Youngha OhYoungha Oh is a PhD candidate in the Department of Research, Evaluation, Measurement, and Statistics at Texas Tech University in Lubbock, Texas.Sheela VemuSheela Vemu is an assistant professor in the Division of Math and Sciences at Waubonsee Community College in Sugar Grove, Illinois.
Nonideal enrollment of nonbiology majors into biology majors courses serves as an impediment to academic success and negatively impacts rates of college course completion. In this Institutional Review Board (IRB)-approved investigation, we examine student success, as measured by student grades and course completion rates, for nonbiology majors who nonide-ally enroll in biology majors and allied health courses. We compare their achievements with biology majors and allied health students enrolled in courses specifically designed for biology majors and those who pursue allied health paths, and with nonbiology majors who appropriately take biology courses designed for nonmajors. We show that under these circumstances, nonmajors perform worse in majors and allied health courses compared to their peers who enroll in the correct courses. In addition, our study shows that nonmajors have significantly higher attrition rates when enrolled in biology majors and allied health courses. Strategies to guide students and prevent nonideal course registration are discussed in the context of the Achieving the Dream (AtD) initiative, which uses a data-driven approach. Additional informationNotes on contributorsFarshad TamariFarshad Tamari (farshad.tamari@kbcc.cuny.edu) is an associate professor, Department of Biological Sciences at Kingsborough Community College in Brooklyn, New York.Mary DawsonMary Dawson is the chairperson and a professor, Department of Biological Sciences at Kingsborough Community College in Brooklyn, New York.Ivan Shun HoIvan Shun Ho is an assistant professor, Department of Biological Sciences at Kingsborough Community College in Brooklyn, New York.
Gwinnett Technical College (GTC), established in 1984, is the second-largest technical college in Georgia. As a two-year open-access college, GTC and other technical and community colleges are significant in educating STEM and nonSTEM majors in the scientific process and scientific literacy. To increase the success of students enrolled in nonmajors Biology I, three GTC biology faculty collaborated to redesign the course, using a backward design method. Grade analysis performed inference about two population proportions and descriptive statistics to interpret data. After course redesign, there was a statistically significant decrease in the D, F, Withdrawal (DFW) rates and a significant increase in students passing with a C average. Further analysis showed first-semester “beginning” students, traditional-aged students, and minority students benefitted most from the curriculum redesign. The backward design model for curriculum redesign was effective in increasing learning and retention in biology at the technical college level. The redesign helped students in jeopardy of failing or withdrawing from the course, especially in groups of students considered “at-risk.” This study contributes to the growing body of knowledge regarding the design of STEM curriculum at the technical college level. Additional informationNotes on contributorsMargaret LongMargaret Long (mlong@gwinnetttech.edu) is division chair of life sciences at Gwinnett Technical College in Lawrenceville, Georgia.Adrienne Cottrell-YongyeAdrienne Cottrell-Yongye (acottrellyongye@ggc.edu) is an assistant professor of biology at Georgia Gwinnett College in Lawrenceville, Georgia.Tyler HuynhTyler Huynh (tylerhuynh@ gwinnetttech.edu) is a biology instructor at Gwinnett Technical College in Lawrenceville, Georgia.
High-structure course designs have reduced achievement gaps for low-income and underrepresented minority students at research universities. But do community college students have time to do the preclass preparation required for intensive active learning, given their work and family commitments? We asked introductory majors biology students at two community colleges, a regional comprehensive university, and a research university (R1) in two states to report the number of hours spent on various activities each week. Our sample included one low-structure and one high-structure course at each institution type. Community college students reported higher levels of nonacademic time commitments than students at the regional comprehensives and the R1s. The community college students in both states reported spending the same amount of time studying for their biology course as the students at the R1s; in one state, the community college students were spending more time studying than the students at the comprehensive university. Our data show that community college students commit as much time to biology as other students, demonstrating that they can readily meet the time demands of a high-structure course. Additional informationNotes on contributorsScott FreemanScott Freeman (srf991@uw.edu) is lecturer emeritus in the Department of Biology at the University of Washington in Seattle, Washington.Pamela Pape-LindstromPamela PapeLindstrom is dean of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics at Harford Community College in Bel Air, Maryland.Anne CasperAnne Casper is professor in the Department of Biology at Eastern Michigan University in Ypsilanti, Michigan.Sarah EddySarah Eddy is assistant professor in biology and the STEM Transformation Institute at Florida International University in Miami, Florida.
Online software systems are extensively used to give students practice on course content, especially in mathematics and physics courses. They offer instant feedback, and several of these systems are open source or very economical compared with hiring graders for traditional paper-and-pencil-based homework (PPH). In this article, the authors evaluate WeBWorK (WW), an online software tool, in an introductory course on probability over two semesters. WW is compared with PPH by measuring student perception, average time spent on a problem, collaborative work outside of classroom, resilience, self-efficacy, and exam performance. The authors find that except for working in groups on homework, students perform similarly on all the aforementioned aspects in both PPH and WW. The authors also suggest potential strategies to improve student understanding and learning while using WW and recommend the use of WW in mathematics-oriented courses. Additional informationNotes on contributorsPhilip Matchett WoodPhilip Matchett Wood (pmwood@math.wisc.edu) is an assistant professor in the Department of Mathematics at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.Vijesh BhuteVijesh Bhute is a postdoctoral researcher in the School of Clinical Medicine, Cambridge Institute for Medical Research, in Cambridge, England.
The Framework for K-12 Science Education and the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) underscore the importance of including engineering design process (EDP) within the science curriculum. The Framework and the NGSS raised engineering design to the level of scientific inquiry in an attempt to prepare a STEM-literate workforce for the 21st century. Science teachers and elementary teachers do not have the required pedagogical content knowledge and self-efficacy to integrate engineering design in their own teaching. We believe that preservice elementary teachers should be taught how to integrate the EDP into their teaching and think that introducing 3D printing into preservice elementary science teaching methods courses can be an effective method for integrating engineering into elementary science teaching. In this study, our purpose is twofold: (a) provide a detailed explanation of how 3D printing is integrated into the EDP within the context of an elementary science teaching methods course and (b) investigate the changes in preservice elementary teachers’ engineering teaching efficacy beliefs as a result of their participation in an engineering design challenge that requires 3D printing. Our results revealed an increase in PST engineering teaching efficacy beliefs. Additional informationNotes on contributorsErdogan KayaErdogan Kaya is a PhD candidate and graduate assistant, Department of Teaching and Learning at University of Nevada, Las Vegas.Anna NewleyAnna Newley is a teacher at the Sonoran Science Academy in Phoenix, Arizona.Ezgi YesilyurtEzgi Yesilyurt is a graduate assistant, Department of Teaching and Learning at University of Nevada, Las Vegas.Hasan DenizHasan Deniz (hasan.deniz@unlv.edu, hdeniz@gmail.com) is an associate professor, Department of Teaching and Learning at University of Nevada, Las Vegas.
As undergraduate institutions rely more heavily on teaching assistants (TAs) they are simultaneously encouraging implementation of course-based research experiences (CBREs). Due to the dynamic nature of CBREs, it is challenging to assign novice TAs to instruct these types of classes. A 10-week CBRE was designed to guide both TAs and their students through a tiered mentored course. The CBRE scaffolded the learning experience for both the TAs and their students for the first 4 weeks with preset labs and then allowed 6 weeks for the TAs to guide their students through asking a scientific research question, designing an experiment, and implementing their research design. This course utilized the researchers as TA instructors, undergraduate students as TAs and research mentors, and high school students as mentees of the undergraduate students. This qualitative study describes the course objectives and design as well as the self-reported science content, teaching, and mentoring gains of the CBRE TAs. These findings support that TAs being trained as research mentors may increase learning gains in both the mentor and mentee populations. Additional informationNotes on contributorsMagdalene K. MoyMagdalene K. Moy (mkm99@drexel.edu) is a doctoral candidate in the School of Education, Drexel University in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.Penny L. HammrichPenny L. Hammrich is an interim dean and professor in the School of Education, Drexel University in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.Karen KabnickKaren Kabnick is an associate teaching professor in the Biology Department, Drexel University in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
