Undergraduate STEM classes are usually enrolled by a large number of undergraduate students who have different prior knowledge or interests, especially introductory and general education classes. It is undeniably a challenging task to keep all of them engaged. Despite the need of student engagement, traditional pedagogical approaches used in STEM classes are heavily lecture-based which do not promote or foster communication between instructors and students. In addition, student performances are usually evaluated based on how well they memorize concepts through a series of multiple choices tests. This would hurt students who have limited prior knowledge and eventually drive students away from STEM. One would argue that subject comprehension is important to develop critical thinking skills (Lauren, Lauren & Baker, 2016). Unfortunately, these classes usually provide little space for students to strengthen such skills. A signal that indicates the need for new pedagogical approaches in STEM classes is that most students dropped out of STEM majors while they are completing introductory courses (Griffith, 2010). These aforementioned problems could be solved by implementing some new approaches to make classes more interactive and more relevant to student interests and background.
Examples of pedagogical approaches for STEM classes
Several methods that promote student engagement and interests could be applied to STEM teaching. Keep in mind that there is no perfect solution every class. One reason is due to a big variation of the number of students in the classes. The following examples are some attempts that have been done to improve pedagogical approaches in STEM courses:
(1) Scale-Up approach (Student-Centered Active Learning Environment with Upside-down Pedagogies) initiated by Dr. Beichner at North Carolina State University: This approach was originally designed for an undergraduate physics program but has been adopted by different disciplines. Under this approach, students will spend most of their time with their peers to work on hands-on activities with some occasional short lectures (< 15 minutes) to provide motivation or clarify some challenging concepts. It was shown that students have better conceptual understanding and better problem-solving skills. Moreover, the failure rates of students are greatly reduced.
(2) Using problem-based learning (PBL) and service learning in a general-education biology class for non-STEM students: The course was originally designed to teach with a traditional STEM approach (lecture-based aiming at conceptual knowledge retention). Later, Tawfik et. al. (2014) gradually changed the teaching in this class to be more problem-centered that allows students to apply knowledge in biology to solve problems in a meaningful manner. Service-based learning was also employed in order to emphasize how science is relevant to local communities through a number of hands-on projects in real life. Although this method allows students to engage in a class, it takes up a significant amount of time for students and instructors.
(3) Just in Time Teaching (JiTT) for an interactive feedback system: Chambers and Blake (2007) adopted a web-based platform to assess students’ prior knowledge in a general chemistry course. According to their approach, core concepts that will be covered in the next class will be put in warm-up questions that students need to complete before coming to the class. The instructors can then adjust their teaching approaches and materials according to the students’ responses. Check-up questions will be assigned to students after a class to evaluate their understandings of the core concepts. Not only can instructors craft their lectures to match the level of students’ prior knowledge, but also gain insight on student misconceptions that needed to be addressed. Furthermore, warm-up assignments also prepare students to come to a class ready to engage in the lecture.
From the above case studies, in certain circumstances, one approach may be more favorable than the others. Service-based learning may be more suitable for smaller classes whereas Scale-Up and JiTT approaches are suitable for larger classes. One thing that is in common among the above examples is to increase interactions between students and instructors or students and their peers. More interactions in a class open up opportunities for an instructor to learn more about their background which can in turn be used as a feedback for redesigning their class to match the prior knowledge of students. When students feel the sense of ownership of the class (perhaps, through a feedback system or through freedom to pursue knowledge that they are interested in), they are more likely to stay engaged and motivated in the class.
References and Additional Information
[1] Lauren, B., Lauren, D., and Baker, S. T. (2016). “Subject Comprehension and Critical Thinking: An Intervention for Subject Comprehension and Critical Thinking in Mixed-Academic-Ability University Students.” The Journal of General Education, 65, no. 3: 264–282.
[2] Griffith, A. L. (2010). “Persistence of women and minorities in STEM field majors: Is it the school that matters?” Economics of Education Review, 29, 911–922.
[3] Brainard, J. “The Tough Road to Better Science Teaching.” Chronicle of Higher Education, Aug. 3, 2007, pp. 16–18.
[4] Resources on the Scale-Up approach: http://scaleup.ncsu.edu
[5] Tawfik, A. A., Trueman, R. J., and Lorz, M. M. (2014). “Engaging Non-Scientists in STEM through Problem-Based Learning and Service Learning.” The Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 8(2).
[6] Chambers, K. A. and Blake, B. (2007). “Enhancing Student Performance in First-Semester General Chemistry Using Active Feedback through the World Wide Web”, Journal of Chemical Education, 84, 1130–1135.
[7] Resources and more information on Just in Time Teaching (JiTT): https://jittdl.physics.iupui.edu/jitt/
E Pluribus Classroom 