College Science Teaching and Learning (Grades 13-20) Learning through Experiences

10:15am – 11:45am, Room 309

Presider: Geoff Potvin, Clemson University

Undergraduate Science Course Reform: Impacts on Faculty and Students Dennis W. Sunal, The University of Alabama, [email protected] Cynthia Sunal, The University of Alabama

Mason Cheryl, San Diego State University Dean A. Zollman, Kansas State University

ABSTRACT: This paper examines levels of teaching reform implemented in undergraduate science courses and the perceptions that undergraduate students have of their learning environment. Both observed teaching by faculty and for the student learning environment were measured. Instructors teaching in reformed undergraduate science courses were observed to be using instructional methods that were significantly different from instructors in the comparison science classes. Narrative descriptions of observations in courses where the instructor was highly rated as a result of observations indicated the students spent the majority of the time interacting with each other to develop their own ideas about the content that they were learning. There was extensive student to teacher interaction, but this interaction was different than lecturing to the students or giving them the “correct answers”. Undergraduate students were found to have significantly higher and more positive ratings of the learning environment in reform classes as compared to students in comparison science classes. It was concluded that in order for students to perceive their learning environment as being different from a traditional classroom, an instructor would need a significantly high student-centered classroom lesson rating.

Learning through Undergraduate Research: Practice of Inquiry and Understandings about Nature of Science and Nature of Scientific Inquiry

Maya Patel, Ithaca College, Cornell University, [email protected] Barbara A. Crawford, Cornell University

Deborah Trumbull, Cornell University

ABSTRACT: This paper continues our research into student learning through participation in summer,

undergraduate research experiences in biotechnology and genomics. We describe: 1) interns’ laboratory research projects, 2) intern-mentor transactions and 3) relationships between the above, practice of inquiry, and

understandings about nature of science (NOS) and nature of scientific inquiry (NOSI). We employed a mixed- methods approach: pre-post assessment of gains, and exploratory investigation of the laboratory research situation. We found that multifaceted, molecular-genetics research projects (both observational and hypothesis- driven investigations) and tool development (a type of non-investigation) provided multiple opportunities to practice more advanced aspects of inquiry (e.g. design, evaluating evidence, revising assumptions and hypotheses, and constructing arguments) in this setting. We found that interns in mentor-centric transactions, those most highly prescribed, generally achieved lower program inquiry scores than interns in balanced and intern-centric situations. Interns engaged in more indeterminate projects, where methods were less prescribed and outcomes less predictable, generally made greater gains in understandings about NOSI. Gains in understandings about NOS showed no relationship with project or transaction type. In some cases, gains in NOS were linked to critical incidents that occurred during the research, particularly the discovery of anomalies and the interpretation of non- numerical data.

Teaching Teamwork & Communication: Faculty Beliefs in Engineering Education Andrea M. Motto, Virginia Tech, [email protected]

Holly Matusovich, Virginia Tech Marie Paretti, Virginia Tech

ABSTRACT: Communication and teamwork skills remain essential requirements for engineering graduates in both academic and industry settings, however novice engineers frequently struggle with enacting these skills in practice. Research that demonstrates effective strategies for teaching teamwork and communication or that examines faculty and student beliefs about these skills is limited. This three-year mixed methods study seeks to explore faculty beliefs about teaching these topics within engineering curricula, the impacts of those beliefs on students, and effective ways to influence these beliefs. In this paper, we present qualitative findings from Phase 1 of the project, specifically findings in which we identify and characterize faculty beliefs about who should teach teamwork and communication skills and how and where they should be taught.

Metacognition and Learning Gain in Foundation Chemistry: A Case Study Marietjie Potgieter, University of Pretoria, [email protected] Kgadi Mathabathe, University of Pretoria

Salome Human-Vogel, Department of Educational Psychology, University of Pretoria

ABSTRACT: In this study we investigate the relationship between accuracy of self-evaluation as an expression of metacognitive skill, and learning gain in stoichiometry. We investigated whether overconfidence before instruction is corrected upon exposure to teaching of the topic and analyse the underlying reasoning informing metacognitive judgments on performance. The context is an academic development program at the University of Pretoria, South Africa, offered for under-prepared students enrolled for science and engineering. Exaggerated levels of confidence in performance are common for these students, but it could potentially place them at risk by negatively affecting decisions regarding time management and self-regulation. We followed an experimental mixed methods approach and analysed quantitative and qualitative data collected in a pre- and posttest. The picture that emerged is the following: Accuracy of posttest performance evaluation was associated with both a reduction in the prevalence of vague subjective judgments and with higher learning gain. Overconfidence was not a debilitating disposition when demonstrated in the pretest provided that it is corrected during teaching and learning. We recommend a proactive and constructive response by educators which may prevent the damage caused by failure and preserve the positive contribution of confidence, albeit excessively positive.

Strand 6: Science Learning in Informal Contexts

Related Paper Set - Designing for Science Learning: Accounting for the Role for Families and Parents in Supporting Youth

10:15am – 11:45am, Room 305

Presider: Heather Toomey Zimmerman, Pennsylvania State University Discussant: Lynn D. Dierking, Oregon State University

ABSTRACT: In this related paper set, authors report on five research studies that consider the role of parents and families in supporting youth learning in out-of-school spaces. Sharing the perspective that learning is a social process, the authors’ collective goal is to distill design implications from their empirical work that can lead to the development of more supportive science learning environments for families and for youth. These papers will interest researchers studying learning in informal contexts, using design-based research methods, developing formal or informal curriculum, connecting learning across settings (i.e., home to school), and studying the sociocultural aspects of learning environments.

Understanding How Families use Observational Tools during Nature Center Hikes Heather Toomey Zimmerman, Pennsylvania State University, [email protected] Lucy R. McClain, Penn State University

Lynn D. Dierking, Oregon State University

Connecting School Science Learning with At-home Activities: Documenting Learning through a Science Backpack Program

Carrie T. Tzou, University of Washington, [email protected] Elyse Litvack, Maple Elementary

Tools for Talk: Strategies for Supporting the Observational Capacity of Families Catherine Eberbach, Rutgers University, [email protected]

Disciplinary Talk by Design: Identifying Expert and Novice Patterns of Parent-child Engagement with Exhibits Sasha Palmquist, Institute for Learning Innovation, [email protected]

Exploring the Impact of Family Involvement on Youth Engagement in a Creative Robotics Workshop Debra Bernstein, TERC, [email protected]

Emily Hamner, Carnegie Mellon University

Strand 7: Pre-service Science Teacher Education