Tailoring Undergraduate Instruction to Meet Individual Student Needs Report from the NSF REC PI Conference, May 15-17, 2002

I. Overview and Current State of Research

The traditional undergraduate curriculum, dominated by lecture classes and verification laboratories, has information transfer as its primary function. Concerns about the effectiveness of traditional undergraduate instruction have raised calls for new approaches for teaching science and mathematics (AAAS, 1990; Bransford, Brown, and Cocking, 1999; Clancy, Stasko, Guzdial, Fincher, & Dale, 2001; Hurd, 1998; Mayer et al., 1992; NSF, 1996; Spencer, 1999; Steen, 1989 & 1992; Ward & Bodner, 1993).

A number of innovative approaches have been designed to stimulate student and faculty interest and to increase understanding and retention in science and mathematics. Many studies have investigated the impact of incorporating authentic processes of science into the instruction (Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989; Dunkhase and Penick, 1990; Edelson & Gordin, 1997; Ehlers, 1997; Harrison, 1989; Haury, 2002; Holme, 1994; Jones, 1999; Ortez, 1994; NRC, 1996; NSF, 1996; Rutherford and Ahlgren, 1990; Sigma Xi, 1987). Current notions of scientific literacy are changing as well. They now include an understanding of the processes of science as well as scientific facts and concepts (Devlin, 1998; NSB, 1986; Steen, 1991; Wehmeier, 1996).

The context in which science and mathematics is taught is receiving increased attention, as student interest and therefore understanding may be increased when scientific content is presented in the context of relevant and compelling problems or situations (AAAS, 1990; Brennan, 1996; Dunkhase and Penick, 1990; Howard and Boone, 1997; Hurd, 1998; Mayer et al. 1992, Marzano 1998; Penick and Crow, 1989; Ram, 1999; Rutherford and Ahlgren 1990, Sanders, 1994; Steen, 1991).

The use of cooperative learning groups allows instructors to transform college classrooms, even lecture halls, into active learning environments (Cooper, 1995; Davidson, 1990; Johnson & Johnson, 1987; Nurrenbern, 1995; Slavin, 1995). In structured cooperative learning teams students engage in experiences designed for individual accountability with the support of team members. Cooperative learning is a learner-centered instructional process in which small groups of students work together on well-defined learning tasks to master course content and develop positive interdependence. As students use cooperative learning tools they work together in science and mathematics classrooms to build their cognitive abilities, critical thinking, and teamwork skills (Karre, 1994).

Advances in technology and their applications to undergraduate education make it possible for us to give individual feedback and assess individual work in a more personalized way than has ever been possible before (Guzdial & Soloway, 2002; Linn,1998; Linn & Hsi, 1999). In particular, visualization and modeling tools have the potential to make a profound difference in how the concepts of science and mathematics are learned and understood (Edelson & Gordin, 1997; Gordin & Pea, 1995; Jones, 1996). In these novel learning environments students can visualize, design, and construct complex or invisible phenomena while engaging in authentic activities that follow the paradigms of science.

Research findings such as those cited above shape our vision of how undergraduate students learn science and mathematics, but we need to develop innovative and practical teaching approaches incorporating these new understandings (Michaels & Modell, in preparation). We also need to reexamine our expectations for skills development. Skills needed today for science and mathematics and technology fields and even for scientific literacy include more than the traditional laboratory and problem-solving skills (Pellegrino, 2002). Students need to learn planning, interpreting, cooperating, problem identification, decision making, and communicating. Students must also learn to use information technologies to enhance their productivity and they must learn to manage their own learning. We envision interdisciplinary curricula that employ active learning techniques such as cooperative learning, networked computer communications, and interdisciplinary problem solving teams to encourage students and faculty to interact fully with each other, with their peers, and with non-university colleagues in exciting and meaningful ways.

II. Summary of Discussion

A. Building new knowledge and supplementing existing knowledge

The discussion considered how to promote learning on two fronts: first, through the professional development of faculty members and second, by developing new instructional materials and approaches that help students learn.

The learning environment

A major difficulty with addressing the individual needs of college science and mathematics students is how we can scale instruction and assessment for large classes. The population of students is not homogenous. A variety of models have been introduced to deal with this problem. Prominent among these are structured group work (Cooper, 1995; Karre, 1994; Nurrenbern, 1995; Slavin, 1995), peer instruction (Fagen, Crouch, & Mazur, 2002; Mazur, 1997), peer instruction (Gosser & Roth, 1998; Hastings, 1997; Laws, 1997), class polls, and assessing student understanding at the start of the course to determine their prior knowledge (Michaels and Modell, in preparation).

We need to take the social context of instruction into account, both for faculty and for students. The design of the room in which the class is held can also affect learning. More college classrooms are being built to facilitate cooperative groups, with movable tables and chairs.

Faculty Development

Faculty need to become familiar with and be convinced to apply the results of cognitive and educational research in the classroom. We also need to reach the individuals who prefer to develop their own approaches and are reluctant to try methods developed by others.

Effective means of faculty development require institutional support. They should also be designed to increase the level of faculty reflection and help faculty members set new priorities. An obstacle to instructional innovation for younger faculty is the tenure system. A means must be found to cope with current demands from institutions to move junior faculty into research (and away from teaching). An emphasis on the scholarship of teaching needs to be incorporated into promotion and tenure decisions (Boyer, 1990; Bunce, Gabel, Herron, & Jones, 1994).

Session participants felt that it is important to bring findings from cognitive and educational research into mathematics and science classrooms (Pellegrino, 2002). There is a tension between the domain-general techniques developed in psychology and education and discipline-specific issues. Real change requires starting from a content perspective within the content departments. Interdepartmental collaborations can then follow.

Faculty members learning new instructional methods need opportunities for supervised practice and should receive feedback when implementing new techniques (Coleman, 2002). Ideally, faculty learning new techniques should be mentored and monitored. A national pool of mentors with expertise in different areas could be established to train and mentor faculty members in new instructional methods. It is important to build a community of "inquirers," faculty members willing to implement curriculum reform ideas and willing to support one another in the change process.

Instruction

The discussion of instruction and students learning focused on learning how best to use new tools, on developing innovative and effective instructional materials, on how to promote meaningful and active learning, and on how to win student willingness to learn new ways.

Advances in technology have allowed a variety of innovative learning methods to be introduced. Students can now learn while investigating simulations of complex scientific and mathematical phenomena. Technology has the potential to help instructors rethink content and re-present knowledge to students, but optimal directions for this path remain to be determined.

We need to find the generalizable aspects of individual reform efforts. It is time to go beyond studies that simply compare instructional techniques and focus on the nature of scientific processes such as argumentation, explanation. Instead of addressing individual misconceptions (“plugging the holes” in understandings), we need to build a new, coherent structure that promotes understanding. By this means we can help students build conceptual frameworks for learning.

Some innovative and effective learning methods, such as inquiry laboratories, can be demanding of student time and attention. As a result, students may resist changing to new learning methods. We need to find ways to cope with this resistance and to help students understand the value of these methods.

B. Gaps in the knowledge base

Areas in which further research will be critical for improving undergraduate mathematics and science education that were identified and recommended by the group are listed below. Research on learning as well as on methods of implementation were both felt to be important, but knowledge about how to build motivation generated the most interest. In each case, the group felt strongly that the results should be disseminated in a manner that is accessible to typical undergraduate mathematics and science faculty members.

Research on student motivation:

• Research on how today's students differ from students of the past and how changes in secondary science and mathematics education affect student skills and expectations at the college level is needed.
• We need to know more about syntax/language issues and how they affect learning.
• The interaction between cognition and motivation and how to make the hidden ideas of mathematics and science explicit for students need to be investigated.
• Ways to help students develop intrinsic motivation to study science and mathematics rather than simply responding to extrinsic rewards and penalties need to be identified.
• A related problem is how to help students find meaning in their college mathematics and science courses. The role of aesthetics in learning and motivation needs to be studied.

Research on cognition and learning:

• Developmental learning trajectories need to be characterized through long-term studies.
• Many students come into introductory science and mathematics courses with fragmented knowledge about the subject. The fragmentation of knowledge, as opposed to simple misconceptions, and how it affects learning needs to be studied.
• We need to find ways to measure, identify, and model what is in students' heads (their "mental models"). How do we help students build coherent mental structures to replace fragmented knowledge?
• We need to characterize the ways technology affects learning and assessment. Technologies developed for scientific research generally involve interfaces that were optimized for research purposes and may be difficult for beginners to use (Edelson and Gordin, 1997). New interfaces may be required in order for scientific visualization tools to be useful in education and the characteristics of optimal interfaces need to be determined.

Research on the college classroom and learning environments:

• Learning environments that promote active student involvement in learning, such as inquiry laboratories, design challenges, and cooperative learning teams, have shown great promise, but need to be explored further.
• Technology can be used as a research tool, by collecting data on how students make use of interactive software. Meaningful data that can be collected this way need to be identified and data interpretation refined.
• Students often resist changing to new learning methods and ways to cope with this resistance to teaching innovations need to identified and disseminated.
• Class size effects and distance education need to be studied.
• New assessments need to be developed for new instructional techniques, such as inquiry (for example, see the Mathematical Association of America project Supporting Assessment in Undergraduate Mathematics, MAA,2002).
• We need to develop ways to help interested faculty members incorporate authentic science and mathematics practices in their classrooms.

III. Recommendations

These recommendations are not intended to be restrictive, but to stimulate dialog on methods of improving undergraduate mathematics and science education. Changes in the practice of science and mathematics education should be driven by research in science and mathematics education.

General recommendations for NSF and for the field:

1. Establish a national pool of mentors for faculty development. One model for this approach is the American Chemical Society College Chemistry Consultants Service (ACS, 2002).
2. Some longer term studies that allow systemic longitudinal development need to be conducted in order to characterize the evolution of educational reform. The stages of incubation, development, dissemination, and scalability (including reflection and generalizability) can then be described.
3. Find means such as conferences, listserves, etc., to help to build communities of faculty involved in reform efforts. One model is the Mathematical Association of America Project NExT (MAA, 1997).
4. Disseminate the results of research in science and mathematics education in a manner that will facilitate its implementation in college classrooms.

Recommendations specific to NSF policies and procedures:

1. Allow the continuation of successful EHR projects (as in the science divisions) and promote collaboration across projects.
2. Initiate grant supplements that facilitate the implementation of innovative approaches and materials.
3. Set up more crosscutting/interdisciplinary projects at NSF that bring scientists and mathematicians together with cognitive and educational research scientists.
4. Fund more research in how discipline-specific pedagogical content knowledge can be developed (especially in fields in which reform is only beginning to make inroads, such as engineering and computer science).
5. Fund projects to research gaps in the knowledge base (see above).

IV. References and Bibliography

AAAS (1990). The Liberal Art of Science. Washington, D.C.: American Association for the Advancement of Science.

ACS (2002). Solutions you need from colleagues you can trust, College Chemistry Consultants Service (C₃S) brochure. Available from the American Chemical Society at http://www.acs.org.

Biswas, G., Katzlberger, T., Bransford, J., Schwartz, D. & TAG-V (2001). Extending intelligent learning environments with teachable agents to enhance learning. In J. Moore, C. Redfield & W. Johnson (Eds.). AI in education. IOS Press.

Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate. Princeton: Carnegie Foundation.

Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R., eds. (1999). How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School, Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning, Eduational Researcher, 18, 32-41.

Bunce, D., Gabel, D., Herron, J. D., and Jones, L. L. (1994). Chemical Education Research, J. Chemical Education, 71, 850-852.

Clancy, M., Stasko, J., Guzdial, M., Fincher, S., & Dale, N. (2001). Models and areas for CS education research, Computer Science Education, 11(4), 323-341.

Coleman, K. (2002). Critical dimensions of professional development, Annual NSF K-12 Math, Science, and Curriculum Implementation Projects Conference, Reston, VA, Feb. 1, 2002. http://www.agiweb.org/education/nsf02/ Coleman-additional-overheads.pdf.

Collins, A., Brown, J. S., and Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 453-494). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. See also http://www.21learn.org/arch/articles/brown_seely.html

Cooper, M. M. (1995). Cooperative learning: An approach for large enrollment courses, J. Chemical Education 72, 162.

Davidson, N.A. (1990). Cooperative Learning in Mathematics: A Handbook for Teachers, Menlo Park, CA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc.

Devlin, K. (1998). Rather than scientific literacy, colleges should teach scientific awareness. Chronicle of Higher Ed. 44(20): B6

Dunkhase, J.A., and J.E. Penick. (1990). Problem solving in the real world. J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 19: 367-370.

Edelson, D. C., and Gordin, D. (1997) Creating science learning tools from experts’ investigation tools: a design framework, Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Oak Brook, IL, March 20-24, 1997.

Ehlers, V.J. (1997). Science literacy and the U.S. Congress. J. Coll. Sci. Teach., 27, 85-86.

Fagen, A. P., Crouch, C. H., & Mazur, E. (2002). Peer instruction: results from a range of classrooms, Physics Teacher, 40, 206-209.

Gordin, D. N., and Pea, R. D. (1995) Prospects for scientific visualization as an educational technology, Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(3), 249-279.

Gosser, D. K., and Roth, V. (1998). The workshop chemistry project: peer-led team teaching, J. Chemical Education, 75(2), 185.Gordin, D. N., and Pea, R. D. (1995) Prospects for scientific visualization as an educational technology, Journal of the Learning Sciences

Guzdial, M., and Soloway, E. (2002). Teaching the Nintendo generation to program: Preparing a new strategy for teaching introductory computer programming, Communciations of the ACM, 45(4), 17-21.

Guzdial, M., and Turns, J. (2000). Effective discussion through a computer-mediated anchored forum, Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(4), 437-470. Also see

http://www.catchword.com/erlbaum/10508406/v9n4/contp1-1.htm and click on the article’s page number.

Halpern, D. F., & Associates (1994). Changing College Classrooms: New Teaching and Learning Strategies for an Increasingly Complex World, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Halpern, D. F., & Hakel, M. D. (2002). Applying the Science of Learning to University Teaching and Beyond: New Directions for Teaching and Learning, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Harrison, A. (1989). An exploration of the nature and quality of undergraduate education in science, mathematics, and engineering. Sigma Xi, Research Triangle Park, NC.

Hastings, N.B. (1997). "The Workshop Mathematics Program: Abandoning Lectures," in D'Avanzo, C. and McNeal, A., Student-Active Science: Models of Innovation in College Science Teaching, Philadelphia: Saunders Publishing Co..

Haury, D. L. (1993, updated 2002). Teaching science through inquiry, ERIC Digest #SE053467. (http://www.ericse.org/digests/dse93-4.html).

Holme, T. A. (1994). Providing Motivation for the General Chemistry Course through Early Introduction of Current Research Topics. J. Chem. Educ., 71, 919.

Howard, R.E., and Boone, W. J. (1997). What influences students to enjoy introductory science laboratories? J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 26: 383-387.

Hurd, P.D. (1998). Scientific literacy: new minds for a changing world. Sci. Ed. 82 (3): 407-416.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, F. P. (1987). Joining together: Group theory and group skills, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Jones, L. L. (1996). The role of molecular structure and modeling in general chemistry, New Initiatives in Chemical Education: An On_Line Computer Conference, Summer, 1996. http://www.inform.umd.edu:8080/EdRes/Topic/Chemistry/ChemConference/ChemConf96/Jones/Paper3.html

Jones, L. L. (1999). Learning Chemistry through Design and Construction, Uniserve News, 14, November, 1999 (http://science.uniserve.edu.au/newsletter/vol14/jones.html).

Karre, I. (1994). Busy, Noisy, and Powerfully Effective: Cooperative Learning in the College Classroom. Greeley, CO: University of Northern Colorado.

Laws, P. (1997). Promoting active learning based on physics education research in introductory physics courses, Am. J. Physics, 65, 14-21.

Linn, M. C. (1998). The impact of technology on science instruction: Historical trends and current opportunities. In K. Tobin & B. Fraser (Ed.), International Handbook of Science Education (pp. 265-294). The Netherlands: Kluwer.

Linn, M. C. & Hsi, S. (1999). Computers, Teachers, and Peers: Science Learning Partners. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Lovett, M. C. (2000). "Issues in the design of instructional scaffolds". Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association.

Marzano, R.J. (1998). What are the general skills of thinking and reasoning and how do you teach them? The Clearing House 71: 268-273.

Mathematical Association of America (2002). Supporting Assessment in Undergraduate Mathematics, http://www.maa.org/SAUM/index.html.

Mathematical Association of America (1997). Project NExT, http://archives.math.utk.edu/projnext/.

Mayer, V.J., R.E. Armstrong, L.H. Barrow, S.M. Brown, J.N. Crowder, R.W. Fortner, M. Graham, W.H. Hoyt, S.E. Humphris, D.W. Jax, E.L. Shay, and K.L. Shropshire (1992). The role of Planet Earth in the new science curriculum. J. Geol. Ed. 40:66-73.

Mazur, E. (1997). Peer Instruction, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

McDermott, L. (1991). What we teach and what is learned -- Closing the gap, Am. J. Phys 59, 301-315.

Michaels, J., & Modell, H. (in preparation). Active Learning in the Secondary and College Science Classroom.

Ortez, R.A. (1994). Investigative research in nonmajor freshman biology classes. J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 23:296-300.

National Research Council (1996). National Science Education Standards. National Academy Press. Washington D.C.

National Science Board (1986). Undergraduate science, mathematics and engineering education: Role for the National Science Foundation and recommendations for action by other sectors to strengthen collegiate education and pursue excellence in the next generation of U.S. leadership in science and technology. Washington, D.C.: National Science Foundation. NSB 86-100.

National Science Foundation (1996). Shaping the Future: New Expectations for Undergraduate Education in Science, Mathematics, Engineering and Technology. Washington, D.C.: National Science Foundation. NSF 96-139.

Nurrenbern, S. C., ed. (1995). Experiences in Cooperative Learning: A Collection for Chemistry Teachers, Madison, WI: Institute of Chemical Education.

Pellegrino, J. (2002). Understanding how students learn and inferring what they know: Implications for the design of curriculum, instruction, and assessment, Annual NSF K-12 Math, Science, and Curriculum Implementation Projects Conference, Reston, VA, Feb. 1, 2002. http://www.agiweb.org/education/nsf02/Pellegrinopaper.pdf

Penick, J.E., & Crow, J.W. (1989). Characteristics of innovative college science programs. J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 18:14-17.

Ram, P. (1999). Problem-based learning in undergraduate instruction. A sophomore chemistry laboratory, J. Chemical Education, 76, 1122-1126.

Rutherford, F.J., & Ahlgren, A. (1990). Science For All Americans. Oxford University Press. NY.

Sanders, L.L. 1994. A problem-based graduate level course in practical hydrology. J. Geol. Ed. 42: 337-344.

Sigma Xi (1987). A New Agenda for Science. Research Triangle Park, NC: Sigma Xi.

Sigma Xi (1990). Entry-level Undergraduate Courses in Science, Mathematics and Engineering: An Investment in Human Resources. Research Triangle Park, NC: Sigma Xi.

Slavin, R. E. (1995). Cooperative Learning: Theory, Research, and Practice, Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Spencer, J. N., New directions in teaching chemistry: A philosophical and pedagogical basis, J. Chemical Educ., 76, 566-569.

Steen, L.A., ed. (1989). Reshaping College Mathematics, MAA Notes Number 13, Washington, DC : Mathematical Association of America.

Steen, L.A. (1991). Reaching for science literacy. Change 23: 10-19.

Steen, L. A., ed. (1992). Heeding the Call for Change: Suggestions for Curricular Action, Washington, DC : Mathematical Association of America.

Ward, R. J.; Bodner, G. M. (1993). How lecture can undermine the motivation of our students (SYM). J. Chem. Educ., 70, 198-199.

Wehmeier, H.H. (1996). The business of science literacy. Industry Week 245:56.

Yore, Larry (2001), What is meant by constructivist science teaching and will the science education community stay the course for meaningful reform? Editorial in the Electronic Journal of Science Education 5(4), http://unr.edu/homepage/crowther/ejse/yore.html