National Study of Education in Undergraduate Science: 2006-2012 --What Was Learned

1. National Study of Education in Undergraduate Science: 2006-2012--What Was Learned Cheryl L. Mason, Ph.D. San Diego State University Dennis W. Sunal, Ph.D. The University of Alabama Cynthia S. Sunal, Ph.D. The University of Alabama

2. NOVA Project • NASA Opportunities for Visionary Academics was a project created to develop and disseminate a national framework for enhancing education of pre-service teachers in science, mathematics, and technology. • The NOVA Professional Development Model resulted in university faculty developing the skills and knowledge to reform their undergraduate science courses.

3. Why Undergraduate Science? These courses influence pre-service elementary teachers’conceptions of the nature of science and how science should be taught.

4. Why Undergraduate Science?(cont.) • Need to change common features that turn off students from taking additional science courses and/or considering science as a career option: • Lack of relevance to their lives • Memorization of factoids rather than conceptual understanding • Emphasis on competition rather than collaboration in the classroom • Focus on algorithmic problem-solving • Passive student roles

6. National Study of Education in Undergraduate Science (NSEUS) Multi-year National Study Goal: Investigate the impact of undergraduate course reform, as a result of the NOVA Project, on • student short-term learning outcomes – all majors. • student long-term learning outcomes - inservice elementary teachers of science. Research Question: How do undergraduate entry-level science courses, differing in levels of reform, affect student learning outcomes?

7. Research Sub-questions • Does faculty professional development change undergraduate science teaching practices? • How do reformed science course elements differ from traditional course elements? • What are the essential elements of an entry level reformed undergraduate science course? • How do the differing levels of course reform impact the short-term learning outcomes of undergraduate students, and long-term outcomes for practicing K-6 teachers?

8. NSEUS National Study Sample Description of Institutions (Study Sample N=20) • 62% MA/MS • 26% Doctoral • 12% BA/BS • 26% Minority

9. NSEUS Research Model

10. Data Collection • Faculty, undergraduate students, and pre-service teacher survey instruments • Content analyses of course materials • Multiple site visits including classroom observations and interviews with faculty and teachers, along with student focus group interviews • Undergraduate students’ science achievement and affective measures Experimental and Control groups were compared.

11. Data-gathering Measures • Reformed Teaching Observation Protocol (RTOP)(Sawada, Turley, Falconer, Benford & Bloom, 2002) • PCK Content Representation (CoRe) &Pedagogical and Professional experience Repertoires (PaP-ers)(Loughran, Mulhall & Berry, 2004) • Classroom Learning Environment Survey (CLES) (Taylor & Fraser, 1991, 1997) • Science Teaching Efficacy and Beliefs Instrument (STEBI A & B)(Riggs & Enochs, 1990) • Thinking About Science Survey Instrument (TSSI) (Cobern, 2000) • Student Content Achievement (SCA) (NSEUS Team, 2006)

12. Research Model Comparisons

13. Summary FindingsComparison Set 1 Initial courses vs. Planned reformed courses Analysis of NOVA funded proposals found differences in five overarching elements (themes) in course descriptions from initial to planned reformed. • Learning environment • Course structure and focus (lab & lecture integrated) • Pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) • Alternative assessments • Beliefs about teaching and student learning

14. Summary Findings Comparison Set 1 Initial courses vs. Planned reformed courses (cont.) Elements of planned reformed courses • reflected national science standards. • emphasized student-centered activities. • utilized inquiry-based pedagogy. • built on students’prior knowledge. • integrated interdisciplinary instruction and collaborative approaches to learning. • embedded assessments.

15. Summary Findings Comparison Set 2 Planned courses vs. Implemented reformed courses • Courses, once reformed, continue to be offered long term. • Reform clones exist within and outside of the department in ½ of the institutions. • Collaborative (tenacious) teams play a vital role in developing and sustaining reformed courses. • Common characteristics in the courses are related to national science standards. • Inquiry-based instructional methods and learning goals dominate course descriptions.

16. Summary Findings Comparison Set 3 Reformed courses vs. Short-term student outcomes Students experiencing higher levels of reform in their undergraduate science course • rated and described their classroom learning environment significantly more positive. • had higher achievement on the content tests. • demonstrated higher-level thinking skills. • showed fewer misconceptions about the science concept(s) tested.

17. Summary Findings Comparison Set 4 Reformed courses vs. long-term teacher outcomes Elementary teachers who had experienced higher levels of reform positively • contrasted in their observed teaching of science in elementary classrooms, only in specific contexts. • differed in their science pedagogical content knowledge (PCK). • exhibited a greater depth of science content knowledge on the concepts taught. • demonstrated a knowledge of how students think about science and modified their teaching to match students’learning needs.

18. NSEUS Study Answered These Questions • What level of PCK is needed for faculty to be effective in reforming undergraduate classes? • How is inquiry teaching at the undergraduate level demonstrated? • What elements are effective in science course reform? • What quality and quantity of reform is needed at the undergraduate level to show significant student achievement gains (comprehension of science concepts)?

19. What Was Learned • Data analyses emerging from the project indicate that reform curriculum is possible, and has positive effects on participants. • Patterns suggest common strategies for planning, implementing and sustaining reform coursework, including overcoming perceived and actual barriers.

20. What Was Learned (cont.) • Reformed science courses have significantly higher positive classroom learning environments. • Reformed course faculty are more likely to engage students in using inquiry-oriented science, and demonstrate a high level of PCK. • Collaborative faculty teams develop and sustain course reform over time. • Successful reform elements are adopted by other science faculty.

21. What Was Learned (cont.) • Students experiencing higher levels of reform had greater science achievement and demonstrated higher-level thinking skills. • Undergraduate students’ ideas about the nature and process of science differed among individuals but not always classes. • Graduates of reformed courses reflect a higher level of pedagogical and science content knowledge (PCK) while teaching science in elementary classrooms.

22. Rote Memorization vs. Conceptual Understanding

23. Conclusions • Faculty professional development activities that reflect reform profoundly affect the short- and long-term learning outcomes of undergraduate students. • Reform efforts are sustainable with dedicated collaborative faculty & administrative support. • Undergraduate science course experiences (context) affect how students comprehend science on affective and cognitive levels.

24. Conclusions (cont.) • A significantly high level of reform, both in quality and quantity, is required to develop significant gains in short- and long-term student outcomes. • In-service teachers who experience reformed undergraduate science courses have a better understanding of how to teach science to elementary students.

25. Acknowledgements I want to recognize the concerted and long-dedicated efforts of: Dennis W. Sunal, Ph.D. – The University of Alabama (PI) Cynthia S. Sunal, Ph.D. – The University of Alabama (Co-PI) Dean Zollman, Ph.D.- Kansas State University (Co-PI) Corinne Lardy, Ph.D.- San Diego State University Donna Turner, Ph.D.- The University of Alabama Erica Steele, M.S.- The University of Alabama Sytil Murphy, Ph.D.- Shepherd College Mojgan Matloob-Haghanikar, Ph.D.- Winona State University

26. TPC 0554594 http://nseus.org __________________________________________________________________ Work on the research project was supported by a grant from the National Science Foundation in Washington, D.C., ESI-0554594, titled Undergraduate Science Course Reform Serving Pre-service Teachers: Evaluation of a Faculty Professional Development Model. The opinions expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Foundation. Correspondence should be sent to: Dennis Sunal, dwsunal@bama.ua.edu __________________________________________________________________ Cheryl L. Mason cmason@mail.sdsu.edu San Diego State University Dennis Sunal and Cynthia Sunal dwsunal@bama.ua.edu cvsunal@bamaed.ua.edu Dean Zollman dzollman@phys.ksu.edu Kansas State University