BackHome
Refresh: Off
Paper Summary
Share...

Direct link:

Investigating Students’ Experiences and Instructional Change in Undergraduate STEM Instruction and Assessment: A Mixed-Methods Study

Sat, April 11, 9:45 to 11:15am PDT (9:45 to 11:15am PDT), InterContinental Los Angeles Downtown, Floor: 5th Floor, Wilshire Grand Ballroom I

Abstract

Transmissive instructional and assessment practices in STEM higher education (e.g., lecture, high-stakes assessments; Stains et al., 2018) can profoundly harm students’ learning, motivation, belonging, and persistence in STEM programs and careers (Authors, Year; Hatfield et al., 2022; Riegle-Crumb et al., 2019). Calls to increase the use of evidence-based instructional and assessment strategies (EBS)—equitable, active, and student-centered teaching and assessment practices (AAAS, 2019; NASEM, 2016; 2025)—informed the [blinded for peer review] project’s development of the Equitable, Student-Centered Instructional Framework (the Framework; Table 1). At three U.S. undergraduate institutions, the project engaged STEM instructors in two-years of job-embedded professional development anchored in the Framework. We investigated students’ perceived experiences and benefits of instructional and assessment practices, and the student, instructor, and departmental factors that explain variation in students’ EBS experiences.

Methods and Results
At the end of each semester (2022-2024), we administered the [blinded] Faculty and Student Surveys (Authors, Year), which mirrored the Framework, to STEM undergraduate 33 instructors and 1,530 of their students in 89 courses. Items asked faculty and students about the extent to which they used or experienced each of the 30 EBS in a “focus” course (0 = Not at all, 4 = To a great extent). The student survey included open-ended questions about the instructional strategies used most, and those that benefited their learning in and belonging to the course and field. Lastly, we asked students and faculty to provide information about their identities and backgrounds. Additionally, we adapted and administered the Survey of Climate for Instructional Improvement (Walter et al., 2021) and the Faculty Instructional Barriers and Identity Survey (Sturtevant & Wheeler, 2019) to 130 faculty within 11 participating departments.

To analyze students’ open-ended responses, we developed a codebook (Table 2; Bryant & Charmaz, 2019; Corbin & Straus, 2014), assigned and split codes, assessed intercoder reliability, and audited codes (Miles et al., 2019; Saldaña, 2021). We also attuned data and theory-driven multilevel models to identify student, instructor, and department-level predictors of students’ EBS experiences across four factors: 1) Active Learning/Assessment for Learning; 2) Curriculum and Content, 3) Equity Ethic, and 4) Culturally Sustaining Teaching.

We found most students experienced didactic STEM instruction, and EBS benefited learning and belonging (Figure 1): Increases in EBS across terms are attributable to the project (Figures 2-4). Furthermore, student (e.g., gender, race/ethnicity, first-generation and part-time statuses), faculty (e.g., Ph.D. and tenure statuses), and departmental (e.g., organizational support for teaching, sociopolitical environment) characteristics explain variance in students’ EBS experiences (Tables 3-4).

Significance
Transmissive models of teaching and assessment are a mainstay of STEM undergraduate education and are highly resistant to change (NRC, 2012). Yet, when EBS are enacted in courses, students express benefits to their learning and belonging (Dweck, 2017). Nonetheless, students’ experiences of EBS are influenced by student (Authors, Year), faculty (Brownell & Tanner, 2012), and departmental (Reinholz et al., 2021a; b) characteristics. The presentation/paper will describe salient mechanisms for improving faculty uses and students’ experiences of EBS.

Authors