Author(s):
Need
We identified a common set of needs across the university’s introductory STEM Gateway courses for both faculty and students to enhance intellectual value and growth for both. A common set of learning goals were identified that would have cross-disciplinary appeal, thus allowing faculty to talk with each other about those goals and for students in various courses to encounter those goals. At the same time, this discussion would be an opportunity to encourage faculty to move to more active, student-centered teaching. The hope was for students to engage in those common scientific practices outside of each discipline’s specific content and thus have that knowledge and skill reinforced. The initiatives are supported by a PI team of Disciplinary-Based Education Research faculty in biology, physics, mathematics, and chemistry. The concept of finding common ground across STEM on a campus was considered a goal that could be transported to any institution.
Guiding Questions
To what extent will faculty teaching in the gateway courses be motivated to participate in emphasizing the common scientific practices of graphical interpretation, proportional/ covariational reasoning, and self-explanation (SMMP = Scientific, Mathematical, and Metacognitive Practices)?
To what extent can undergraduates be developed into coaches who become partners with faculty in supporting the educational mission?
To what extent have the investments above had effects on students class performance outcomes.
Outcomes
Peer-Learning Coaches (PLTL and LA models) now support all STEM gateway courses (three biological science, five chemistry, four physics, three mathematics) expanding from chemistry and physics. Actions are now being taken to institutionalize coordination and management through the efforts of the three STEM colleges (Engineering and Physical Science, Life Science and Agriculture, Health and Human Services).
Each course involves 2-4 Peer-Learning Coach coordinators who manage all aspects of organizing schedules, signing up students, leading weekly content reviews for the other coaches, mentoring new coaches, and coordinating with faculty instructors. They and others are also commissioned to help develop materials.
Encouraging faculty to change is hard; we have seen only small inroads despite multiple initiatives: seminar series, semi-annual workshops, SMMP learning community, 3DLAP workshop. There has also been COVID, a financial restructuring, a delayed faculty contract, slim prospects for hiring new faculty, a “budget reset” that eliminated the teaching and learning center, and overstretch colleagues all around. A few key instructor-level faculty have become deeply engaged in implementation and decision-making around Peer-Coaches and materials development. Our focus now is building individual partnerships and networks using the Peer-Learning Coaches.
Targeted research investigations have explored the interaction of covariational reasoning and science disciplinary knowledge, metacognitive development among Peer-Learning Coaches, and restructuring of mathematics curricula to involve LAs in active-learning recitations.
What it means to be graphically literate in different disciplinary areas is different, and that may challenge our original notion of using graphical representation as a cross-cutting practice.
Broader Impacts
Students have been overlooked as change agents in higher education. Empowering them to partner with faculty in the educational mission parallels the institutional goal of engaging students in research.
Coauthors
Dawn Meredith, UNH Physics, Durham, NH; Melissa Aikens, UNH Biology, Durham, NH; Orly Buchbinder, UNH Mathematics, Durham, NH; Karen Graham, UNH Mathematics, Durham, NH
