D. Christopher Brooks

Space matters: The impact of formal learning environments on student learning

The objective of this research is to identify the relationship between formal learning spaces and student learning outcomes. Using a quasi-experimental design, researchers partnered with an instructor who taught identical sections of the same course in two radically different formal learning environments to isolate the impact of the physical environment on student learning. The results of the study reveal that, holding all factors excepting the learning spaces constant, students taking the course in a technologically enhanced environment conducive to active learning techniques outperformed their peers who were taking the same course in a more traditional classroom setting. The evidence suggests strongly that technologically enhanced learning environments, independent of all other factors, have a significant and positive impact on student learning.

IS THE AGE OF THE EARTH ONE OF OUR “SOREST TROUBLES?” STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS ABOUT DEEP TIME AFFECT THEIR ACCEPTANCE OF EVOLUTIONARY THEORY

When Charles Darwin was developing his ideas for On the Origin of Species, the most widely accepted estimates of Earth’s age were those of William Thomson (later Lord Kelvin). Kelvin used calculations involving thermodynamics to argue that Earth is only 20–100 million years old—an age far too brief to accommodate evolution by natural selection. Darwin referred to Thomson’s claim as one of his “sorest troubles,” for Darwin understood that the history of life on Earth ultimately relies on geology. Darwin suspected that Earth was much older than Thomson claimed, but Thomson’s enormous stature as a scientist obliged Darwin to reconcile his claims with Kelvin’s data. To accommodate Kelvin’s timeline, Darwin proposed pangenesis as an explanation of inheritance (i.e., every sperm and egg contained “gemmules thrown off from each different unit throughout the body”). Darwin’s explanation sped evolution while avoiding Lamarck’s quasi-spiritual sources of acquired traits. However, Darwin’s explanation of inheritance was wrong (see discussion in Moore et al. 2009a). The age of Earth remains a divisive topic in the modern evolution–creationism controversy. Whereas mainstream science has long acknowledged that Earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old, a vocal group of citizens and religious activists continue to insist that Earth is less than 10,000 years old. Although most geocentrists and flat-Earth advocates have capitulated to scientific evidence, young-Earth creationists continue to reject scientific evidence in favor of religious dictum to claim that Earth is less than 10,000 years old. These antiscience claims have been surprisingly popular with the public. For example, a Gallup Poll in early 2009 reported that “On Darwin’s [200th] Birthday, Only 4 in 10 Believe in Evolution” (Newport 2009), and Berkman et al. (2008) noted that “16% [of biology teachers] believed that human beings were created by God in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years.” In another study, 12.5% of students were young-Earth creationists (Rutledge and Warden 2000), as are 10%–14% of biology majors (Moore and Cotner 2009). Answers in Genesis’ (AiG) Creation Museum, along with the

Teaching recommender systems at large scale: evaluation and lessons learned from a hybrid MOOC

27 million in donations required to build it, attest to the appeal of young-Earth creationism. Indeed, AiG’s income for 2005 exceeded

Teaching recommender systems at large scale

13 million, and that of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR, another religious organization based on young-Earth creationism) exceeded

Making the Case for Space: Three Years of Empirical Research on Learning Environments

7 million. For comparison, the 2005 income of National Center for Science Education—the nation’s leading organization that defends the teaching of evolution in public schools—was

The Relation of High School Biology Courses & Students' Religious Beliefs to College Students' Knowledge of Evolution

In Fall 2013 we offered an open online Introduction to Recommender Systems through Coursera, while simultaneously offering a for-credit version of the course on-campus using the Coursera platform and a flipped classroom instruction model. As the goal of offering this course was to experiment with this type of instruction, we performed extensive evaluation including surveys of demographics, self-assessed skills, and learning intent; we also designed a knowledge-assessment tool specifically for the subject matter in this course, administering it before and after the course to measure learning. We also tracked students through the course, including separating out students enrolled for credit from those enrolled only for the free, open course. This article reports on our findings.

Space and consequences: The impact of different formal learning spaces on instructor and student behavior

In the fall of 2013, we offered an open online Introduction to Recommender Systems through Coursera, while simultaneously offering a for-credit version of the course on-campus using the Coursera pl...In the fall of 2013, we offered an open online Introduction to Recommender Systems through Coursera, while simultaneously offering a for-credit version of the course on-campus using the Coursera platform and a flipped classroom instruction model. As the goal of offering this course was to experiment with this type of instruction, we performed extensive evaluation including surveys of demographics, self-assessed skills, and learning intent; we also designed a knowledge-assessment tool specifically for the subject matter in this course, administering it before and after the course to measure learning, and again 5 months later to measure retention. We also tracked students through the course, including separating out students enrolled for credit from those enrolled only for the free, open course. Students had significant knowledge gains across all levels of prior knowledge and across all demographic categories. The main predictor of knowledge gain was effort expended in the course. Students also had significant knowledge retention after the course. Both of these results are limited to the sample of students who chose to complete our knowledge tests. Student completion of the course was hard to predict, with few factors contributing predictive power; the main predictor of completion was intent to complete. Students who chose a concepts-only track with hand exercises achieved the same level of knowledge of recommender systems concepts as those who chose a programming track and its added assignments, though the programming students gained additional programming knowledge. Based on the limited data we were able to gather, face-to-face students performed as well as the online-only students or better; they preferred this format to traditional lecture for reasons ranging from pure convenience to the desire to watch videos at a different pace (slower for English language learners; faster for some native English speakers). This article also includes our qualitative observations, lessons learned, and future directions.