Jacquelyn J. Chini

Postsecondary chemistry curricula and universal design for learning: planning for variations in learners’ abilities, needs, and interests

Federal legislation requires equitable access to education for all students at all levels, including in the postsecondary setting. While there have been a few studies in the chemistry education research literature base focused on how to support students with specific disabilities, this work seems to exist as a separate stream of research without direct impact on curriculum development and the overall community. This study focused on investigating how well three sets of general chemistry curricular materials support variations in students’ abilities, interests, and needs. To accomplish this, we compared the curricular materials with the Universal Design for Learning (UDL) framework, which describes steps to account for variations in ability among learners during curriculum development. The UDL framework is organized into three guidelines (multiple means of representation, action and expression, and engagement), further delineated by nine principles and thirty-one finer-grained checkpoints for designing courses. We looked for examples of enactment of the UDL checkpoints in a representative sample of activities. Across all three sets of curricular materials, only four of the thirty-one checkpoints were enacted in at least 75% of the activities, indicating high enactment. On the other hand, eleven of the checkpoints were enacted in less than 25% of the activities, indicating low enactment. Overall, there is much room for improvement in consistently providing support for learner variation within these general chemistry curricular materials. We argue that some of the burden of making curricular materials supportive of all students lies with curriculum developers and provide recommendations for improving support and accessibility.

Using Observations of Universal Design for Learning to Enhance Post-secondary STEM Teaching Practices

Universal Design for Learning (UDL) is a framework for instruction enabling instructors to impact learners with varying cognitive strengths and skills by emphasizing the need for multiple means of representation, expression and engagement. UDL is increasingly used in many post-secondary programs; however, this framework is relatively unknown to STEM instructors. Research focusing on UDL in post-secondary has primarily centered on teacher and student perspectives. This project uses observations to describe the extent to which student-centered active learning STEM courses implemented UDL practices. Observations were conducted during introductory physics SCALE-UP and chemistry inquiry laboratory courses using a protocol based on the UDL framework. Observers coded the prevalence of 31 practices in four categories: introducing and framing new material; content representation and delivery; expression of understanding; and activity and student engagement. These observations allowed researchers to identify specific areas of needed improvement and will be used to facilitate STEM instructors incorporation of UDL in future lessons.

Characterizing Studio Physics Instruction Across Instructors and Institutions

An increasing number of institutions are adopting a collaborative student-centered studio approach for their introductory physics classes, although there is considerable variation in their deployments and a wide range of success in these different cases. Using a modified version of the TDOP observational protocol, we observed and coded 13 instructors teaching SCALE-UP (one studio implementation method) physics classes at two universities to characterize each studio class. We coded different types of instructor dialogue, class discussion, and students’ group and individual work, as well as technology used in the classroom. We identified both similarities and differences among the various classes. Here, we report the percentage of intervals in which certain codes were observed, highlighting the most prevalent codes and noting common code combinations. This is the beginning of work to characterize different studio physics classes to determine effective practices.