Katharine D. Owens

Using Conceptests to Assess and Improve Student Conceptual Understanding in Introductory Geoscience Courses

Conceptests are higher-order multiple-choice questions that focus on one key concept of an instructors major learning goals for a lesson. When coupled with student interaction through peer instruction, conceptests represent a rapid method of formative assessment of student understanding, require minimal changes to the instructional environment and introduce many of the recognized principles of effective teaching that enhance student learning. In this study, instructors from several different institutions developed over 300 conceptests for the geosciences. These instructors then used this suite of concept questions in a wide range of classroom settings, including large introductory general education Earth Science courses for non-majors at open enrollment institutions, smaller physical geology classes suitable for majors at private colleges, and in introductory geology laboratory settings. Results of pre- and post-class Geoscience Concept Inventory (GCI) testing and qualitative feedback from students and instructors showed that conceptests increased attendance, improved student satisfaction, and enhanced student achievement. Participating instructors found implementation of conceptests into their classes straightforward and required less than 30 minutes of preparation per class. The conceptest question database is available on-line for geoscience instructors.

How Students Think: Implications for Learning in Introductory Geoscience Courses

Non-major students in introductory geoscience classes exhibit a wide range of intellectual development. Approximately half of these students do not have the skills to understand the abstract scientific concepts traditionally discussed in introductory classes. Many geological concepts will remain unlearned without appropriate activities that build on a foundation of concrete examples. The good news is that these same students can improve their logical thinking skills when they participate in challenging in-class collaborative learning exercises with their more intellectually sophisticated peers. While the exercises themselves are important in promoting the development of higher-order thinking skills, the group interaction also appears to be a significant contributor to the improvement of reasoning.

Challenging Students Ideas About Earth's Interior Structure Using a Model-based, Conceptual Change Approach in a Large Class Setting

A model-based, conceptual change approach to teaching was found to improve student understanding of earth structure in a large (100+ student) inquiry-based, general education setting. Results from paired pre- and post-instruction sketches indicated that 19% (n = 18/97) of the students began the class with naïve preconceptions of the structure of the interior of the Earth. Many of the remaining students (95%; n = 75/79) began the lesson believing that the crust is several hundred kilometers thick. Peer discussion and instruction appeared to be effective in eliminating most naive preconceptions. Analyses of post-instruction sketches indicated that 3% (n = 3/97) of all students retained naïve preconceptions, 18% (n = 18/97) changed their views from naïve to the “thick crust” view, 58% (n = 58/97) began to recognize the relative scales of the boundaries with 30% (n = 28/97) drawing the sketch with scaled boundaries. Many of the students (65%; n = 76/117) could correctly answer formative earth structure conceptual questions that were asked five lessons after the earth structure lesson was taught. A comparison of pre- and post-course conceptual test question responses indicated that 13–20% more students could correctly answer similar questions two months after the model-based, conceptual change plate tectonics lessons were taught.

Hands-on Science as a Motivator for Children with Emotional/Behavioral Disabilities.

Children’s behavioral difficulties impede their academic success (Morgan & Jenson, 1988), yet little research has been done on academic concerns of these students (Ruhl & Berlinghoff, 1992) and the pervasive “curriculum of control” overshadowing academics in their classrooms (Steinberg & Knitzer, 1992). This article describes the infusion of hands-on science into a classroom for children with emotional/behavioral disabilities. The abundance of age appropriate science materials in this classroom contrasts with more typical, unadorned rooms designed to minimize temptation. Carefully organized lessons engage students in what they perceive to be “real science,” thereby reducing reliance on structured behavioral management techniques.

A circle of learning through Invention Convention

Technology and Invention in Elementary Schools (TIES) engaged participants in a learning experience that would subsequently be translated into instructional practice in elementary school classrooms. The goals of TIES included teachers’ engagement in an inventive thinking process called “Invention Convention.” In this article project directors answer the following questions: “How did the TIES training affect science classroom instruction?” “What lessons did the teachers learn from their implementation of an Invention Convention in their own classrooms?” and “What did the TIES teachers’ students teach their teachers about science teaching?” The TIES project provided teachers with the research-supported professional development training that the standards (NRC, 1996) suggest is necessary to effect change in the science education classroom. The positive impact of the Invention Convention process on inventive and creative thinking in the classroom is evidenced and supported in the words of teachers and the lessons learned from their students. Teachers clearly learned lessons about the power of design technology and invention from their students as well. In such a reciprocal learning environment the teachers’ understanding and application of TIES’ themes were supported and strengthened. The work described in this article was supported by National Science Foundation Grant ESI-955650. Opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed or implied here are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.