Sonia M. Underwood

Challenge faculty to transform STEM learning

Focus on core ideas, crosscutting concepts, and scientific practices Models for higher education in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) are under pressure around the world. Although most STEM faculty and practicing scientists have learned successfully in a traditional format, they are the exception, not the norm, in their success. Education should support a diverse population of students in a world where using knowledge, not merely memorizing it, is becoming ever more important. In the United States, which by many measures is a world leader in higher education, the Presidents Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) recommended sweeping changes to the first 2 years of college, which are critical for recruitment and retention of STEM students (1). Although reform efforts call for evidence-based pedagogical approaches, supportive learning environments, and changes to faculty teaching culture and reward systems, one important aspect needs more attention: changing expectations about what students should learn, particularly in college-level introductory STEM courses. This demands that faculty seriously discuss, within and across disciplines, how they approach their curricula.

Characterizing college science assessments: The three-dimensional learning assessment protocol

Many calls to improve science education in college and university settings have focused on improving instructor pedagogy. Meanwhile, science education at the K-12 level is undergoing significant changes as a result of the emphasis on scientific and engineering practices, crosscutting concepts, and disciplinary core ideas. This framework of “three-dimensional learning” is based on the literature about how people learn science and how we can help students put their knowledge to use. Recently, similar changes are underway in higher education by incorporating three-dimensional learning into college science courses. As these transformations move forward, it will become important to assess three-dimensional learning both to align assessments with the learning environment, and to assess the extent of the transformations. In this paper we introduce the Three-Dimensional Learning Assessment Protocol (3D-LAP), which is designed to characterize and support the development of assessment tasks in biology, chemistry, and physics that align with transformation efforts. We describe the development process used by our interdisciplinary team, discuss the validity and reliability of the protocol, and provide evidence that the protocol can distinguish between assessments that have the potential to elicit evidence of three-dimensional learning and those that do not.

Energy Connections and Misconnections across Chemistry and Biology

To inform future interdisciplinary course reform, undergraduate students coenrolled in introductory chemistry and cell and molecular biology were interviewed regarding their perceptions of the integration of energy both within and across the disciplines and how they attempted to accommodate and reconcile different disciplinary approaches to energy.

Evaluating the extent of a large-scale transformation in gateway science courses

An institutional effort to transform gateway science courses is evaluated using a novel approach based on course assessments. We evaluate the impact of an institutional effort to transform undergraduate science courses using an approach based on course assessments. The approach is guided by A Framework for K-12 Science Education and focuses on scientific and engineering practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas, together called three-dimensional learning. To evaluate the extent of change, we applied the Three-dimensional Learning Assessment Protocol to 4 years of chemistry, physics, and biology course exams. Changes in exams differed by discipline and even by course, apparently depending on an interplay between departmental culture, course organization, and perceived course ownership, demonstrating the complex nature of transformation in higher education. We conclude that while transformation must be supported at all organizational levels, ultimately, change is controlled by factors at the course and departmental levels.

Connecting Structure–Property and Structure–Function Relationships across the Disciplines of Chemistry and Biology: Exploring Student Perceptions

While many university students take science courses in multiple disciplines, little is known about how they perceive common concepts from different disciplinary perspectives. Structure–property and structure–function relationships have long been considered important explanatory concepts in the disciplines of chemistry and biology, respectively. Fourteen university students concurrently enrolled in introductory chemistry and biology courses were interviewed to explore their perceptions regarding 1) the meaning of structure, properties, and function; 2) the presentation of these concepts in their courses; and 3) how these concepts might be related. Findings suggest that the concepts of structure and properties were interpreted similarly between chemistry and biology, but students more closely associated the discussion of structure–property relationships with their chemistry courses and structure–function with biology. Despite receiving little in the way of instructional support, nine students proposed a coherent conceptual relationship, indicating that structure determines properties, which determine function. Furthermore, students described ways in which they connected and benefited from their understanding. Though many students are prepared to make these connections, we would encourage instructors to engage in cross-disciplinary conversations to understand the shared goals and disciplinary distinctions regarding these important concepts in an effort to better support students unable to construct these connections for themselves.

Developing an Analytical Framework to Characterize Student Reasoning about Complex Processes

Real-world processes are complex and require ideas from multiple disciplines to be explained. However, many science courses offer limited opportunities for students to synthesize scientific ideas into coherent explanations. In this study, we investigated how students constructed causal explanations of complex phenomena to better understand the ways they approach this practice. We interviewed 12 undergraduate science majors and asked them to explain real-world phenomena. From these interviews, we developed a characterization framework that described the reasoning patterns we found. In this framework, we identified three explanatory frames that differentiated the kinds of explanations students provided: a colloquial frame, wherein participants activated conceptual resources based on personal experience using everyday language; an emerging mechanistic frame, wherein participants used scientific concepts in semicoherent ways; and a causal mechanistic frame, wherein participants cohesively drew upon scientific conceptual resources to construct mechanistic explanations. Overall, the causal mechanistic frame was the least prevalent frame invoked by students. Instead, many drew on an emerging mechanistic frame and struggled to identify and apply scientific concepts to real-world scenarios. We advocate for incorporating opportunities to reason about real-world phenomena into undergraduate science curricula to provide students with experience integrating scientific concepts to explain real-world phenomena.