Try Before You Buy: Are There Benefits to a Random Trial Period before Students Choose Their Collaborative Teams?

The cognitive and performance benefits of group work in undergraduate courses depend on understanding how to structure groups to promote communication and comfort while also promoting diversity and reducing conflict. The current study utilized social network analysis combined with self-reported survey data from 555 students in 155 groups to understand how students identified group members whom they wished to work with. Students' willingness to work with their peers was positively associated with behavioral traits pertaining to attention, participation, and preparedness in class. We tested whether preventing students from choosing their group members until completing a multiweek period of random assignment to different groups each week influenced group selection criteria, and we found little effect. Students continued to depend on demographic similarities such as gender and ethnicity when selecting groupmates and enforcing random interactions before the group formation did not influence group satisfaction and/or grades. Random interactions before group formation did influence the willingness of students to continue working with peers who were persistently poorly rated based on behavioral attributes and contribution to the group work. Thus, the effort of random assignment could be beneficial to identify struggling students and improve collaboration.

Guides to Advance Teaching Evaluation (GATEs): A Resource for STEM Departments Planning Robust and Equitable Evaluation Practices.

Most science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) departments inadequately evaluate teaching, which means they are not equipped to recognize or reward effective teaching. As part of a project at one institution, we observed that departmental chairs needed help recognizing the decisions they would need to make to improve teaching evaluation practices. To meet this need, we developed the Guides to Advance Teaching Evaluation (GATEs), using an iterative development process. The GATEs are designed to be a planning tool that outlines concrete goals to guide reform in teaching evaluation practices in STEM departments at research-intensive institutions. The GATEs are grounded in the available scholarly literature and guided by existing reform efforts and have been vetted with STEM departmental chairs. The GATEs steer departments to draw on three voices to evaluate teaching: trained peers, students, and the instructor. This research-based resource includes three components for each voice: 1) a list of departmental target practices to serve as goals; 2) a characterization of common starting places to prompt reflection; and 3) ideas for getting started. We provide anecdotal examples of potential uses of the GATEs for reform efforts in STEM departments and as a research tool to document departmental practices at different time points.

When Group Work Doesn't Work: Insights from Students.

Introducing group work in college science classrooms can lead to noticeable gains in student achievement, reasoning ability, and motivation. To realize these gains, students must all contribute. Strategies like assigning roles, group contracts, anonymous peer evaluations, and peer ratings all encourage student participation. In a class using these strategies, we conducted in-depth interviews to uncover student perceptions of group work in general and the utility of these support strategies. Students in both high- and low-performance groups still complained of unequal contributions while praising the social support provided by groups. Students who scored highly on tests were more likely to recognize the benefits of group work, regardless of their groups' overall performance levels, while lower-scoring students perceived group work as time-consuming "busy work" with little cognitive benefit. Comments from anonymous peer evaluations differed only subtly between high- and low-performance groups. Numerical ratings on these evaluations did correlate with overall group performance. However, students in lower-performance groups assigned harsh ratings to their low-scoring members, while students in higher-performance groups were more generous in their ratings for low-scoring members. We discuss implications of relying on support strategies for promoting productive group work.

Promoting Collaborative Classrooms: The Impacts of Interdependent Cooperative Learning on Undergraduate Interactions and Achievement.

Collaboration is an important career skill and vital to student understanding of the social aspects of science, but less is known about relationships among collaborative-learning strategies, classroom climate, and student learning. We sought to increase the collaborative character of introductory undergraduate laboratory classrooms by analyzing a 9-week intervention in 10 classrooms ( n = 251) that participated in cooperative-learning modules (promoting interdependence via a modified jigsaw technique). Students in an additional 10 classrooms ( n = 232) completed the same material in an unstructured format representative of common educational practice. Results showed that, when between-class variance was controlled for, intervention students did not score higher on weekly quizzes, but science interest and prior science experience had a reduced relationship to quiz performance in intervention classrooms. Also, intervention classrooms showed increased collaborative engagement at both whole-class and individual levels (24 students at three time points), but the intervention was only one of several factors found to account for late-intervention classroom collaborative engagement (prosocial behavior and discussion practices). Taken together, findings suggest that integrating interdependence-based tasks may foster collaborative engagement at both small-group and whole-classroom levels, but by itself may not be enough to promote increased student achievement.

Group Work.

Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics faculty are increasingly incorporating both formal and informal group work in their courses. Implementing group work can be improved by an understanding of the extensive body of educational research studies on this topic. This essay describes an online, evidence-based teaching guide published by CBE-Life Sciences Education (LSE). The guide provides a tour of research studies and resources related to group work (including many articles from LSE). Instructors who are new to group work, as well as instructors who have experienced difficulties in implementing group work, may value the condensed summaries of key research findings. These summaries are organized by teaching challenges, and actionable advice is provided in a checklist for instructors. Education researchers may value the inclusion of empirical studies, key reviews, and meta-analyses of group-work studies. In addition to describing key features of the guide, this essay also identifies areas in which further empirical studies are warranted.

Making the Grade: Using Instructional Feedback and Evaluation to Inspire Evidence-Based Teaching.

Typically, faculty receive feedback about teaching via two mechanisms: end-of-semester student evaluations and peer observation. However, instructors require more sustained encouragement and constructive feedback when implementing evidence-based teaching practices. Our study goal was to characterize the landscape of current instructional-feedback practices in biology and uncover faculty perceptions about these practices. Findings from a national survey of 400 college biology faculty reveal an overwhelming dissatisfaction with student evaluations, regardless of self-reported teaching practices, institution type, or position. Faculty view peer evaluations as most valuable, but less than half of faculty at doctoral-granting institutions report participating in peer evaluation. When peer evaluations are performed, they are more supportive of evidence-based teaching than student evaluations. Our findings reveal a large, unmet desire for greater guidance and assessment data to inform pedagogical decision making. Informed by these findings, we discuss alternate faculty-vetted feedback strategies for providing formative instructional feedback.

Feedback about Teaching in Higher Ed: Neglected Opportunities to Promote Change.

Despite ongoing dissemination of evidence-based teaching strategies, science teaching at the university level is less than reformed. Most college biology instructors could benefit from more sustained support in implementing these strategies. One-time workshops raise awareness of evidence-based practices, but faculty members are more likely to make significant changes in their teaching practices when supported by coaching and feedback. Currently, most instructional feedback occurs via student evaluations, which typically lack specific feedback for improvement and focus on teacher-centered practices, or via drop-in classroom observations and peer evaluation by other instructors, which raise issues for promotion, tenure, and evaluation. The goals of this essay are to summarize the best practices for providing instructional feedback, recommend specific strategies for providing feedback, and suggest areas for further research. Missed opportunities for feedback in teaching are highlighted, and the sharing of instructional expertise is encouraged.

Best practices for measuring students' attitudes toward learning science.

Science educators often characterize the degree to which tests measure different facets of college students' learning, such as knowing, applying, and problem solving. A casual survey of scholarship of teaching and learning research studies reveals that many educators also measure how students' attitudes influence their learning. Students' science attitudes refer to their positive or negative feelings and predispositions to learn science. Science educators use attitude measures, in conjunction with learning measures, to inform the conclusions they draw about the efficacy of their instructional interventions. The measurement of students' attitudes poses similar but distinct challenges as compared with measurement of learning, such as determining validity and reliability of instruments and selecting appropriate methods for conducting statistical analyses. In this review, we will describe techniques commonly used to quantify students' attitudes toward science. We will also discuss best practices for the analysis and interpretation of attitude data.

Developing a Test of Scientific Literacy Skills (TOSLS): measuring undergraduates' evaluation of scientific information and arguments.

Life sciences faculty agree that developing scientific literacy is an integral part of undergraduate education and report that they teach these skills. However, few measures of scientific literacy are available to assess students' proficiency in using scientific literacy skills to solve scenarios in and beyond the undergraduate biology classroom. In this paper, we describe the development, validation, and testing of the Test of Scientific Literacy Skills (TOSLS) in five general education biology classes at three undergraduate institutions. The test measures skills related to major aspects of scientific literacy: recognizing and analyzing the use of methods of inquiry that lead to scientific knowledge and the ability to organize, analyze, and interpret quantitative data and scientific information. Measures of validity included correspondence between items and scientific literacy goals of the National Research Council and Project 2061, findings from a survey of biology faculty, expert biology educator reviews, student interviews, and statistical analyses. Classroom testing contexts varied both in terms of student demographics and pedagogical approaches. We propose that biology instructors can use the TOSLS to evaluate their students' proficiencies in using scientific literacy skills and to document the impacts of curricular reform on students' scientific literacy.