Abstract
In the preceding two chapters, we have focused on problematic STEM learning experiences. In Chap. 6, we discussed the nature and extent of difficulties with pedagogy, assessment, and teacher attitudes encountered by SALG survey respondents in foundational STEM courses, and by STEM switchers, relocators, and persisters across all four academic years. In Chap. 7, we discussed a distinctive sub-set of STEM foundation courses where teaching and student assessment methods are primarily geared to a student selection and discarding process. Taken together, these two chapters raise obverse questions of what kinds of teachers and teaching students found effective in enabling their learning. In this chapter, we focus on what current and former STEM students define as “good” teachers and effective teaching methods, their experiences with these, and what benefits they report. Student appraisals include STEM and non-STEM instructors, and STEM teaching assistants in teaching or learning support roles. As in Chap. 6, we draw primarily upon two data sources: interview data that provide reflections from experience in STEM courses across all four academic years, and the results of SALG surveys administered to students in matched sets of STEM foundational courses across all six study sites. We also discuss what has and has not changed since the original study in how students characterize “good” teaching and how these definitions vary by gender and race/ethnicity.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Akiki, T. K. (2014). A review on effective teaching and learning in higher education. European Scientific Journal, 1, 159–164.
Ambrose, S. A., Bridges, M. W., DiPietro, M., Lovett, M. C., Norman, M. K., & Mayer, R. E. (2010). How lerning works: Seven research-based principles for smart teaching. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Anthony, S., Braun, K. L., & Mernitz, H. (2012). ChemConnections activity workbook. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.
Anthony, S., Metnitz, H., Spencer, B., Gutwill, J., Kegley, S. E., & Molinaro, M. (1998). The ChemLinks and ModularCHEM consortia: Using active and context-based learning to teach students how chemistry is actually done. Journal of Chemical Education, 75(3), 322. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed075p322
Armstrong, N., Chang, S.-M., & Brickman, M. (2007). Cooperative learning in industrial-sized biology classes. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 6, 163–171. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.06-11-0200
Arnold, K. D. (1987). Values and vocations: The career aspirations of academically-gifted females in the first five years after high school. Paper to the Annual Meeting of the American Education Research Association, Washington, DC.
Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college? Four critical years revisited. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bomotti, S. M. (1994). Teaching assistant attitudes toward college teaching. The Review of Higher Education, 17(4), 371–393.
Dotger, S. (2010). Offering more than “Here is the textbook”: Teaching assistants’ perspectives on introductory science courses. Journal of College Science Teaching, 39(3), 71–76.
Dudley, M. (2009). Jumping out of an airplane: A TA’s perspective on teaching effectiveness. Eastern Education Journal, 38, 1–10.
Ejiwale, J. A. (2012). Facilitating teaching and learning across STEM fields. Journal of STEM Education, 13(3), 87–94.
Ferrare, J. J., & Miller, J. (2017, February 25). Cultural models of persistence and inequality in introductory STEM courses. Annual Meeting of the Sociology of Education Association, Monterey, CA.
Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(23), 8410–8415.
Gao, X., & Schwartz, B. (2015). Classroom implementation of active instructional strategies for undergraduate STEM education. INternational Journal of Information and Education Technology, 5(9), 688–692.
Gardner, G. E., & Jones, M. G. (2011). Pedagogical preparation of the science graduate teaching assistant: Challenges and implications. Science Educator, 20(2), 31–41.
Ginorio, A. B., Brown, M. D., Henderson, R. S., & Cook, N. (1994). Patterns of persistence and attrition among science and engineering majors at the University of Washington, 1985–1991. Sloan Foundation: Report to the Alfred P.
Hanson, J. M., Paulsen, M. B., & Pascarella, E. T. (2015). Understanding graduate school aspirations: The effect of good teaching practices. Higher Education, 71, 735–752.
Hill, G. C., & Holman, J. (2011). Chemistry in context (6th ed.). Oxford, England: OUP.
Holdren, J. P., Lander, E., & The President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. (2012). Report to the President: Engage to Excel: Producing one million additional college graduates with degrees in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Washington, DC: Executive Office of the President.
Kimball, M. M. (1989). A new perspective of women’s math achievement. Psychological Bulletin, 105(2), 198–214.
Lee, H. H., Kim, G. M. L., & Chan, L. L. (2015). Good teaching: What matters to university students. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 35(1), 98–110.
Manis, J. M., Sloat, B. F., Thomas, N. G., & Davies, C.-S. (1989). An analysis of factors affecting choices of majors in science, mathematics and engineering at the University of Michigan. Ann Arbor, MI: Center for Continuing Education of Women.
Mulnix, A. B., & Vandergrift, E. V. H. (2014). A tipping point in STEM education reform. Journal of College Science Teaching, 43(3), 14–16.
National Research Council. (2012). Discipline-based education research: Understanding and improving learning in undergraduate science and engineering. Committee on the Status, Contributions, and Future Directions of Discipline-Based Education Research. S. Singer, N. R. Nielsen, & H. A. Schweingruber (Eds.). Board of Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Oakes, J. (1990). Opportunities, achievement and choice: Women and minority students in science and mathematics. In C. B. Casden (Ed.), Review of educational research (Vol. 16, pp. 15–222).
Rosser, S. V. (1990). Female-friendly science: Applying women’ study methods and theories to attract students. New York, NY: Pergamon.
Sawyer, K., Alper, J., National Research Council, Chemical Sciences Roundtable, Board on Chemical Sciences and Technology, & Division on Earth and Life Studies. (2014). Undergraduate chemistry education: A workshop summary. Washington DC.
Seymour, E. (1995). The loss of women from science, mathematics, and engineering under graduate majors: An explanatory account. Science Education, 79(4), 437–473.
Seymour, E. (2007). The US experience of reform in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) undergraduate education. Paper presented at the Policies and Practices for Academic Enquiry: An International Colloquium, Marwell Conference Centre, Winchester, UK.
Seymour, E., & Hewitt, N. M. (1997). Talking about leaving: Why undergraduates leave the sciences. Boulder CO: Westview Press.
Seymour, E., Melton, G., Pedersen-Gallegos, L., & Wiese, D. J. (2005). Partners in Innovation: Teaching assistants in college science courses. Boulder, CO: Rowman and Littlefield.
Svinicki, M., & McKeachie, W. J. (2010). McKeachie’s teaching tips: Strategies, research, and theory for college and university teachers. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing.
Ware, N. C., & Dill, D (1968). Persistence in science among mathematically-able male and female college students with pre-college plans for a scientific career. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA
Watkins, J., & Mazur, E. (2013). Retaining students in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) majors. Journal of College Science Teaching, 42(5), 36–41.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Harper, R.P., Weston, T.J., Seymour, E. (2019). Students’ Perceptions of Good STEM Teaching. In: Seymour, E., Hunter, AB. (eds) Talking about Leaving Revisited. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-25304-2_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-25304-2_8
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-25303-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-25304-2
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)