Journal of Science Education and Technology

, Volume 14, Issue 2, pp 253–269 | Cite as

The Impending Revolution in Undergraduate Science Education

Article

Abstract

There is substantial evidence that scientific teaching in the sciences, i.e. teaching that employs instructional strategies that encourage undergraduates to become actively engaged in their own learning, can produce levels of understanding, retention and transfer of knowledge that are greater than those resulting from traditional lecture/lab classes. But widespread acceptance by university faculty of new pedagogies and curricular materials still lies in the future. In this essay we review recent literature that sheds light on the following questions:
  • What has evidence from education research and the cognitive sciences told us about undergraduate instruction and student learning in the sciences?

  • What role can undergraduate student research play in a science curriculum?

  • What benefits does information technology have to offer?

  • What changes are needed in institutions of higher learning to improve science teaching?

We conclude that widespread promotion and adoption of the elements of scientific teaching by university science departments could have profound effects in promoting a scientifically literate society and a reinvigorated research enterprise.

Keywords

science education cognitive science undergraduate instruction information technology student research 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Allen, D., and Tanner, K. (2003a). Approaches to cell biology teaching: Learning content in context—Problem-based learning. Cell Biology Education 2(2): 73–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allen, D., and Tanner, K. (2003b). Approaches to cell biology teaching: Mapping the journey-concept maps as signposts of developing knowledge structures. Cell Biology Education 2(3): 133–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ambrose, B. S., Heron, P. R. L., Vokos, S., and McDermott, L. C. (1999). Student understanding of light as an electromagnetic wave: Relating the formalism to physical phenomena. American Journal of Physics 67(10): 891–898.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arons, A. B. (1983). Achieving wider scientific literacy. Daedalus 112: 91–102.Google Scholar
  5. Berg, C. A. R., Bergendahl, V. C. B., and Lundberg, B. K. S. (2003). Benefiting from an open-ended experiment? A comparison of attitudes to, and outcomes of, an expository versus an open-inquiry version of the same experiment. International Journal of Science Education 25(3): 351–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bligh, D. A. (2000). What’s the Use of Lectures? Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.Google Scholar
  7. Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate, Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar
  8. Boyer Commission on Educating Undergraduates in the Research University. (1998). Reinventing Undergraduate Education: A Blueprint for America’s Research Universities, Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, Menlo Park, CA. Retrieved January 21, 2003 from: http://naples.cc.sunysb.edu/Pres/boyer.nsf/.
  9. Breuer, J. T. (1997). Education and the brain: A bridge too far. Educational Researcher 26(8): 4–16.Google Scholar
  10. Cech, T. R. (2003). Rebalancing teaching and research. Science 299: 165.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Chatterjee, A. (2004). Cosmetic neurology: The controversy over enhancing movement, mentation, and mood. Neurology 63(6): 968–974.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Crouch, C. H., and Mazur, E. (2001). Peer instruction: Ten years of experience and results. American Journal of Physics 69(9): 970–977.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Damasio, A. R. (1999). The Feeling of What Happens: Body and Emotion in the Making of Consciousness, Harcourt, New York.Google Scholar
  14. Dancy, M. H., and Beichner, R. J. (2002). But are they learning? Getting started in classroom evaluation. Cell Biology Education 1(3): 87–94.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Deardorf, J. (2004). To many, using Ritalin to think faster looks like cheating, Billings Gazette. Retrieved January 9, 2005 at http://www.billingsgazette.com/index.php?id=1&display=/rednews/2004/04/14/build/health/40-ritalin.inc.
  16. DebBurman, S. K. (2002). Learning how scientists work: Experiential research projects to promote cell biology learning and scientific process skills. Cell Biology Education 1(4): 154–172.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Dede, C. (2000). Emerging Technologies and Distributed Learning in Higher Education, at http://www.virtual.gmu.edu/SS_research/cdpapers/hannapdf.htm.
  18. Donald, J. (2002). Learning to Think: Disciplinary Perspectives, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.Google Scholar
  19. Duch, B., Gron, S., and Allen, D. (2001). The Power of Problem-Based Learning, Stylus, Sterling, VA.Google Scholar
  20. Dwyer, F. M. (1972). The effect of overt responses in improving visually programmed science instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 9: 47–55.Google Scholar
  21. Ebert-May, D., Brewer, C., and Allred, S. (1997). Innovation in large lectures—teaching for active learning. Bioscience 47: 601–607.Google Scholar
  22. Eckel, P. D. (2002). Institutional transformation and change: Insights for faculty developers. In Lieberman, D. (Ed.), To Improve the Academy: Resources for Faculty, Instructional, and Organizational Development, Anker, Bolton, MA.Google Scholar
  23. Edwards, N. (1996). Computer-based laboratory simulations: Evaluations of students’ perceptions. Association for Learning Technology Journal 4(3): 41–53.Google Scholar
  24. Fisher, K. M. (2000). SemNet software as an assessment tool. In Mintzes, J. J., Wandersee, J. H., and Novak, J. D. (Eds.), Assessing Science Understanding: A Human Constructivist View, Academic Press, San Diego, pp. 197–221.Google Scholar
  25. Garvin, D. A. (2003). Making the case: Professional education for the world of practice. Harvard Magazine 106(1): 56–75.Google Scholar
  26. Gee, J. P. (1999). An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and Method, Routledge, New York.Google Scholar
  27. Gee, J. P. (2003). Language in the science classroom: Academic social languages as the heart of school-based literacy. In Yerrick, R., and Roth, W.-M. (Eds.), Establishing Scientific Classroom Discourse Communities: Multiple Voices of Research on Teaching and Learning, Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.Google Scholar
  28. Gelman, R., and Gallistel, C. R. (2004). Language and the origin of numerical concepts. Science 306: 441–443.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Glenn Commission Report. (2000). Before It’s Too Late: A Report to the Nation from the National Commission on Mathematics and Science Teaching for the 21st Century. Retrieved December 15, 2004 from http://www.ed.gov/inits/Math/glenn/report.pdf.
  30. Gordon, P. (2004). Numerical cognition without words: Evidence from Amazonia. Science 306: 496–499.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Hake, R. R. (1998). Interactive engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics 66: 64–74.Google Scholar
  32. Hake, R. R. (2002). Assessment of Student Learning in Introductory Science Courses. 2002 PKAL Roundtable on the Future: Assessment of Student Learning, Duke University. Retrieved December 15, 2004 from http://www.pkal.org/documents/ASLIS.Hake.060102f.pdf.
  33. Hall, S. S. (2003). The quest for a smart pill. Scientific American 289(3): 54–65.Google Scholar
  34. Halpern, D. F., and Hakel, M. F. (2003). Applying the science of learning to the university and beyond: Teaching for long-term retention and Transfer. Change 35(4): 37–41.Google Scholar
  35. Handelsman, J., Ebert-May, D., Beichner, R., Bruns, P., Chang, A., DeHaan, R. L., Gentile, J., Lauffer, S., Stewart, J., Tilghman, S. M., and Wood, W. B. (2004). Scientific teaching. Science 304: 521–522.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Heron, P. R. L., Loverude, M. E., Shaffer, P. S., and McDermott, L. C. (2003). Helping students develop an understanding of Archimedes’ principle. II. Development of research-based instructional materials. American Journal of Physics 71(11): 1188–1195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hestenes, D., Wells, M., and Swackhamer, G. (1992). Force concept inventory. Physics Teacher 30: 141–158.Google Scholar
  38. Hodson, D. (1993). Re-thinking old ways: Towards a more critical approach to practical work in school science. Studies in Science Education 22: 85–122.Google Scholar
  39. Honan, W. H. (2002). The college lecture, long derided, may be fading. The New York Times (August 14, Section B, p. 7).Google Scholar
  40. Horwitz, P. (1999). Designing computer models that teach. In Feurzeig, W., and Roberts, N. (Eds.), Modeling and Simulation in Science and Mathematics Education, Springer-Verlag, New York, pp. 179–196.Google Scholar
  41. Kandel, E. R., Schwartz, J. H., and Jessell, T. H. (2000). Principles of Neural Science, 4th edn., McGraw-Hill, New York.Google Scholar
  42. Kardash, C. M. (2000). Evaluation of an undergraduate research experience: Perceptions of undergraduate interns and their faculty mentors. Journal of Educational Psychology 92(1): 191–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. King, A. (1994). Inquiry as a tool in critical thinking. In Halpern, D. F. (Ed.), Changing College Classrooms: New Teaching and Learning Strategies for an Increasingly Complex World, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, pp. 13–38.Google Scholar
  44. Klymkowsky, M. W., Garvin-Doxas, K., and Zeilik, M. (2003). Bioliteracy and teaching efficacy: What biologists can learn from physicists. Cell Biology Education 2(3): 155–161.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Koch, C., and Laurent, G. (1999). Complexity and the nervous system. Science 284: 96–98.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Laurillard, D. (2002). Rethinking University Teaching: A Conversational Framework for the Effective Use of Learning Technologies, 2nd edn., Routledge, New York.Google Scholar
  47. Laws, P. W. (1997). Workshop Physics Activity Guide: Core Volume with Module 1, Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
  48. Lawson, A. E. (2003). Using the RTOP to evaluate reformed science and mathematics instruction. In McCray, R. A., DeHaan, R. L., and Schuck, J. A. (Eds.), Improving Undergraduate Instruction in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics: Report of a Workshop, Center for Education, Division of Behavorial and Social Sciences and Education, The National Academies Press, Washington, DC, pp. 89–100.Google Scholar
  49. Loverude, M. E., Kautz, C. H., and Heron, P. R. L. (2003). Helping students develop an understanding of Archimedes principle. I. Research on student understanding. American Journal of Physics 71(11): 1178–1187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Mazur, E. (1997). Peer Instruction: A User’s Manual, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle, NJ.Google Scholar
  51. McDermott, L. C. (1974). Combined physics course for future elementary and secondary school teachers. American Journal of Physics 42: 668–676.Google Scholar
  52. McDermott, L. C. (1991). Millikan Lecture 1990: What we teach and what is learned—closing the gap. American Journal of Physics 59: 301–315.Google Scholar
  53. McDermott, L. C. (2001). Oersted Medal Lecture 2001: Physics education research –the key to student learning. American Journal of Physics 69(11): 1127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. McDermott, L. C., and Redish, E. F. (1999). Resource Letter PER-1: Physics Education Research, available at http://www.phys.washington.edu/groups/peg/rl.htm.
  55. Merton, R. K. (1957). Priorities in scientific discovery. American Sociological Review 22(6): 635–659.Google Scholar
  56. Mervis, J. (2003). Scientific workforce: Down for the count? Science 300(5622): 1070–1074.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Millar, S. B. (2003). Effecting faculty change by starting with effective faculty: Characteristics of successful STEM education innovators; National Research Council. (2003). In McCray, R. A., DeHaan, R. L., and Schuck, J. A. (Eds.), Improving Undergraduate Instruction in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics: Report of a Workshop, Center for Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, The National Academies Press, Washington, DC, pp. 101–117.Google Scholar
  58. Mintzes, J. J., Wandersee, J. H., and Novak, J. D. (Eds.) (2000). Assessing Science Understanding: A Human Constructivist View, Academic Press, San Diego.Google Scholar
  59. Miyashita, Y. (2004). Cognitive memory: Cellular and network machineries and their top-down control. Science 306(5695): 435–440.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Mulford, D. R., and Robinson, W. R. (2002). An inventory for alternate conceptions among first-semester general chemistry students. Journal of Chemical Education 79(6): 739–744.Google Scholar
  61. Musallam, S., Corneil, B. D., Greger, B., Scherberger, H., and Andersen, R. A. (2004). Cognitive control signals for neural prosthetics. Science 305(5681): 258–262.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform, US Department of Education, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  63. National Research Council. (1997). Science Teaching Reconsidered: A Handbook, Committee on Science Education, Center for Science, Mathematics, and Engineering Education, National Academy Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  64. National Research Council. (1999a). How people learn: Bridging research and practice. In Donovan, M. S., Bransford, J. D., and Pellegrino, J. W. (Eds.), Committee on Learning Research and Educational Practice, Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, National Academy Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  65. National Research Council. (1999b). Transforming Undergraduate Education in Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology, Committee on Undergraduate Science Education, Center for Science, Mathematics, and Engineering Education, National Academy Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  66. National Research Council. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience and school, expanded edition. In Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., and Cocking, R. R. (Eds.), Committee on Developments in the Science of Learning; and Donovan,/M. S., Bransford, J. D., and Pellegrino, J. W. (Eds.), Committee on Learning Research and Educational Practice, Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, National Academy Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  67. National Research Council. (2001). Knowing what students know: The science and design of educational assessment. In Pellegrino, J. W., Chudowsky, N., and Glaser, R. (Eds.), Committee on the Foundations of Assessment, Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, National Academy Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  68. National Research Council. (2002a). BIO2010: Transforming Undergraduate Education for Future Research Biologists, Committee on Undergraduate Biology Education to Prepare Research Scientists for the 21st Century, Board on Life Sciences, National Academy Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  69. National Research Council. (2002b). In Hilton, M. (Ed.), Enhancing Undergraduate Learning with Information Technology: A Workshop Summary, Center for Education, National Academy Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  70. National Research Council. (2003a). Evaluating and improving undergraduate teaching in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. In Fox, M. A., and Hackerman, N. (Eds.), Committee on Recognizing, Evaluating, Rewarding, and Developing Excellence in Teaching of Undergraduate Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology, Center for Education, Division of Behavorial and Social Sciences and Education, The National Academy Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  71. National Research Council. (2003b). Improving undergraduate instruction in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics: Report of a workshop. In McCray, R. A., DeHaan, R. L., and Schuck, J. A. (Eds.), Center for Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, The National Academy Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  72. National Research Council. (2003c). Envisioning a 21st Century Science and Engineering Workforce for the United States: Tasks for University, Industry, and Government, Government-University-Industry Research Roundtable (GUIRR), The National Academy Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  73. National Science Board. (2004). A Companion to Science and Engineering Indicators 2004, NSB 04-07. Retrieved October 20, 2004 from www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs/nsb0407/start.htm.Google Scholar
  74. Novak, J. D. (2002). Meaningful learning: The essential factor for conceptual change in limited or inappropriate propositional hierarchies leading to empowerment of learners. Science Education 86: 548–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Ogborn, J. (1999). Modeling clay for thinking and learning. In Feurzeig, W., and Roberts, N. (Eds.), Modeling and Simulation in Science and Mathematics Education, Springer-Verlag, New York, pp. 5–37.Google Scholar
  76. Pica, P., Lemer, C., Izard, V., and Dehaene, S. (2004). Exact and approximate arithmetic in an Amazonian indigene group. Science 306: 499–503.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. Powell, K. (2003). Spare me the lecture. Nature 425: 234–236.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. Project Kaleidoscope. (2002). Recommendations for Action in Support of Undergraduate Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics: Report on Reports, Author, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  79. Pukkila, P. J. (2004). Introducing student inquiry in large introductory genetics classes. Genetics 166(1): 11–18.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  80. Redish, E. F. (1999). Millikan Lecture 1998: Building a science of teaching physics. American Journal of Physics 67(7): 562–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Redish, E. F. (2003). Teaching Physics with the Physics Suite,/Wiley, Hoboken, NJ.Google Scholar
  82. Reinvention Center at Stony Brook. (2001, May). Reinventing Undergraduate Education: Three Years After the Boyer Report. Retrieved January 21, 2003 from www.sunysb.edu/reinventioncenter/boyerfollowup.pdf.Google Scholar
  83. Roth, W.-M., and Duit, R. (2003). Emergence, flexibility, and stabilization of language in a physics classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 40(9): 869–897.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Roussev, B., and Rousseva, Y. (2004). Active learning through modeling: Introduction to software development in the business curriculum. Decision Sciences 2(2): 121–142.Google Scholar
  85. Schwartz, M. S., and Fischer, K. W. (2003). Building vs. borrowing: The challenge of actively constructing ideas in post-secondary education. Liberal Education 89(3): 22–29.Google Scholar
  86. Seymour, E., and Hewitt, N. M. (1997). Talking About Leaving: Why Undergraduates Leave the Sciences, Westview Press, Boulder, CO.Google Scholar
  87. Seymour, E., Hunter, A.-B., Laursen, S. L., and Deanton, T. (2004). Establishing the benefits of research experiences for undergraduates in the sciences: First findings from a three-year study. Science Education 88: 493–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Shulman, L. S. (1993). Teaching as community property: Putting an end to pedagogical solitude. Change 25(6): 6–7.Google Scholar
  89. Silva, T. D. N., Aguiar, L. C. daC., Leta, J., Santos, D. O., Cardoso, F. S., Cabral, L. M., Rodrigues, C. R., and Castro, H. C. (2004). Role of the undergraduate student research assistant in the new millennium. Cell Biology Education 3(4): 235–240.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  90. Spitulnik, M. W., Krajcik, J., and Soloway, E. (1999). Construction of models to promote scientific understanding. In Feurzeig, W., and Roberts, N. (Eds.), Modeling and Simulation in Science and Mathematics Education, Springer-Verlag,/New York, pp. 70–94.Google Scholar
  91. Strangman, N., and Hall, T. (2003). Virtual Reality/Computer Simulations: Curriculum Enhancement, National Center on Assessing the General Curriculum. Retrieved January 9, 2005 at http://www.cast.org/ncac/index.cfm?i=4832.
  92. Tagg, J. (2003). The Learning Paradigm College, Anker, Bolton, MA.Google Scholar
  93. Tobias, S. (1992). Revitalizing Undergraduate Science: Why Some Things Work and Most Don’t, Research Corporation, Tucson, AZ.Google Scholar
  94. Tully, T., Bourtchouladze, R., Scott, R., and Tallman, J. (2003). Targeting the CREB pathway for memory enhancers. Nature Reviews: Drug Discovery 2(4): 267–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Twigg, C. (2003). Improving quality and reducing cost: Designs for effective learning. Change 35(4): 23–29.Google Scholar
  96. Twigg, C. A. (2001). Innovations in On-Line Learning: Moving Beyond No Significant Difference, The Pew Learning and Technology Program. Retreived October 20. 2004 from http://www.center.rpi.edu/PewSym/Mono4.html#Anchor-47857.
  97. Udovic, D., Morris, D., Dickman, A., Postlethwait, J., and Wetherwax, P. (2002). Workshop biology: Demonstrating the effectiveness of active learning in an introductory biology course. Bioscience 52(3): 272–281.Google Scholar
  98. Whatley, J. (2004). An agent system to support student teams working online. Journal of Information Technology Education 3: 53–63.Google Scholar
  99. Wood, W. B. (2003). Inquiry-based undergraduate teaching in the life sciences at large research universities: A perspective on the Boyer Commission Report. Cell Biology Education 2(2): 112–116.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  100. Woods, H. A., and Chiu, C. (2003). Wireless Response Technology in College Classrooms. Technology Source. Retrieved October 20, 2004 from http://ts.mivu.org/default.asp?show=article&id=1045.
  101. Wooldridge, M. J., and Jennings, N. R. (Eds.) (1995). Intelligent Agents, Springer-Verlag, Berlin.Google Scholar
  102. Wright, J. C., Millar, S. B., Kosciuk, S. A., Penberthy, D. L., Williams, P. H., and Wampold, B. E. (1998). A novel strategy for assessing the effects of curriculum reform on student competence. Journal of Chemical Education 75(8): 986–992.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Educational StudiesEmory UniversityAtlanta

Personalised recommendations