Advertisement

Engaging with STEM Students: Successes and Challenges in Course Design

  • Leigh Ellen PotterEmail author
  • Alexandra Thompson
Chapter

Abstract

In this chapter, we will describe the approach taken to design a new first-year core course for a multidisciplinary STEM student cohort. This cohort presented challenges in terms of size, location, interest, understanding, and existing knowledge. We drew on the lessons learned from a previous redesign project for a course that shared many of these attributes to develop a course structure and approach to address these challenges. The design of the material, supporting technology, assessment, and class activities was structured to both support student learning and engage students in the learning process through a blended classroom approach and an active learning strategy. We utilised tools within the Blackboard learning management system together with the PebblePad platform for interaction to blend course elements. We followed a formal evaluation process and identified that the module and workshop structure implemented in this design were successful in supporting student learning of complex material. We observed that the quality of student work generally improved across the teaching period. Evaluations identified issues with the use of the PebblePad platform in terms of limitations for collaborative work and restrictions for document preparation. We have found that it is difficult to consistently engage with all students, and we will expand our approach to incorporate digital responses to questions and surveys with improved ability for the students to capture their own learning locally. Potential platforms to support these activities are the university native polling tool jPoll, the PebblePad platform, and the Echo360 Active Learning platform.

Keywords

Course design Student experience Technology evaluation 

References

  1. Baldwin, C., & Rosier, J. (2017). Growing future planners: A framework for integrating experiential learning into tertiary planning programs. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 37(1), 43–55.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X16634864.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bonwell, C. C., & Eison, J. A. (1991). Active learning: Creating excitement in the classroom. School of Education and Human Development, George Washington University. Retrieved November 10, 2018, from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED336049.
  3. Cook-Sather, A., Bovill, C., & Felten, P. (2014). Engaging students as partners in learning and teaching: A guide for faculty. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.Google Scholar
  4. Felten, P., Bovill, C., & Cook-Sather, A. (2014). Engaging students as partners in learning and teaching (1): Benefits and challenges—What do we know? In International Conference on Education Development.Google Scholar
  5. 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 of the United States of America, 111(23), 8410–8415. http://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319030111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Garrison, D. R., & Vaughan, N. D. (2008). Blended learning in higher education: Framework, principles, and guidelines. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  7. Kennedy, T. J., & Odell, M. R. L. (2014). Engaging students in STEM education. Science Education International, 25(3), 246–258.Google Scholar
  8. Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., Kirschner, F., & Zambrano, R. J. (2018). From cognitive load theory to collaborative cognitive load theory. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 13(2), 213–233.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-018-9277-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kolb, A. Y., & Kolb, D. A. (2005). Learning styles and learning spaces: Enhancing experiential learning in higher education. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4(2), 193–212.  https://doi.org/10.5465/AMLE.2005.17268566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Koper, R. (2005). An introduction to learning design. In R. Koper & C. Tattersall (Eds.), Learning design: A handbook on modelling and delivering networked education and training (pp. 3–20). Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag. http://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-27360-3_1.
  11. Moreton, E. O., & Conklin, J. L. (2015). Closing the loop on nursing library instruction: Using student performance to improve outcomes. Medical Reference Services Quarterly, 34(1), 113–121.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02763869.2015.986805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Potter, L. E. (2018). A day in the life: An interactive application to introduce IT students to the workplace. In Proceedings of the 2018 ACM SIGMIS Conference on Computers and People Research (pp. 138–142). http://doi.org/10.1145/3209626.3209716.
  13. Puntambekar, S., & Hubscher, R. (2005). Tools for scaffolding students in a complex learning environment: What have we gained and what have we missed? Educational Psychologist, 40(1), 1–12.  https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4001_1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Roberts, P. (2018). Developing reflection through an ePortfolio-based learning environment: Design principles for further implementation. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 27(3), 313–326.  https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2018.1447989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Shah, M., Cheng, M., & Fitzgerald, R. (2017). Closing the loop on student feedback: The case of Australian and Scottish universities. Higher Education, 74(1), 115–129.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-016-0032-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Shaidullin, R. N., Safiullin, L. N., Gafurov, I. R., & Safiullin, N. Z. (2014). Blended learning: Leading modern educational technologies. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 131(904), 105–110.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.04.087.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Simonsen, J., & Robertson, T. (2013). Routledge international handbook of participatory design. Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  18. Sweller, J., & Sweller, S. (2006). Natural information processing systems. Evolutionary Psychology, 4(1), 147470490600400.  https://doi.org/10.1177/147470490600400135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Teasley, S., & Roschelle, J. (1993). Constructing a joint problem space: The computer as a tool for sharing knowledge. In S. P. Lajoie & S. J. Derry (Eds.), Computers as cognitive tools (pp. 229–258). L. Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  20. The Joint Task Force on Computing Curricula. (2013). Computer Science Curricula. Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) & IEEE Computer Society. http://doi.org/10.1145/2534860.Google Scholar
  21. Topi, H., Valacich, J. S., Wright, R. T., Kaiser, K. M., Nunamaker, J. F., Sipior, J. C., & de Vreede, G. J. (2010). Curriculum guidelines for undergraduate degree programs in information systems. Retrieved November 26, 2018, from https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2593310.
  22. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Wang, Y., Han, X., & Yang, J. (2015). Revisiting the blended learning literature: Using a complex adaptive systems framework. International Forum of Educational Technology & Society, 18(2), 380–393.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Information and Communication TechnologyGriffith UniversityNathanAustralia

Personalised recommendations