1. Catalyze widespread adoption of empirically validated teaching practices.

2. Advocate and provide support for replacing standard laboratory courses with discovery-based research courses.

3. Launch a national experiment in postsecondary mathematics education to address the math preparation gap.

4. Encourage partnerships among stakeholders to diversity pathways to STEM careers.

5. Create a Presidential Council on STEM Education with leadership from the academic and business communities to provide strategic leadership for transformative and sustainable change in STEM undergraduate education.

Since 1989, PKAL has been a leader in advocating for widespread adoption of “what works” in undergraduate STEM education, which includes empirically validated teaching practices and discovery-based courses. Through its program of national meetings, projects, and networks, a community of nearly 7,000 STEM educators and leaders has been built. Many of these PKAL leaders have been on the cutting edge of reforms such as studio labs and Just-In-Time Teaching (for more on these, go here). At PKAL Regional Network meetings around the nation, participants learn firsthand how to implement these teaching practices. Network meetings are organized by PKAL leaders who have been cultivated over the years as part of the Faculty for the 21^st Century program. Over 600 faculty members are engaged in ongoing and regular professional development with colleagues from across the STEM disciplines and spectrum of institutional types. Two networks are forming in Chicago and the Washington, DC areas as well.

I applaud the report’s recommendations and am particularly glad to see the emphasis on the first two years of college and special attention given to mathematics education. Underpreparation in mathematics is one of the biggest barriers to STEM student success, in particular for students who come from under-resourced high school environments. Remedial math rates at some universities are greater than 50%! While mathematical skills are critical for most STEM majors, they are also important for all students to become quantitatively literate; that is, able to analyze data and draw conclusions from it. These skills are paramount for creating a citizenry that can aptly grapple with real world issues, such as climate change, and make informed decisions regarding personal actions as well as government policies. Many colleges and universities have quantitative reasoning learning outcomes for all students, but more should focus on this requisite skill for 21^st century living. The beauty of focusing on quantitative literacy is that it requires a curriculum that engages students in real world problem solving—an example of the type of “empirically validated teaching practices” featured in the PCAST report. For more on QL, check out the resources at the National Numeracy Network (NNN) , one of PKAL’s partner organizations.

The growth in college STEM graduates called for MUST come primarily from minority populations. By percentage, African American and Latino students are significantly less likely to graduate than their white counterparts (see report on STEM from the Center for Education and the Workforce or National Academies Expanding Minority Participation in science and technology report). Because most of these students begin their university careers in community colleges, it means that community colleges are pivotal levers for future STEM education improvement. For community college students to be prepared to successfully matriculate into and graduate with baccalaureate degrees in STEM, we must work harder to create transfer pathways that are aligned not only across the curriculum but across advising, disciplinary cultures, and social support systems. The Ramping Up for STEM Success project that PKAL and AAC&U are leading is working to design such programs. We are hopeful that this pilot will produce new and more effective models, such as this one led by the Maricopa Community College District in Arizona, as well as forge a national movement of community colleges and university partnerships that are working together to improve STEM transfer student success.

In my view, an additional recommendation needs to be added to this report, and that is to build both institutional and individual capacity to lead transformation efforts. Change doesn’t happen spontaneously. It is led by visionaries with the skills to move a community toward a common goal. These visionaries can be informal or formal leaders. Regardless, they must have the acumen and expertise to understand how to identify key issues, build coalitions, navigate the murky waters of campus politics, secure needed funding, and create supportive cultures that will sustain the change over the long term. Formal leaders play an essential role in this process by enabling and empowering grassroots efforts. PKAL has long been training these kinds of leaders in our Summer Leadership Institutes. These Institutes have now graduated over 200 change agents in STEM education, many of whom are now in positions of dean, provost and president leading change on their campuses.

Change will also require investment. Indeed, the report points to two NSF programs, WIDER (Widening Implementation and Demonstration of Evidence-based Reforms) and TUES (Transforming Undergraduate Education in STEM), as well as a new joint $30 million NSF and Department of Education initiative that will be proposed in the President’s FY 2013 budget (keep your fingers crossed!) that will “develop, validate, and scale up evidence-based approaches to improve student learning at the K-12 and undergraduate levels through a ‘tiered-evidence framework’ to maximize the impact of mathematics education investments.”  PKAL’s new project, funded by the W.M. Keck Foundation, aims to build an Institutional STEM Education Effectiveness Framework that we believe will provide a cohesive set of benchmarking tools and institutional change strategies that will help campuses achieve more widespread STEM reform with a purposeful eye toward helping more students succeed.

So stay tuned in for PKAL project updates. We encourage you to join us by participating in one of our regional networks, a summer leadership institute, or the next annual conference on undergraduate STEM education, which is scheduled for November 8-10 in Kansas City, MO. Network meetings happen throughout the year, and two new networks are forming in Chicago and the Washington DC area. Summer Leadership Institute applications are due April 6. Send in your application or, if you are a chair or dean, nominate an emerging STEM faculty leader from your team. Proposals for sessions at the Next Generation STEM Learning conference, organized collaboratively by PKAL and AAC&U, are due March 19. Share and learn with hundreds of others who are dedicated to helping the nation meet the call in this latest report. We are stronger together than we are alone. We look forward to working with you at a PKAL event soon!

At the institute, I also made some interesting connections between community engagement and the more common engaged pedagogies that are part of the STEM education lexicon. As service learning powerhouses Rick Battistoni (Providence College), Nadinne Cruz (independent practitioner, author and leader), and Tania Mitchell (Stanford University) guided participants through the theory, research and practice that underlie this very popular and powerful pedagogical approach, I was struck by the similarities between it and other engaged pedagogies. For example, it is student-centered and inquiry-based. It is also very deliberately real world focused because students are out in the world, learning within it instead of learning about it in a sterile classroom. How powerful! One campus team proposed a community engagement project as a mechanism to link three general education courses (chemistry, English and mathematics) together for first-year students in connected cohorts at their four-year institution and a partner community college. Students would be enrolled in the three courses simultaneously at each institution, engaged in community projects at the local YMCA, and meet together weekly to connect experiences across the courses and colleges, and in the community.

I also learned that this is a ripe field for further education research in the STEM disciplines. There are many unanswered questions that faculty who engage students in these kinds of programs can undertake. Here are just a few:

1. What are the STEM knowledge and skills learned in these kinds of experiences, and how can they best be measured? AAC&U’s VALUE project has a rubric on community engagement. Does it work in STEM community engagement projects? If so, does it need modification? Are new rubrics required?
2. What is the impact of community engagement in general education courses on scientific literacy and/or quantitative reasoning skills of undergraduate students? What about scientific literacy of the community members who participate with the students?
3. What is the impact of community engagement as a pedagogy for major courses on student retention and completion rates in STEM majors? Success in STEM, in particular for underrepresented students, is a critical issue for colleges and universities around the nation, and perhaps this pedagogy should be added as another tool in our tool chest of effective practices.

I left the institute further energized to continue PKAL’s work to advance “what works” in undergraduate STEM education with new ideas, new knowledge and new connections to the very engaged community engagement and service learning community.

What are your community engagement experiences in STEM courses and programs? Do you know of any studies that connect it to student success and learning outcomes in STEM?

Of interest to me was what their analysis showed for students in the STEM disciplines. It turns out that students studying science and mathematics are not as adrift as most of their peers, scoring higher on the CLA than other major fields (business, education/social work, health. communications, and even engineering/computer science). They do as well (or better) than their counterparts in the social sciences and humanities. If you follow their analysis further, they suggest that students in the sciences/mathematics and social sciences/humanities do better because they work harder – they write and read more, and spend more time studying. On the flip side, their analysis also suggests that they may do better because they are socially and academically advantaged, highlighting the persistent issue of broader participation of under represented minority (URM) students in STEM (For more on this, see a recent issue of New Directions in Institutional Research on Students of Color in STEM).

Overall, though, this is mostly good news for those of us in science and mathematics. But, what should we make of the analysis for students in other disciplines? As Arum and Roksa point out, we all agree that development of critical thinking and complex reasoning skills are important outcomes of higher education for all students – most institutions have statements along these lines in their university learning outcomes. But, what are we doing to really foster these capacities in ALL students? To me, this points us in the direction of general education. Are we taking science requirements in GE seriously enough? Do students take them seriously enough?

To meet general education requirements in the sciences, students at most institutions choose from a menu of courses that typically span the disciplines – Astronomy 101, Rocks for Jocks, Physics for Poets, Baby Biology and so on. You know the drill. These courses are typically created specifically for the non-major and are often lighter on content, designed to be “easier” than the introductory majors courses. What if we upped the ante for non-major science students and challenged them to think and reason as we expect of our science majors in the context of real world issues? Would they rise to the challenge? Both AAC&U and PKAL are working with campuses and national organizations create more real world focused STEM learning experiences for general education students. For example, AAC&U’s Shared Futures project is working with campuses around the country to create more robust, real world general education experiences. And, PKAL is working with eleven professional societies in STEM to advance the work of their members in educating undergraduates for a more sustainable future.

The world is a different place in 2011 than it was in 1991, as are our institutions, our faculty, our students and our missions. Public criticism of higher education is high, costs are high and so are expectations. Several national studies suggest that students aren’t gaining much from their college experience (Academically Adrift, for example), and cries from national reports still say we are not doing as well recruiting and retaining STEM majors particularly from diverse populations (see PKAL blog post from 2/23/11). Over 80 posters, sessions and speakers at the recent PKAL-AAC&U Engaged STEM Learning conference in Miami echoed these themes as well as focused on technology, interdisciplinarity, inclusiveness, preparation, assessment and real world experiences. There was a palpable energy among the 450 attendees as they shared, exchanged and learned from one another.

As one way to celebrate PKAL’s anniversary, we would like members of the community to contribute to a “PKAL 20/20 Vision”  that will include 20 lessons learned over the past 20 years and 20 challenges ahead for the next 20 years for STEM higher education. What do you think we have learned over the past 20 years, and what you think are the challenges for the next 20 years? Please share your thoughts by commenting on this blog post to give us your feedback. We’ll collect and synthesize it, and keep you posted on the results. Not only will this help PKAL more strategically plan its conferences, programs and activities in the future, but we hope it will help you as you continue your efforts to make STEM experiences in higher education better meet the needs of our 21st century students.

In reading this report, you will find that improvements have been made – more URM students are identifying interest in studying STEM and they now comprise 26.2% of STEM majors, however we have a long way to go in closing the gap between interest and enrollment and graduation in STEM. Financial support turns out to be a key factor for success and completion for low income and minority students. But, there are other strategies campuses can utilize to ensure more URM students are successful in STEM. The report highlights seven strategies, summarized below:

1. Look at data and act (at course, program, and institution levels)
2. Pay attention to indicators (retention and completion)
3. Take on introductory courses (turn them from gatekeepers to gateways)
4. Don’t hesitate to make demands (set high standards)
5. Assign clear responsibility for student success (if we all own it, nobody does)
6. Insist that presidents step up to the plate (leadership is essential)
7. Bring back the ones you lose (be proactive and responsive).

The report contains more data, statistics, stories and recommendations that should be useful to campuses as they continue to consider how to broaden access and success in STEM for all students.

1. Papers on education research in biology, physics, geoscience and engineering
2. Papers on learning science and epistemologies across the sciences

We continue to follow this study and look forward to its report. These papers present robust analyses and syntheses of the contributions – from graduate programs to areas of investigation, significant findings and unanswered questions – of educational researchers in these scientific disciplines and engineering. Some of the papers are pretty heady, but offer good summaries by experts in these fields.

Also, check out the commissioned papers and summary report from the Academies workshops on Promising Practices in undergraduate STEM education.

Next up (I hope), the new Science Framework that will be used to develop common core science standards for K-12.

What has changed:

1. We know much more about what constitutes effective and inclusive teaching, and there are several proven student-centered pedagogical strategies and models for large-scale curricular revision (PLTL, SCALE-UP, and others)
2. Department conversations about student learning outcomes and assessment are becoming the norm rather than the exception; and, more programs have defined learning outcomes that are the basis for engaging fervently in assessment and evaluation. Programs also more commonly match their outcomes to institutional learning goals.
3. There are several assessment instruments and tools available for measuring various aspects of student learning and engagement, from the course to the institution level (SALG, SURE, URSSA, NSSE to name a few). Even with these instruments, this is still a high priority area where more research and development is needed.
4. Teaching and learning centers that provide training and support for faculty members to improve their teaching and create more engaging learning environments are much more prevalent. Professional scientific societies have also joined in and are providing more teaching and learning development opportunities for faculty, graduate students and postdocs. They are also hosting more education-related programs, publications and meetings.
5. Technology has made tremendous leaps, from course management systems to devices such as clickers, the iPhone and the iPad. And, more innovations are coming that have even greater potential to transform learning environments.
6. SOTL and discipline based science education research are growing in their acceptance as professional activities worthy of science faculty (for more on this, see October 28, 2010 post).

The world we live in now is also very different. Not only is our society increasingly faced with challenges that are global in nature and require interdisciplinary solutions, but research in the scientific disciplines is becoming more integrated and applied across disciplines to solve these global problems. PKAL’s most recent project focused on leadership for facilitating interdisciplinary learning and AAC&U has a new project focused on global learning for general education. And then there are the students of this century, about which much has already been written (see, for example Oblinger and Oblinger): millennials, techno-natives, service-focused, discovery-based learners, multi-taskers, social, empowered, and different from us for sure. The faculty is also different. In many (most?) science departments across the country, there is essentially an entirely new faculty in place that has been hired in the past 10-15 years. These faculty have been trained in essentially the same ways as their predecessors; that is, as scientific researchers not as educators, much less as educational researchers.

In many ways, we are starting over. Because of this, change strategies will still need to pivot around faculty members and the curriculum (e.g., the work of departments). But for change to be systemic and sustainable, it must be championed by leaders who know the terrain and are connected to institutional goals. This is arguably where the least amount of attention has been paid, but where we need to focus more of our efforts now. Over the past 20 years, PKAL has been advancing what works in engaging pedagogy, faculty development and community building at all levels of the institution. For a bibliography of PKAL’s publications over the past two decades, click here.

So, on reflection, much has changed and many positive advances have been made; however, we still have more work to do to get to a point where student learning is truly at the center of our collective academic enterprise and where there is a critical mass of people with the passion and skills to make sure it happens in effective, engaging and inclusive ways. We are not yet at the tipping point but I think we are close. Learn more about PKAL in its new partnership with AAC&U (PKAL 2.0) in AAC&U’s Liberal Education.

Now it’s your turn. What do you think has changed, and how can we leverage the advances made by the dedicated pioneers of the past two decades to finally move the dial for more students at more institutions? How can we get to the tipping point?

Through the presentations made at the meeting, various types of research areas across the disciplines were identified: curriculum and instruction, conceptual understanding/cognition, problem-solving, misconceptions, assessment of content as well as attitudes and/or confidence, and cross-cultural & gender studies. It was also interesting to note that published research papers across the disciplines variously used theoretical frameworks of cognition and learning, such as constructivism or the learning cycle. Concept inventories are also becoming very prevalent in the research literature, with more and more disciplines and sub-disciplines developing these types of instruments. Some of the areas for future work that were discussed included: interdisciplinary learning, metacognition, development of assessment tools and instruments, the impact of the quality (as opposed to the amount) of active learning, scientific reasoning and the process of science. One presenter noted that there has been a definite shift in one discipline from a scholarly approach (what will I teach?) to a scholarship approach (what is happening in my classroom?).

From my perspective, one interesting issue raised in the presentations was a possible distinction between Discipline-Based Education Research (DBER) and the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SOTL) in STEM: DBER being that which has a theoretical base and advances our understanding of how students learn a particular discipline, and SOTL being that which has a more practical base and is focused on improving student understanding in specific learning environments. I had never made this distinction in my mind before, and am not entirely sure I agree with it, but it is interesting to consider. As I pondered it further, I began to wonder about the implications of this distinction for the kinds of activities being considered as acceptable for professional activities of STEM faculty members. What are our expectations with respect to each of these kinds of activities with respect to faculty activities? Should we expect all faculty members to be engaged in SOTL? What about DBER? Who does this? What role does it play in the activities and/or scholarship of STEM faculty? What do you think?

This study promises to yield an important synthesis of the contributions of DBER to each field as well as the trends across them and the future questions that still need to be explored. Stay tuned to their website and this blog for more as the study continues.

During my visit, the word innovation kept coming up. It seems this is the latest buzz word in STEM higher education in the U.S., and now abroad. It has also been recently featured in a new report from the National Science Board, entitled “Preparing the Next Generation of Innovators: Identifying and Developing Our Nation’s Human Capital.” STEM innovators are defined as, “those individuals who have developed the expertise to become leading STEM professionals and perhaps the creators of significant breakthroughs or advances in scientific and technological understanding.” What does it take to create such individuals? Foundational to the report is the fact that the U.S. education system misses the mark in terms of developing a diverse enough pool of students. Too many young people fall through the cracks because of their zip code and this lost talent means lost opportunity for them and for this country.

The report makes three keystone recommendations:

1.      Provide opportunities for excellence to cultivate the highest levels of curiosity and innovative thinking in students.

2.      Cast a wide net to recruit and develop talent from all demographics in order to ensure the broadest contributions.

3.      Foster a supportive ecosystem of all stakeholders, from students themselves to industry partners.

This report, and my recent visit to Dubai, made me think more about the conditions required to create a culture of innovation in our educational system. What does it take? Are the NSB report recommendations enough? What can/should institutions of higher education do to implement these recommendations?

All this led me to wonder how crowdsourcing (crowdsciencing?) might help us in the realm of science education, especially for the nonmajors who are typically either uninterested in science or outright scared of it. Crowdsourcing could be an excellent way to help students understand the complexities involved with drawing conclusions from raw data. As Carol Minton Morris, director of marketing and communications at DuraSpace, explains, instead of thinking about it as a data deluge, “How does “data renaissance” sound?” (http://chronicle.com/article/The-Growth-of-Citizen/65776).

Introductory science courses could have students take photographs of the insects or other wildlife they encounter, and then post and write about them on Project Noah’s website. Students could use their phones as cameras and learn more about their own habitats at the same time– even urban habitats (what, there’s wildlife in cities?). The classic entomology insect collection could be moved entirely online (sparing the lives of a few insects along the way) for easy viewing and sharing. I’m sure there are some instructors who are collecting and analyzing datasets, but how many are participating in these larger-scale projects? Seems like a cool idea to me. Genomics projects and GIS projects are two other areas where the data is ripe for student analysis. I’m sure there are more.

Do you have any experience with crowdsciencing in education? Do you know of others? What do you think about the idea?