Seminars on Science Pedagogy

Further Resources

Smaller, independent colleges and universities play a vital role in producing STEM graduates in the United States. As highlighted in the Council of Independent Colleges’ 2019 report, Strengthening the STEM Pipeline: The Contributions of Small and Mid-Sized Independent Colleges, these institutions graduate a disproportionately large number of STEM majors who go on to complete graduate degrees at research institutions and launch careers in STEM fields. CIC member institutions take great pride in their focus on teaching and undergraduate research, and students are guided by full-time faculty members through the rigors of the curricula toward completion and commitment to post-graduate study.

This strong foundation and emphasis on teaching led CIC to launch an initiative to strengthen science pedagogy at its member institutions. Beginning in 2018 and generously supported by the W. M. Keck Foundation and the National Science Foundation, CIC launched a series of two seminars that would prepare interdisciplinary teams of faculty members in STEM fields to integrate evidence-based active learning methods into their introductory science courses and better connect academic learning with practical applications of the scientific method. CIC partnered with Carl Wieman, a Nobel laureate in physics and a leader in science education, to design and lead these workshops, drawing on extensive research in cognition and neuroscience that shows how to significantly improve learning.

Through the method promoted by Wieman and his team, the faculty member is more coach than lecturer, and students are challenged with increasingly complex problems. Aided by extensive feedback, students emulate how scientists think and discover new knowledge. Wieman’s initiatives transformed science instruction at the University of British Columbia and the University of Colorado at Boulder, and he and his colleagues at Stanford University have used the method successfully for many years. However, before the CIC seminars, this method had never been promoted among faculty members at smaller, teaching-intensive colleges and universities.

The goals of this initiative were not only to prepare faculty members at up to twenty CIC member institutions to integrate active learning methods into their introductory science courses and improve student outcomes and retention in STEM fields, but also to show the impact of these methods on STEM pedagogy at smaller, independent colleges and universities.

CIC is grateful for the generous support of the W. M. Keck Foundation.

The Seminars

Two cohorts of institutional teams were selected by competitive nomination for the Seminars on Science Pedagogy that took place in 2019 and 2021. In each cohort, successful CIC applicant institutions sent delegations of four science faculty each—including at least one person in a leadership role—to attend the week-long events. The first cohort (representing nine institutions) met at Holy Names University in Oakland, CA. The second cohort (representing another eight institutions) met online in 2021, after being postponed for a year due to the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.

For each seminar, Wieman built the program and ran a session for participants. The rest of the week’s activities were led by a team of faculty experts from the science education centers founded by Carl Wieman at the University of British Columbia (UBC), University of Colorado Boulder, and Stanford University:

• Warren Code, Associate Director of University of British Columbia Skylight, the Science Center for Learning and Teaching
• Argenta Price, Researcher with the Wieman Group at Stanford (2021 only) 
• Georg Rieger, Associate Professor of Teaching in Physics and Astronomy at University of British Columbia.
• Michelle Smith, now Ann S. Bowers Professor in the Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at Cornell University, who was part of the Science Education Initiative at the University of Colorado Boulder (2019 only)
• Sandra Webster, Professor in the Department of Psychology at Westminster College (PA)

Before each seminar, participants were given an extensive reading list of research on science pedagogy, including Improving How Universities Teach Science: Lessons from the Science Education Initiative by Carl Wieman and How Learning Works: Seven Research-Based Principles for Smart Teaching by S.A. Ambrose, et al. (see LINK for a full list of suggested readings and materials related to the seminar).

During each seminar, Carl Wieman and the seminar leaders provided participants with a strong foundation in the cognitive science that underpins their active learning methods and explains their success, with sessions on topics such as cognitive load and memory and knowledge organization. Participants were then guided through how this theory could be applied in the classroom, with sessions on student motivation, inclusive teaching practices, and integrating student feedback and practical workshops focused on class techniques to foster group work and active learning. Based on this theory, faculty members then designed their own classroom exercises and were given opportunities to get feedback from fellow participants and the facilitators. Finally, the teams met together to reflect on their experiences and set goals for how these methods would be implemented in introductory science courses on their home campuses.

Evaluation

CIC’s Seminars on Science Pedagogy aimed to prepare faculty members in the sciences to use the methods developed by Carl Wieman, to improve the effectiveness of STEM teaching on the participating campuses by using the prepared faculty members as resources for the relevant departments, and to share the results of these improvements with all CIC campuses to promote the adoption of best practices in STEM pedagogy.

The 18 participating teams were selected based on significant, demonstrated institutional commitment to improving STEM pedagogy, faculty commitment to active learning strategies and evidence of persuasive advocacy in their departments and institutions for these best practices. Each team included faculty members from one or two departments, including a department or division chair. These selection strategies were intended to increase the likelihood of full implementation of the active learning methods across all lower division courses in the department.

The participating institutions conducted one year of evaluation of the introductory science courses in their chosen disciplines to provide a baseline for the project. In the year following each seminar, the participating teams piloted the use of the new methods they had learned in their introductory classes, assessed the learning outcomes, and planned for implementation in their departments’ lower division classes for the next academic year.

Download Report

Impact

CIC anticipated two main outcomes from the seminars at the participating campuses. Firstly, seminar leaders predicted a statistically significant improvement in student learning outcomes for the introductory courses of at least one department after full implementation of the department’s post seminar plan. Secondly, they hoped for greater student and faculty satisfaction with the department’s introductory courses.

Unfortunately, assessing the impact of the seminars was complicated by the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic less than one year after the first seminar took place, which disrupted in-person learning on all campuses. Good comparative data were impossible to collect, as the classroom environments for data collection after the Seminars were completely different from the baseline and control classroom environments. The pandemic also led to a high rate of turnover of faculty participants. Thirty-two percent of faculty members who participated in the 2019 Seminar left their institutions (and one institution closed), and 18 percent of faculty members who participated in the 2021 Seminar left their institutions before the end of the project. Thirty-four percent of participants who remained at their institution were promoted over the course of the project and two joined the administration at their institution. All of this change also resulted in a disruption in the original plan for control sections of courses which would have been compared to the revised sections taught by Seminar participants. Many institutions were struggling to staff courses and others faced enrollment challenges that reduced the number of sections of courses offered.

Despite these challenges, Seminar participants reported several positive outcomes from the Seminars on their campuses. Faculty members shared that many of the new active learning techniques presented in the Seminars were valuable as they pivoted to online teaching environments, as these techniques fostered student engagement and were easily adaptable to online or hybrid learning environments. The Seminars also provided an extensive toolkit for faculty members to enrich their teaching and discuss pedagogical practices with their colleagues. Participants in the Seminars reported using a total of 70 different new teaching methods after their experience in the Seminar. (A list of these teaching methods is in the Assessment appendix.) They also reported new and continuing conversations about pedagogy with colleagues both in their home departments and across science disciplines. These conversations, both formal and informal, led in many cases to the sharing of Seminar techniques with more faculty members and the development of more curricular and pedagogical innovation.

For example, at Franciscan Missionaries of Our Lady University (LA),participation in the Seminar increased the willingness of faculty members to discuss pedagogy techniques and challenges with each other. Even while navigating remote and hybrid schedules during the pandemic, faculty members collaborated well on this project, and communications improved within and between Chemistry, Biology, Nursing, and Medical Laboratory Sciences departments. Similarly, at Concordia University Texas, seminar participants created an environment where discussion of new techniques in pedagogy was “streamlined and easy,” inviting collaboration between faculty members and departments. This ease of collaboration extended to fostering collaboration between departments on student research projects as well. Finally, at Wingate University (NC), the experiences of faculty members at the seminar led to the revision of the entire introductory course sequence in biology with a completely new approach to the delivery of the course material.

Lessons Learned

“Our advice to other institutions, is that it can seem quite daunting to change pedagogical practices/deliveries, but once you see the results, it is all worth it. We would also suggest starting small with offering one project here, or a training on barriers for underrepresented student.”

Team from Wingate University

Albright College (Chemistry):

• Learning objectives: Instructors who went to the CIC Seminar have used learning objectives to design instruction. We are continuing to work on consistent learning objectives for these courses.
• Clickers: Instructors used an online platform, Aktiv Learning, as de facto “clickers.” (See below for more.)
• Think-pair share questions: One instructor implemented think-pair-share questions in general chemistry 1; these helped students to explain their reasoning with problems.
• In-class problem solving and POGIL: Students worked on worksheets at times in these courses, either for introducing the material or practice. For general chemistry 2 in spring 2022, one instructor used process-oriented guided inquiry learning (POGIL) worksheets with minimal lecture introduction. POGIL is a well-established active learning method.
• Two-stage and repeat quizzing: For general chemistry 2 in spring 2022, one instructor experimented with two-stage quizzes taken individually and then in groups; this seemed to help students improve performance, but increased time would make them more successful. The instructor used repeat quizzing in biochemistry 1 and 2 as well.

Nebraska Methodist College (Biology and Chemistry):

• Kahoot (Advanced Clicker Version): A game based learning platform that engages student with the content.
• Concept Mapping: A visual aid that required students to create visual representation of the information that aid in grasping challenging concepts.
• Think-Pair-Share: A popular collaborative learning strategy that helps with comprehending complex concepts.
• Creating Test/Quiz Questions: Teaching students to generate productive assessment questions. This activity required students to utilize their critical thinking skills and students were provided guidance on this approach
• Peer Teaching: This teaching strategy helped students understanding the complex concepts and/or topic
• Venn Diagram: Helped students to organize and visually see logical relationships that helped with the basic lab concepts.
• Gallery Walk: This teaching technique truly was truly student centered as it not only the students with the content, but also incorporated the peer teaching strategy.

York College of Pennsylvania (Biology and Chemistry)

• Start small: Focus on revising one segment of your course, integrating one new active learning technique, or convening one departmental conversation on pedagogy.
• Try a variety of active learning methods: There is no one magic technique. Find and try a variety of techniques and keep what works for you, your students, and your course material.
• Collaborate with colleagues: Communication within departments and among departments is key. Hold departmental and interdepartmental discussions about pedagogy.
• Enlist the support of the department or division chair: as well as the dean and chief academic officer.
• Offer incentives: Encourage faculty members to participate in active learning. Incentives could be as simple as a meal in the college cafeteria or a bit of extra supply or travel funding, as well as summer stipends for course development.
• Communication within departments and among departments is key: Hold departmental and interdepartmental discussions about pedagogy;
• Offer incentives to faculty who participate in active learning: Incentives could be as simple as a meal in the college cafeteria or a bit of extra supply or travel funding, as well as summer stipends for course development.
• Tap into existing initiatives: Integrate this work into what your campus or department is already doing, such as a cross-departmental teaching and learning program or an upcoming departmental program assessment.
• Remember that we are here to help students learn. 

Appendix – Resources from the Seminars on Science Pedagogy

Below is a list of suggested readings and materials for the CIC Seminars on Science Pedagogy.

The following helpful materials are drawn from a collection at the Carl Wieman Science Education Initiative:

• Assessments That Support Student Learning

• Clicker User’s Guide (and more)

• Creating and implementing in-class activities; principles and practical tips

• Group Work in Educational Settings

• The videos collection

• Physics PhET simulations

• Adams, W. and Wieman, C. (2010, October 27). Development and validation of instruments to measure learning of expert-like thinking. International Journal of Science Education, pp. 1-24.

• Ambrose, S. A., Bridges, M. W., DiPietro, M., Lovett, M. C., and Norman, M. K. (2010). How Learning Works: Seven Research-Based Principles for Smart Teaching. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

• Bjork, R. A. (1994). Memory and metamemory considerations in the training of human beings. In J. Metcalfe, and A. Shimamura, Metacognition: Knowing about knowing (pp. 185-205). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

• Code, W. and Chasteen, S., The Science Education Initiative Handbook,

• The Science Education Initiative Handbook, University of Colorado Boulder

• Code, W., Piccolo, C., Kohler, D., & MacLean, M. (2014). Teaching methods comparison in a large calculus class. ZDM Mathematics Education, 46, 589–601.

• Corbo, J. C., Reinholz, D. L., Dancy, M. H., Deetz, S., and Finkelstein, N. (2016, February 22). Framework for transforming departmental culture to support educational innovation. Physical Review Physics Education Research, (pp. 010113-1 to 010113-15).

• Deslauriers, L., Schelew, E., and Wieman, C., Improved learning in a large-enrollment physics class, Science 332, 862 (2011).

• Ericsson, K. (2006). The influence of experience and deliberate practice on the development of superior expert performance. In K. Ericsson, The Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance (pp. 685-706). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

• Finley, A., and McNair, T.B. (2013). Assessing underserved students’ engagement in high-impact practices. Washington, DC: American Association of Colleges and Universities.

• Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., and Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. PNAS 111 (23), 8410-8415.

• Holmes, N.G., Keep, B., Wieman, C.E., Developing scientific decision making by structuring and supporting student agency, Physical Review Physics Education Research 16, 010109 (2020) 1-17.

• Kuo, E. and Wieman, C.E., Toward instructional design principles: Inducing Faraday’s law with contrasting cases, Physical Review Physics Education Research 12, 010128 (2016) pp.1-14

• Karpicke, J. D., and Roediger III, H. L. (2008, February 15). The critical importance of retrieval for learning. Science, pp. 966-968.

• Khatri, R., Henderson, C., Cole, R., Froyd, J. E., Friedrichsen, D., and Stanford, C. (2016, February 22). Designing for sustained adoption: A model of developing educational innovations for successful propagation. Physical Review Physics Education Research, (pp. 010112-1 to 010112-22).

• Kuchment, A. (2014, May 21). Stop lecturing me (in college science)! Scientific American (blog), pp. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/budding-scientist/stop-lecturing-me-in-college-science/#sa_body.

• Kuh, G. D., Ikenberry, S. O., Jankowski, N. A., Cain, T. R., Ewell, P. T., Hutchings, P., and Kinzie, J. (2015). Using Evidence of Student Learning to Improve Higher Education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

• Lederman, J. S., Lederman, N. G., Bartos, S. A., Batels, S. L., Meyer, A. A., and Schwartz, R. S. (2014). Meaningful assessment of learners’ understandings about scientific inquiry—The views about scientifc inquiry (VASI) questionnaire. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 65-83.

• Mayer, R. E. (2010). Rote Versus Meaningful Learning. Theory Into Practice, 226-232.

• Mayer, R. E., Griffith, E., Jurkowitz, I. T., and Rothman, D. (2008). Increased interestingness of extraneous details in a multimedia science presentation leads to decreased learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 329-339.

• Miller, M. D. (2011, June 27). What college teachers should know about memory: A perspective from cognitive psychology. College Teaching, (pp. 117-122).

• National Research Council. (2000). How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School: Expanded Edition. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

• Pascarella, E. T., and Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects students: A third decade of research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

• Piccolo, C., Code W. (2013) Assessment of students’ understanding of related rates problems. Proceedings of the 16th Annual Conference on Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education. Denver, CO, USA. Vol 2, 607-609.

• Schwartz, D.L., Tsang, J.M., and Blair, K.P. (2016), The ABCs of  How We Learn, New York, NY, W.W. Norton & Co.

• Simon, B., and Taylor, J. (2009, November/December). What is the Value of Course-Specific Learning Goals? Journal of College Science Teaching, (pp. 52-57).

• Smith, M. K., and Perkins, K. K. (2010, March). “At the end of my course, students should be able to …”: The benefits of creating and using effective learning goals. Microbiology Australia, (pp. 35-37).

• Smith, M.K., Wood, W.B., Krauter, K. and Knight, J.K., Combining Peer Discussion with Instructor Explanation Increases Student Learning from In-Class Concept Questions, CBE—Life Sciences Education, Vol. 10, 55–63, Spring 2011

• Wieman, C. (2017). Improving How Universities Teach Science: Lessons from the Science Education Initiative . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

• Wieman, C.E., Rieger, G.W., and Heiner, C.E., Physics Exams that Promote Collaborative Learning, The Physics Teacher 52, 51 (2014); doi: 10.1119/1.4849159 (View online: http://dx.doi.org/10.1119/1.48491590

Contact Information

​​​If you have any questions or comments please contact Stephen Gibson, CIC’s director of programs, at sgibson@cic.edu or (202) 466-7230.