Reconceptualizing a College Science Learning Experience in the New Digital Era: A Review of Literature

Despite all the exciting new digital forms of living, our college science education remains relatively unchanged. Students sit quietly in large classrooms listening to lectures (or not), complete individual labs following cookbook instruction, and take exams only to solve problems of no practical importance. It is the time to reconceptualize a college science learning experience for all students. In this chapter, we review research on technology-enriched instruction and assessments for science education at the college level that target students’ 21st century skills such as problem solving, critical thinking, and collaboration. We propose three interrelated core principles that can help design coherent science instruction, curriculum, and assessments at the college level that meet the needs of the new digital era: (1) Set the development of lifelong learning skills for students as a top priority; (2) incorporate multi-layered instructional supports using technologies; and (3) design new assessments for individual students that demonstrate and facilitate their growth of the lifelong learning capacity.

[1]  Benjamin S. Bloom,et al.  Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals. , 1957 .

[2]  P. Black,et al.  Assessment and Classroom Learning , 1998 .

[3]  Matthew J. Koehler,et al.  Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A Framework for Teacher Knowledge , 2006, Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education.

[4]  R. Bennett Formative assessment: a critical review , 2011 .

[5]  Chin-Chung Tsai,et al.  Affordances of Augmented Reality in Science Learning: Suggestions for Future Research , 2012, Journal of Science Education and Technology.

[6]  Riffat Shafi,et al.  Experience with a theme-based integrated renal module for a second-year MBBS class. , 2010, Advances in physiology education.

[7]  Daniel D. Suthers,et al.  Computer-supported collaborative learning: An historical perspective , 2006 .

[8]  J. Kibble,et al.  Use of unsupervised online quizzes as formative assessment in a medical physiology course: effects of incentives on student participation and performance. , 2007, Advances in physiology education.

[9]  Randy Elliot Bennett,et al.  Online Assessment in Mathematics and Writing: Reports from the NAEP Technology-Based Assessment Project, Research and Development Series. NCES 2005-457. , 2005 .

[10]  P. Shawn Irvin,et al.  Student learning in science simulations: Design features that promote learning gains† , 2011 .

[11]  Leonard J. Barbour,et al.  Molecular Graphics: From Science to Art , 2003 .

[12]  P. Black Formative and Summative Assessment by Teachers , 1993 .

[13]  Louis Deslauriers,et al.  Improved Learning in a Large-Enrollment Physics Class , 2011, Science.

[14]  Gwo-Jen Hwang,et al.  A context-aware ubiquitous learning environment for conducting complex science experiments , 2009, Comput. Educ..

[15]  Z. Popovic,et al.  Increased Diels-Alderase activity through backbone remodeling guided by Foldit players , 2012, Nature Biotechnology.

[16]  A Business View on U.S. Education , 2013, Science.

[17]  Jeffrey Mervis,et al.  Grand challenge: undergraduate teaching. Transformation is possible if a university really cares. , 2013, Science.

[18]  Katherine K. Perkins,et al.  Factors promoting engaged exploration with computer simulations , 2010 .

[19]  Knowledge Organization with Multiple External Representations for Socioscientific Argumentation: A Case on Nuclear Energy , 2014, ICLS.

[20]  Erin Marie Furtak,et al.  Exploring teachers' informal formative assessment practices and students' understanding in the context of scientific inquiry , 2007 .

[21]  James Paul Gee,et al.  What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy , 2007, CIE.

[22]  James W Pellegrino,et al.  Proficiency in Science: Assessment Challenges and Opportunities , 2013, Science.

[23]  Elijah Mayfield,et al.  Transforming Biology Assessment with Machine Learning: Automated Scoring of Written Evolutionary Explanations , 2012 .

[24]  Martin Chodorow,et al.  C-rater: Automated Scoring of Short-Answer Questions , 2003, Comput. Humanit..

[25]  David M. Williamson,et al.  A Framework for Evaluation and Use of Automated Scoring , 2012 .

[26]  Robert J. Crutcher,et al.  The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. , 1993 .

[27]  Chris Piech,et al.  Deconstructing disengagement: analyzing learner subpopulations in massive open online courses , 2013, LAK '13.

[28]  Krzysztof Z. Gajos,et al.  Understanding in-video dropouts and interaction peaks inonline lecture videos , 2014, L@S.

[29]  Chris Brew,et al.  Towards Effective Tutorial Feedback for Explanation Questions: A Dataset and Baselines , 2012, HLT-NAACL.

[30]  Philip J. Guo,et al.  How video production affects student engagement: an empirical study of MOOC videos , 2014, L@S.

[31]  C. Palau,et al.  ASSESSMENT IN EDUCATION , 2015 .

[32]  J. Pellegrino,et al.  Education for Life and Work: Developing Transferable Knowledge and Skills in the 21st Century , 2013 .

[33]  Eric Mazur,et al.  Farewell, Lecture? , 2009, Science.

[34]  Libby Gerard,et al.  Automated Scoring of Constructed-Response Science Items: Prospects and Obstacles , 2014, Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice.

[35]  Daniel Marcu,et al.  Finding the WRITE Stuff: Automatic Identification of Discourse Structure in Student Essays , 2003, IEEE Intell. Syst..

[36]  Mark Urban-Lurain,et al.  Applying Computerized-Scoring Models of Written Biological Explanations across Courses and Colleges: Prospects and Limitations , 2011, CBE life sciences education.

[38]  C. Wieman,et al.  PhET: Simulations That Enhance Learning , 2008, Science.

[39]  Bruce L Sherin,et al.  Learning Analytics and Computational Techniques for Detecting and Evaluating Patterns in Learning: An Introduction to the Special Issue , 2013 .

[40]  R. Sawyer The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences: Introduction , 2014 .

[41]  Nedjeljko Frančula The National Academies Press , 2013 .

[42]  Z. Zacharia,et al.  Physical and Virtual Laboratories in Science and Engineering Education , 2013, Science.

[43]  Jessica Watkins,et al.  Retaining Students in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Majors , 2013 .

[44]  A. M. R. P. Bopegedera The Art and Science of Light. An Interdisciplinary Teaching and Learning Experience , 2005 .

[45]  Jonathan Osborne,et al.  Arguing to Learn in Science: The Role of Collaborative, Critical Discourse , 2010, Science.

[46]  Marc M. Sebrechts,et al.  The Accuracy of Expert-System Diagnoses of Mathematical Problem Solutions , 1996 .

[47]  Janice D. Gobert,et al.  From Log Files to Assessment Metrics: Measuring Students' Science Inquiry Skills Using Educational Data Mining , 2013, Journal of the Learning Sciences.

[48]  Paula C. Jackson,et al.  WikiED: Using Web 2.0 Tools to Teach Content and Critical Thinking , 2013 .

[49]  Anna N. Rafferty,et al.  Computer-Guided Inquiry to Improve Science Learning , 2014, Science.

[50]  E. Mazur,et al.  Peer Instruction: Ten years of experience and results , 2001 .

[51]  Panagiotis Adamopoulos,et al.  What makes a great MOOC? An interdisciplinary analysis of student retention in online courses , 2013, ICIS.

[52]  J. Michael Spector,et al.  Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology, 3rd Edition , 2012 .

[53]  Peter Goodyear,et al.  Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning: Instructional Approaches, Group Processes and Educational Designs , 2014 .

[54]  Eric Mazur,et al.  Peer Instruction: A User's Manual , 1996 .

[55]  C. A. Doige E-Mail-Based Formative Assessment: A Chronicle of Research-Inspired Practice , 2012 .

[56]  Arnon Hershkovitz,et al.  Predicting Robust Learning With the Visual Form of the Moment-by-Moment Learning Curve , 2013 .

[57]  Erin Marie Furtak,et al.  On the Fidelity of Implementing Embedded Formative Assessments and Its Relation to Student Learning , 2008 .

[58]  Donald E. Powers,et al.  AUTOMATED SCORING OF SHORT‐ANSWER OPEN‐ENDED GRE® SUBJECT TEST ITEMS , 2008 .

[59]  J. Greeno,et al.  The ChemCollective—Virtual Labs for Introductory Chemistry Courses , 2010, Science.

[60]  Stephen P. Balfour,et al.  Assessing Writing in MOOCs: Automated Essay Scoring and Calibrated Peer Review™. , 2013 .

[61]  Neil T. Heffernan,et al.  Detecting Learning Moment-by-Moment , 2011, Int. J. Artif. Intell. Educ..

[62]  Z. Popovic,et al.  Crystal structure of a monomeric retroviral protease solved by protein folding game players , 2011, Nature Structural &Molecular Biology.

[63]  S. Lane Validity of High‐Stakes Assessment: Are Students Engaged in Complex Thinking? , 2005 .

[64]  M. Honey,et al.  Learning Science through Computer Games and Simulations. , 2011 .

[65]  Lin Ding,et al.  Learning and Scientific Reasoning , 2009, Science.

[66]  D. Suthers,et al.  Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Learning Analytics And Knowledge , 2013, LAK 2013.

[67]  Tetyana Antimirova,et al.  Comparison of the effectiveness of collaborative groups and peer instruction in a large introductory physics course for science majors , 2010 .

[68]  Noah S. Podolefsky,et al.  When learning about the real world is better done virtually: A study of substituting computer simulations for laboratory equipment , 2005 .

[69]  Fiona M. Hollands and Devayani Tirthali MOOCs: Expectations and Reality , 2014 .

[70]  Rodney D. Nielsen,et al.  Classification Errors in a Domain-Independent Assessment System , 2008 .

[71]  Ji Shen,et al.  Technology-Enhanced, Modeling-Based Instruction (TMBI) in Science Education , 2014 .

[72]  K. Hodges,et al.  Solving Complex Problems , 2012, Science.

[73]  Emily B. Moore,et al.  Insights from Using PhET’s Design Principles for Interactive Chemistry Simulations , 2013 .

[74]  Daniel L. Schwartz,et al.  Rethinking transfer: A simple proposal with multiple implica-tions , 1999 .

[75]  Tom Mitchell,et al.  Towards robust computerised marking of free-text responses , 2002 .

[76]  L. Shepard The Role of Assessment in a Learning Culture , 2000 .

[77]  John R. Anderson,et al.  Knowledge tracing: Modeling the acquisition of procedural knowledge , 2005, User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction.