Interpret with Caution: COPUS Instructional Styles May Not Differ in Terms of Practices That Support Student Learning.

There is a growing need for valid and reliable measures to monitor the efficacy of undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) reform initiatives. The Classroom Observation Protocol for Undergraduate STEM (COPUS) is a widely used tool originally designed to measure the presence of overt instructor and student behaviors. It has subsequently been used to characterize instruction along a continuum from didactic to student centered, and more recently to categorize instruction into one of three styles. Initiatives focused on professional development often support instructors' progression from didactic to student-centered styles. There is a need to examine COPUS instructional styles in terms of behaviors that research has shown to improve student learning. Formative assessment is a research-based practice that involves behaviors accounted for by the COPUS (e.g., posing a question). We qualitatively compared the formative assessment behaviors in 16 biology class sessions categorized into each of the three COPUS styles. We were unable to detect differences in formative assessment behaviors between the COPUS styles. Caution should be taken when interpreting COPUS data to make inferences about the effects of reform efforts. This study underscores the need for additional measures to monitor national reform initiatives in undergraduate STEM.

Drawing on student knowledge of neuroanatomy and neurophysiology.

Drawings are an underutilized assessment format in Human Anatomy and Physiology (HA&P), despite their potential to reveal student content understanding and alternative conceptions. This study used student-generated drawings to explore student knowledge in a HA&P course. The drawing tasks in this study focused on chemical synapses between neurons, an abstract concept in HA&P. Using two preinstruction drawing tasks, students were asked to depict synaptic transmission and summation. In response to the first drawing task, 20% of students (n = 352) created accurate representations of neuron anatomy. The remaining students created drawings suggesting an inaccurate or incomplete understanding of synaptic transmission. Of the 208 inaccurate student-generated drawings, 21% depicted the neurons as touching. When asked to illustrate summation, only 10 students (roughly 4%) were able to produce an accurate drawing. Overall, students were more successful at drawing anatomy (synapse) than physiology (summation) before formal instruction. The common errors observed in student-generated drawings indicate students do not enter the classroom as blank slates. The error of "touching" neurons in a chemical synapse suggests that students may be using intuitive or experiential knowledge when reasoning about physiological concepts. These results 1) support the utility of drawing tasks as a tool to reveal student content knowledge about neuroanatomy and neurophysiology; and 2) suggest students enter the classroom with better knowledge of anatomy than physiology. Collectively, the findings from this study inform both practitioners and researchers about the prevalence and nature of student difficulties in HA&P, while also demonstrating the utility of drawing in revealing student knowledge.

Comparison of views of the nature of science between natural science and nonscience majors.

Science educators have the common goal of helping students develop scientific literacy, including understanding of the nature of science (NOS). University faculties are challenged with the need to develop informed NOS views in several major student subpopulations, including science majors and nonscience majors. Research into NOS views of undergraduates, particularly science majors, has been limited. In this study, NOS views of undergraduates in introductory environmental science and upper-level animal behavior courses were measured using Likert items and open-ended prompts. Analysis revealed similarities in students' views between the two courses; both populations held a mix of naïve, transitional, and moderately informed views. Comparison of pre- and postcourse mean scores revealed significant changes in NOS views only in select aspects of NOS. Student scores on sections addressing six aspects of NOS were significantly different in most cases, showing notably uninformed views of the distinctions between scientific theories and laws. Evidence-based insight into student NOS views can aid in reforming undergraduate science courses and will add to faculty and researcher understanding of the impressions of science held by undergraduates, helping educators improve scientific literacy in future scientists and diverse college graduates.