DIFFERENCES IN INSTRUCTIONAL METHODS USED BY COLLEGIATE STEM INSTRUCTORS: A COMPARISON OF EDUCATION BACKGROUND VERSUS COURSE DESIGNS FEATURING ACTIVE TEACHING METHODS

Abstract

The purpose of this research project was to investigate a potential relationship between instructor course decisions and education backgrounds within STEM instructors at the University of Notre Dame. These instructors had varying instructional backgrounds including those with formal (F) educational experiences from college courses, informal (I) educational experiences from instruction-based conferences, professional development, or personal investigations into education research, and no formal or informal training (N) education backgrounds, with only content-centered degrees. Data was collected through a review of course syllabi and an instructor survey regarding past and present education experiences and decisions. The independent variable of this study was the instructors’ educational backgrounds (F, I, or N) and the dependent variable was be the use and frequency of use of various instructional designs featuring active teaching methods. Active teaching methods were identified as those incorporating a role for students in thinking, in creating, or in solving authentic problems in and out of the physical classroom setting. The greater the role of the student, the more active the methods were be considered. The basis for assigning more points for each instructional method or strategy followed the rankings of Bloom’s taxonomy (Adams, 2015; Bloom, 1956) so that strategies presumed to call for higher levels of learning, and thus instruction, were given more points. The mean difference of course scores between I and N (M = -2.30, SD = 0.93) education background instructors was significant (p < 0.05) while the mean difference of course scores between F and I education background individuals was not significant (p > 0.05). These findings supported the hypothesis of variation between the education groups. This study and its findings provide quantitative evidence supporting the professional development of STEM instructors with education-based philosophies, teaching methods, and course development innovations. A shift of instructors from the N group to I group could allow for the increase in benefits possible from more frequently utilized active teaching methods. Instructors with no background in education may be seen as a target audience for marketing and course/conference development for the Kaneb Center, the university’s faculty and staff teaching center, based on supporting data.