College Teaching Embedding Multiple Literacies into ...

This article was downloaded by: [Erica Wildy] On: 28 August 2015, At: 19:57 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: 5 Howick Place, London, SW1P 1WG

College Teaching Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vcol20

Embedding Multiple Literacies into STEM Curricula a

a

a

a

a

a

Aline Soules , Sarah Nielsen , Danika LeDuc , Caron Inouye , Jason Singley , Erica Wildy & Jeff Seitz

a

a

California State University, East Bay Published online: 01 Oct 2014.

Click for updates To cite this article: Aline Soules, Sarah Nielsen, Danika LeDuc, Caron Inouye, Jason Singley, Erica Wildy & Jeff Seitz (2014) Embedding Multiple Literacies into STEM Curricula, College Teaching, 62:4, 121-128, DOI: 10.1080/87567555.2014.935699 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/87567555.2014.935699

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http:// www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

COLLEGE TEACHING, 62: 121–128, 2014 Copyright Ó Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 8756-7555 print / 1930-8299 online DOI: 10.1080/87567555.2014.935699

ARTICLES

Embedding Multiple Literacies into STEM Curricula Aline Soules Sarah Nielsen Danika LeDuc Caron Inouye Jason Singley Erica Wildy Jeff Seitz

College Teaching 2014.62:121-128.

California State University, East Bay

In fall 2012, an interdisciplinary team of science, English, and library faculty embedded reading, writing, and information literacy strategies in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) curricula as a first step in improving student learning and retention in science courses and aligning them with the Next Generation Science and Common Core State Standards. The authors present their reading, writing, and information literacy contributions, explaining the importance of introducing these concepts and strategies into science courses.

Keywords: Common Core State Standards (CCSS), embedded literacies, information literacy, Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS), reading and writing strategies, science curricula, SQ3R, STEM INTRODUCTION In 2012, the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (2012) issued Engage to Excel, explaining the need for one million more Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) professionals in the next decade for the United States to retain pre-eminence in STEM fields and gain ensuing “social, economic, and national-security benefits.” The report provides recommendations to encourage students to engage with scientific endeavors, not just practice rote learning to pass exams. While the report identifies the need to provide STEM education in ways that equip students with the knowledge, skills, and practices for success, colleges and universities face challenges in preparing STEM majors for professional life. Drew (2011) reported that approximately 40% of college students who declare science majors change them, Correspondence should be sent to Aline Soules, California State University, East Bay, University Libraries, 25800 Carlos Bee Blvd., Hayward, CA 94542, USA. E-mail: [email protected]

often within the first year, because of low or failing grades in introductory science classes. This trend is amplified for women and African Americans, American Indians, and Latinos/Latinas who are already underrepresented in STEM (Herrera and Hurtado 2011; Griffith 2010, 325). A midsized, public, diverse, urban university like California State University, East Bay (CSUEB) faces additional challenges. At CSUEB, approximately 60% of entering first-year students needs additional course work to prepare them for university-level reading, writing, and/or mathematics. Given the national trends and the high percentage of underprepared CSUEB students, high failure rates in introductory science courses have led promising students away from STEM fields. To increase their retention and graduation rates, a faculty team from the Departments of Biology, Chemistry, Physics, Earth and Environmental Sciences, English, and the University Libraries embedded language and information literacy into introductory science courses and one upper-division science course. The team received exempt status from CSUEB’s Institutional Review Board.

122

SOULES ET AL.


Background The Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS), based on the Framework for K-12 Science Education, were developed to address the lag in U.S. science education and help the next generation compete globally. For many universities, particularly those with a focus on teaching and a mission to serve underrepresented students, these standards are of value beyond K–12. Designed to prepare students for college and career, the NGSS emphasize a deep understanding of scientific content, science and engineering practices, and cross-cutting concepts. The Common Core State Standards Initiative (CCSS) in English Language Arts and Mathematics is also being implemented in K–12 and is closely aligned with the NGSS. The CCSS focus on the development of strong communication and quantitative reasoning skills. The language standards center on reading widely and communicating effectively, orally and in writing. The mathematics standards are aimed toward “greater focus and coherence” (National Governors’ Association and Council of Chief State School Officers 2010). The NGSS note that the timing of these two standards provides “an opportunity for science to be part of a child’s comprehensive education” and “ensure[s] a symbiotic pace of learning in all content areas” (National Research Council 2013, Appendix A). The standards overlap “in meaningful and substantive ways and offer an opportunity to give all students equitable access to learning standards” (National Research Council 2013, Appendix A). Designing the higher education curriculum to carry forward and reinforce these standards will create a strong foundation for students’ ongoing learning, the successful completion of their STEM degrees, and their ability to compete globally. Creating a Multi-Literacies Curriculum After individually wrestling with how to achieve the NGSS recommendations with students who lack preparation, in 2012–2013 the faculty team collaborated on crafting multiple goals designed to re-examine science pedagogy in light of the national focus, embedding reading strategies, information literacy concepts, writing-to-learn, and writing-to-communicate activities in key science courses. To be successful, students must be able to read, research, and write effectively. These literacies are also fundamental to learning core scientific concepts and to the development of the knowledge, skills, and practices necessary to apply those concepts to new situations and complex problems. The team further provided a range of flexible pedagogical strategies for transfer to other STEM courses to encourage other faculty to implement one or more strategies for improved student learning, thereby fostering the systemic spread of these interdisciplinary approaches.

The team embedded these strategies into introductory courses in biology (Animal Biology), chemistry (General Chemistry), and physics (General Physics), all of which are required by many STEM majors. One upper-division physiology course required for biology majors (Principles of Animal Physiology) was also included in order to understand more fully what is needed at various stages in the STEM curricula and how connections between stages might be fashioned. Student course registration varied—introductory biology (99), chemistry (244), physics (78), and upper-division biology (75)—as did student course composition. Introductory (animal) biology is designed for new biology majors and first-year students fulfilling a first-year learning community cluster requirement in the sciences. General chemistry and general physics are similar; however, students in those courses range from first-year undergraduates to seniors. The upper-division biology course is intended for biology majors with junior or senior standing. Literature Review Reading and writing strategies for science learning “Experts,” regardless of discipline, have been studied extensively. They have meta-cognitive awareness of their learning process, allowing them to choose relevant strategies when faced with new learning, to monitor and adjust their use of these strategies, and to reflect on how and what they have learned (Ertmer and Newby 1996). In considering the needs of science students early in their college studies, some may benefit from instruction in and repeated practice of learning strategies that encourage the habits of mind of expert learners (Ertmer and Newby 1996; Sweet 2000, Wardrip and Tobey 2009). Reading and writing strategies were targeted because the ability to construct meaning from text and through its creation is essential to success in science courses. Sweet (2000) outlines key principles for teaching reading. Although her focus is largely on young learners, a number of principles apply to college reading in the sciences, where students have mastered basic reading but may not have developed effective strategies for understanding difficult texts. Sweet discusses the active nature of reading. To understand a text, readers must construct meaning, and expert readers construct meaning before, during, and after reading (Sweet 2000, 12). She also discusses the need to engage students in regular, meaningful assessment, including self-assessment, to increase understanding. Expert readers regularly engage in monitoring or self-assessment of their understanding of a text and shift reading strategies as needed for comprehension. The survey, question, read, recite, review (SQ3R) reading and study strategy encourages students to develop the habits of mind of expert readers and learners (Lei et al. 2010). Although SQ3R is often recommended for high school and college textbooks, its effectiveness has not been widely studied (Huber, 2004). Some promising results, however, have


EMBEDDING MULTIPLE LITERACIES INTO STEM CURRICULA

been reported with similar strategies that involve the activation of readers’ schemata before reading, monitoring of comprehension during reading, and processing information after reading (Carter 2011; Wardrip and Tobey 2009). The techniques differ slightly, but all highlight the importance of repeated exposure to and interaction with a text throughout the reading process in order to construct meaning and connect new information to existing knowledge. According to Herman and Wardrip (2012), when implementing reading strategy instruction, faculty must be explicit about the role of reading in meeting course learning goals and building scientific knowledge. Faculty should also include pedagogical strategies (e.g., pre-reading activities) in class to emphasize the importance of reading for learning content and developing the habits of mind needed in the sciences (Herman and Wardrip 2012) SQ3R or similar strategies may not help everyone; students may have difficulty with college reading because of time constraints, motivation, or background knowledge (Huber 2004). Writing is also important in science classes. Writing-tolearn can help students understand, retain, and apply scientific concepts. Bean (2011) suggests that having students write quick responses where they apply a new concept to a new situation helps them monitor comprehension, engage in critical thinking, retain new knowledge, and integrate it with existing knowledge. In her study of writing-to-learn activities in a college physics class, Bullock (2006) found that the majority of students who engaged in these activities were more successful. Less experienced students found these activities helpful in memorization. More experienced students said these activities helped them monitor their changing understanding of key course concepts. To encourage deeper learning in all students, Bullock suggests modeling these activities in class and pairing other active learning strategies with writing-to-learn activities. An additional writing approach involves requiring students to write to communicate using a process approach. Process writing for more traditional writing assignments (e.g., lab reports, research papers) can provide feedback for students through peer and teacher review before submitting a final draft (Bean 2011). Information literacy Griffin and Ramachandran (2010), at California State University, Long Beach, implemented an information literacy program for pre-service science teachers. Their discussion of the challenges in defining science literacy, establishing science curricula, and applying information literacy standards offers good background in the evolution of NGSS and librarians’ response. The definitions of “science literacy” differ slightly, but all focus on knowledge that is connected to the human endeavor and to making a difference through its application. Their program (two sessions, each two and a half hours) was designed to instill

123

information literacy and lifelong learning, and to teach teachers how to incorporate information literacy into their teaching. Since 2006, Ferrer-Vinent and Carello (2008, 2011) have embedded their discipline-specific library instruction program in the first-year general biology laboratory course of the Metropolitan State College of Denver. Their 2009 survey assessed proficiency in the use of library resources and showed that participants were more confident in their library skills, approached library research in a more scholarly way, chose better sources to search, and met faculty expectations more successfully. They concluded, however, “that the skills should be revisited and scaffolded in upper-level courses so that. . .graduates have the tools to develop into biology scholars and can succeed in graduate school and their professional careers” (2011, 263). Hopkins and Julian (2008) at Brigham Young University implemented information literacy strategies to help students with an assignment in their general education Biology 100 course. Focus groups with teaching assistants and students revealed that the session helped students with research skills, but was insufficient. They also observed that students could not write a thesis statement, critical in science, and that it was important to combine information literacy instruction with a specific assignment. Fuselier and Nelson (2011) tested the efficacy of a single lesson at the beginning of the semester in an introductory biology laboratory course with embedded writing components. They compared laboratory sections that did and did not receive the lesson. Students who received the lesson were more able to identify primary or secondary sources and format citations properly. One year later, the effects were still evident. Despite the time to incorporate the lesson into a one-semester laboratory course, the outcomes were positive. The authors also emphasized the importance of reinforcing science information literacy skills through the semester and embedding information literacy and scientific writing throughout the laboratory experience to promote greater scientific information literacy. Peters (2011) describes a more comprehensive approach at the University of California, Los Angeles. Librarians partner with faculty and teaching assistants to integrate basics into three laboratory courses taken sequentially by chemistry and biochemistry majors. The instructional activities include guided exercises in the laboratory sections and group lectures. There are supplementary web pages offering library resources, guided exercises, including an “organic chemystery [sic],” post-lab assignments, lecture notes, and links to resources. Embedded Strategies In 2012–2013, team members met regularly and kept notes on the development and implementation of the curriculum. The initial goal was to try various strategies and elicit

124

SOULES ET AL. TABLE 1 Deployment of Engaged Learning Strategies Through the Curricula

Reading Strategies Writing-to-Learn Writing-to-Learn

General Physics

General Chemistry

Engaged reading strategies demonstration and tutorial Reading notebooks (required)

Engaged reading strategies demonstration and tutorial Reading notebooks (extra credit) Quick-writes using quick-write prompts

Quick-writes using quick-write prompts

Writing-toCommunicate


Information Literacy

Animal Biology Engaged reading strategies demonstration and tutorial Reading notebook (optional)

Multi-draft individual research paper with peer review training and peer review Tutorials

Tutorials

student responses. For the reading, writing, and information literacy elements, portions of the student surveys and focus groups provided useful feedback, along with tutorial use data. To accompany the discussion below, examples may be found at http://multipleliteraciesandstem.wordpress. com/. Table 1 summarizes how individual faculty selected strategies. Reading and reading notebooks Students were taught SQ3R to facilitate greater comprehension by processing actively the material they encountered. The steps include surveying the text for a sense of the topic and scope; developing questions to guide reading; reading the text while taking notes; reciting the concepts and content of the text, preferably aloud or to others; and reviewing the concepts and content at regular intervals. The English and library faculty visited all classes early in fall 2012 to teach SQ3R to students in forty-minute sessions. As many textbooks are structured for SQ3R, class textbooks were used as models and for practice. These sessions introduced the authors to the students and gave the science professors an opportunity to explain the project and its context for the students’ work. Nielsen led the SQ3R sessions through lecture/explanation, PowerPoint slides, a handout, and hands-on exercises using textbook examples. Soules developed accompanying open source, accessible tutorials. Students were also given specific examples of how to create a SQ3R reading notebook, setting up facing pages to codify key concepts and content learned in each chapter and adding pictures, tables, charts, examples, and equations to reinforce understanding and create a study notebook for tests and exams. While a few students were familiar with SQ3R, most were not. As expected, students in the introductory courses were more responsive during training, but students in the upperdivision biology class were more skeptical. Perhaps these “old hands” at college thought they knew how to read challenging texts and were less inclined to engage with SQ3R.

Tutorials

Animal Physiology Engaged reading strategies demonstration and tutorial Reading notebook (optional) Quick-writes using quick-write prompts Multi-draft individual research paper with review for content and the conventions of academic English Tutorials C Research workshop by library faculty

As the term progressed, some students spoke directly to team members about the value of SQ3R. In chemistry, for example, one student bought the textbook after a combination of SQ3R training and a conversation with the professor. (Cost often causes students to defer or delay purchasing textbooks.) Another student told Nielsen that she thought she knew how to read effectively, but after struggling with the college-level material, she tried SQ3R and found that she understood the material better and thought it would make a difference in other courses, too. A different attitude about the reading notebooks emerged during focus groups. Multiple approaches were taken to these notebooks: required in physics, extra credit in chemistry, optional in biology. The physics students complained that the required reading notebooks reduced study time. They did not see value in taking notes or reading text, let alone the connection among textbook reading, the reading notebooks, exam preparation, and building conceptual knowledge. One student commented: “can always Google [information], don’t need text.” Students were honest with Singley and revealed that many waited until the night before the notebook was due to rush through the text and fill a notebook rather than work with the material systematically every few days. Students also placed emphasis on solving problems, which may have caused them to be insufficiently concerned with underlying principles despite the fact that significant class time is devoted to developing conceptual knowledge and 50% of course exams test this. Including in-class prereading activities along with more explicit discussions of the role of reading in meeting course learning goals and building scientific knowledge may help in future classes requiring reading notebooks as Herman and Wardrip (2012) suggest; however, there remains a deeper need to change student perceptions. In the biology focus groups, where reading notebooks were merely encouraged, the lower- and upper-division students differed. Lower-division students mentioned that



some students already knew SQ3R or an equivalent and suggested that training should be a voluntary workshop. Upper-division students identified the reading load and the need to make sense of the reading as key challenges. Although not every upper-division student in the focus group kept an SQ3R notebook, most recognized the need for a system to track and review reading and had developed some method to achieve this. This difference highlights the ways in which more experienced science students understand that autonomous learning and strategies are important to understand, retain, and apply concepts and content for their majors and future STEM careers. Starting in 2013–2014, reading techniques will be emphasized in the general studies courses required for all first-year students, improving student awareness of these techniques, providing another learning strategy, and spreading reading techniques systemically. In planning for the introductory science courses particularly, the team believes that it is critical to help students with effective reading for understanding, retention, and the application of scientific concepts. Based on student survey data, reviews of required and extra credit reading notebooks, and informal conversations with students, the team was pleased to learn that more students reported buying textbooks compared to previous quarters and that more students read the textbook or said that they did. Whether students follow through regularly with engaged reading is one issue. Without a “before” point of comparison, the team cannot determine how much textbook reading or understanding has increased; however, students report feeling more pressure to complete required reading because its content must be explained in response to in-class writing prompts, quizzes, and exams, even if a reading notebook is not required. Writing to learn Quick-writes are structured writing prompts that focus on content, are completed in class, and are used for various purposes, including informal assessment of student learning by both students and faculty. Quick-write prompts were structured to elicit a claim, evidence, reasoning (Cl-Ev-R) response (Pegg and Adams 2012). Students were expected to “make a claim” about a topic, provide supporting evidence (from an experiment, a mathematical calculation, or other activity), and describe the reasoning linking the evidence to the claim. Students were given a prompt and asked to write individually, after which they worked in pairs or small groups to discuss what they had written and clarify the concept orally. This was followed by a whole class discussion of the concept. Individual responses were collected and scored by the science professor using a rubric developed by Nielsen. Here is a sample Cl-Ev-R prompt:

125

Determine the number of protons, neutrons, and electrons in one 1HC ion. Explain how you found your answer. (LeDuc) Students must make a “claim” about the number of protons, neutrons, and electrons in the ion; provide supporting “evidence” by stating the results of their numeric determinations; and show the “reasoning” that led to their answer. In the post-course student survey in chemistry, 57% of respondents found the in-class writing extremely or very useful, and 35% found it moderately useful. Writing to communicate One traditional writing-to-communicate assignment is the laboratory notebook. All participating courses have a laboratory component with a required notebook, which is graded by laboratory instructors. Soules developed a tutorial on laboratory notebooks with particular emphasis on separating methods, results, and discussion/conclusions. Students were given specific grading rubrics by their science professors, required to keep the notebooks, and assigned grade points. The difference was the addition of the optional tutorials. A long-term goal of the project is to spread these interdisciplinary approaches systemically. While not an immediate objective of this phase, an upper-division chemistry professor with eighty-six enrolled students wanted to use the tutorials and other professors have asked about them, too. Individual research paper assignments were based on an experiment and highly structured, following the accepted organization of scientific papers. In the lower-division biology course, students completed their laboratory experiment and wrote first drafts. A newly developed peer review training session was conducted before students reviewed each other’s drafts. In the training and peer review session, students provided each other with feedback based on pre-structured questions. Students were then encouraged to attend expanded office hours for more feedback. In the focus group for this course, students indicated that the rubric was helpful in putting together the paper and in guiding the peer review process; however, some felt the process was unfair because of the variation in the depth and quality of student peer reviews. Although Wildy, Soules, and Nielsen were available for additional office hours, no students attended. In the upper-division biology course, students conducted an experiment in teams and wrote research papers based on this experiment. Students were provided with a detailed description of requirements, what to include in each section, how to cite related research, and how to format the paper. In previously teaching this course, Inouye asked the teams to write the paper together. Having learned that the strongest writers in the teams often did the writing, she asked students to write their papers individually, requiring all students to engage in laboratory research, library


126

SOULES ET AL.

research, and writing a scientific paper. Because the assignment was based on an experiment from the students’ laboratory manuals and because of the increased grading, students wrote multiple drafts of the results and discussion/ conclusion sections only. In addition to reviewing the paper guidelines and conducting the team experiment, students were asked to read related scholarly articles, use a citation or paraphrase from them, and provide full citations in their reference sections. Sample citations were provided as models. It was discovered that students generally lacked experience with scientific articles. This was expected in the introductory course, but some students in the upper-division course had yet to read a scholarly peer-reviewed scientific article. The first step, therefore, was to introduce students to the general structure of a scientific article. Soules created supplementary tutorials with instruction and a self-quiz. It was hoped that students would begin to understand the structure of scientific articles and the importance of being factual in methods and results and reserving opinion for discussion/conclusion. Upper-division students were also presented with a onetime research orientation session by the biology library liaison who focused on key databases, how to structure terms, and search techniques. She provided demonstrations, a handout, and contact information for follow-up individual consultation. Before students wrote and submitted their first drafts for review, Inouye provided a rubric to ensure that papers met assigned criteria. On the submitted drafts, she provided suggestions for revising the content and organization of the papers and a scored rubric sheet indicating strengths and areas for improvement. Nielsen and Soules and an English Department graduate assistant reviewed a portion of the discussion/conclusion sections for grammar and usage suggestions. Additional office hours were offered for more feedback. In the focus group for this class, students indicated that they appreciated the learning that resulted from developing their research papers, commenting specifically on separating results from discussion, calculating statistics, and finding relevant published research.

DISCUSSION The following question was critical to understanding the project: What worked and didn’t work from both student and faculty perspectives? Answers are emerging, although multiple years of data are needed for full understanding. Reading effectively for a particular purpose is a first step, and student survey data and informal conversations with students revealed that the focus on reading strategies helped a few individual students. However, faculty is concerned that many students remain unwilling to read their textbook meaningfully, with some of the physics students,

for example, perceiving the reading notebooks as busy work rather than a tool to build conceptual knowledge and the habits of mind needed in STEM majors and careers. In addition to effective reading, the ability to recite orally (the second “R” of SQ3R) or write a short paragraph about a concept helps students to check if a concept is fully understood and increases the likelihood that it will be retained. Requiring students to internalize key concepts through in-class writing prompts, reading and laboratory notebooks, and individual papers increases the amount of writing and thus focused time students spend making sense of a concept. Whether long-lasting change can be achieved is unclear, but students can no longer cram for exams by memorizing formulae or riding on a classmate’s coat-tails when the strongest writer in a group completes writing assignments. While reading for basic comprehension is a strong component of information literacy, students must also read scientific articles and come to some understanding of their structure. A key challenge remains separating fact from opinion and results from discussion, but that process is underway. One reason may be fuzzy versus critical thinking. Another challenge may be whether students can articulate their understanding through oral or written expression, something requiring future investigation. Providing opportunities for individual feedback on writing and research through enhanced office hours was unsuccessful. When the English and library faculty attended, only two students came to the upper-division biology office hours and no students came to the lower-division hours. As many students attend school full-time and work ten to twenty hours a week, it is difficult for them to attend even if they want to, but no one contacted the biology library liaison who would have set appointments at a mutually suitable time. The team is re-naming these hours “study session,” “homework,” or “problem-solving” hours to encourage increased attendance, based on a physics department plan where such hours are more regularly attended. Faculty thought that tutorials would provide students with an advantage. They can be created for any perceived need, enhance the students’ experience with visual and aural information, and be available on demand. Statistics on tutorial use, however, varied. In the general chemistry course, 244 students viewed various tutorials 197 times, ranging from zero to seven per individual student. In the non-project upper division chemistry course, the laboratory notebook tutorials received extensive use (76% of students opened the tutorials anywhere from one to forty times). In the upper-division biology course, no one viewed any tutorial. Faculty must decide how much emphasis to place on these supplementary materials. Overall learning gains were difficult to interpret. In chemistry, for example, a gain of 17% in learning was determined through the pre-post test, but it was difficult to link those gains to a particular strategy. Similarly, in


physics, the gain was 31%, based on the Force Concept Inventory.1 This gain was similar to the previous year’s gain before reading notebooks were introduced, suggesting that a more direct assessment of the reading notebook strategy is required.


Lessons Learned Embedding reading, research, and writing in STEM courses takes time. This should ease as routines are established, but this process requires faculty time both inside and outside the classroom. Grading, particularly when group papers give way to individual papers, rises significantly, but time is also needed to prepare and teach SQ3R, make tutorials, enhance office hours, and so on. This raises the issue of scalability, which must be considered as faculty implements curricular changes and evaluates their effectiveness. Another issue is how to find class time for these new strategies. Science professors had different responses. In chemistry, LeDuc had already begun focusing on fewer topics in favor of more in-depth work on what she considered the most important topics. Her approach was to change how time was spent in class. For example, rather than covering steps to solving particular problems, she asked students to solve problems in groups on whiteboards and worksheets. As part of reviewing answers, she integrated lecture into her explanation to provide context. In Biology 1403, Wildy sacrificed some lecture material for the SQ3R and information literacy training by Nielsen and Soules. This year, she and three of the other authors are engaged in a complete course redesign of an introductory biology class. One of the aims of the redesign is to identify concepts that must remain in the syllabus and those that can be cut in order to allow more class time for engaged learning strategies. There is also the question of what makes a difference. This was a starting project where faculty made choices among strategies and determined enforcement levels. While this was considered valid because of how faculty operates and because the team wished to try multiple strategies, it was difficult to assess what made a difference and, if so, what made the most difference. Greater isolation of strategies would help, if possible. One tentative conclusion emerged: If faculty wants students to benefit from a strategy, they need to spend more time helping students see the connections between engaged learning strategies, course goals, and their own long-term STEM goals, and they need to address the culture shift to move students from solving problems to learning underlying concepts. This loops back to scalability because faculty is then faced with increased grading and more class time on strategy instruction and justification. 1

See http://modeling.asu.edu/R%26E/Research.html

127

Students in universities such as CSUEB often work and take too many credits per term, particularly in the lower division as they learn how much work is needed in college. The pre-tests asked questions about scientific content. In future, faculty plans to ask additional questions about the number of credits and work hours a student attempts per term. A clearer picture of student commitments might improve faculty understanding of their learning capabilities. There was an attempt to identify some of this in the focus groups, but a clearer picture up front would have been useful. The reading, writing, and information literacy components of this project led the team to think that additional strategies might benefit students (e.g., more guided discussion, student-led study groups, and more supervised research time in the library). In addition to the introduction of new pedagogical and study strategies, larger scale changes (e.g., the addition of recitation sections or an increase in units assigned to science classes) might also be considered. The challenge is both scalability and student workload, intensified by the fact that CSUEB is on a quarter system.

CONCLUSION If students do not grasp assigned material, they work from a core vacuum. The team continues to believe that engaged reading and oral or written explanations are keys to filling that vacuum and ensuring that STEM students engage fully with content to develop the strongest possible understanding, but require further assessment and analysis to validate this perception. It is hoped that when students make these connections, their understanding and retention of key scientific concepts will improve and help them in future science classes and STEM professions. Even though the beginning strategies may be insufficient to address fully the challenges of retaining STEM majors and preparing STEM professionals, starting with smaller interventions might provide opportunities for faculty to understand more fully the inherent nature of the issues students face and ultimately facilitate more systemic changes in how faculty structures their curricula and students progress through it. Longer term, the team continues to base their work on NGSS and CCSS principles and plans discussions of the cross-cutting scientific concepts with a view to integrating them into science courses represented in this project. Some of the strategies introduced to these courses may provide a gateway to achieving that longer-term goal. The team believes that the positive results to date outweigh the negative and intends to continue. For example, LeDuc will continue to use Cl-Ev-R strategies and adapt Directed Activities Related to Texts (DARTS), which focus the reader on important text elements “to [encourage] engagement and [increase] the amount of cognitive

128

SOULES ET AL.

activity” (Pritchard and Cartwright 2004, 30). Singley is encouraging students to use SQ3R and has posted tutorials and documents in BlackBoard, but no longer grades the notebooks. Students must be offered ways to understand the importance of engaged reading, writing practice, and information literacy to their scientific curriculum, aspirations, and future work. These are life-long learning endeavors and the goal of this change continues to be to engage students and help them to understand the ongoing nature of this work. FUNDING We wish to thank California State University, East Bay for supporting this project through a Programmatic Enhancement and Innovations in Learning grant.


REFERENCES Bean, J. 2011. Engaging Ideas: The Professor’s Guide to Integrating Writing, Critical Thinking, and Active Learning in the Classroom. 2nd ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Bullock, S. 2006. “Building Concepts through Writing-to-Learn in College Physics Classrooms.” Ontario Action Researcher 9 (2): 1–8. Retrieved September 15, 2013, from http://www.nipissingu.ca/oar/archiveVol9No2.htm Carter, C. J. 2011. “Lessons Learned in Dreamland: How a Small Urban Charter School Overcame Start-Up Woes to Increase Reading Scores 28 Percent.” Schools: Studies in Education 8 (2): 285–310. doi:dx.doi.org/ 10.1086/662116 Drew, C. 2011. “Why Science Majors Change Their Mind (It’s Just So Darn Hard).” New York Times, November 6. Ertmer, P. A. & T. J. Newby. 1996. “The Expert Learner: Strategic, SelfRegulated, and Reflective”. Instructional Science 24 (1): 1–24. Retrieved September 24, 2013, from http://link.springer.com/article/ 10.1007/BF00156001 Ferrer-Vinent, I. J. & C. A. Carello. 2008. “Embedded Library Instruction in a First-Year Biology Laboratory Course.” Science & Technology Libraries 28 (4): 325–41. Ferrer-Vinent, I. J. & C. A. Carello. 2011. “The Lasting Value of an Embedded, First-Year, Biology Library Instruction Program.” Science & Technology Libraries 30 (3): 254–66. Fuselier, L. & B. Nelson. 2011. “A Test of the Efficacy of an Information Literacy Lesson in an Introductory Biology Laboratory Course with a Strong Science-Writing Component.” Science & Technology Libraries 30 (1): 58–75. Griffin, K. L. & H. Ramachandran. 2010. “Science Education and Information Literacy: A Grass-Roots Effort to Support Science Literacy in Schools.” Science & Technology Libraries 29 (4): 325–49. Griffith, A. L. 2010. “Persistence of Women and Minorities in STEM Field Majors: Is it the School that Matters?” Economics of Education Review 29 (6): 911–22. Retrieved September 24, 2013, from http://www. sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272775710000750 Herman, P. & P. Wardrip. 2012. “Reading to Learn.” Science Teacher 79 (1): 48–51. Retrieved September 15, 2013, from http://www.nsta. org/publications/browse_journals.aspx?action=issue&id=10.2505/3/ tst12_079_01

Herrera, F. A. & S. Hurtado. 2011. “Maintaining Initial Interests: Developing Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Career Aspirations Among Underrepresented Racial Minority Students.” Paper presented at the Association for Educational Research annual meeting, New Orleans, Louisiana, April 9. Retrieved September 24, 2013, from http://www.heri.ucla.edu/nih/ downloads/AERA%202011%20-%20Herrera%20and%20Hurtado%20%20Maintaining%20Initial%20Interests.pdf Hopkins, E. S. & S. Julian. 2008. “An Evaluation of an Upper-Division, General Education Information Literacy Program.” Communications in Information Literacy 2 (2): 57–83. Retrieved September 24, 2013, from http://www.comminfolit.org/index.php?journal=cil&page=article&op= viewArticle&path%5B%5D=Fall2008AR1&path%5B%5D=77 Huber, J. A. 2004. “A Closer Look at SQ3R”. Reading Improvement 41 (2): 108–12. Retrieved September 15, 2013, from http://web.ebscohost. com/ehost/detail?vid=9&sid=da025b48-887b-4f46-855b-d3db1bf009fa %40sessionmgr15&hid=10&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZz Y29wZT1zaXRl#db=aph&AN=13830549 Lei, S. A., P. J. Rhinehart, H. A. Howard, & J. K. Cho. 2010. “Strategies for Improving Reading Comprehension Among College Students.” Reading Improvement 47 (1): 30–42. Retrieved September 15, 2013, from http://www.projectinnovation.biz/ri_2006.html National Governors’ Association and Council of Chief State School Officers. 2010. Common Core State Standards Initiative. Washington, DC: CCSSO Council of Chief State School Officers. Retrieved September 24, 2013, from http://www.corestandards.org/ National Research Council, the National Science Teachers Association, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and Achieve, Inc. 2013. Next Generation Science Standards. Washington, DC: Achieve, Inc. Retrieved September 24, 2013, from http://www. nextgenscience.org See also Appendix A—Conceptual Shifts in the Next Generation Science Standards. http://www.nextgenscience.org/sites/ ngss/files/Appendix%20A%20-%204.11.13%20Conceptual%20Shifts% 20in%20the%20Next%20Generation%20Science%20Standards.pdf Pegg, J. & A. Adams. 2012. “Reading for Claims and Evidence: Using Anticipation Guides in Science.” Science Scope 36 (2): 74–8. Retrieved October 31, 2013, from http://learningcenter.nsta.org/files/ss1202_74.pdf Peters, M. C. 2011. “Beyond Google: Integrating Chemical Information into the Undergraduate Chemistry and Biochemistry Curriculum.” Science & Technology Libraries 30 (1): 80–8. President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (U.S.). 2012. Report to the President, Engage to Excel Producing One Million Additional College Graduates with Degrees in Science, Technology, Engineering, And Mathematics. Washington, DC: Executive Office of the President, President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. Retrieved September 24, 2013, from http://purl. fdlp.gov/GPO/gpo21068 Pritchard, A. & V. Cartwright. 2004. “Transforming What They Read: Helping Eleven-year-olds Engage with Internet Information.” Literacy 38 (1): 26–31. Retrieved November 6, 2013, from http://onlinelibrary. wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.0034-0472.2004.03801005.x/abstract Sweet, A. P. 2000. Ten Proven Principles for Teaching Reading. Washington, DC: U.S. Dept. of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, Educational Resources Information Center. Retrieved September 15, 2013, from http://www.nea.org/assets/docs/HE/mf_10proven. pdf Wardrip, P. & J. Tobey. 2009. “How Does Mechanical Weathering Change Rocks? Using Reading-to-Learn Strategies to Teach Science Content.” Science Scope 32 (5): 25–9. Retrieved September 24, 2013, from http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=11&sid= 953092fc-3cb5-43a7-937e-b708e4a0e5e9%40sessonmgr10&hid=10& bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#db=ehh&AN= 36066604