Lecture, Discussion, Group Work, Repeat: Using Aerial Photography and Machine Learning to Study the Use of Writing-Related Pedagogies in STEM Courses and Their Impact on Different Student Subgroups

Julia Voss, Navid Shaghaghi, A. Calle, Kristin Lee, Liam Abbate
{"title":"Lecture, Discussion, Group Work, Repeat: Using Aerial Photography and Machine Learning to Study the Use of Writing-Related Pedagogies in STEM Courses and Their Impact on Different Student Subgroups","authors":"Julia Voss, Navid Shaghaghi, A. Calle, Kristin Lee, Liam Abbate","doi":"10.37514/atd-j.2022.19.1-2.07","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":": Although Writing Across the Curriculum (WAC) has long focused on incorporating writing and related literacy activities into STEM education, the extent to which these pedagogies are widely used in STEM teaching remains unclear, as does their impact on student course performance, especially for underrepresented and marginalized student groups. Using a sample of 18 STEM courses at a private liberal arts university, this study uses unique empirical methods to reconsider, for STEM disciplines, Russell’s (1990) claim that WAC has failed to make a “permanent impact” on higher education by a) using photography to document classroom activities in real time and b) using machine learning to categorize these images to determine which learning activities are used in STEM instruction and in what proportions. We find that (a) lecture continues to dominate in STEM education and that (b) some active learning pedagogies (discussion and group work) have ambivalent relationships to course performance (which differ according to student subgroups defined by gender, race, national origin, and other factors) while WAC pedagogies like reading and writing, although rare, are associated with improved student course performance. In light of these findings, we suggest implications for STEM pedagogy, best practices, and future research to prioritize equitably designed pedagogy in STEM. informal writing; (b) using innovative assignment types; and (c) project-based learning,","PeriodicalId":201634,"journal":{"name":"Across the Disciplines","volume":"32 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Across the Disciplines","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.37514/atd-j.2022.19.1-2.07","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

: Although Writing Across the Curriculum (WAC) has long focused on incorporating writing and related literacy activities into STEM education, the extent to which these pedagogies are widely used in STEM teaching remains unclear, as does their impact on student course performance, especially for underrepresented and marginalized student groups. Using a sample of 18 STEM courses at a private liberal arts university, this study uses unique empirical methods to reconsider, for STEM disciplines, Russell’s (1990) claim that WAC has failed to make a “permanent impact” on higher education by a) using photography to document classroom activities in real time and b) using machine learning to categorize these images to determine which learning activities are used in STEM instruction and in what proportions. We find that (a) lecture continues to dominate in STEM education and that (b) some active learning pedagogies (discussion and group work) have ambivalent relationships to course performance (which differ according to student subgroups defined by gender, race, national origin, and other factors) while WAC pedagogies like reading and writing, although rare, are associated with improved student course performance. In light of these findings, we suggest implications for STEM pedagogy, best practices, and future research to prioritize equitably designed pedagogy in STEM. informal writing; (b) using innovative assignment types; and (c) project-based learning,
讲座,讨论,小组工作,重复:使用航空摄影和机器学习来研究STEM课程中写作相关教学法的使用及其对不同学生小组的影响
尽管“课程写作”(WAC)长期以来一直致力于将写作和相关扫盲活动纳入STEM教育,但这些教学法在STEM教学中的广泛应用程度仍不清楚,它们对学生课程表现的影响也不清楚,尤其是对代表性不足和边缘化的学生群体。本研究以一所私立文科大学的18门STEM课程为样本,使用独特的实证方法来重新考虑,对于STEM学科,罗素(1990)声称WAC未能对高等教育产生“永久影响”,a)使用摄影实时记录课堂活动,b)使用机器学习对这些图像进行分类,以确定哪些学习活动用于STEM教学以及以何种比例使用。我们发现(a)讲座继续在STEM教育中占主导地位,(b)一些主动学习教学法(讨论和小组工作)与课程成绩之间存在矛盾关系(根据性别、种族、国籍和其他因素定义的学生分组而有所不同),而WAC教学法(如阅读和写作)虽然很少,但与学生课程成绩的提高有关。根据这些发现,我们提出了STEM教学法、最佳实践和未来研究的启示,以优先考虑STEM中公平设计的教学法。非正式的写作;(b)采用创新的任务类型;(c)基于项目的学习;
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信