Comparing student, instructor, classroom and institutional data to evaluate a seven-year department-wide science education initiative

Abstract

We compared seven unrelated data-sets to evaluate a major education improvement initiative. Perceptions of students in 54 course sections were surveyed regarding the helpfulness of 39 specific teaching or learning strategies, and relative workloads and enthusiasm were compared to their other courses. Classes were observed using an established protocol, instructors completed a teaching practices inventory, and their experience with evidence-based pedagogies was established. A graduation exit survey provided longitudinal indications of changes prior to the study, and institutional student ratings of instruction were obtained. This study sought to determine whether improvements were consistently revealed by these data, how perceptions depended upon class size, course improvement model and instructor experience, and whether student ratings captured consistent perceptions about effectiveness. Overall, results compared favourably. Student perceptions and observed effectiveness depended mainly upon class size and improvement strategy. Students found experiences more effective in courses taught by experienced instructors and in classes observed to be more active. Relative workloads were not correlated with any measure of effectiveness while relative enthusiasm was higher in courses perceived to be more effective. Student ratings were consistent with other data-sets, although they did not provide information specific enough for informing further improvements.

Keywords:

• Impact assessment
• student perceptions
• classroom observations
• teaching practices
• student ratings of instruction

Acknowledgements

Thanks are extended to Sara Harris and Brett Gilley for helping develop and deploy the student learning experiences survey, Carl Wieman, Sarah Gilbert, Warren Code and Sara Harris for advice regarding data analysis and writing and the students and instructors who participated in the surveys. Feedback from anonymous reviewers has also been crucial in helping improve the article. This work was made possible by the Carl Wieman Science Education Initiative, the Faculty of Science and the Department of Earth, Ocean and Atmospheric Sciences at the University of British Columbia.