Report from the STEM 2026 Workshop on Assessment, Evaluation, and Accreditation

A gathering of science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) higher education stakeholders met in November 2018 to consider the relationship between innovation in education and assessment. When we talk about assessment in higher education, it is inextricably linked to both evaluation and accreditation, so all three were considered. The first question we asked was can we build a nation of learners? This starts with considering the student, first and foremost. As educators, this is a foundation of our exploration and makes our values transparent. As educators, how do we know we are having an impact? As members and implementers of institutions, programs and professional societies, how do we know students are learning and that what they are learning has value? The focus of this conversation was on undergraduate learning, although we acknowledge that the topic is closely tied to successful primary and secondary learning as well as graduate education. Within the realm of undergraduate education, students can experience four-year institutions and two-year institutions, with many students learning at both at different times. Thirty-seven participants spent two days considering cases of innovation in STEM education, learning about the best practices in assessment, and then discussing the relationship of innovation and assessment at multiple levels within the context of higher education. Six working groups looked at course-level, program-level, and institution-level assessment, as well as cross-disciplinary programs, large-scale policy issues, and the difficult-to-name “non-content/cross-content” group that looked at assessment of transferable skills and attributes like professional skills, scientific thinking, mindset, and identity, all of which are related to post-baccalaureate success. These conversations addressed issues that cut across multiple levels, disciplines, and course topics, or are otherwise seen as tangential or perpendicular to perhaps “required” assessment at institutional, programmatic, or course levels. This report presents the context, recommendations, and “wicked” challenges from the meeting participants and their working groups. Along with the recommendations of workshop participants, these intricate challenges weave a complex web of issues that collectively need to be addressed by our community. They generated a great deal of interest and engagement from workshop participants, and act as a call to continue these conversations and seek answers that will improve STEM education through innovation and improved assessment. This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. DUE-1843775. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation

Report from the STEM 2026 Workshop on Assessment, Evaluation, and Accreditation

A gathering of science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) higher education stakeholders met in November 2018 to consider the relationship between innovation in education and assessment. When we talk about assessment in higher education, it is inextricably linked to both evaluation and accreditation, so all three were considered. The first question we asked was can we build a nation of learners? This starts with considering the student, first and foremost. As educators, this is a foundation of our exploration and makes our values transparent. As educators, how do we know we are having an impact? As members and implementers of institutions, programs and professional societies, how do we know students are learning and that what they are learning has value? The focus of this conversation was on undergraduate learning, although we acknowledge that the topic is closely tied to successful primary and secondary learning as well as graduate education. Within the realm of undergraduate education, students can experience four-year institutions and two-year institutions, with many students learning at both at different times. Thirty-seven participants spent two days considering cases of innovation in STEM education, learning about the best practices in assessment, and then discussing the relationship of innovation and assessment at multiple levels within the context of higher education. Six working groups looked at course-level, program-level, and institution-level assessment, as well as cross-disciplinary programs, large-scale policy issues, and the difficult-to-name “non-content/cross-content” group that looked at assessment of transferable skills and attributes like professional skills, scientific thinking, mindset, and identity, all of which are related to post-baccalaureate success. These conversations addressed issues that cut across multiple levels, disciplines, and course topics, or are otherwise seen as tangential or perpendicular to perhaps “required” assessment at institutional, programmatic, or course levels. This report presents the context, recommendations, and “wicked” challenges from the meeting participants and their working groups. Along with the recommendations of workshop participants, these intricate challenges weave a complex web of issues that collectively need to be addressed by our community. They generated a great deal of interest and engagement from workshop participants, and act as a call to continue these conversations and seek answers that will improve STEM education through innovation and improved assessment. This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. DUE-1843775. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation

Learning Opportunities 2011/2012

The graduation requirements of the Illinois Mathematics and Science Academy are in concert with those maintained by the State of Illinois with additional requirements as established by the IMSA Board of Trustees. Each semester students must take a minimum of 5 academic courses (2.5 credits) for a grade (not Pass/Fail). Fine Arts, Wellness, and Independent Study courses, or any course taken on a Pass/Fail basis do not count towards the 5 course (2.5 credits) minimum. Most students will take between 5 (2.5 credits) and 7 (3.5 credits) academic courses per semester. Only courses taken for a letter grade will count towards graduation credit. Students who take more than 5 courses may choose to take all courses for a grade. It is recommended that students who are approved to take 7 academic courses declare one elective Pass/Fail

Honors in Practice, Volume 18 (2022)

Editorial Policy, Deadline, and Submission Guidelines Dedication to P. Brent Register Editor’s Introduction • Ada Long 2021 Conference Remarks A Sense of Belonging (Presidential Address) • Suketu Bhavsar The 2021 NCHC Founders Award: Samuel Schuman (Introductory Remarks) • Bernice Braid Essays Counterstories of Honors Students of Color • Michael Carlos Gutiérrez Inclusive and Effective Holistic Admission Frameworks for Honors Programs: A Case Study Continued • Andrea Radasanu and Gregory Barker Constitution Day: An Opportunity for Honors Colleges to Promote Civic Engagement • Richard J. Hardy, Paul A. Schlag, and Keith Boeckelman Serving through Transcribing: Preserving History while Building Community • Julie Centofanti and Mollie Hartup Using Algorithmic Imaginaries and Uncanny Pedagogy to Facilitate Interdisciplinary Research and Digital Scholarship • Philip L. Frana The Critically Reflective Practicum • Aaron Stoller Disorientations and Disruptions: Innovating First-Year Honors Education through Collaborative Mapping Projects • Nathan W. Swanson Embracing New Opportunities in and beyond First-Year Honors Composition • Teagan Decker and Scott Hicks Brief Ideas about What Works in Honors Mapping the Hero’s Journey into Thinking: Assigning a Geo-Literacies Multimodal Assignment in a First-Year Honors Seminar • Amy Lee M. Locklear Using Issues in Honors Education to Teach Argumentation • Annmarie Guzy Creating Knowledge: The Literary Dictionary Assignment • Rebecca Cepek Building Community during COVID-19 and Beyond: How a Community Garden Strengthened an Honors Community • Steve R. Garrison Disrupting the Way We Work: An Honors Summer Vacation • Lexi Rager and Mollie Hartup Professional Transitions in Honors: Challenges, Opportunities, and Tips • Suketu Bhavsar, Jill Granger, Marlee Marsh, Matthew Means, and John Zubizarreta About the Authors, etc

Historical short stories in the post-secondary biology classroom: Investigation of instructor and student use and views

This study investigated the use of five historically accurate short stories in a post-secondary introductory biology course. The stories were designed to include both high levels of science content as well as explicitly attend students to nature of science ideas through bulleted points and reflective questions embedded within the stories. The stories targeted fundamental science ideas including: age of the earth, biological evolution, and genetics. Through mostly qualitative methods, student and instructor use and views of the short stories were investigated. That is, this study investigated 1) how the stories were implemented in a post-secondary biology course, 2) instructor views of the stories, 3) student views of the stories, and 4) how students interpreted the stories. Data sources included course observations and artifacts, student homework, student questionnaires, and instructor interviews. Data was analyzed to produce substantive categories or rich descriptions. Findings from the study are used to support several conclusions. First, most students are able to accurately interpret historical short stories that are designed to explicitly draw students\u27 attention to nature of science (NOS) ideas. Second, use of the historical short stories increases students\u27 reported interest in science careers. Third, the nuanced and contextual nature of NOS poses significant problems for student understanding of NOS in light of students\u27 inaccurate conceptual frameworks. Finally, instructor use of the historical short stories is highly linked to the instructor\u27s perceived value of the short stories and NOS more generally. These findings have implications for science educators and curriculum designers. Design of historical materials must take an explicit/reflective approach to NOS inclusion. Furthermore, curricular materials need to somehow address students\u27 prior thinking before introducing contextual episodes. Additionally, historical curricular materials ought be included in science content course to stimulate and retain student interest in science. However, effort must be turned toward helping science content teachers understand the benefit of including history and nature of science in their courses

Comparing Grounded Theory and Phenomenology as Methods to Understand Lived Experience of Engineering Educators Implementing Problem-based Learning

Convincing teachers to implement pedagogical innovations is notoriously hard. This research project investigated the shift in pedagogical approach among a small group of faculty as they replaced traditional lecture-based methods with problem-based learning projects. Interviews were conducted with eight drivers of this change, around the question: What was it like to be part of a learning group focused on tangible change toward student-centred learning? Objectives were to understand how pedagogical change happened in an electrical engineering programme at a post-secondary institution in Ireland; analyse data using two different research methods; describe the processes, results, and findings, determining: To what extents do the research methods of grounded theory and phenomenology fit our data and yield relevant and useful findings? Results of this multiple-methods approach indicate enjoyment, camaraderie, and grassroots ownership were essential to driving transformation. With this specific dataset, grounded theory produced valuable findings (including a graphic model of change). Phenomenological methodologies seeking to understanding raw, pre-reflective experience were not as effective, because interviews occurred two years after the events and thus interview comments were inherently reflective. This report should be of particular use to teachers and administrators strategising change and engineering education researchers assessing the applicability of various methods

Learning Opportunities 2016/2017

The graduation requirements of the Illinois Mathematics and Science Academy are in concert with those maintained by the State of Illinois with additional requirements as established by the IMSA Board of Trustees. Each semester students must take a minimum of 5 academic courses (2.5 credits) for a grade (not Pass/Fail). Fine Arts, Wellness, and Independent Study courses, or any course taken on a Pass/Fail basis do not count towards the 5 course (2.5 credits) minimum. Most students will take between 5 (2.5 credits) and 7 (3.5 credits) academic courses per semester. Only courses taken for a letter grade will count towards graduation credit. Students who take more than 5 academic courses may choose to take all courses for a grade. It is recommended that students who are approved to take 7 academic courses declare one elective Pass/Fail

Research on Teaching and Learning In Biology, Chemistry and Physics In ESERA 2013 Conference

This paper provides an overview of the topics in educational research that were published in the ESERA 2013 conference proceedings. The aim of the research was to identify what aspects of the teacher-student-content interaction were investigated frequently and what have been studied rarely. We used the categorization system developed by Kinnunen, Lampiselkä, Malmi and Meisalo (2016) and altogether 184 articles were analyzed. The analysis focused on secondary and tertiary level biology, chemistry, physics, and science education. The results showed that most of the studies focus on either the teacher’s pedagogical actions or on the student - content relationship. All other aspects were studied considerably less. For example, the teachers’ thoughts about the students’ perceptions and attitudes towards the goals and the content, and the teachers’ conceptions of the students’ actions towards achieving the goals were studied only rarely. Discussion about the scope and the coverage of the research in science education in Europe is needed.Peer reviewe