Investigating the trajectories of academic staff who identify as DBER scholars

One of the growing areas of research in Australia is the discipline-based education research (DBER) field. In 2012 a National Research Council report stated “[DBER is a] vital area of scholarship [with] potential to improve undergraduate science and engineering education” (National Research Council, 2012, p. 1), meeting recommendations given by the Chief Scientist of Australia (2014) to improve the education of STEM graduates. The primary intent of this study was to collect the motivations, journeys and trajectories of DBER researchers and find factors that can lead to supporting the growth and retention of these scholars. Given the regional differences in academic landscapes between continents, we have chosen to focus (for now) on the Australian DBER community. Additionally, we know representation within our teaching faculty has direct and measurable impact on the students themselves. As such, we have also explored the diversity of backgrounds of those who participated alongside their perceptions of the diversity seen within the Australian DBER community. To achieve the above aims, a series of interviews were undertaken with Australian academics who identify as being a part of the DBER community. The population represented was across a range of experience levels, from early career to senior, as well as multiple gender identities and varied academic pathways. In this presentation, the outcomes of analysing this data will be used to describe the types of academics that are becoming DBER researchers in Australia, as well as the initial motivations and pathways that have led them to this point in their careers. REFERENCES National Research Council. (2012). Discipline-based education research: Understanding and improving learning in undergraduate science and education. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Office of the Chief Scientist. (2014). Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics: Australia’s Future. Australian Government, Canberra

CHEMISTRY LABORATORY INSTRUCTIONAL MODELS, HOW DO YOU CHOOSE?

How do you decide how to structure your laboratory experiments or programs? Amidst significant workloads, it can often be daunting to effect meaningful change across a single experiment, let alone a laboratory program. In this study, we have synthesised the chemistry education literature base to identify five common chemistry laboratory instructional models (CLIMs) with defined steps or characteristics: Argument Driven Inquiry (ADI), Course-Based Undergraduate Research Experiences (CUREs), Peer-Led Team Learning (PLTL), Predict-Observe-Explain (POE), and the Science Writing Heuristic (SWH). The intention of this analysis was to offer a concise summary, including published examples, for an instructor to choose between when considering the design of their teaching laboratory activities. Further value has been added by analysing each CLIM through the lens of three different theoretical frameworks (cognitive load theory, communities of practice and constructivism). This presentation will offer brief summaries of each CLIM and will explore the potential benefits and challenges identified in each as per the theoretical frameworks raised

Investigating the trajectories of academic staff who identify as DBER scholars

One of the growing areas of research in Australia is the discipline-based education research (DBER) field. In 2012 a National Research Council report stated “[DBER is a] vital area of scholarship [with] potential to improve undergraduate science and engineering education” (National Research Council, 2012, p. 1), meeting recommendations given by the Chief Scientist of Australia (2014) to improve the education of STEM graduates. The primary intent of this study is to collect the motivations, journeys and trajectories of DBER researchers and find factors that can lead to supporting the growth and retention of these scholars. Further to this, we are interested in the many facets of diversity of people within their respective discipline. As tertiary institutions serve a diverse student body it is essential that they understand the implications of having, or lacking, diversity within the researchers undertaking DBER studies and developing educational content at the tertiary level. In this presentation, we will focus on some of our preliminary data to describe the types of academics that are becoming DBER researchers in Australia, as well as some of the initial motivations and pathways that have led them to this point in their careers

Using teacher voices to develop the ASELL Schools professional development workshops

This article describes how the Advancing Science and Engineering through Laboratory Learning (ASELL) Schools program was developed. ASELL School's directive is to facilitate the embedding of inquirybased learning in secondary school classrooms through workshop-based teacher professional development (PD). The approach of ASELL Schools is to balance the lessons learned in education research with teacher voices and curriculum requirements in the design and implementation of teacher professional development. This has resulted in a unique workshop experience, where students and teachers work together on open-inquiry investigations. Afterward, teachers and students are separated for pedagogical sessions, and teachers are given time to discuss and share ideas. The discussion is focussed around the key ASELL Schools pedagogical tool, called the 'Inquiry Slider'. We outline an iterative process based on listening to teacher voices, which was used to develop the workshops. We also demonstrate that the Inquiry Slider is an effective pedagogical tool allowing teachers to focus and expand their efforts to bring more inquiry-based learning into their classrooms

Theoretical frameworks: A means to an end in discipline-based education research

GOAL To offer an interactive experience to introduce and develop participants’ familiarity with theoretical frameworks as a means to design and conduct discipline-based education research. BACKGROUND In many scientific experiments, a researcher uses a specific analytical instrument to collect data that will ultimately be analysed and interpreted in order to answer research questions or test hypotheses. The choice of instrument thus influences the type of data that can be gathered and, ultimately, what the researcher can learn about the sample or phenomenon under study. For qualitative research studies in education, the theoretical framework plays a role analogous to that of the instrument. A theoretical framework is a system of ideas, aims, goals, theories and assumptions about knowledge; about how research should be carried out; and about how research should be reported that influences the way educational research questions are framed, which type of data is collected, and how data are analysed. Thus, the choice of theoretical framework ultimately determines what can be learned about a given educational context. AIMS In this session, we will consider a potential area of research interest and a potential data source from multiple theoretical perspectives. We will determine if particular theoretical frameworks are appropriate for the research focus. We will also discuss the intent of, design research questions for, and identify appropriate data for studies that are guided by various theoretical perspectives. Finally, we will discuss factors that may affect the ultimate choice of a theoretical framework for a qualitative research project. DELIVERABLES Through this workshop we hope to facilitate the following deliverable outcomes: • An introduction to common theoretical frameworks that have been and are used in disciplinebased education research; • Professional development for both new and transitioning researchers moving into discipline-based education research; • A “take-home” pack with basic descriptions of some theoretical frameworks as well as a worksheet about using theoretical frameworks to design DBER studies. WORKSHOP Introduction (15 minutes) In any learning environment, there are many interactions, people, and things that we could study. We can’t pay attention to all of them at the same time. A theoretical framework provides guidance that focuses our attention on a specific concept or issue within a learning environment. A different theoretical framework, applied to the same learning environment, focuses our attention on a different concept or issue. We will begin the workshop by introducing several commonly-used theoretical frameworks and how they influence the design of a qualitative educational research study about a particular learning environment. Workshop task (30 minutes) Participants will be assigned one of the previously-discussed, common theoretical frameworks and will work in small groups to develop corresponding research questions and a data collection plan for a study about a given learning environment. Workshop facilitators will be available to provide support and assistance in this task. Discussion and Reflection (30 minutes) Participants will share their developed research questions and approaches with the larger group, explaining how their assigned theoretical framework influenced their research design. Workshop facilitators and other participants will provide feedback about how the research design could be further improved and extended. We will finish the workshop by asking the participants to consider a planned or current study and how theoretical frameworks could add value to those projects

Playing with a double-edged sword: Analogies in biochemistry

Analogy pervades our everyday reasoning. No situation we encounter is exactly like a situation we have encountered previously, and our ability to learn and survive in the world is based on our ability to find similarities between past and present situations and use the knowledge we have gained from past situations to manage current situations. Analogies can be powerful teaching tools because they can make new material intelligible to students by comparing it to material that is already familiar. It is clear, though, that not all analogies are good and that not all good analogies are useful to all students. In this study, I have used textbook analysis, classroom observations, student interviews and instructor interviews to determine the role that analogies play in biochemistry learning. Analogies are an important teaching technique in biochemistry classes, being used more often in both biochemistry classes and textbooks than they are in high school chemistry classes and textbooks. Most biochemistry students like, pay particular attention to, and remember the analogies their instructors provide; and they use these analogies to understand, visualize, and recall information from class. Even though students like and use analogies, they do not understand what analogies are or the mechanism by which they improve learning. For the students, analogies are simply any teaching technique that eases understanding, visualization, or recall. Instructors, on the other hand, have a good understanding of what analogies are and of how they should be presented in class; but they do not use analogies as effectively as they should. They do not plan, explain or identify the limitations of the analogies they use in class. However, regardless of how effectively instructors present analogies in class, this study indicates that, in general, analogies are useful in promoting understanding, visualization, recall, and motivation in biochemistry students at all levels. They would be even more useful if students understood what analogies are and how they can be used to improve understanding of biochemical concepts

WHAT RESEARCH TELLS US ABOUT USING ANALOGIES TO TEACH CHEMISTRY

ABSTRACT. Analogies can be powerful teaching tools because they can make new material intelligible to students by comparing it to material that is already familiar. It is clear, though, that not all analogies are good and that not all good analogies are useful to all students. In order to determine which analogies are useful for students and how analogies should be presented to be useful for students, we interviewed biochemistry students about the analogies that were used in their classes. We found that most biochemistry students like, pay particular attention to, and remember the analogies their instructors provide. They use these analogies to understand, visualize, and recall information from class. They argue, however, that analogies are not presented as effectively as they could be in class. We present their suggestions for improving classroom analogy use. [Chem. Educ

Affective Dimensions in Chemistry Education

This is a unique resource for those wishing to address the affective domain as they research and solve problems in chemistry education. Contributions by world-leading experts cover both fundamental considerations and practical case studies. This work fills a gap in the literature of chemistry education, which so far has focussed mainly on the cognitive domain. The affective domain refers to feelings-based constructs such as attitudes, values, beliefs, opinions, emotions, interests, motivation, and a degree of acceptance or rejection. It can affect students\u27 interest in science topics and their motivation to persevere in learning science concepts