1887

A Validated Novel Tool for Capturing Faculty-Student Joint Behaviors with the COPUS Instrument

    Authors: Patrice Marie Ludwig1,*, Samantha Colleen Bates Prins2
    VIEW AFFILIATIONS HIDE AFFILIATIONS
    Affiliations: 1: Biology Department, James Madison University, Harrisonburg, VA 22807; 2: Mathematics & Statistics Department, James Madison University, Harrisonburg, VA 22807
    AUTHOR AND ARTICLE INFORMATION AUTHOR AND ARTICLE INFORMATION
    • Received 22 November 2017 Accepted 16 August 2019 Published 18 December 2019
    • ©2019 Author(s). Published by the American Society for Microbiology.
    • [open-access] This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ and https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/legalcode), which grants the public the nonexclusive right to copy, distribute, or display the published work.

    • Supplemental materials available at http://asmscience.org/jmbe
    • *Corresponding author. Mailing address: Biology Department, MSC 7801, James Madison University, 951 Carrier Drive, Harrisonburg, VA 22807. Phone: 540-568-4132. E-mail: [email protected].
    Source: J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. December 2019 vol. 20 no. 3 doi:10.1128/jmbe.v20i3.1535
MyBook is a cheap paperback edition of the original book and will be sold at uniform, low price.
  • XML
    62.27 Kb
  • HTML
    60.06 Kb
  • PDF
    685.51 Kb

    Abstract:

    The Classroom Observation Protocol Undergraduate STEM (COPUS) tool was developed to quantify the time instructors and students engage in various activities within STEM courses. We offer a matrix of joint instructor-student behaviors rather than a pie chart of individual behaviors as an alternative perspective on the presentation of the results from the COPUS instrument. We suggest that the presentation of the results using this matrix tool allows for finer-scale insights into the learning environment in a classroom. Using this matrix tool, we identified four profiles of instructor-student behavior in undergraduate STEM classes at our regional comprehensive Master’s institution: lecture, lecture plus (lecture with students posing questions to the instructor), standing clickers/IF-ATs (immediate feedback assessment technique—instructor poses questions using some form of immediate response method but does not move around groups), and roving groups (requiring instructor to move between groups). Prior to using the COPUS instrument we placed each of the observed faculty along the active learning spectrum. Our matrix tool was validated by alignment of the matrix tool profiles with these designations. We offer suggestions regarding how this matrix tool can be best used to inform faculty professional development to move instructors along the active learning spectrum.

References & Citations

1. Deslauriers L, Schelew E, Wieman C 2011 Improved learning in a large-enrollment physics class Science 332 6031 862 864 10.1126/science.1201783 21566198 http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1201783
2. Freeman S, Eddy SL, McDonough M, Smith MK, Okoroafor N, Jordt H, Wenderoth MP 2014 Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 111 23 8410 8415 10.1073/pnas.1319030111 24821756 4060654 http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319030111
3. Hake RR 1998 Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: a six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses Am J Phys 66 1 64 10.1119/1.18809 http://dx.doi.org/10.1119/1.18809
4. Smith MK, Jones FHM, Gilbert SL, Wieman CE 2013 The classroom observation protocol for undergraduate STEM (COPUS): a new instrument to characterize university STEM classroom practices CBE Life Sci Educ 12 4 618 627 10.1187/cbe.13-08-0154 24297289 3846513 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.13-08-0154
5. Hora MT 2014 Limitations in experimental design mean that the jury is still out on lecturing Proc Natl Acad Sci 111 30 e3024 10.1073/pnas.1410115111 25024170 4121803 http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1410115111
6. Prince M 2004 Does active learning work? A review of the research J Engineer Educ 93 3 223 231 10.1002/j.2168-9830.2004.tb00809.x http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2004.tb00809.x
7. Felder R, Brent R 2009 Active learning: an introduction ASQ Higher Educ Brief 2 4 1 5https://www.engr.ncsu.edu/wpcontent/uploads/drive/1YB2KK3wLqP3EhXyYdKtE9-4mBJzc2rc2/Active%20Learning%20Tutorial.pdf
8. Wieman C, Gilbert S 2014 The teaching practices inventory: a new tool for characterizing college and university teaching in mathematics and science CBE Life Sci Educ 13 3 552 569 10.1187/cbe.14-02-0023 25185237 4152215 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.14-02-0023
9. Ebert-May D, Derting TL, Hodder J, Momsen JL, Long TM, Jardeleza SE 2011 What we say is not what we do: effective evaluation of faculty professional development programs Bioscience 61 7 550 558 10.1525/bio.2011.61.7.9 http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/bio.2011.61.7.9
10. Fung L, Lena F, Chow LPY 2002 Congruence of student teachers’ pedagogical images and actual classroom practices Educ Res 44 3 313 321 10.1080/0013188022000031605 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0013188022000031605
11. Smith MK, Vinson EL, Smith JA, Lewin JD, Stetzer MR 2014 A campus-wide study of STEM courses: new perspectives on teaching practices and perceptions CBE Life Sci Educ 13 4 624 635 10.1187/cbe.14-06-0108 25452485 4255349 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.14-06-0108
12. Michaelsen LK, Knight AB, Fink DL 2002 Team-based learning: a transformative use of small groups Greenwood Publishing Group
13. Ralph EG 2004 Pursuing instructional effectiveness in higher education: it’s about time! Nova Publishers https://market.android.com/details?id=book-8G-eDfadV2IC
14. Hora MT, Oleson A, Ferrare JJ 2013 Teaching dimensions observation protocol (TDOP) user’s manual Wisconsin Center for Education Research University of Wisconsin-Madison Madison, WI
15. Sawada D, Piburn MD, Judson E, Turley J, Falconer K, Benford R, Bloom I 2002 Measuring reform practices in science and mathematics classrooms: the reformed teaching observation protocol School Sci Math 102 6 245 253 10.1111/j.1949-8594.2002.tb17883.x http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2002.tb17883.x
16. Weiss IR, Pasley JD, Smith PS, Banilower ER, Heck DJ 2003 Looking inside the classroom Horizon Research Inc. Chapel Hill, NC http://secure.horizon-research.com/insidetheclassroom/reports/looking/complete.pdf
17. Eddy SL, Converse M, Wenderoth MP 2015 PORTAAL: A classroom observation tool assessing evidence-based teaching practices for active learning in large science, technology, engineering, and mathematics classes CBE Life Sci Educ 14 2 1 16 10.1187/cbe.14-06-0095 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.14-06-0095
18. Lund TJ, Pilarz M, Velasco JB, Chakraverty D, Rosploch K, Undersander M, Stains M 2015 The best of both worlds: building on the COPUS and RTOP observation protocols to easily and reliably measure various levels of reformed instructional practice CBE Life Sci Educ 14 2 1 12 10.1187/cbe.14-10-0168 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.14-10-0168
19. Piburn M, Sawada D Reformed teaching observation protocol (RTOP) reference manual Arizona Collaborative for Excellence in the Preparation of Teachers (ACEPT) Technical Report IN00-3 Arizona State University Phoenix, AZ
20. Connell GL, Donovan DA, Chambers TG 2016 Increasing the use of student-centered pedagogies from moderate to high improves student learning and attitudes about biology CBE Life Sci Educ 15 1 1 15 10.1187/cbe.15-03-0062 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.15-03-0062
21. Gorham J 1988 The relationship between verbal teaching immediacy behaviors and student learning Communic Educ 17 40 53 10.1080/03634528809378702 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03634528809378702
22. Messman SJ, Jones-Corley J 2001 Effects of communication environment, immediacy, communication apprehension on cognitive and affective learning Communic Monogr 68 184 200 10.1080/03637750128054 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03637750128054

Supplemental Material

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journal/jmbe/10.1128/jmbe.v20i3.1535
2019-12-18
2020-07-14

Abstract:

The Classroom Observation Protocol Undergraduate STEM (COPUS) tool was developed to quantify the time instructors and students engage in various activities within STEM courses. We offer a matrix of joint instructor-student behaviors rather than a pie chart of individual behaviors as an alternative perspective on the presentation of the results from the COPUS instrument. We suggest that the presentation of the results using this matrix tool allows for finer-scale insights into the learning environment in a classroom. Using this matrix tool, we identified four profiles of instructor-student behavior in undergraduate STEM classes at our regional comprehensive Master’s institution: lecture, lecture plus (lecture with students posing questions to the instructor), standing clickers/IF-ATs (immediate feedback assessment technique—instructor poses questions using some form of immediate response method but does not move around groups), and roving groups (requiring instructor to move between groups). Prior to using the COPUS instrument we placed each of the observed faculty along the active learning spectrum. Our matrix tool was validated by alignment of the matrix tool profiles with these designations. We offer suggestions regarding how this matrix tool can be best used to inform faculty professional development to move instructors along the active learning spectrum.

Highlighted Text: Show | Hide
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/jmbe/20/3/jmbe-20-55.html?itemId=/content/journal/jmbe/10.1128/jmbe.v20i3.1535&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Figures

Image of FIGURE 1

Click to view

FIGURE 1

Hypothetical profiles of instructor and student joint behaviors that illustrate the benefit of a matrix or grid summary. The row and column sums are the same in both profiles and would thus be indistinguishable on pie charts of instructor or student (but not both) behaviors.

Source: J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. December 2019 vol. 20 no. 3 doi:10.1128/jmbe.v20i3.1535
Download as Powerpoint
Image of FIGURE 2

Click to view

FIGURE 2

Pie charts depicting two profiles of student (top) and instructor (middle) behaviors, and the corresponding matrix/grid views of the joint behaviors of these students and their instructors. Stated values in the pie charts are the percentage of all two-minute time intervals both raters agreed the student and/or instructor codes took place, and values stated in the matrix are the percentage of all pairs of student and instructor codes that both raters agreed were observed in the two-minute time intervals. See Table 1 for definitions.

Source: J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. December 2019 vol. 20 no. 3 doi:10.1128/jmbe.v20i3.1535
Download as Powerpoint
Image of FIGURE 3

Click to view

FIGURE 3

Matrix views of the four joint student-instructor behavior profiles observed in this study. Values stated in the main grid are the percentage of all pairs of student and instructor codes that both raters agreed were observed in the two-minute time intervals. Shaded codes in the first row (and first column) indicate student (and instructor) codes used in generating the profile; italics indicate there must be an absence of the code. Values in the last row and column (labeled Individual) are the percentage of all pairs of codes observed that contained that code, i.e., row and column sums.

Source: J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. December 2019 vol. 20 no. 3 doi:10.1128/jmbe.v20i3.1535
Download as Powerpoint

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Please check the format of the address you have entered.
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error