Using Conceptests to Assess and Improve Student Conceptual Understanding in Introductory Geoscience Courses

Journal of Geoscience Education, Jan 2006 by McConnell, David A, Steer, David N, Owens, Katharine D, Knott, Jeffrey R, Et al

ABSTRACT

Conceptests are higher-order multiple-choice questions that focus on one key concept of an instructor's major learning goals for a lesson. When coupled with student interaction through peer instruction, conceptests represent a rapid method of formative assessment of student understanding, require minimal changes to the instructional environment and introduce many of the recognized principles of effective teaching that enhance student learning. In this study, instructors from several different institutions developed over 300 conceptests for the geosciences. These instructors then used this suite of concept questions in a wide range of classroom settings, including large introductory general education Earth Science courses for non-majors at open enrollment institutions, smaller physical geology classes suitable for majors at private colleges, and in introductory geology laboratory settings. Results of pre- and post-class Geoscience Concept Inventory (GCI) testing and qualitative feedback from students and instructors showed that conceptests increased attendance, improved student satisfaction, and enhanced student achievement. Participating instructors found implementation of conceptests into their classes straightforward and required less than 30 minutes of preparation per class. The conceptest question database is available on-line for geoscience instructors.

INTRODUCTION

There is widespread recognition among many practicing scientists that student engagement in the sciences must be improved if we are to ensure a continued supply of able scientists and a scientifically literate society (American Geophysical Union, 1994; National Science Foundation, 1996; National Research Council, 1997; National Science Board, 2002, 2003; Handelsman et al., 2004). National surveys of incoming freshmen reveal that approximately 25-30% initially intend to major in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) fields (National Science Board, 2002) but several researchers report that approximately 40-50% of STEM majors transfer into non-STEM programs during their college experience (e.g., Astin and Astin, 1993; Strenta et al., 1994). Seymour and Hewitt (1997) noted that 83% of students in STEM disciplines expressed concern about poor teaching specifically mentioning, dull courses, disengaged instructors, and unsupportive teaching strategies (Tobias, 1990; Strenta et al., 1994). They suggested that a thorough revision of teaching and learning in first year STEM courses would likely improve student retention rates (Seymour and Hewitt, 1997). This view was echoed by the National Science Board (2003, p. 20), which stated that greater retention in STEM disciplines

...will require modification of the educational environment, particularly better teaching and advising . . . More institutional resources must be directed to improving the quality of teaching, the nature of introductory classes, the design of facilities to support new teaching methods . . .

Of the three directions highlighted by the National Science Board, design or redesign of facilities requires long term planning and substantial institutional and financial commitment. Secondly, introductory classes at many institutions are often an integrated prerequisite for many other classes, which limits changes in the nature of the course or curriculum. As a result, improving the quality of teaching remains as the most cost effective, tangible, and timely improvement that STEM departments may impose to improve student engagement and retention. Underlying improved teaching is a desire to enhance student comprehension, thereby promoting a scientifically literate society. However, time spent by STEM instructors improving teaching would likely reduce time available for obtaining grant funding and producing research papers, which has equal or greater value at many institutions.

Peer instruction was developed to provide a mechanism for introducing effective pedagogy into lecture classes without having to make acute changes to course content or organization (Mazur, 1997). Peer instruction introduces the use of conceptual multiple choice questions, conceptests, that are initially analyzed by students working alone, and then in a pair or a small group. This technique and has been effectively used in STEM disciplines such as physics and chemistry (e.g., Mazur, 1997; Kovac, 1999); however, there have been few reports on the use of conceptests in the geosciences (McConnell et al., 2003; Greer and Heaney, 2004) and no attempts to examine the: 1. Integration of peer instruction into the wide variety of geoscience classes; 2. Use of different student response methods; and, 3. Contrasts among institutions with academically distinct student populations. This paper describes the classroom procedures employed, as well as instructor and student qualitative and quantitative responses to the introduction of peer instruction into introductory geoscience courses. This study utilized several different student response methods to answer conceptests at higher education institutions across the United States representing a variety of student populations. Our data show that instructors easily integrated conceptests into instruction and that their use measurably improved student comprehension, attendance and enthusiasm.