We found 54 results that contain "stem"

This is a collection of webinars about different aspects of seeking and applying for funding in STEM fields. While many are aimed at undergraduates/people who have not yet entered a graduate program, they are also useful for grad students, and several are aimed specifically at grad students.

Here are some upcoming talks that might be of potential interest. They are organized by the SEISMIC collaboration, of which MSU is member. The talks are open to all.  You can find the full list of fall SEISMIC talks here.
 
Wed. 9/30
1 pm EDT
Hosted by SEISMIC
 
“Fundamentals of Data Storytelling”
Speaker: Jennifer Nulty, Pivot Data Design
Today, data is everywhere. Clients often have access to massive amounts of data about participants, service administration, and program effectiveness. Extracting useful takeaway messages and next steps can be challenging. Traditionally, data is communicated using dry reports, stuck in boring tables and charts. We have the power and opportunity to transform data reporting into deliverables that engage our clients, funders, and community partners. Harnessing the power of our data by using effective storytelling and visualization techniques gives staff the potential to better communicate program outcomes. Together, we will review three fundamentals of data storytelling that will help members create effective visuals. Grounded in visual processing theory, the principles discussed in this keynote will enhance attendees’ ability to communicate more effectively with colleagues and university stakeholders through a focus on the proper use of color, arrangement, graphics, and text.
 
Zoom Link: https://umich.zoom.us/j/98821252693

This workshop explores scientific teaching in undergraduate STEM, including the 'how' and 'why' behind the effective implementation thereof. GTAs will also learn about how to assess what is most important in STEM courses, and to create assessments that show how students utilize their knowledge. Upon completing this session, GTAs will be able to:

Articulate challenges that teaching undergraduate students in STEM courses face.
Acquire strategies to effectively teach students in a STEM course.
Work through an example to apply pedagogy for effective teaching.

As a member of the SEISMIC Collaboration, MSU employees have the opportunity join the conversation surrounding DEI in STEM. These conversations are open to all. Upcoming events include:
 
Using Religious Cultural Competence in Evolution Education (ReCCEE) to Create a More Inclusive and Effective Scientific Community
Wednesday, October 14, at 12 p.m.
Speaker: Elizabeth Barnes, Middle Tennessee State University
 
While the majority of people in the world are religious, the majority of scientists are not, and this difference can cause culturally based barriers to effective science education. For instance, despite decades of evolution education research in the United States, almost one-third of introductory college biology students still do not think life shares a common ancestor and this is often due to a perceived conflict with their religious beliefs. In my studies, I find that college science instructors report not knowing how to address religious beliefs when teaching evolution and religious students report that science instructors have negative attitudes towards religion which is a barrier for their learning of evolution. I will describe how we as science educators can use Religious Cultural Competence in Evolution Education (ReCCEE) to reduce students’ perceived conflict between religion and evolution and create more inclusive evolution education for religious students. Further, I will discuss how such efforts may disproportionately benefit students of color and women, who affiliate with religion at higher rates than white men.
Zoom Link: https://umich.zoom.us/j/93300696091
 
But is it really ‘just’ science? Engaging critical race theory to unpack racial oppression with implications for Black student science engagement
Wednesday, October 21, at 12 p.m.
Speakers: Terrell Morton, University of Missouri
 
Disseminated through the culture of science (i.e., norms, values, beliefs, and practices), is the underlying message that there is but one “universal truth” regarding what is or what counts as scientific knowledge, research, and general practice. This culture and subsequent message have implications for who is recognized as being a scientist, or a validated member of the scientific community, and the process by which one gains such recognition. In noting the distinct, racialized experiences of Black students in science, this seminar introduces Critical Race Theory as a framework for attending to the prevalence, permeance, and impact of structural racism embedded within and manifesting through the culture of science, while also detailing the implications of structural racism in and through science on Black student science engagement. 
Zoom Link: http://asu.zoom.us/j/92158713296
 
Are you interested in giving at talk related to DEI in STEM? If so, please reach out to Ryan Sweeder (sweeder@msu.edu) to be added to the potential speaker list.
 

Formative assessments can provide crucial data to help instructors evaluate pedagogical effectiveness and address students' learning needs. The shift to online instruction and learning in the past year emphasized the need for innovative ways to administer assessments that support student learning and success. Faculty often use multiple-choice (MC) assessments due to ease of use, time and other resource constraints. While grading these assessments can be quick, the closed-ended nature of the questions often does not align with real scientific practices and can limit the instructor's ability to evaluate the heterogeneity of student thinking. Students often have mixed understanding that include scientific and non-scientific ideas. Open-ended or Constructed Response (CR) assessment questions, which allow students to construct scientific explanations in their own words, have the potential to reveal student thinking in a way MC questions do not. The results of such assessments can help instructors make decisions about effective pedagogical content and approaches. We present a case study of how results from administration of a CR question via a free-to-use constructed response classifier (CRC) assessment tool led to changes in classroom instruction. The question was used in an introductory biology course and focuses on genetic information flow. Results from the CRC assessment tool revealed unexpected information about student thinking, including naïve ideas. For example, a significant fraction of students initially demonstrated mixed understanding of the process of DNA replication. We will highlight how these results influenced change in pedagogy and content, and as a result improved student understanding.To access a PDF of the "Automated analyses of written responses reveal student thinking in STEM" poster, click here.Description of the Poster 
Automated analyses of written responses reveal student thinking in STEM 
Jenifer N. Saldanha, Juli D. Uhl, Mark Urban-Lurain, Kevin Haudek 
Automated Analysis of Constructed Response (AACR) research group 
CREATE for STEM Institute, Michigan State University 
Email: jenifers@msu.edu 
Website: beyondmultiplechoice.org  
QR code (for website):  
 
Key highlights: 

Constructed Response (CR) questions allow students to explain scientific concepts in their own words and reveal student thinking better than multiple choice questions. 


The Constructed Response Classifier (CRC) Tool (free to use: beyondmultiplechoice.org) can be used to assess student learning gains 

In an introductory biology classroom: 

Analyses by the CRC tool revealed gaps in student understanding and non-normative ideas. 
The instructor incorporated short term pedagogical changes and recorded some positive outcomes on a summative assessment. 
Additional pedagogical changes incorporated the next semester led to even more positive outcomes related to student learning (this semester included the pivot to online instruction). 

The results from this case study highlight the effectiveness of using data from the CRC tool to address student thinking and develop targeted instructional efforts to guide students towards a better understanding of complex biological concepts.   
Constructed Response Questions as Formative Assessments 

Formative assessments allow instructors to explore nuances of student thinking and evaluate student performance.  
Student understanding often includes scientific and non-scientific ideas [1,2].  


Constructed Response (CR) questions allow students to explain scientific concepts in their own words and reveal student thinking better than multiple choice questions [3,4]. 

Constructed Response Classifier (CRC) tool 

A formative assessment tool that automatically predicts ratings of student explanations.  
This Constructed Response Classifier (CRC) tool generates a report that includes: 


categorization of student ideas from writing related to conceptual understanding. 
web diagrams depicting the frequency and co-occurrence rates of the most used ideas and relevant terms. 

CRC Questions in the Introductory Biology Classroom :  
A Case study 
Students were taught about DNA replication and the central dogma of Biology. 
Question was administered as online homework, completion credit provided. Responses collected were analyzed by the CRC tool. 
CRC question: 
The following DNA sequence occurs near the middle of the coding region of a gene.  DNA   5'  A A T G A A T G G* G A G C C T G A A G G A  3'     
There is a G to A base change at the position marked with an asterisk. Consequently, a codon normally encoding an amino acid becomes a stop codon.  How will this alteration influence DNA replication? 

Part 1 of the CRC question used to detect student confusion between the central dogma processes.  
Related to the Vision & Change core concept 3 “Information Flow, Exchange, and Storage" [5], adapted from the Genetics Concept Assessment [6,7]. 

Insight on Instructional Efficacy from CRC Tool 
Table 1: Report score summary revealed that only a small fraction of students provided correct responses post instruction. (N = 48 students). 




Student responses 


Spring 2019 




Incorrect 


45% 




Incomplete/Irrelevant 


32% 




Correct 


23% 




 
Sample incorrect responses:  
Though both incorrect, the first response below demonstrates understanding of a type of mutation and the second one uses the context of gene expression. 

“This is a nonsense mutation and will end the DNA replication process prematurely leaving a shorter DNA strand” (spellchecked) 


“It will stop the DNA replication… This mutation will cause a gene to not be expressed” 

CRC report provided: 

Response score summaries 
Web diagrams of important terms 
Term usage and association maps 

The instructor Identified scientific and non-scientific ideas in student thinking  
This led to: 
Short term pedagogical changes, same semester  

During end of semester material review, incorporated: 


Small group discussions about the central dogma.  
Discussions about differences between DNA replication, and transcription and translation. 


Worksheets with questions on transcribing and translating sequences. 

Figure one: 
The figure depicts an improvement in student performance observed in the final summative assessment.  
Percentage of students who scored more than 95% on a related question: 
In the unit exam = 71% 
Final summative exam = 79% 
Pedagogical Changes Incorporated in the Subsequent Semester 
CR questions: 

Explain the central dogma. 


List similarities and differences between the processes involved. 
Facilitated small group discussions for students to explain their responses. 

 
Worksheets and homework:  
Transcribe and translate DNA sequences, including ones with deletions/additions.  
Students encouraged to create their own sequences for practice.  
Revisited DNA replication via clicker questions and discussions, while students were learning about transcription and translation. 
Table 2: 68% of students in the new cohort provided correct responses to the CRC question post instruction. (N = 47 students). 




Student Responses 


Spring 2020 




Incorrect 


19% 




Incomplete/Irrelevant 


13% 




Correct 


68% 




Conclusions 
The results from this case study highlight the effectiveness of using data from the CRC tool to address student thinking and develop targeted instructional efforts to guide students towards a better understanding of complex biological concepts.   
Future Directions 

Use the analytic rubric feature in the CRC tool to obtain further insight into normative and non-normative student thinking. 
Use the clicker-based case study available at CourseSource about the processes in the central dogma [8]. 


Incorporate additional CRC tool questions in each course unit. 

Questions currently available in a variety of disciplines: 
Biology, Biochemistry, Chemistry, Physiology, and Statistics 
Visit our website beyondmultiplechoice.org and sign up for a free account 
References: 

Ha, M., Nehm, R. H., Urban-Lurain, M., & Merrill, J. E. (2011).  CBE—Life Sciences Education, 10(4), 379-393. 


Sripathi, K. N., Moscarella, R. A., et al., (2019). CBE—Life Sciences Education, 18(3), ar37. 


Hubbard, J. K., Potts, M. A., & Couch, B. A. (2017). CBE—Life Sciences Education, 16(2), ar26. 


Birenbaum, M., & Tatsuoka, K. K. (1987). Applied Psychological Measurement, 11(4), 385-395. 


 "Vision and change in undergraduate biology education: a call to action." American Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington, DC (2011). 


Smith, M. K., Wood, W. B., & Knight, J. K. (2008). CBE—Life Sciences Education, 7(4), 422-430. 


Prevost, L. B., Smith, M. K., & Knight, J. K. (2016). CBE—Life Sciences Education, 15(4), ar65. 


Pelletreau, K. N., Andrews, T., Armstrong, N., et al., (2016). CourseSource. 

Acknowledgments.  
This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation (DUE grant 1323162). 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 supporting agencies. 

Topic Area: DEI
Presented by: Juli Uhl, Megan Shiroda, Jenifer Saldanha, Lenora Kaldaras, Kevin Haudek
Abstract:
Moving to an online format, which can decrease student-teacher interactions, makes formative assessment of and responding to student written explanations difficult. It is especially challenging to assess authentic practices of STEM disciplines, including constructing explanations, as they are best assessed in an open format rather than multiple choice. To assess large numbers of student open responses, our group developed a set of assessment items and a Constructed Response Classifier (CRC) tool capable of rapidly analyzing student text responses. The CRC tool produces reports about student thinking in various STEM disciplines with high agreement to human scores. Our items span the disciplines of chemistry, biology, statistics, and physiology and levels from introductory to upper level courses. CRC automated reports identify common ideas in students' short explanations and provide several representations of class level performance as well as individual classifications. CRC reports also reveal that students often mix misconceptions and expert-like ideas, which is captured by association diagrams. By using the tool as part of formative assessment, instructors can examine student ideas and help guide students toward building connections between concepts as they learn to use expert-like reasoning. Instructors have successfully used this tool to refine teaching practice, develop instructional materials, and improve student learning. This session will present an interactive demonstration of the CRC tool and reports. Attendees will explore reports to examine student thinking, and interact to discuss methods they can use in the classroom to address misconceptions and improve learning.
Session Resources:
Explore two example CRC Reports (PDF)
Beyond Multiple Choices

How can a first-year writing course help to create 21st century STEM students with foundations for interdisciplinary inquiry? Could such as curriculum engage STEM students in knowledge production in ways that help to acculturate them as collaborative, ethical, and empathetic learners? Bringing together insights from writing pedagogy, work on critical science literacy, and science studies, this round-table is hosted by the collaborative team leading an effort to rethink the first year writing course required of all students at Lyman Briggs College, MSU's residential college for STEM students. A major goal of the curriculum redesign is to develop science studies-inspired writing assignments that foster reflective experiential learning about the nature of science. The purpose of this approach is not only to demonstrate the value of inquiry in science studies (history, philosophy, and sociology of science) to STEM students as they pursue their careers, but to foster diverse inclusion in science by demystifying key aspects of scientific culture and its hidden curriculum for membership. Following the guidance of critical pedagogy (e.g. bell hooks), we aim to use the context of first-year writing instruction as an opportunity for critical reflection and empowerment. The roundtable describes how the instructional team designed the first-year curriculum and adapted it to teaching online during the pandemic, and shares data on lessons learned by both the instructor team and our students. We invite participants to think with us as we continue to iteratively develop and assess the curriculum.To access a PDF version of the "Reimagining First-Year Writing for STEM Undergraduates as Inquiry-Based Learning in Science Studies" poster, click here. Description of Poster:
Reimagining First-Year Writing for STEM Undergraduates as Inquiry-Based Learning in Science Studies  
Marisa Brandt, HPS Lyman Briggs College & June Oh, English 
Project Overview: Reimagining LB 133 
Lyman Briggs College aims to provide a high quality science education to diverse students by teaching science in social, human, and global contexts. LB 133: Science & Culture fulfills the Tier 1 writing requirement for 80-85% of LBC students. Starting in F19, we implemented a new, collaboratively developed and taught cohort model of the LB 133 curriculum in order to take advantage of opportunity to foster a community of inquiry, inclusion, and curiosity.  
First year college writing and literacy courses aim to give students skills to communicate and evaluate information in their own fields and beyond. While teaching important writing skills, LB 133 focuses on developing students’ science literacy by encouraging them to enact a subject position of a socially engaged science professional in training. LB 133 was designed based on ideas of HPS. 
History, Philosophy, and Sociology (HPS) or “science studies” is an interdisciplinary field that studies science in context, often extended to include medicine, technology, and other sites of knowledge-production. LB 133 centers inquiry into relations of science and culture. One way HPS can help students succeed in STEM is by fostering inclusion. In LB 133, this occurs through demystifying scientific culture and hidden curriculum through authentic, project-based inquiry.  
Like WRAC 110, LB 133 is organized around five writing projects. Each project entails a method of inquiry into science as a social, human practice and teaches them to write first as a form of sense-making about their data. (Column 2) Then, students develop writing projects to communicate what they have learned to non-scientific audiences.  
Research Questions:  


How did their conceptions of science change?[Text Wrapping Break] 2. Did their writing improve?[Text Wrapping Break] 3. What did they see as the most important ideas and skills they would take from the course?[Text Wrapping Break] 4. Did they want more HPS at LBC?  


Data Collection:  
[Text Wrapping Break]1. Analysis of the beginning and end of course Personal Writing assessments. [Text Wrapping Break]2. End of term survey. [Text Wrapping Break]3. Answers to course reflection questions.  
Selected Results: See Column 3. 
Conclusions: The new model seems successful! Students reported finding 133 surprisingly enjoyable and educational, for many reasons. Many felt motivated to write about science specifically, saw communication as valuable scientific skill. Most felt their writing improved and learned more than anticipated. Most learned and valued key HPS concepts and wanted to learn more about diversity in scientific cultures, and wanted to continue HPS education in LBC to do so. 
Column 2 - Course Structure: Science & Culture 




Assessment 


Science Studies Content[Text Wrapping Break]Learning Goals 


Literacy & Writing Skills Learning Goals 




Part 1 - Cultures of Science 




Personal Writing 1: Personal Statement [STEM Ed Op-ed][Text Wrapping Break]Short form writing from scientific subject position.  


Reflect on evolving identity, role, and responsibilities in scientific culture.   


Diagnostic for answering questions, supporting a claim, providing evidence, structure, and clear writing. 




Scientific Sites Portfolio[Text Wrapping Break]Collaborative investigation of how a local lab produces knowledge.   


Understand scientific practice, reasoning, and communication in its diverse social, material, and cultural contexts. Demystify labs and humanize scientists. 


Making observational field notes. Reading scientific papers.  
Peer review. Claim, evidence, reasoning. Writing analytical essays based on observation.   




Part 2 - Science in Culture 




Unpacking a Fact Poster 
Partner project assessing validity of a public scientific claim. 


Understand the mediation of science and how to evaluate scientific claims. Identify popular conceptions of science and contrast these with scientists’ practices. 


Following sources upstream. Comparing sources.  
APA citation style.  
Visual display of info on a poster. 




Perspectives Portfolio[Text Wrapping Break]Collaborative investigation of a debate concerning science in Michigan. 


Identify and analyze how diverse stakeholders are included in and/or excluded from science. Recognize value of diverse perspective. 


Find, use, and correctly cite primary and scholarly secondary sources from different stakeholder perspectives. 
Learn communicating to a broader audience in an online platform. 




Personal Writing 2: Letter + PS Revision[Text Wrapping Break]Sharing a course takeaway with someone. 


Reflect again on evolving identity, role, and responsibilities in scientific culture.   


Final assessment of answering questions, supporting a claim, providing evidence, structure, and clear writing. 




Weekly Formative Assessments 




Discussion Activities Pre-meeting writing about the readings 


Reflect on prompted aspects of science and culture 


Writing as critical inquiry. 
Note-taking. 
Preparation for discussion. 




Curiosity Colloquium responses 
200 words reflecting on weekly speaker series 


Exposure to college, campus, and academic guests—including diverse science professionals— who share their curiosity and career story.  


Writing as reflection on presentations and their personal value. 
Some presenters share research and writing skills. 




Column 3 - Results  
Results from Personal Writing 
Fall 19: There were largely six themes the op-ed assignments discussed. Majority of students chose to talk about the value of science in terms of its ubiquity, problem-solving skills and critical thinking skills, and the way it prompts technological innovation. 
Fall 21: Students largely focused on 1. the nature of science as a product of human labor research embedded with many cultural issues, and 2. science as a communication and how scientists can gain public trust (e.g., transparency, collaboration, sharing failure.)  
F19 & S20 Selected Survey Results 
 108 students responding.The full report here.  


92.5% reported their overall college writing skills improved somewhat or a lot. 


76% reported their writing skills improved somewhat or a lot more than they expected. 


89% reported planning to say in LBC. 


Selected Course Reflection Comments 
The most impactful things students report learning at end of semester. 
Science and Culture: Quotes: “how scientific knowledge is produced” “science is inherently social” “how different perspectives . . . impact science” “writing is integral to the scientific community as a method of sharing and documenting scientific research and discoveries” 
Writing: Quotes: “a thesis must be specific and debatable” “claim, evidence, and reasoning” “it takes a long time to perfect.” Frequently mentioned skills: Thesis, research skill (citation, finding articles and proper sources), argument (evidence), structure and organization skills, writing as a (often long and arduous) process, using a mentor text, confidence. 
What do you want to learn more about after this course? 
“How culture(s) and science coexist, and . . . how different cultures view science” 
“Gender and minority disparities in STEM” “minority groups in science and how their cultures impact how they conduct science” “different cultures in science instead of just the United States” “how to write scientific essays”  
 

The MiSTEM Network’s Greater West Michigan Region recently completed a pilot with Grand Valley State University for the Career ExplorationMap and is now scaling the project up to the entire state. "The goal of the Career Exploration StoryMap is to help educators and students make more real-world career connections in their communities as well as provide a visual resource for students to locate businesses in STEM fields that offer high-wage and high-demand jobs. In addition to items such as apprenticeships and internships, the map can be viewed by individual industry clusters like agriculture, construction, energy, finance, healthcare, IT, manufacturing, and transportation. Although the map is very user friendly, the website does include directions.
The MiSTEM StoryMap aggregates data available from AtoZdatabases in MeL and uses it to build a tool that will help students and adult community members quickly filter, sort, and analyze data in STEM industries by county. Essentially, the interactive map answers the following questions:

Where are the businesses in my community?
What industry has the most growth?
What are the hot jobs in my area?
What growth do businesses project?

The information presented not only communicates the physical locations of business partners and industry clusters in Michigan, but it also helps students identify trends, patterns and opportunities to make better career decisions, which aligns with the guidelines in the Michigan Career Development Model. The MiSTEM StoryMap can also assist adults in preparing for higher education, credentialing, and the workforce.
Whether it’s genealogy research, test preparation, accessing eBooks, finding the perfect article, or the ability to aggregate data, the eResources in MeL provide much support to all Michiganders." - Ann Kaskinen, MeL Engagement Specialist with the Midwest Collaborative for Library Services