A Comparison Of Bioengineering Faculty Members' Teaching Patterns At One Research University

This paper explores and compares global teaching patterns of biomedical engineering faculty at Vanderbilt University as captured by the VaNTH Observation System (VOS). The VOS is a four-part classroom observation instrument developed in 1999 for use within VaNTH Engineering Research Center bioengineering classrooms at Vanderbilt University, Northwestern University, the University of Texas at Austin, and the Harvard/Massachusetts Institute of Technology Division of Health Science and Technology. Revised from the Stallings Observation System for K-12 classrooms, the VOS is used by trained observers to obtain qualitative and quantitative unbiased information about in-class student activities and faculty teaching patterns. The first part of the VOS, the Classroom Interaction Observation (CIO), records the frequency of faculty and student interactions, the type of classroom interactions, faculty’s use of “How People Learn” learning theory constructs, and faculty’s use of media. The second part, the Student Engagement Observation (SEO), notes the presence and absence of desired academic behaviors of students with media, a professor, or by themselves. Narrative Notes (NN), the third part of the VOS, allows observers to type information about the lesson content and context of a lesson on a keyboard in addition to details about extenuating in-class circumstances and additional observations. Finally, the Global Ratings (GR) note the presence or absence of classroom occurrences. Although the CIO, SEO, and NN data are recorded sequentially and cyclically throughout a class period, GR data is recorded once near the end of a class period. Using real-time data collected from the Global Ratings portion of the VOS for bioengineering faculty over several semesters, this study will explore the presence or absence of the following within observed classrooms: 1) faculty’s signaling with cognitive organizers and usage of content linkages, (2) faculty and student in-class assessment patterns, and (3) professors’ overall pedagogical patterns. More specifically, preliminary information about the percentage of observed instances of seventeen Likert scale items will be examined, and patterns across traditionally-taught and nontraditionally taught, HPL classes will be explored. Background and Introduction The VaNTH Observation System (VOS) is a four-part classroom observation instrument developed in 1999 for use within VaNTH Engineering Research Center (ERC) bioengineering classrooms in VaNTH-member institutions (Vanderbilt University, Northwestern University, the University of Texas at Austin, and the Harvard/Massachusetts Institute of Technology Division of Health Science and Technology). 1 Select classes use instructor-developed educational materials based upon the “How People Learn” (HPL) learning theory. 2 These materials work to integrate the domains of bioengineering, learning science, and learning technology at the postsecondary level as they provide lessons that are knowledge-centered, student-centered, assessment-centered, and community-centered. These four “centerednesses,” when used with traditional academic methods, have been found to optimize students’ learning experiences. Classes in which HPL constructs are used contain appropriate and well-organized content, opportunities for students to connect academic content and their prior knowledge and experiences, opportunities for both instructors and students to test formatively what is and is not P ge 917.2 Proceedings of the 2004 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition Copyright 2004, American Society for Engineering Education understood (checking conceptions and misconceptions, as opposed to giving a summative grade), and opportunities for students to collaborate with one another in problem-solving. Revised from the Stallings Observation System for K-12 classrooms 3 , the four-part VOS has been used exclusively by trained classroom observers to obtain qualitative and quantitative information about students’ activities and faculty’s teaching patterns within bioengineering classes. Data are collected in a handheld PDA, with three of the four parts using touch-screen coding. In the first section of the VOS, the Classroom Interaction Observation (CIO), an observer records the frequency of faculty and student interactions, different types of classroom interactions, faculty’s use of HPL learning theory constructs, and faculty’s use of media. In the second part, the Student Engagement Observation (SEO), an observer notes the level of desired academic behaviors of students with media, a professor, or by themselves. The Narrative Notes (NN), the third part of the VOS, requires a keyboard to allow an observer to type information about the lesson content and teaching methods as well as details about extenuating in-class circumstances and additional comments. 1 Finally, with the Global Ratings (GR) an observer notes the presence or absence of classroom occurrences. The CIO, SEO, and NN data are recorded sequentially and cyclically throughout a class period; GR data is recorded once at the end of a class period. 4 This paper reports and compares global teaching patterns of biomedical engineering faculty at Vanderbilt University as captured by the final component of the VOS, the GR. Using data collected from the GR portion of the VOS for bioengineering faculty during the 2002 fall semester and during the 2003 spring semester, this study will explore the presence or absence of the following within observed classrooms: (1) faculty’s signaling with cognitive organizers and usage of content linkages, (2) faculty and student in-class assessment patterns, and (3) professors’ pedagogical patterns. These three areas are reflected in seventeen items that comprise the GR. Preliminary information about the percentage of observed instances of these Likert scale items will be examined, and patterns across traditionally-taught, nonHPL classes and HPLoriented classes will be explored. Faculty Sample During the fall of 2002 and the spring of 2003, the first author, a trained classroom observer who has collected classroom data with the VOS for three years, obtained twenty-five global ratings observations (one each for twenty-five separate class sessions). This study is the first attempt to analyze GR data and to report initial information about frequencies of occurrence of global ratings indicators within bioengineering classes. Of these twenty-five observations, nine GRs were taken in nine HPL-oriented classes, and sixteen GRs occurred in sixteen nonHPL classes. HPL-oriented classes included an upperlevel Optics course, an upper-level Systems Physiology course, a freshman Optics course, and a freshman Electrocardiogram course. NonHPL classes were all upper-level courses and included a Biopharmaceutical course, a Biotechnology course, a Biomechanics course, and two Systems Physiology courses. Seven professors (2 females and 5 males) are included in the sample. Methodology Classroom data for each faculty member was inputted into a SPSS file. For each of the seventeen items, faculty scores of 0, 1, 2, or 3 had been recorded by the VOS observer. A score of zero represented a minimal to no occurrence of an item, while higher values were given for items in which a faculty member was heavily engaged during a class period. Data were split according to faculty’s implementation of HPL materials, and frequencies for each item were observed. From here, the percentage of observed instances for each item was calculated and was placed into three bar charts that represent the three primary GR areas. P ge 917.3 Proceedings of the 2004 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition Copyright 2004, American Society for Engineering Education Global Ratings Results HPL and nonHPL GR class comparisons are seen in Figures 1, 2, and 3. Figures 1 and 2 represent five GR items each, and Figure 3 represents ten items. The average ratings for nine HPL classes are reported in each HPL column, and the average ratings for sixteen nonHPL classes are reported in each nonHPL column. Figure 1 displays comparisons of HPL and nonHPL bioengineering faculty’s usage of organizers and linkages. More than nonHPL-oriented faculty, HPL-oriented faculty were considerably more likely to present both chronological objectives and behavioral objectives at the beginning of class, as well as HPL challenges during class. In addition, HPL-oriented faculty provided more in-class linkages and connections of course content than nonHPL faculty. 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Chron. Order Behavioral Obj. Linkages HPL Challenge Connections Global Rating Item P e r c e n ta g e o f O b s e r v e d I n s ta n c e s