Paul C. Nelson

In recent years, much of the emphasis for transformation of introductory STEM courses has focused on “active learning”, and while this approach has been shown to produce more equitable outcomes for students, the construct of “active learning” is somewhat ill-defined and is often used as a “catch-all” that can encompass a wide range of pedagogical techniques. Here we present an alternative approach for how to think about the transformation of STEM courses that focuses instead on what students should know and what they can do with that knowledge. This approach, known as three-dimensional learning (3DL), emerged from the National Academy’s “A Framework for K-12 Science Education”, which describes a vision for science education that centers the role of constructing productive causal accounts for phenomena. Over the past 10 years, we have collected data from introductory biology, chemistry, and physics courses to assess the impact of such a transformation on higher education courses. Here we report on an analysis of video data of class sessions that allows us to characterize these sessions as active, 3D, neither, or both 3D and active. We find that 3D classes are likely to also involve student engagement (i.e. be active), but the reverse is not necessarily true. That is, focusing on transformations involving 3DL also tends to increase student engagement, whereas focusing solely on student engagement might result in courses where students are engaged in activities that do not involve meaningful engagement with core ideas of the discipline.

In recent years, much of the emphasis for transformation of introductory STEM courses has focused on “active learning”, and while this approach has been shown to produce more equitable outcomes for students, the construct of “active learning” is somewhat ill-defined, and can encompass a wide range of pedagogical techniques. Here we present an alternative approach for how to think about the transformation of STEM courses that focuses instead on what students should know and what they can do with that knowledge. This approach, known as three-dimensional learning (3DL), emerged from the National Academy’s “A Framework for K-12 Science Education”, which describes a vision for science education that centers the role of constructing productive causal accounts for phenomena. Over the past 10 years, we have collected data from introductory biology, chemistry, and physics courses to assess the impact of such a transformation on higher education courses. Here we report on an analysis of video data of class sessions that allows us to characterize these sessions as active, 3D, neither , or both 3D and active . We find that 3D classes are likely to also involve student engagement (i.e. be active), but the reverse is not necessarily true. That is, focusing on transformations involving 3DL also tends to increase student engagement, whereas focusing solely on student engagement might result in courses where students are engaged in activities that do not involve meaningful engagement with core ideas of the discipline.

The National Research Council’s Framework for K-12 Science Education and the subsequent Next Generation Science Standards have provided a widespread common language for science education reform over the last decade. These efforts have naturally been targeted at the K-12 levels, but we have argued that the three dimensions outlined in these documents—scientific practices, disciplinary core ideas, and crosscutting concepts (together termed three-dimensional learning)—are also a productive route for reform in college-level science courses. However, how and why college-level faculty might be motivated to incorporate three-dimensional learning into their courses is not well understood. Here, we report a mixed-methods study of participants in an interdisciplinary professional development program designed to support faculty in developing assessments and instruction aligned with three-dimensional learning. One cohort of faculty (N = 8) was interviewed, and four cohorts of faculty (N = 33) were surveyed. Using expectancy-value theory as an organizational framework, we identified themes of perceived values and costs that participants discussed in implementing three-dimensional learning. Based on a cluster analysis of all survey participants’ motivational profiles, we propose that these themes apply to the broader population of participants in this program. We recommend specific interventions to improve faculty motivation for implementing three-dimensional learning: emphasizing the utility value of three-dimensional learning in effecting positive learning gains for students; drawing connections between the dimensions of three-dimensional learning and faculty’s disciplinary identities; highlighting scientific practices as a key leverage point for faculty ability beliefs; minimizing cognitive dissonance for faculty in understanding the similarities and differences between the three dimensions; focusing on assessment writing as a keystone professional development activity; and aligning local evaluation practices and promotion policies with the 3DL framework.

The importance of improving STEM education is of perennial interest, and to this end, the education community needs ways to characterize transformation efforts. Three-dimensional learning (3DL) is one such approach to transformation, in which core ideas of the discipline, scientific practices, and crosscutting concepts are combined to support student development of disciplinary expertise. We have previously reported on an approach to the characterization of assessments, the Three-Dimensional Learning Assessment Protocol (3D-LAP), that can be used to identify whether assessments have the potential to engage students in 3DL. Here we present the development of a companion, the Three-Dimensional Learning Observation Protocol (3D-LOP), an observation protocol that can reliably distinguish between instruction that has potential for engagement with 3DL and instruction that does not. The 3D-LOP goes beyond other observation protocols, because it is intended not only to characterize the pedagogical approaches being used in the instructional environment, but also to identify whether students are being asked to engage with scientific practices, core ideas, and crosscutting concepts. We demonstrate herein that the 3D-LOP can be used reliably to code for the presence of 3DL; further, we present data that show the utility of the 3D-LOP in differentiating between instruction that has the potential to promote 3DL from instruction that does not. Our team plans to continue using this protocol to evaluate outcomes of instructional transformation projects. We also propose that the 3D-LOP can be used to support practitioners in developing curricular materials and selecting instructional strategies to promote engagement in three-dimensional instruction.