Schools face the problem of recruiting and retaining students in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) degrees. One reason that students leave STEM fields is because their introductory classes are too hard or not engaging. These introductory classes are typically taught using a lecture-heavy, instructor-centered approach, contrary to current evidence based pedagogy. Many who call for teacher reform put the blame on the way teachers are educated, which is often not student-centered, citing that because ‘teachers teach the way they were taught,’ current education is also not student-centered. The idea that ‘teachers teach the way they were taught’ is commonly used to promote an agenda for improved teaching training and accepted as fact in the scientific literature. However, little empirical data has been collected to support this conclusion. We aimed first to determine empirically if teachers teach the way they were taught, and second to determine the influences behind teaching practices. We observed, surveyed, and interviewed a sample of 44 instructors at seven colleges and universities throughout the state of Utah who taught select STEM introductory courses. Instruments used included observational, survey, and interview protocols developed specifically for this study during preliminary trials, and inspired by the Reformed Teaching Observation Protocol (RTOP). A paired t-test was used to compare the professors’ teaching practices with their own educational experiences. Interview responses were then grouped into common categories and used to determine the influences behind teaching practices. We discovered that there is a significant difference between how teachers teach and how they were taught during their own educational experience. This finding does not support our hypothesis that teachers teach the way they were taught. Qualitative data from interviews introduces a new hypothesis that teachers teach the way they themselves preferred to be taught, or the way they think students learn best, demonstrating that teachers are taking a much more metacognitive approach to teaching than is suggested by that famous quote, ‘teachers teach the way they were taught.’ Our results suggest that reform classes and workshops develop a more metacognitive approach to exposing future teachers to current, evidence based pedagogy, allowing teachers to reflect on their own learning and experience for themselves the benefits of student-centered learning. These future teachers will then apply what they learn if they are convinced it is a better way to teach students. They will teach the way they were taught because they experienced a positive experience when leaning.

Doctor of Philosophy / Department of Physics / Dean Zollman / As part of a collaborative study of the science preparation of elementary school teachers, we investigated the quality of students’ reasoning and explored the relationship between sophistication of reasoning and the degree to which the courses were considered inquiry oriented. To probe students’ reasoning, we developed open-ended written content questions with the distinguishing feature of applying recently learned concepts in a new context. We devised a protocol for developing written content questions that provided a common structure for probing and classifying students’ sophistication level of reasoning. In designing our protocol, we considered several distinct criteria, and classified students’ responses based on their performance for each criterion. First, we classified concepts into three types: Descriptive, Hypothetical, and Theoretical and categorized the abstraction levels of the responses in terms of the types of concepts and the inter-relationship between the concepts. Second, we devised a rubric based on Bloom’s revised taxonomy with seven traits (both knowledge types and cognitive processes) and a defined set of criteria to evaluate each trait. Along with analyzing students’ reasoning, we visited universities and observed the courses in which the students were enrolled. We used the Reformed Teaching Observation Protocol (RTOP) to rank the courses with respect to characteristics that are valued for the inquiry courses. We conducted logistic regression for a sample of 18 courses with about 900 students and reported the results for performing logistic regression to estimate the relationship between traits of reasoning and RTOP score. In addition, we analyzed conceptual structure of students’ responses, based on conceptual classification schemes, and clustered students’ responses into six categories. We derived regression model, to estimate the relationship between the sophistication of the categories of conceptual structure and RTOP scores. However, the outcome variable with six categories required a more complicated regression model, known as multinomial logistic regression, generalized from binary logistic regression. With the large amount of collected data, we found that the likelihood of the higher cognitive processes were in favor of classes with higher measures on inquiry. However, the usage of more abstract concepts with higher order conceptual structures was less prevalent in higher RTOP courses.