Este artículo presenta la experiencia del uso de un conjunto de técnicas de aprendizaje combinadas en el contexto de una asignatura de segundo curso de ingeniería (campos electromagnéticos), prestando una atención especial al punto de vista de los alumnos y a su percepción de utilidad para ellos mismos. Entre las técnicas usadas hay algunas más tradicionales como clases magistrales o resolución de problemas a cargo del profesor, y otras más innovadoras como videos, pruebas de un minuto, resúmenes orales diarios y trabajo en equipo en el aula. Las escuelas de ingenieros han sido tradicionalmente poco dadas a cambios radicales en sus métodos de enseñanza, pero al mismo tiempo, la evolución actual de los requerimientos de la industria, las hace especialmente conscientes de la necesidad urgente de nuevas ideas en el campo de la docencia, colocándolas en una posición de liderazgo en el desarrollo de nuevas técnicas de enseñanza. Este trabajo pretende ser un paso decidido en la dirección de un cambio positivo de los estudios de ingeniería. Abstract-This paper presents the experience of trialling a variety of combined learning techniques in the framework of a second-year engineering subject (Electromagnetic Fields), paying special attention to the point of view of the students and the usefulness perceived by them. The techniques include both traditional ones such as lecturing and problem solving by the teacher, as well as more innovative ones such as videos, minute papers, daily summary presentations and in-class team working. Engineering schools have been traditionally reluctant to implement profound changes in their teaching techniques but at the same time, the current evolution of the requirements of the industrial sector makes them aware of the urgent need for new ideas in the field of teaching, and so inevitably gives them a potentially leading role in the development of new classroom techniques. This work is intended as a firm step in the direction of positive change for engineering studies.

Measuring student learning is a complicated but necessary task for understanding the effectiveness of instruction and issues of equity in college science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) courses. Our investigation focused on the implications on claims about student learning that result from choosing between one of two commonly used metrics for analyzing shifts in concept inventories. The metrics are normalized gain (g), which is the most common method used in physics education research and other discipline based education research fields, and Cohen's d, which is broadly used in education research and many other fields. Data for the analyses came from the Learning About STEM Student Outcomes (LASSO) database and included test scores from 4551 students on physics, chemistry, biology, and math concept inventories from 89 courses at 17 institutions from across the United States. We compared the two metrics across all the concept inventories. The results showed that the two metrics lead to different inferences about student learning and equity due to the finding that g is biased in favor of high pretest populations. We discuss recommendations for the analysis and reporting of findings on student learning data.

A QuantCrit investigation of society's educational debts due to racism and sexism in chemistry student learning. ChemRxiv. Preprint.

In order to evaluate the effectiveness of curricular or instructional innovations, researchers often attempt to measure change in students' conceptual understanding of the target subject matter. The measurement of change is therefore a critical endeavor. Often, this is accomplished through pre–post testing using an assessment such as a concept inventory, and aggregate test scores are compared from pre to post‐test in order to characterize gains. These comparisons of raw or normalized scores are most often made under the assumptions of Classical Test Theory (CTT). This study argues that measuring change at the item level (rather than the person level) on the Force and Motion Conceptual Evaluation (FMCE) can provide a more detailed insight into the observed change in students' Newtonian thinking. Further, such an approach is more warranted under the assumptions of Item Response Theory (IRT). In comparing item‐level measures of change under CTT and IRT measurement models, it was found that the inferences drawn from each analysis are similar, but those derived from IRT modeling stand on a stronger foundation statistically. Second, the IRT approach leads to analyzing common item groupings which provide further information about change at the item and topic level.

Student success in large enrollment undergraduate science courses which utilize "active learning" and Learning Assistant (LA) support is a complex phenomenon. It is often ill-defined, is likely impacted by many factors, and regularly interacts with a variety of treatments or interventions. Defining, measuring, and modeling student success as a factor of multiple inputs is the focus of our work. Because this endeavor is complex and multifaceted, there is a need for strong theoretical framing. Without such explicit framing, we argue that our findings would be uninterpretable. In this paper we describe our efforts to define that theoretical framework, present the framework, and describe how it defines our methodological approach, analyses, and future work.