Abstract
Classroom observation tools are used to evaluate teaching and learning activities, and to provide constructive feedback to instructors. To help instructors with selecting a suitable tool based on their needs and available resources, in this study, a group of observers assessed lectures of an introductory biology course using three, broadly cited classroom assessment tools in the STEM field: the Classroom Observation Protocol for Undergraduate STEM (COPUS); the Practical Observation Rubric to Assess Active Learning (PORTAAL); and the Decibel Analysis for Research in Teaching (DART). From a user’s perspective, we evaluated 1) the type and extent of information each tool provides, and 2) the time investment and difficulty of working with each tool. The assessment result of each tool was compared, with a list of expected outcomes generated by surveying a group of college instructors and with the result of a self-teaching assessment tool, Teaching Practices Inventory (TPI). Our findings conclude that each tool provided valuable assessment with a broad range of outcomes and time investment: PORTAAL offered the most detailed information on the quality of teaching practices and students’ engagement, but it demanded the greatest time investment. DART provided a basic estimation of active learning proportion with the least effort. The level of assessment outcome and the time investment when using COPUS was found to be less than PORTAAL, and more than DART. The TPI self-assessment outcome was found to be slightly optimistic regarding the proportion of active learning practices used in the studied course. This comparative study can help instructors in selecting a tool that suits their needs and available resources for a better assessment of their classroom teaching and learning.
Highlights
To compare the three classroom observation tools of Classroom Observation Protocol for Undergraduate STEM (COPUS), Practical Observation Rubric to Assess Active Learning (PORTAAL), and Decibel Analysis for Research in Teaching (DART), we focused on the lecture part of a large enrollment (∼400 students), introductory biology course
To demonstrate the type of assessment outcomes provided by COPUS, PORTAAL, and DART, the assessment result for a single lecture of the Course evaluated is shown here
The heatmap produced by COPUS Analyzer is an alternative visual representation (Figure 1B), that provides information about the timing and duration of COPUS codes compared to pie charts
Summary
Previous studies have shown considerable improvement in students’ learning when active learning instructional techniques were used instead of traditional (lecture-based) methods in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) courses (Knight and Wood 2005; Freeman et al, 2007; Prather et al, 2009; Deslauriers et al, 2011; Gasiewski et al, 2012; Watkins and Mazur 2013; Mortensen and Nicholson 2015). In the past 2 decades, multiple reports (Handelsman et al, 2007) and national initiatives such as the American Association for the Advancement of Science (2012), the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology Engage to Excel report (2012), and the Association of American Universities, 2017 have called for widespread adoption of research-based active learning techniques in undergraduate STEM education In response to this demand, several classroom observation tools have been developed to assess and improve classroom teaching and learning (Sawada et al, 2002; Smith et al, 2013; Eddy et al, 2015; Owens et al, 2017). Assessment results would be less subjective, and the outcomes can be compared among observers and courses
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
