A recent study analyzing nearly 100 introductory biology syllabi from various higher education institutions highlights a concerning trend: course outlines overwhelmingly prioritize academic content, largely missing opportunities to incorporate evidence-based strategies that could boost student success.
Understanding the Issue
Published in November in the Journal of Research in Science Teaching, the paper co-authored by faculty from Auburn University and the University of Alabama at Birmingham indicates that introductory biology courses often neglect vital elements such as effective study techniques and encouragement for students to seek help.
Rather, the focus remains predominantly on the material covered in class.
This research uncovers significant gaps in what is often termed the ‘hidden curriculum’ of higher education, pointing to ways to improve access and outcomes for students from historically marginalized backgrounds.
Many college students struggle to master effective study methods, a challenge that often intersects with broader equity concerns faced by underrepresented groups.
Introductory STEM courses can act as barriers to entry for many aspiring students, potentially limiting who can enter degree programs and perpetuating a lack of diversity in STEM fields.
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated these issues, leading to a decline in student preparedness, largely stemming from abrupt shifts to remote learning.
While some institutions have begun to offer co-curricular interventions, such as workshops aimed at improving study skills, resource limitations can make it difficult to implement these programs thoroughly.
This scenario creates an urgent need for alternative methods to actively engage and support students.
Methodology Overview
The authors of the study advocate for the inclusion of targeted guidance within course syllabi, promoting key skills such as effective study behaviors, metacognitive reflection, and proactive help-seeking, which may significantly enhance student outcomes.
The researchers evaluated 115 biology syllabi from 94 institutions, encompassing a range of 48 percent research universities and 29 percent minority-serving institutions.
The majority, 72 percent, were public colleges, with over half boasting enrollments greater than 10,000.
The team categorized the syllabi based on their references to helpful study behaviors, academic help-seeking, and metacognitive practices, assessing both the variety and quality of these suggestions.
They also measured learner-centeredness against four core criteria: clarity of learning objectives, alignment of assessments, logical course structure, and a nurturing learning environment.
Key Findings
Of the syllabi scrutinized, only 14 percent demonstrated characteristics of being learner-centered.
Approximately 30 percent fell into a “content-centered” category.
The authors suspect that inadequate time or motivation often leads faculty to default to institutional templates or previously used materials when designing their syllabi.
Critically, just 3.5 percent included initiatives aimed at closing opportunity gaps within STEM courses, which could involve less rigid course regulations, encouragement of external learning resources, and empowering students to take charge of their educational journeys.
While a majority of the analyzed syllabi offered resources regarding learning, they primarily focused on course policies rather than recognizing students as active participants in their own education.
Though 61 percent provided some guidance on study strategies, metacognition, or help-seeking, almost half focused solely on listing available resources without actively encouraging their use.
Remarkably, only 17.9 percent presented a comprehensive strategy that combined resource listings with encouragement to engage and detailed instructions on effective use.
When examining recommendations on study techniques, the study found that many syllabi included practices that lacked empirical support.
While some advocated effective methods like self-testing and spaced repetition, others suggested less effective strategies, such as simply re-reading textbooks or re-writing notes.
In total, 29 percent of the syllabi solely promoted research-supported study habits.
In comparison, 42 percent merged both effective and ineffective methods, while 24 percent relied entirely on ineffective practices.
It’s important to note that just because a syllabus lacks in-depth guidance on study strategies or metacognition does not mean such topics are absent from classroom discussions.
Instructors may address these concepts verbally or provide additional resources separately.
Therefore, there lies an opportunity for educators to be more aware of effective, evidence-supported strategies, aligning their syllabi with best practices to help mitigate equity challenges in STEM education.
Source: Insidehighered