Search

Background: Valuable safeguards against fast‐spreading conjectures about learning in times of fear and uncertainty are evidence‐based approaches to the assessment of the impact of sudden and unforeseen disruptions on learning practices. The present research focused on physics learning in such times because conceptual and computational literacy in physics is critical to the development of a scientifically and technologically literate society. Objectives: The present research aimed (a) to offer an objective assessment of whether performance differences in a physics course of the general education curriculum existed between the face‐to‐face medium (familiar mode of instruction) and the online medium (unfamiliar mode of instruction) for both male and female students, and then (b) to develop a response to the evidence collected to ensure a quality education for all parties involved. The research intended to fill two critical gaps in the extant literature: mixed findings concerning students' performance in the face‐to‐face and online mediums as well as scarce coverage of specific domains of knowledge that are critical to STEM learners. Methods: Students' performance was examined as a function of the type of assessment (formative and summative), instructional mode (online and face‐to‐face), and gender. An understudied student population of STEM students of Middle Eastern descent without prior formal exposure to online instruction was targeted. Results and Conclusions: In both formative and summative assessments, male students performed better online than face‐to‐face, whereas the performance of female students was either higher online or equivalent between instructional mediums. The evidence collected suggested that consideration be given to remedies that foster academic success in the face‐to‐face instructional medium, particularly for male students. Takeaways: An evidence‐based approach to learning dismantled emotion‐driven expectations regarding the impact of the online medium on physics learning, and encouraged new perspectives about instruction. Lay Description: What is already known?: Ongoing debates on the impact of the pandemic on students' learning shape decisions regarding future reliance on the online medium for instruction. What this paper adds: The extant literature is mixed concerning performance in the face‐to‐face and online mediums, including particular domains of knowledge critical to STEM learning.This study focused on physics learning in an understudied population of STEM students who were unaccustomed to online instruction.Performance was higher online than face‐to‐face, but gender differences emerged. Implications for practice: Lessons learned focused on the flexibility of online learning and on the need to develop materials to enhance learning in males enrolled in face‐to‐face or hybrid/blended classes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In recent years, US curriculum policy has emphasized standards‐based conceptions of curricula in mathematics and science. This paper explores the data from the Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) to argue that the presence of content standards is not sufficient to guarantee curricula that lead to high‐quality instruction and achievement. An examination of the content topics covered in each grade of a group of six of the highest‐achieving TIMSS countries in mathematics and science shows a pattern in which new topics are gradually introduced, are a part of instruction for a few grades, and then often leave the curriculum as separate topics. This contrasts sharply with mapping of topics in the various US national standards in mathematics and science. Topics enter and linger, so that each grade typically devotes instructional attention to many more topics than is typical of the six high‐achieving countries; in addition, each topic stays in the curriculum for more grades than in the high‐achieving countries. An examination of mathematics and science content standards from 21 states and 50 districts in the US shows a pattern more like that of the US national standards than those of the high‐achieving TIMSS countries. While content standards have become integral to US curriculum development and reform, they have yet to reflect the coherence that is typical of countries that achieved significantly better than the US in the TIMSS study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]