The Cornell InterDisciplinary Education Research (CIDER) postdoc cohort will conduct interdisciplinary DBER scholarship in collaboration with multiple institutions. To support interdisciplinary research, the CIDER postdocs will have the opportunity to work with research mentors from multiple disciplines to design and conduct research aligned with their interests and career goals.
Information sessions:
Wednesday November 20th, 2024 from 2-3pm ET.
This session will provide an overview of the program and the application process and include opportunities for attendees to ask questions. We will post a recording of the session here.
To register, visit: https://cornell.zoom.us/meeting/register/tJUkde-sqDgqHNd6JrjxsDmQh7TwjRBFggXJ
Wednesday December 4th, 2024 from 2-3:30pm ET.
This session will focus on opportunities for attendees to ask questions, hear from current postdocs and graduate students within the DBER community at Cornell University, and get feedback on application materials.
To register, visit: https://cornell.zoom.us/meeting/register/tJYscOGtqT4jGNzsY4Zcre-jwjzmKTG4shjJ
Possible mentors at Cornell include (at least one from the PI team):
- Michelle K. Smith (PI Team; Biology)
- Allison Godwin (PI Team; Engineering)
- Natasha G. Holmes (PI Team; Physics)
- Alexandra Werth (PI Team; Engineering)
- Alexandra Coso Strong (Engineering)
- Tara Holm (Math)
- René Kizilcec (Information Science)
- Doug McKee (Economics)
Here, we provide examples of potential research questions (RQs) that meet the CIDER program’s aims to offer a sense of possibilities and feasibility. The particular projects carried out will be crafted by the CIDER postdocs. Please reach out to members of the PI team (listed above) with ideas and questions.
Possible RQ1: How do students engage in critical thinking across STEM disciplines?
This question builds on a project Michelle Smith and Natasha Holmes are leading on student critical thinking skills in physics and biology contexts (NSF#1909602). We conducted interviews with physics and biology majors using two standardized assessments (the Physics Lab Inventory of Critical thinking and the Biology Lab Inventory of Critical Thinking for Ecology). The analyses indicate that students, depending on their major, employ critical thinking skills in different ways. The preliminary findings call for a larger project that includes students at a range of institutions and supports the creation of additional critical thinking assessments in other STEM fields. In addition, these findings raise questions about disciplinary perspectives on critical thinking held by faculty within these and other disciplines. This approach could also be expanded to interdisciplinary domains, such as biomedical engineering, systems engineering or related disciplines, and be jointly advised with Alexandra Werth and/or Alexandra Coso Strong (with a focus on the faculty perspectives).
Possible RQ2: How does students' recognition from peers shape STEM identity within and across STEM instruction?
Several members of the CDER community are investigating student science and engineering identity to further knowledge about diversity, equity, and inclusion in STEM. Students' STEM identity is important for a range of positive student outcomes and can be supported by recognition from others, but is often impacted by biases and stereotypes. To date, the CDER team has been conducting identity work in their particular disciplines: Michelle Smith in biology field courses, Allison Godwin in engineering, and Natasha Holmes in physics. Notably, undergraduates are often taking several STEM subjects at once and this research area could benefit from a more interdisciplinary approach. Therefore, CIDER postdocs could expand current work and evaluate the relationships between recognition, STEM identity, and sociocultural biases for students who are engaging in multiple STEM disciplines at the same time. The CIDER postdocs could also build on ongoing research techniques to explore instructor interventions that address biases in recognition across STEM courses across different institution types.
Possible RQ3: What are the best practices surrounding the implementation of authentic STEM learning environments?
Recent calls for more authentic teaching methods in STEM highlight the need for undergraduates to be immersed in professional practices. Course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs), for example, allow undergraduate students to participate in genuine scientific research within a structured course setting, fostering resilience and confidence, and informing future career plans. Nonetheless, the definition and implementation of “authentic” STEM education, as found by Rowland et al., vary greatly and establishing these learning environments can be time-consuming, demanding in resources, and costly to maintain. In this context, CIDER postdoc projects could investigate how widespread course reform towards authentic learning environments is motivated and upheld across different STEM fields and types of institutions. Alexandra Werth and Natasha Holmes have past and ongoing projects evaluating the impacts of authentic learning in multiple classroom environments including CUREs and could serve as research mentors for this question. Additionally, Alexandra Coso Strong could serve as a research mentor, building on past projects understanding faculty members’ experiences engaging in classroom transformation of this kind. In addition, her work has explored the relationship between what learning and practice are in the context of a STEM working environment and how that understanding could support developing more authentic learning environments.
Possible RQ4: How do personalized reflections influence student metacognitive skills and teamwork experiences?
In STEM education, written reflection is a valuable tool for students to learn from their experiences. This concept of metacognition - using reflection to understand and monitor one's own thought patterns, behaviors, and learning processes - is crucial in STEM education. Unfortunately, many traditional writing assignments in STEM courses, such as lab reports and abstracts, often lead to algorithmic writing, where students focus on meeting content expectations rather than genuinely reflecting on their experiences. Recent advancements in generative AI have the potential to revolutionize this approach. By leveraging AI-generated questions, we can facilitate a dynamic reflective process by generating thoughtful, reflective questions that motivate students to further engage in writing and reflection using their own thoughts and authentic voice. Alexandra Werth, Natasha Holmes, Michelle Smith, and Rene Kizilcec have ongoing projects developing and evaluating the impacts of an AI tool for personalizing reflections on teamwork.
