Cargando…

Comparison of Cluster Analysis Methodologies for Characterization of Classroom Observation Protocol for Undergraduate STEM (COPUS) Data

The Classroom Observation Protocol for Undergraduate STEM (COPUS) provides descriptive feedback to instructors by capturing student and instructor behaviors occurring in the classroom. Due to the increasing prevalence of COPUS data collection, it is important to recognize how researchers determine w...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Denaro, Kameryn, Sato, Brian, Harlow, Ashley, Aebersold, Andrea, Verma, Mayank
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: American Society for Cell Biology 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8108488/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33444101
http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.20-04-0077
_version_ 1783690138407141376
author Denaro, Kameryn
Sato, Brian
Harlow, Ashley
Aebersold, Andrea
Verma, Mayank
author_facet Denaro, Kameryn
Sato, Brian
Harlow, Ashley
Aebersold, Andrea
Verma, Mayank
author_sort Denaro, Kameryn
collection PubMed
description The Classroom Observation Protocol for Undergraduate STEM (COPUS) provides descriptive feedback to instructors by capturing student and instructor behaviors occurring in the classroom. Due to the increasing prevalence of COPUS data collection, it is important to recognize how researchers determine whether groups of courses or instructors have unique classroom characteristics. One approach uses cluster analysis, highlighted by a recently developed tool, the COPUS Analyzer, that enables the characterization of COPUS data into one of seven clusters representing three groups of instructional styles (didactic, interactive, and student centered). Here, we examine a novel 250 course data set and present evidence that a predictive cluster analysis tool may not be appropriate for analyzing COPUS data. We perform a de novo cluster analysis and compare results with the COPUS Analyzer output and identify several contrasting outcomes regarding course characterizations. Additionally, we present two ensemble clustering algorithms: 1) k-means and 2) partitioning around medoids. Both ensemble algorithms categorize our classroom observation data into one of two clusters: traditional lecture or active learning. Finally, we discuss implications of these findings for education research studies that leverage COPUS data.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8108488
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher American Society for Cell Biology
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-81084882021-05-11 Comparison of Cluster Analysis Methodologies for Characterization of Classroom Observation Protocol for Undergraduate STEM (COPUS) Data Denaro, Kameryn Sato, Brian Harlow, Ashley Aebersold, Andrea Verma, Mayank CBE Life Sci Educ General Essays and Articles The Classroom Observation Protocol for Undergraduate STEM (COPUS) provides descriptive feedback to instructors by capturing student and instructor behaviors occurring in the classroom. Due to the increasing prevalence of COPUS data collection, it is important to recognize how researchers determine whether groups of courses or instructors have unique classroom characteristics. One approach uses cluster analysis, highlighted by a recently developed tool, the COPUS Analyzer, that enables the characterization of COPUS data into one of seven clusters representing three groups of instructional styles (didactic, interactive, and student centered). Here, we examine a novel 250 course data set and present evidence that a predictive cluster analysis tool may not be appropriate for analyzing COPUS data. We perform a de novo cluster analysis and compare results with the COPUS Analyzer output and identify several contrasting outcomes regarding course characterizations. Additionally, we present two ensemble clustering algorithms: 1) k-means and 2) partitioning around medoids. Both ensemble algorithms categorize our classroom observation data into one of two clusters: traditional lecture or active learning. Finally, we discuss implications of these findings for education research studies that leverage COPUS data. American Society for Cell Biology 2021 /pmc/articles/PMC8108488/ /pubmed/33444101 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.20-04-0077 Text en © 2021 Denaro et al. CBE—Life Sciences Education © 2021 The American Society for Cell Biology. “ASCB®” and “The American Society for Cell Biology®” are registered trademarks of The American Society for Cell Biology. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/This article is distributed by The American Society for Cell Biology under license from the author(s). It is available to the public under an Attribution–Noncommercial–Share Alike 3.0 Unported Creative Commons License.
spellingShingle General Essays and Articles
Denaro, Kameryn
Sato, Brian
Harlow, Ashley
Aebersold, Andrea
Verma, Mayank
Comparison of Cluster Analysis Methodologies for Characterization of Classroom Observation Protocol for Undergraduate STEM (COPUS) Data
title Comparison of Cluster Analysis Methodologies for Characterization of Classroom Observation Protocol for Undergraduate STEM (COPUS) Data
title_full Comparison of Cluster Analysis Methodologies for Characterization of Classroom Observation Protocol for Undergraduate STEM (COPUS) Data
title_fullStr Comparison of Cluster Analysis Methodologies for Characterization of Classroom Observation Protocol for Undergraduate STEM (COPUS) Data
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of Cluster Analysis Methodologies for Characterization of Classroom Observation Protocol for Undergraduate STEM (COPUS) Data
title_short Comparison of Cluster Analysis Methodologies for Characterization of Classroom Observation Protocol for Undergraduate STEM (COPUS) Data
title_sort comparison of cluster analysis methodologies for characterization of classroom observation protocol for undergraduate stem (copus) data
topic General Essays and Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8108488/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33444101
http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.20-04-0077
work_keys_str_mv AT denarokameryn comparisonofclusteranalysismethodologiesforcharacterizationofclassroomobservationprotocolforundergraduatestemcopusdata
AT satobrian comparisonofclusteranalysismethodologiesforcharacterizationofclassroomobservationprotocolforundergraduatestemcopusdata
AT harlowashley comparisonofclusteranalysismethodologiesforcharacterizationofclassroomobservationprotocolforundergraduatestemcopusdata
AT aebersoldandrea comparisonofclusteranalysismethodologiesforcharacterizationofclassroomobservationprotocolforundergraduatestemcopusdata
AT vermamayank comparisonofclusteranalysismethodologiesforcharacterizationofclassroomobservationprotocolforundergraduatestemcopusdata