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...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
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 |