Running head: JOURNAL CRITIQUE 1

Journal Critique

Stephanie Rudi

EDUC 673 Curriculum and Methods for Effective Instruction

JOURNAL CRITIQUE 2

Journal Critique: Instructional Planning

Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) related courses have been

an area of interest for many years now. Recent studies have shown that the transmission of

information is the best method of teaching in these types of courses. There has been a reduced

amount of impact in the effort to change methods of instruction due to only focusing on one side

of educational research in regards to evidence based instruction methods and their impacts on

student achievement (Erdmann et. al, 2020).

Summary

In the study they looked for pieces of instructors’ mentalities when planning a week of

lessons thinking of the different connections between levels of satisfaction and plan of course

revisions. For learning goals, instructors showed learning goals that fit in with the revised

Bloom’s taxonomy. “Evaluation, synthesis, and analysis learning goals were considered higher-

level thinking processes were labeled higher-level goals” (Erdmann et. al, 2020, p. 1). The

results showed that instructor’s intentions were mainly set on covering the content and personal

feelings towards the subject and only worrying about students’ learning outcomes a small

amount and also a lack of understanding of the role of formative assessment in the planning

process (Erdmann et. al, 2020).

Analysis

I think the intended audience of this article was educators in the STEM field and those we

create curriculum or teach future teachers in this field. The main points of the journal were

clearly laid out by category, included the pertinent research, and explained said research in a

clear and meaningful way. The support and research utilized by the journal adequately backed

the claims well through graphs and data which was appropriately labeled and matched with the
JOURNAL CRITIQUE 3

claims presented. The journal article was affective for to me as an educator because it included

evidence which I could understand as a future educator and helped me even further understand

the process of utilizing assessment to improve learner outcomes.

Personal Reflection

Personally, I do not know much about teaching STEM as I have only seriously studied

music and not had to learn how to teach in this field. I found it interesting how teachers prefer to

focus more on what they think is important in the field instead of relying on formative

assessment because I know I would probably do this as well if I did not learn about the

importance of formative assessment in the success of unlcoking learners understanding. This

article reminded me of 2 Corinthians 13:5. “Examine yourselves, to see whether you are in the

faith. Test yourselves. Or do you not realize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you? –

unless indeed you fail to meet the test!” (English Standard Version Bible, 2001). How should we

know what we are doing correctly if we are not examined on the material to test our prior

knowledge and then plan based off of what we know about our learners?

Conclusion

In conclusion, the STEM field has hardly improved learner outcomes due to a lack of

appropriate instructional planning and formative assessment included in this planning. There

needs to be a focus on the outcome of student learning in STEM to appropriately plan for weekly

lessons and long term goals. Educators in this field should not be as concerned with covering

every piece of content and instead should focus on what learners need most in their lessons and

plan accordingly. Hopefully with the information in this article and obvious need for
JOURNAL CRITIQUE 4

improvement in planning, the STEM field can grow even more than it already has in recent

years.
JOURNAL CRITIQUE 5

References

English Standard Version Bible. (2001). ESV Online. http://esy.literalword.com/

Erdmann, R., Miller, K. & Stains, M. Exploring STEM postsecondary instructors’ accounts of

instructional planning and revisions. IJ STEM Ed 7, 7 (2020). https://doi.org/10.

1186/s40594-020-00206-7