Search

Academic departments have been highlighted as key targets to sustainably transform the learning environments of postsecondary science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) courses in the United States. Despite STEM department chairs playing a critical role in shaping their unit, few studies have characterized how chairs view the teaching culture within their department and how cultural features influence instructional change. This study addressed this gap by applying the four-frames model for organizational change to analyze interviews conducted with 14 STEM department chairs at one research-intensive institution in the United States. The department chairs identified several challenges to supporting and advancing teaching culture. These challenges were mostly related to the structures and symbols frames and included an institutional emphasis on research over teaching, inadequate methods to evaluate effective teaching, and weak teaching feedback mechanisms available to faculty. The chairs also described how they leverage their power to affect people and thereby influence the teaching culture. For example, they strategically position teaching as an important aspect of the departmental culture during hiring processes and elevate certain groups of faculty who have demonstrated interest and efficacy in teaching. This study contributes to the literature by providing a rich description of the teaching culture in STEM departments at a research-intensive institution from the perspective of department chairs. This unique focus on department chairs helps identify opportunities for instructional reforms that are grounded in the reality of the departmental environment and provides a framework for considering how change might occur in STEM departments at research-intensive institutions. The opportunities identified emphasize the importance for department chairs to consider and leverage all four frames to enact instructional change.

Abstract In transforming undergraduate STEM education, it is important to understand the personal and contextual factors that impact instructors’ reform efforts. In this study we explored an instructor’s drivers and motivators for change in perspectives and practice, with an emphasis on the impact of an internal community (her ‘instructional team’) comprised of a co-instructor, graduate teaching assistants, and several undergraduate learning assistants (LAs). Data were collected over two semesters through classroom observations, interviews, faculty learning community discussion recordings, and team email communications. We identified pedagogical discontentment as a primary initial trigger for the instructor’s engagement in instructional reform, guided by personal values and beliefs about student learning and the nature of her discipline. The instructional-team community, which was established during a period of instructional distress, provided 1) consistent support in instructional planning, implementation, assessment, and reflection processes, 2) unique access to different perspectives on the nuances of the teaching environment and student challenges, 3) increased space, time, and motivation for the instructor to more critically reflect on her teaching and engage in creative instructional design. This case illustrates the potential effects of instructional team-based communities on instructors as they work to improve their practice and reform their courses.

In this paper I argue that one problem we face in understanding relations between school leadership and student learning is that core constructs in our work are often variably and weakly defined. Loose constructs pose problems because they contribute to fuzzy research, especially if constructs such as school leadership, management, or even instruction are weakly (or never explicitly) defined and operationalized. Fuzzy conceptualization makes comparing across studies, essential to the development of a robust empirical knowledge base, difficult if not impossible. Arguing that a critical but often overlooked challenge in studying relations between school administration and student learning is conceptual in nature, I begin by conceptualizing school administration and instruction from what I refer to as a distributed perspective, using theoretical work in distributed and situated cognition, activity theory, and micro sociology. I show how conceptualizing phenomena under study in particular ways shapes how we might frame and hypothesize relations among these phenomena. I contrast a distributed conceptualization with more conventional, individually focused conceptualizations of both phenomena. I then consider the entailments of my conceptualization of the two core phenomena for framing relations between them.