Search

Women and many people of color continue to be minoritized in STEM and notably in physics. We conducted two studies demonstrating that exposure to counternarratives about "who does physics" and "why one does physics" significantly increases high school students--especially women's--physics-related career intentions. These counternarratives facilitate making connections with students' career plans and help in sensemaking causes for the continued minoritization of women in physics. Two separate studies measured the impacts of these interventions on students' physics-related career intentions: first, with an intentionally selected group of teachers (10 teachers, 823 students) across regions and contexts in the U.S.; second, with a randomly sampled group of teachers (13 teachers, 1509 students) from three regions that also included a comparable control group. The results clearly show the importance of exposure to counternarratives in the development of high school students' career interests, particularly for women and minoritized racial or ethnic groups, and that such counternarratives may help to address systemic issues of underrepresentation in STEM.

While physics is often promoted as being for everyone, its cultural narrative, i.e., what physicists do and who they are, has been and continues to be created by a dominant social group. As such, many students who come from marginalized backgrounds in physics are required to fit themselves into its narrow culture that does not reflect who they are and how they see the world. As physics educators, we have unconsciously internalized this narrow physics culture and need resources to help broaden our perceptions. To this end, we suggest some design principles for creating materials that help physics educators reflect on these issues and disrupt inequitable structures in their classrooms. We draw on the STEP UP project to exemplify how these design principles were implemented.

Postdoc positions, intended to be advanced or continued research training in a field, are a part of the physics education research (PER) enterprise yet little is known about them. PER postdocs differ from their traditional physics counterparts in that they may have different education and research experiences. This study examined the types of postdoc positions available as well as what hiring is like. To determine the types of postdoc positions available, we used the advertisements posted in PERJobs blog. To learn more about hiring practices, interviews were conducted with both principal investigators (PIs) and current and former postdocs. Results show that many PER postdoc positions have been available since 2008, with many of these advertisements indicating that the PI will consider hiring someone with a physics or a PER or science, technology, engineering, or mathematics education background. The interviews indicate that there is no typical way for hiring PER postdocs. Some aspects that PIs consider include the background of the candidates and how well the candidates fit in with the group. Postdocs likewise consider whether they like the research group when accepting offers. For both, having ties to the PER community is important for hiring. Overall, PIs and postdocs have been satisfied. Postdocs who were originally in traditional physics have felt that being a PER postdoc has allowed them to transition to PER. In giving advice, both PIs and postdocs reiterate the importance of connecting to the community, evaluating the postdoc position as a stepping stone in the career trajectory, and holistically considering candidates.

Background: The undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education community has developed a large number of innovative teaching strategies and materials, but the majority of these go unused by instructors. To help understand how to improve adoption of evidence-based education innovations, this study focuses on innovations that have become widely used in college-level STEM instruction. Innovations were identified via a questionnaire emailed to experts in STEM instruction. Descriptions of identified innovations were validated by preparing brief descriptions of each innovation and sending them to the original developers, when applicable, for feedback, and searching relevant literature. Publicly available funding data was collected for each innovation. STEM disciplines surveyed include biology, chemistry, computer science, engineering, geoscience, mathematics, and physics. Results: The 43 innovations identified were categorized based on two criteria: level of specificity (general, recognizable, branded) and type of change (pedagogical, content, both, neither). The 21 branded innovations were analyzed in more detail. The majority (14/21) require relatively modest changes in pedagogy and no changes in content. In addition, nearly all have received at least 3 million dollars in external funding over at least 10 years. Conclusions: This paper presents the full list of instructional innovations produced, which can be used by educational innovation developers to understand how their ideas fit within the broader landscape and to identify innovations in one discipline that may have promise for transfer. The findings regarding funding of the branded innovations have important implications for both educational innovation developers and funding agencies. In particular, the study indicates that a long-term mindset and access to long-term funding are vital for broad adoption of new teaching innovations.

Increasing adoption and adaptation of promising instructional strategies and materials has been identified as a critical component needed to improve science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education. This paper examines typical propagation practices and resulting outcomes of proposals written by developers of educational innovations. These proposals were analyzed using the Designing for Sustained Adoption Assessment Instrument (DSAAI), an instrument developed to evaluate propagation plans, and the results used to predict the likelihood that a successful project would result in adoption by others. We found that few education developers propose strong propagation plans. Afterwards, a follow-up analysis was conducted to see which propagation strategies developers actually used to help develop, disseminate, and support their innovations. A web search and interviews with principal investigators were used to determine the degree to which propagation plans were actually implemented and to estimate adoption of the innovations. In this study, we analyzed 71 education development proposals funded by the National Science Foundation and predicted that 80% would be unsuccessful in propagating their innovations. Follow-up data collection with a subset of these suggests that the predictions were reasonably accurate.

Scholarly studies and national reports document failure of current efforts to achieve broad, sustained adoption of research-based instructional practices, despite compelling bodies of evidence supporting efficacy of many of these practices. The authors of this paper argue that many change agents who are working to promote systemic adoption of these teaching practices use approaches that are characterized by what the authors call the "dissemination paradigm." A dissemination paradigm characterizes patterns of these current, failing efforts. Change agents, working within the dissemination paradigm, try to convince adopters that their innovations can help their students. Efforts within the dissemination paradigm have not led, and are unlikely to lead, to systemic adoption. The authors offer the "propagation paradigm" as an alternative with the potential to produce improved results. Change agents, working within the propagation paradigm, engage with adopters early and often to understand their instructional systems and interactively develop a strong product adaptable to specific contexts.

The physics education research community has produced a wealth of knowledge about effective teaching and learning of college level physics. Based on this knowledge, many research-proven instructional strategies and teaching materials have been developed and are currently available to instructors. Unfortunately, these intensive research and development activities have failed to influence the teaching practices of many physics instructors. This paper describes interim results of a larger study to develop a model of designing materials for successful propagation. The larger study includes three phases, the first two of which are reported here. The goal of the first phase was to characterize typical propagation practices of education developers, using data from a survey of 1284 National Science Foundation (NSF) principal investigators and focus group data from eight disciplinary groups of NSF program directors. The goal of the second phase was to develop an understanding of successful practice by studying three instructional strategies that have been well propagated. The result of the first two phases is a tentative model of designing for successful propagation, which will be further validated in the third phase through purposeful sampling of additional well-propagated instructional strategies along with typical education development projects. We found that interaction with potential adopters was one of the key missing ingredients in typical education development activities. Education developers often develop a polished product before getting feedback, rely on mass-market communication channels for dissemination, and do not plan for supporting adopters during implementation. The tentative model resulting from this study identifies three key propagation activities: interactive development, interactive dissemination, and support of adopters. Interactive development uses significant feedback from potential adopters to develop a strong product suitable for use in many settings. Interactive dissemination uses personal interactions to reach and motivate potential users. Support of adopters is missing from typical propagation practice and is important to reduce the burden of implementation and increases the likelihood of successful adoption. [This paper is part of the Focused Collection on Preparing and Supporting University Physics Educators.]

Background: Every year, significant effort and resources are expended around the world to develop innovative instructional strategies and materials to improve undergraduate Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics education. Despite convincing evidence of efficacy with respect to student learning, most will struggle to become successfully propagated to reach widespread use. To help developers improve their propagation plans and to encourage sustained adoption, we have developed an assessment instrument that supports development, analysis, evaluation, and refinement of propagation plans. Results: Based on our synthesis of the literature, our analysis of successfully propagated innovations, and our analysis of a subset of funded NSF CCLI proposals, we argue that a primary reason for the lack of adoption is that developers focus their efforts on dissemination (spreading the word) instead of propagation (promoting successful adoption). To help developers focus on development of more effective propagation plans, the Designing for Sustained Adoption Assessment Instrument (DSAAI) is based on three primary bodies of literature: (1) change theory, (2) instructional systems, and (3) effective propagation strategies. The assessment instrument was designed in the form of a rubric to help education developers identify strengths and areas for improvement of their propagation plans. Based on extensive testing across several different groups of users, the DSAAI is divided into four main sections: identification of product type, features of target instructional strategies and/or materials, a propagation activities checklist, and aspects of the propagation plans that influence likelihood of successful propagation. Conclusions: The instrument has proven useful for a variety of audiences to evaluate and improve proposals and current research projects. Education developers who provided feedback during the development of this assessment instrument found it useful because it helped them not only evaluate their propagation plans but also become aware of other strategies they could use to help develop and disseminate products of current projects, as well as strategies for supporting future adopters. Grant writing consultants can use it to provide feedback to their clients, and funding agencies can use parts of the DSAAI framework to evaluate grant proposals.