Search

Abstract The development of reflective practitioners is one of four dominant change strategies in the Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) higher education literature. However, little research concerns the characterization of faculty’s reflections. Before professional development programs can effectively incorporate reflective writings as a tool for pedagogical improvement, it is necessary to first understand the current state of faculty’s reflections. To accomplish this goal, 98 physics and astronomy instructors were recruited from a teaching-focused professional development workshop and were asked to write a reflection on a self-identified challenging teaching experience. A combination of a priori coding to analyze the content and depth of the reflections, as well as in vivo coding to better capture instructors’ thinking were utilized. The majority of instructors wrote low-level reflections, wherein connections were not made between an instructors’ actions and the observed outcomes or the described experience was not centered on students’ outcomes or educational research literature. Approximately half of the instructors contemplated their own growth and the relationships with their students. However, only a small minority of instructors considered larger societal, cultural, or ethical factors. Plans created by instructors to address future, similar situations heavily relied on the instructors themselves, regardless of the depth of their reflections, and few planned to seek out knowledge from other resources such as peers or the education literature. This study indicates that instructors may not engage in the types of reflection that are considered to promote meaningful instructional change. Trends in the instructors’ plans show that ongoing support is necessary for them to effectively reflect and grow as practitioners. Overall, this work provides valuable insight into the poorly understood nature of faculty’s reflections and showcases the need for more research to fully characterize reflections across STEM disciplines and to better inform professional development.

Abstract Background There has been a growing interest in characterizing factors influencing teaching decisions of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) instructors in order to address the slow uptake of evidence-based instructional practices (EBIPs). This growing body of research has identified contextual factors (e.g., classroom layout, departmental norms) as primary influencers of STEM instructors’ decision to implement EBIPs in their courses. However, models of influences on instructional practices indicate that context is only one type of factor to consider. Other factors fall at the individual level such as instructors’ past teaching experience and their views on learning. Few studies have been able to explore in depth the role of these individual factors on the adoption of EBIPs since it is challenging to control for contextual features when studying current instructors. Moreover, most studies exploring adoption of EBIPs do not take into account the distinctive features of each EBIP and the influence these features may have on the decision to adopt the EBIP. Rather, studies typically explore barriers and drivers to the implementation of EBIPs in general. In this study, we address these gaps in the literature by conducting an in-depth exploration of individual factors and EBIPs’ features that influence nine future STEM instructors’ decisions to incorporate a selected set of EBIPs in their teaching. Results We had hypothesized that the future instructors would have different reasoning to support their decisions to adopt or not Peer Instruction and the 5E Model as the two EBIPs have distinctive features. However, our results demonstrate that instructors based their decisions on similar factors. In particular, we found that the main drivers of their decisions were (1) the compatibility of the EBIP with their past experiences as students and instructors as well as teaching values and (2) experiences provided in the pedagogical course they were enrolled in. Conclusions This study demonstrates that when considering the adoption of EBIPs, there is a need to look beyond solely contextual influences on instructor’s decisions to innovate in their courses and explore individual factors. Moreover, professional development programs should leverage their participants past experiences as students and instructors and provide an opportunity for instructors to experience new EBIPs as learners and instructors.

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 Background It is well established in the literature that active learning instruction in introductory STEM courses results in many desired student outcomes. Yet, regular use of high-quality active learning is not the norm in many STEM departments. Using results of a national survey, we identified 16 departments where multiple instructors reported using high levels of active learning in their introductory chemistry, mathematics, or physics courses. We conducted interviews with 27 instructors in these 16 departments to better understand the characteristics of such departments. Results Using grounded theory methodology, we developed a model that highlights relevant characteristics of departments with high use of active learning instruction in their introductory courses. According to this model, there are four main, interconnected characteristics of such departments: motivated people, knowledge about active learning, opportunities, and cultures and structures that support active learning. These departments have one or more people who are motivated to promote the use of active learning. These motivated people have knowledge about active learning as well as access to opportunities to promote the use of active learning. Finally, these departments have cultures and structures that support the use of active learning. In these departments, there is a positive feedback loop that works iteratively over time, where motivated people shape cultures/structures and these cultures/structures in turn increase the number and level of commitment of the motivated people. A second positive feedback loop was found between the positive outcome of using active learning instruction and the strengthening of cultures/structures supportive of active learning. Conclusions According to the model, there are two main take-away messages for those interested in promoting the use of active learning. The first is that all four components of the model are important. A weak or missing component may limit the desired outcome. The second is that desired outcomes are obtained and strengthened over time through two positive feedback loops. Thus, there is a temporal aspect to change. In all of the departments that were part of our study, the changes took at minimum several years to enact. While our model was developed using only high-use of active learning departments and future work is needed to develop the model into a full change theory, our results do suggest that change efforts may be made more effective by increasing the robustness of the four components and the connections between them.

Abstract Background Change strategies may leverage interpersonal relationships and conversations to spread teaching innovations among science faculty. Knowledge sharing refers to the process by which individuals transfer information and thereby spread innovative ideas within an organization. We use knowledge sharing as a lens for identifying factors that encourage productive teaching-related conversations between individuals, characterizing the context and content of these discussions, and understanding how peer interactions may shape instructional practices. In this study, we interview 19 science faculty using innovative teaching practices about the teaching-focused conversations they have with different discussion partners. Results This qualitative study describes characteristics of the relationship between discussion partners, what they discuss with respect to teaching, the amount of help-seeking that occurs, and the perceived impacts of these conversations on their teaching. We highlight the role of office location and course overlap in bringing faculty together and characterize the range of topics they discuss, such as course delivery and teaching strategies. We note the tendency of faculty to seek out partners with relevant expertise and describe how faculty perceive their discussion partners to influence their instructional practices and personal affect. Finally, we elaborate on how these themes vary depending on the relationship between discussion partners. Conclusions The knowledge sharing framework provides a useful lens for investigating how various factors affect faculty conversations around teaching. Building on this framework, our results lead us to propose two hypotheses for how to promote sharing teaching knowledge among faculty, thereby identifying productive directions for further systematic inquiry. In particular, we propose that productive teaching conversations might be cultivated by fostering collaborative teaching partnerships and developing departmental structures to facilitate sharing of teaching expertise. We further suggest that social network theories and other examinations of faculty behavior can be useful approaches for researching the mechanisms that drive teaching reform.

Abstract Background Many institutional and departmentally focused change efforts have sought to improve teaching in STEM through the promotion of evidence-based instructional practices (EBIPs). Even with these efforts, EBIPs have not become the predominant mode of teaching in many STEM departments. To better understand institutional change efforts and the barriers to EBIP implementation, we developed the Cooperative Adoption Factors Instrument (CAFI) to probe faculty member characteristics beyond demographic attributes at the individual level. The CAFI probes multiple constructs related to institutional change including perceptions of the degree of mutual advantage of taking an action (strategic complements), trust and interconnectedness among colleagues (interdependence), and institutional attitudes toward teaching (climate). Results From data collected across five STEM fields at three large public research universities, we show that the CAFI has evidence of internal structure validity based on exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. The scales have low correlations with each other and show significant variation among our sampled universities as demonstrated by ANOVA. We further demonstrate a relationship between the strategic complements and climate factors with EBIP adoption through use of a regression analysis. In addition to these factors, we also find that indegree, a measure of opinion leadership, correlates with EBIP adoption. Conclusions The CAFI uses the CACAO model of change to link the intended outcome of EBIP adoption with perception of EBIPs as mutually reinforcing (strategic complements), perception of faculty having their fates intertwined (interdependence), and perception of institutional readiness for change (climate). Our work has established that the CAFI is sensitive enough to pick up on differences between three relatively similar institutions and captures significant relationships with EBIP adoption. Our results suggest that the CAFI is likely to be a suitable tool to probe institutional change efforts, both for change agents who wish to characterize the local conditions on their respective campuses to support effective planning for a change initiative and for researchers who seek to follow the progression of a change initiative. While these initial findings are very promising, we also recommend that CAFI be administered in different types of institutions to examine the degree to which the observed relationships hold true across contexts.

Instructors’ interactions can foster knowledge sharing around teaching and the use of research-based instructional strategies (RBIS). Coordinated teaching presents an impetus for instructors’ interactions and creates opportunities for instructional improvement but also potentially limits an instructor’s autonomy. In this study, we sought to characterize the extent of coordination present in introductory undergraduate courses and to understand how departments and instructors implement and experience course coordination. We examined survey data from 3,641 chemistry, mathematics, and physics instructors at three institution types and conducted follow-up interviews with a subset of 24 survey respondents to determine what types of coordination existed, what factors led to coordination, how coordination constrained instruction, and how instructors maintained autonomy within coordinated contexts. We classified three approaches to coordination at both the overall course and course component levels: independent (i.e., not coordinated), collaborative (decision-making by instructor and others), controlled (decision-making by others, not instructor). Two course components, content coverage and textbooks, were highly coordinated. These curricular components were often decided through formal or informal committees, but these decisions were seldom revisited. This limited the ability for instructors to participate in the decision-making process, the level of interactions between instructors, and the pedagogical growth that could have occurred through these conversations. Decision-making around the other two course components, instructional methods and exams, was more likely to be independently determined by the instructors, who valued this autonomy. Participants in the study identified various ways in which collaborative coordination of courses can promote but also inhibit pedagogical growth. Our findings indicate that the benefits of collaborative course coordination can be realized when departments develop coordinated approaches that value each instructor’s autonomy, incorporate shared and ongoing decision-making, and facilitate collaborative interactions and knowledge sharing among instructors.

Abstract Background Active learning used in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) courses has been shown to improve student outcomes. Nevertheless, traditional lecture-orientated approaches endure in these courses. The implementation of teaching practices is a result of many interrelated factors including disciplinary norms, classroom context, and beliefs about learning. Although factors influencing uptake of active learning are known, no study to date has had the statistical power to empirically test the relative association of these factors with active learning when considered collectively. Prior studies have been limited to a single or small number of evaluated factors; in addition, such studies did not capture the nested nature of institutional contexts. We present the results of a multi-institution, large-scale (N = 2382 instructors; N = 1405 departments; N = 749 institutions) survey-based study in the United States to evaluate 17 malleable factors (i.e., influenceable and changeable) that are associated with the amount of time an instructor spends lecturing, a proxy for implementation of active learning strategies, in introductory postsecondary chemistry, mathematics, and physics courses. Results Regression analyses, using multilevel modeling to account for the nested nature of the data, indicate several evaluated contextual factors, personal factors, and teacher thinking factors were significantly associated with percent of class time lecturing when controlling for other factors used in this study. Quantitative results corroborate prior research in indicating that large class sizes are associated with increased percent time lecturing. Other contextual factors (e.g., classroom setup for small group work) and personal contexts (e.g., participation in scholarship of teaching and learning activities) are associated with a decrease in percent time lecturing. Conclusions Given the malleable nature of the factors, we offer tangible implications for instructors and administrators to influence the adoption of more active learning strategies in introductory STEM courses.

Active learning pedagogies are shown to enhance the outcomes of students, particularly in disciplines known for high attrition rates. Despite the demonstrated benefits of active learning, didactic lecture continues to predominate in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) courses. Change agents and professional development programs have historically placed emphasis on develop–disseminate efforts for the adoption of research-based instructional strategies (RBIS). With numerous reported barriers and motivators for trying out and adopting active learning, it is unclear to what extent these factors are associated with adoption of RBIS and the effectiveness of change strategies. We present the results of a large-scale, survey-based study of introductory chemistry, mathematics, and physics instructors and their courses in the United States. Herein, we evaluate the association of 17 malleable factors with the tryout and adoption of RBIS. Multilevel logistic regression analyses suggest that several contextual, personal, and teacher thinking factors are associated with different stages of RBIS adoption. These results are also compared with analogous results evaluating the association of these factors with instructors’ time spent lecturing. We offer actionable implications for change agents to provide targeted professional development programming and for institutional leaders to influence the adoption of active learning pedagogies in introductory STEM courses.

Abstract Background The first day of class helps students learn about what to expect from their instructors and courses. Messaging used by instructors, which varies in content and approach on the first day, shapes classroom social dynamics and can affect subsequent learning in a course. Prior work established the non-content Instructor Talk Framework to describe the language that instructors use to create learning environments, but little is known about the extent to which students detect those messages. In this study, we paired first day classroom observation data with results from student surveys to measure how readily students in introductory STEM courses detect non-content Instructor Talk. Results To learn more about the instructor and student first day experiences, we studied 11 introductory STEM courses at two different institutions. The classroom observation data were used to characterize course structure and use of non-content Instructor Talk. The data revealed that all instructors spent time discussing their instructional practices, building instructor/student relationships, and sharing strategies for success with their students. After class, we surveyed students about the messages their instructors shared during the first day of class and determined that the majority of students from within each course detected messaging that occurred at a higher frequency. For lower frequency messaging, we identified nuances in what students detected that may help instructors as they plan their first day of class. Conclusions For instructors who dedicate the first day of class to establishing positive learning environments, these findings provide support that students are detecting the messages. Additionally, this study highlights the importance of instructors prioritizing the messages they deem most important and giving them adequate attention to more effectively reach students. Setting a positive classroom environment on the first day may lead to long-term impacts on student motivation and course retention. These outcomes are relevant for all students, but in particular for students in introductory STEM courses which are often critical prerequisites for being in a major.

Abstract Background Investigations into drivers and barriers to the uptake of learner-centered instructional practices in STEM courses have identified the climate within a department as a potential influential factor. However, few studies have explored the relationship between adoption of learner-centered instructional practices and departmental climate around teaching. Moreover, surveys that have been designed to measure climate around teaching have been focused on measuring individual faculty member’s description of their colleagues’ perceptions of the climate within their department (psychological collective climate) and ignored whether there was a consensus among respondents within the same department on these descriptions. This latter measure (departmental collective climate) is best aligned with the definition of organizational climate. There is thus a need to explore whether departmental climate measured at the individual or collective level relate to the use of learner-centered instructional practices. Results This study demonstrates that the Departmental Climate around Teaching (DCaT) survey provides valid and reliable data that can be used to measure psychological collective climate within a STEM department. Analysis of the 166 faculty members who responded to the survey indicated that (1) four different types of psychological collective climate existed among our population and (2) multiple types could be present within the same STEM department. Moreover, it showed that measuring departmental collective climate is challenging as few constructs measured by the DCaT survey reached high level of consensus within faculty members from the same department. Finally, the analysis found no relationship between psychological collective climate and the level of use of learner-centered instructional practices. Conclusions Results from the validation studies conducted on the DCaT survey that most elements that define a climate (e.g., policies, practices, expectations) are lacking when it comes to teaching. These findings could explain the challenges experienced in this study in measuring departmental collective climate. Without these climate elements, faculty members are left to work autonomously with little expectations for growth in their instructional practices. Establishing policies, practices, and expectations with respect to teaching is thus an essential step toward instructional change at a departmental level.

Abstract Background Local and national initiatives to improve the learning experiences of students enrolled in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) courses have been on-going for a couple of decades with a heightened momentum within the last 10 years. However, recent large-scale studies have demonstrated that transmission of information is still the primary mode of instruction in STEM courses across the undergraduate curriculum. The limited impact of instructional change reform efforts can be partly explained by the one-sided focus of educational research on the development of evidence-based instructional practices and production of evidence demonstrating their impact on student learning. This has been done at the expense of understanding faculty members’ instructional practices and mindsets about teaching and learning that underlie their practices. This study addresses this gap in the literature by characterizing STEM instructors’ instructional intentions and reflections on their teaching performance for a week of instruction. Data was collected through semi-structured interviews with 42 STEM faculty members from one doctorate-granting institution in the USA. Results STEM instructors in this study had teacher-centric mindsets with respect to their instructional planning (e.g., content-focused learning goals, lecture is seen as an engagement strategy). We found that these instructors mostly saw formative assessment tools as engagement strategy rather than tools to monitor student learning. Reflections on their level of satisfaction with their week of teaching focused heavily on content coverage and personal feelings and minimally considered student learning. Finally, we found that pedagogical discontent was not a driver of planned course revisions. Conclusions This study identifies mismatches between STEM instructors’ teaching mindsets and current approaches to instructional change. STEM instructors in this study paid minimal attention to student learning when considering course-level revisions and many of their reflections were anchored in their personal feelings. However, instructional reform strategies often attempt to convince faculty of a new approach by demonstrating its impact on student learning. The misalignment identified in this study further highlights the need to better characterize STEM instructors’ cognition around teaching so that reform efforts can better meet them where they are.

Addressing common student questions in introductory STEM courses early in the term is one way that instructors can ensure that their students have all been presented with information about how to succeed in their courses. However, categorizing student questions and identifying evidence-based resources to address student questions takes time, and instructors may not be able to easily collect and respond to student questions at the beginning of every course. To help faculty effectively anticipate and respond to student questions, we 1) administered surveys in multiple STEM courses to identify common student questions, 2) conducted a qualitative analysis to determine categories of student questions (e.g., what are best practices for studying, how can in- and out-of- course time be effectively used), and 3) collaboratively identified advice on how course instructors can answer these questions. Here, we share tips, evidence-based strategies, and resources from faculty that instructors can use to develop their own responses for students. We hope that educators can use these common student questions as a starting point to proactively address questions throughout the course and that the compiled resources will allow instructors to easily find materials that can be considered for their own courses.

Six common beliefs about the usage of active learning in introductory STEM courses are investigated using survey data from 3769 instructors. Three beliefs focus on contextual factors: class size, classroom setup, and teaching evaluations; three focus on individual factors: security of employment, research activity, and prior exposure. The analysis indicates that instructors in all situations can and do employ active learning in their courses. However, with the exception of security of employment, trends in the data are consistent with beliefs about the impact of these factors on usage of active learning. We discuss implications of these results for institutional and departmental policies to facilitate the use of active learning.

Inquiry-Based learning (IBL) is a fairly well-known term in the United States (US) describing a range of student-centered or active pedagogical approaches in mathematics. However, the 'big tent' definitions of IBL mean that there is much variation in IBL users' instructional practices, variation which we set out to codify. Cluster analysis of self-reported data from a survey of postsecondary calculus instructors across the US reveals three instructional profiles among self-declared users of IBL: (a) heavy users of group work; (b) users of a variety of mixed approaches; and (c) heavy users of didactic lecture. The instructional profile of this third group is indistinguishable from that of calculus instructors who report never having heard of IBL. We further investigate the relationship of these instructional profiles to certain beliefs about teaching and learning. All groups agree that inquiry supports learning; the groups who spend a minority of time in didactic lecture disagree with statements that there are benefits to lecturing. Implications for research and adoption of IBL are discussed.

Assessment plays a critical role in instruction and curriculum. Existing literature on instructors' assessment practices and related factors has been intensively focused on primary and secondary education. This study extended the contexts of previous literature to post-secondary chemistry education by exploring general chemistry instructors' conceptions of assessment purposes and their assessment practices. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 19 general chemistry instructors from 14 institutions across the East Coast region of the United States of America. The results demonstrate that instructors predominately perceive the purpose of Assessment of Learning ("i.e.," evaluation of student performance) with only few of them mentioning purposes of Assessment for Learning ("i.e.," assessment provides actionable feedback for both the instructors and the students) and Assessment as Learning ("i.e.," assessment promotes self-regulation). The use of various assessment practices is related to the number of assessment purposes instructors recognize. In addition, the study demonstrates that instructors perceive their assessment practices to be influenced by academic culture and departmental norms. This nuanced understanding can guide practical and research efforts to improve chemistry instructors' engagement in assessment reforms.

A survey of 722 physics faculty conducted in 2008 found that many physics instructors had knowledge of research-based instructional strategies (RBISs), were interested in using more, but often discontinued use after trying. Considerable effort has been made during the decade following 2008 to develop and disseminate RBISs in physics as well as change the culture within the physics community to value RBIS use and other forms of student-centered instruction. This paper uses data from a 2019 survey of 1176 physics instructors to understand the current state of RBIS use in college-level introductory physics, thus allowing us to better understand some of the impacts of these efforts on physics instruction. Results show that self-reported knowledge and use of RBISs has increased considerably and discontinuation is now relatively low. However, although the percentage of time lecturing is less than 10 years ago, many instructors still engage in substantial lecturing (i.e., more than one-third of class time). Relatedly, we find that the majority of RBIS use centers on pedagogies designed to supplement a primarily lecture-based classroom rather than pedagogies designed to support a primarily active learning classroom. This suggests that the physics education research community and beyond has done well promoting knowledge about RBISs and inspiring instructors to try RBISs in their courses. But, there is still room to improve. Based on available evidence about effective instructional practices, we recommend that change agents focus on supporting instructors to increase the percent of class time in active learning and to implement higher impact strategies.

Despite the need for a strong Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) workforce, there is a high attrition rate for students who intend to complete undergraduate majors in these disciplines. Students who leave STEM degree programs often cite uninspiring instruction in introductory courses, including traditional lecturing, as a reason. While undergraduate courses play a critical role in STEM retention, little is understood about the instructional transitions students encounter upon moving from secondary to post-secondary STEM courses. This study compares classroom observation data collected using the Classroom Observation Protocol for Undergraduate STEM from over 450 middle school, high school, introductory-level university, and advanced-level university classes across STEM disciplines. We find similarities between middle school and high school classroom instruction, which are characterized by a large proportion of time spent on active-learning instructional strategies, such as small-group activities and peer discussion. By contrast, introductory and advanced university instructors devote more time to instructor-centered teaching strategies, such as lecturing. These instructor-centered teaching strategies are present in classes regardless of class enrollment size, class period length, or whether or not the class includes a separate laboratory section. Middle school, high school, and university instructors were also surveyed about their views of what STEM instructional practices are most common at each educational level and asked to provide an explanation of those perceptions. Instructors from all levels struggled to predict the level of lecturing practices and often expressed uncertainty about what instruction looks like at levels other than their own. These findings suggest that more opportunities need to be created for instructors across multiple levels of the education system to share their active-learning teaching practices and discuss the transitions students are making between different educational levels.

Introductory STEM courses represent entry points into a major, and student experiences in these courses can affect both their persistence and success in STEM disciplines. Identifying course-based student concerns may help instructors detect negative perceptions, areas of struggle, and potential barriers to success. Using an open-response survey question, we identified 13 common concerns expressed by students in introductory STEM courses. We converted these student-generated concerns into closed-ended items that were administered at the beginning and middle of the semester to students in 22 introductory STEM course sections across three different institutions. Students were asked to reflect on each item on a scale from very concerned to not concerned. A subset of these concerns was used to create a summary score of course-based concern for each student. Overall levels of student concern decreased from the first week to the middle of the semester; however, this pattern varied across different demographic groups. In particular, when controlling for initial concern and course grades, female students held higher levels of concern than their peers. Since student perceptions can impact their experiences, addressing concerns through communication and instructional practices may improve students' overall experiences and facilitate their success.