Title: Innovative teaching knowledge stays with users
Programs seeking to transform undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and mathematics courses often strive for participating faculty to share their knowledge of innovative teaching practices with other faculty in their home departments. Here, we provide interview, survey, and social network analyses revealing that faculty who use innovative teaching practices preferentially talk to each other, suggesting that greater steps are needed for information about innovative practices to reach faculty more broadly. more »« less
Lane, A. Kelly; Earl, Brittnee; Feola, Stephanie; Lewis, Jennifer E.; McAlpin, Jacob D.; Mertens, Karl; Shadle, Susan E.; Skvoretz, John; Ziker, John P.; Stains, Marilyne; et al(
, International Journal of STEM Education)
AbstractBackground
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.
Sochacka, N. W.; Walther, J.; Morelock, J. R.; Hunsu, N. J.; Carnell, P. H.(
, Australian Association for Environmental Education)
Over the past two decades, there has been a significant increase in the production of engineering education research. Worldwide, this increase is reflected in the growing number of papers that are submitted to engineering education-focused conferences; engineering education-focused journal outlets; and the increasing number of new schools and departments of engineering education, and tenure-track faculty positions opening up in the United States.
In spite of these developments, it is often argued that there remains a gap between engineering education research and educational practice. Some studies attribute this gap to a focus on the dissemination of evidence-based practices, as opposed to working with instructors to adapt evidence-based practices to “fit” into new contexts (Froyd et al., 2017). Other research points to the need for broader cultural change, for example at the level of the school or department, in order to create the conditions that enable and encourage instructors to sustainably engage with scholarly teaching and learning practices (Henderson, Beach, & Finkelstein, 2011).
In this paper, we describe a novel institutional model, currently embodied in the Engineering Education Transformations Institute (EETI) at the University of Georgia (UGA), which is designed to create such conditions (Morelock, Walther, & Sochacka, 2019). Philosophically, our model is based on a propagation (versus a dissemination) paradigm (Froyd et al., 2017), grounded in a strengths (Saleebey, 2012) (versus a deficit) approach to existing instructional capacity, and broadly informed by complex systems theory (Laszlo, 1996; Meadows & Wright, 2008). Practically, the model leverages ecological design principles (Hemenway, 2009) to inform the day-to-day operations of the effort. This paper describes these philosophical and practical underpinnings and investigates the following research question:
How can ecological design principles be operationalized to cultivate a culture of innovative and scholarly teaching and learning in a college of engineering?
ABSTRACT In order to provide students with the training required to meet the substantial and diverse challenges of the 21 st Century, effective programs in engineering, science, and technology must continue to take the lead in developing high-impact educational practices. Over the past year, faculty across several departments collaborated in the establishment of a campus 3D printing and fabrication center. This facility was founded to offer opportunities for exploring innovative active learning strategies in order to enhance the lives of Wabash College students and serve as a model to other institutions of higher education. This campus resource provides the infrastructure that will empower faculty and staff to explore diverse and meaningful cross-disciplinary collaborations related to teaching and learning across campus. New initiatives include the development of courses on design and fabrication, collaborative cross-disciplinary projects that bridge courses in the arts and sciences, 3D printing and fabrication-based undergraduate research internships, and entrepreneurial collaborations with local industry. These innovative approaches are meant to open the door to greater active learning experiences that empower and prepare students for creative and practical problem solving. Furthermore, service learning projects, community-based opportunities, and global outreach initiatives provide students with a sense of social responsibility, ethical awareness, leadership, and teamwork. This paper shares initial successes of this effort and goals for future enrichment of student learning.
Strimel, G.; Pruim, D.; Briller, S.; Martinez, R.; Lucas, D.; Kelley, T.; Sohn, J.(
, Review directory American Society for Engineering Education)
There have been numerous demands for enhancements in the way undergraduate learning occurs today,
especially at a time when the value of higher education continues to be called into question (The Boyer
2030 Commission, 2022). One type of demand has been for the increased integration of
subjects/disciplines around relevant issues/topics—with a more recent trend of seeking transdisciplinary
learning experiences for students (Sheets, 2016; American Association for the Advancement of Science,
2019). Transdisciplinary learning can be viewed as the holistic way of working equally across disciplines
to transcend their own disciplinary boundaries to form new conceptual understandings as well as develop
new ways in which to address complex topics or challenges (Ertas, Maxwell, Rainey, & Tanik, 2003;
Park & Son, 2010). This transdisciplinary approach can be important as humanity’s problems are not
typically discipline specific and require the convergence of competencies to lead to innovative thinking
across fields of study. However, higher education continues to be siloed which makes the authentic
teaching of converging topics, such as innovation, human-technology interactions, climate concerns, or
harnessing the data revolution, organizationally difficult (Birx, 2019; Serdyukov, 2017). For example,
working across a university’s academic units to collaboratively teach, or co-teach, around topics of
convergence are likely to be rejected by the university systems that have been built upon longstanding
traditions. While disciplinary expertise is necessary and one of higher education’s strengths, the structures
and academic rigidity that come along with the disciplinary silos can prevent modifications/improvements
to the roles of academic units/disciplines that could better prepare students for the future of both work and
learning. The balancing of disciplinary structure with transdisciplinary approaches to solving problems
and learning is a challenge that must be persistently addressed. These institutional challenges will only
continue to limit universities seeking toward scaling transdisciplinary programs and experimenting with
novel ways to enhance the value of higher education for students and society. This then restricts
innovations to teaching and also hinders the sharing of important practices across disciplines.
To address these concerns, a National Science Foundation Improving Undergraduate STEM Education
project team, which is the topic of this paper, has set the goal of developing/implementing/testing an
authentically transdisciplinary, and scalable educational model in an effort to help guide the
transformation of traditional undergraduate learning to span academics silos. This educational model,
referred to as the Mission, Meaning, Making (M3) program, is specifically focused on teaching the crosscutting
practices of innovation by a) implementing co-teaching and co-learning from faculty and students
across different academic units/colleges as well as b) offering learning experiences spanning multiple
semesters that immerse students in a community that can nourish both their learning and innovative ideas.
As a collaborative initiative, the M3 program is designed to synergize key strengths of an institution’s
engineering/technology, liberal arts, and business colleges/units to create a transformative undergraduate
experience focused on the pursuit of innovation—one that reaches the broader campus community,
regardless of students’ backgrounds or majors. Throughout the development of this model, research was
conducted to help identify institutional barriers toward creating such a cross-college program at a
research-intensive public university along with uncovering ways in which to address these barriers. While
data can show how students value and enjoy transdisciplinary experiences, universities are not likely to be
structured in a way to support these educational initiatives and they will face challenges throughout their
lifespan. These challenges can result from administration turnover whereas mutual agreements across
colleges may then vanish, continued disputes over academic territory, and challenges over resource
allotments. Essentially, there may be little to no incentives for academic departments to engage in
transdisciplinary programming within the existing structures of higher education. However, some insights
and practices have emerged from this research project that can be useful in moving toward
transdisciplinary learning around topics of convergence. Accordingly, the paper will highlight features of
an educational model that spans disciplines along with the workarounds to current institutional barriers.
This paper will also provide lessons learned related to 1) the potential pitfalls with educational
programming becoming “un-disciplinary” rather than transdisciplinary, 2) ways in which to incentivize
departments/faculty to engage in transdisciplinary efforts, and 3) new structures within higher education
that can be used to help faculty/students/staff to more easily converge to increase access to learning across
academic boundaries.
Karlin, J.; Godwin, A.(
, American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition)
This theory paper describes the development and use of a framework for supporting early career faculty development, especially in competitive National Science Foundation (NSF) CAREER proposals. Engineering Education Research (EER) has developed into a field of expertise and a career pathway over the past three decades. In response to numerous reports in the 1990s and early 2000s, multiple EER graduate programs were established in the mid-2000s and a growing number continue to emerge to educate and train the next generation of EER faculty and policy makers. Historically, many came to EER as individuals trained in other disciplines, but with an interest in improving teaching and learning. This approach created an interdisciplinary space where many could learn the norms, practices, and language of EER, as they became scholars. This history combined with the emergence of EER as a discipline with academic recognition; specific knowledge, frameworks, methodologies, and ways of conducting research; and particular emphasis and goals, creates a tension for building capacity to continue to develop EER and also include engineering education researchers who have not completed PhDs in an engineering education program. If EER is to continue to develop and emerge as a strong and robust discipline with high quality engineering education research, support mechanisms must be developed to both recognize outstanding EER scholars and develop the next generation of researchers in the field.
The Five I’s framework comes from a larger project on supporting early career EER faculty in developing NSF CAREER proposals. Arguably, a NSF CAREER award is significant external recognition of EER that signals central membership in the community. The Five I’s were developed using collaborative inquiry, a tool and process to inform practice, with 19 EER CAREER awardees during a retreat in March 2019.
The Five I’s include: Ideas, Integration, Impact, Identity, and Infrastructure. Ideas is researchers’ innovative and potentially transformative ideas that can make a significant contribution to EER. All NSF proposals are evaluated using the criteria of intellectual merit and broader impacts, and ideas aligned with these goals are essential for funding success. The integration of research and education is a specific additional consideration of CAREER proposals. Both education and research must inform one another in the proposal process. Demonstrating the impact of research is essential to convey why research should be funded. This impact is essential to address as it directly relates to the NSF criteria of broader impacts as well as why an individual is positioned to carry out that impact. This positioning is tied to identity or the particular research expertise from which a faculty member will be a leader in the field. Finally, infrastructure includes the people and physical resources from which a faculty member must draw to be successful. This framework has proven useful in helping early career faculty evaluate their readiness to apply for an NSF CAREER award or highlight the particular areas of their development that could be improved for future success.
Lane, A. Kelly, McAlpin, Jacob D., Earl, Brittnee, Feola, Stephanie, Lewis, Jennifer E., Mertens, Karl, Shadle, Susan E., Skvoretz, John, Ziker, John P., Couch, Brian A., Prevost, Luanna B., and Stains, Marilyne. Innovative teaching knowledge stays with users. Retrieved from https://par.nsf.gov/biblio/10263930. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 117.37 Web. doi:10.1073/pnas.2012372117.
Lane, A. Kelly, McAlpin, Jacob D., Earl, Brittnee, Feola, Stephanie, Lewis, Jennifer E., Mertens, Karl, Shadle, Susan E., Skvoretz, John, Ziker, John P., Couch, Brian A., Prevost, Luanna B., & Stains, Marilyne. Innovative teaching knowledge stays with users. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117 (37). Retrieved from https://par.nsf.gov/biblio/10263930. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2012372117
Lane, A. Kelly, McAlpin, Jacob D., Earl, Brittnee, Feola, Stephanie, Lewis, Jennifer E., Mertens, Karl, Shadle, Susan E., Skvoretz, John, Ziker, John P., Couch, Brian A., Prevost, Luanna B., and Stains, Marilyne.
"Innovative teaching knowledge stays with users". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 117 (37). Country unknown/Code not available. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2012372117.https://par.nsf.gov/biblio/10263930.
@article{osti_10263930,
place = {Country unknown/Code not available},
title = {Innovative teaching knowledge stays with users},
url = {https://par.nsf.gov/biblio/10263930},
DOI = {10.1073/pnas.2012372117},
abstractNote = {Programs seeking to transform undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and mathematics courses often strive for participating faculty to share their knowledge of innovative teaching practices with other faculty in their home departments. Here, we provide interview, survey, and social network analyses revealing that faculty who use innovative teaching practices preferentially talk to each other, suggesting that greater steps are needed for information about innovative practices to reach faculty more broadly.},
journal = {Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences},
volume = {117},
number = {37},
author = {Lane, A. Kelly and McAlpin, Jacob D. and Earl, Brittnee and Feola, Stephanie and Lewis, Jennifer E. and Mertens, Karl and Shadle, Susan E. and Skvoretz, John and Ziker, John P. and Couch, Brian A. and Prevost, Luanna B. and Stains, Marilyne},
editor = {null}
}
Warning: Leaving National Science Foundation Website
You are now leaving the National Science Foundation website to go to a non-government website.
Website:
NSF takes no responsibility for and exercises no control over the views expressed or the accuracy of
the information contained on this site. Also be aware that NSF's privacy policy does not apply to this site.