This paper describes an evidence based-practice paper to a formative response to the engineering faculty and students’ needs at Anonymous University.
Within two weeks, the pandemic forced the vast majority of the 1.5 million faculty and 20 million students nationwide to transition all courses from face-to-face to entirely online. Never in the history of higher education has there been a concerted effort to adapt so quickly and radically, nor have we had the technology to facilitate such a rapid and massive change. At Anonymous University, over 700 engineering educators were racing to transition their courses. Many of those faculty had never experienced online course preparation, much less taught one synchronously or asynchronously. Faculty development centers and technology specialists across the university made a great effort to aid educators in this transition. These educators had questions about the best practices for moving online, how their students were affected, and the best ways to engage their students. However, these faculty’s detailed questions were answerable only by faculty peers’ experience, students’ feedback, and advice from experts in relevant engineering education research-based practices. This paper describes rapid, continuous, and formative feedback provided by the Engineering Education Faculty Group (EEFG) to provide an immediate response for peer faculty guidance during the pandemic, creating a community of practice. The faculty membership spans multiple colleges in the university, including engineering, education, and liberal arts.
The EEFG transitioned immediately to weekly meetings focused on the rapidly changing needs of their colleagues. Two surveys were generated rapidly by Hammond et al. to characterize student and faculty concerns and needs in March of 2020 and were distributed through various means and media. Survey 1 and 2 had 3381 and 1506 respondents respectively with most being students, with 113 faculty respondents in survey 1, the focus of this piece of work. The first survey was disseminated as aggregated data to the College of Engineering faculty with suggested modifications to course structures based on these findings. The EEFG continued to meet and collaborate during the remainder of the Spring 2020 semester and has continued through to this day. This group has acted as a hub for teaching innovation in remote online pedagogy and techniques, while also operating as a support structure for members of the group, aiding those members with training in teaching tools, discussion difficult current events, and various challenges they are facing in their professional teaching lives.
While the aggregated data gathered from the surveys developed by Hammond et al. was useful beyond measure in the early weeks of the pandemic, little attention at the time was given to the responses of faculty to that survey. The focus of this work has been to characterize faculty perceptions at the beginning of the pandemic and compare those responses between engineering and non-engineering faculty respondents, while also comparing reported perceptions of pre- and post-transition to remote online teaching. Interviews were conducted between 4 members of the EEFG with the goal of characterizing some of the experiences they have had while being members of the group during the time of the pandemic utilizing Grounded theory qualitative analysis.
more »
« less
Building Excellence in Scientific Teaching: How Important Is the Evidence for Evidence-Based Teaching when Training STEM TAs?
ABSTRACT Evidence-based teaching practices (EBTP)—like inquiry-based learning, inclusive teaching, and active learning—have been shown to benefit all students, especially women, first-generation, and traditionally minoritized students in science fields. However, little research has focused on how best to train teaching assistants (TAs) to use EBTP or on which components of professional development are most important. We designed and experimentally manipulated a series of pre-semester workshops on active learning (AL), dividing subjects into two groups. The Activity group worked in teams to learn an AL technique with a workshop facilitator. These teams then modeled the activity with their peers acting as students. In the Evidence group, facilitators modeled the activities with all TAs acting as students. We used a mixed-methods research design (specifically, concurrent triangulation) to interpret pre- and post-workshop and post-semester survey responses. We found that Evidence group participants reported greater knowledge of AL after the workshop than Activity group participants. Activity group participants, on the other hand, found all of the AL techniques more useful than Evidence group participants. These results suggest that actually modeling AL techniques made them more useful to TAs than simply experiencing the same techniques as students—even with the accompanying evidence. This outcome has broad implications for how we provide professional development sessions to TAs and potentially to faculty.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 1712033
- NSF-PAR ID:
- 10300739
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
- Volume:
- 22
- Issue:
- 1
- ISSN:
- 1935-7877
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
The Improving Student Experiences to Increase Student Engagement (ISE-2) grant was awarded to Texas A&M University by the National Science Foundation, through EEC-Engineering Diversity Activities (Grant No. 1648016) with the goal of increasing student engagement and retention in the College of Engineering. The major component of the intervention was a faculty development program aimed to increase active learning, improve classroom climates, and decrease implicit bias and deficit thinking. Faculty teaching first- and second-year Engineering courses participated in the ISE-2 faculty development program, with the first cohort (n = 10) in Summer 2017 and the second cohort (n = 5) in Summer 2018. This paper describes the content of each of these components of the faculty development program and provides access to a Google drive (still in development at the time of the abstract) with resources for others to use. The faculty development program consisted of three workshops, a series of coffee hour conversations, and two deliverables from the participants (a teaching plan at the conclusion of the summer training and a final reflection a year following the training). Anchoring the program was a framework for teaching in a diverse classroom (Adams & Love, 2009). Workshop 1 (early May) consisted of an overview of the ISE-2 program. During the first workshop, faculty were introduced to social cognitive biases and the behaviors that result from these biases. During this workshop, the ISE-2 team shared findings from a climate study related to the classroom experiences of students at the College of Engineering. Workshop 2 (mid-May) focused on how undergraduate students learn, provided evidence for the effectiveness of active learning strategies, and exposed faculty participants to active learning strategies. Workshop 3 (early August) integrated the material from the first two workshops as faculty participants prepared to apply the material to their own teaching. Prior to each workshop, the faculty participants were provided with pre-workshop readings to familiarize them with some of the content matter. Coffee hour conversations—informal discussions between the participating faculty and the ISE-2 team centered around a teaching topic selected by participants—were conducted on a near-weekly basis between the second and third workshops. Handouts and worksheets were provided at each coffee hour and served to guide the coffee hour discussions. After the last workshop but before the Fall semester, faculty participants created a teaching plan to incorporate what they learned in the ISE-2 program into their own teaching. At the end of the academic year, the faculty participants are tasked with completing a final reflection on how ISE-2 has affected their teaching in the previous academic year. In this paper, we will report the content of each of the three workshops and explain how these workshops are related to the overarching goals of the ISE-2 program. Then, we will discuss how each of the coffee hour conversation topics complement the material covered in the workshops. Lastly, we will explore the role of the teaching plans and final reflections in changing instructional practices for faculty.more » « less
-
more » « less
Abstract Grading can shape students’ learning and encourage use of effective problem solving practices. Teaching assistants (TAs) are often responsible for grading student solutions and providing feedback, thus, their perceptions of grading may impact grading practices in the physics classroom. Understanding TAs’ perceptions of grading is instrumental for curriculum developers as well as professional development leaders interested in improving grading practices. In order to identify TAs’ perceptions of grading, we used a data collection tool designed to elicit TAs’ considerations when making grading decisions as well as elicit possible conflicts between their stated goals and actual grading practices. The tool was designed to explicate TAs’ attitudes towards research-based grading practices that promote effective problem solving approaches. TAs were first asked to state their goals for grading in general. Then, TAs graded student solutions in a simulated setting while explicating and discussing their underlying considerations. The data collection tool was administered at the beginning of TAs’ first postgraduate teaching appointment and again after one semester of teaching experience. We found that almost all of the TAs stated that the purpose of grading was formative, i.e. grading should encourage students to learn from their mistakes as well as inform the instructor of common student difficulties. However, when making grading decisions in a simulated setting, the majority of TAs’ grading considerations focused on correctness and they did not assign grades in a way that encourages use of effective problem solving approaches. TAs’ perceptions of grading did not change significantly during one semester of teaching experience.
-
Scherschel, H. ; Rudmann, D.S. (Ed.)Passion-Driven Statistics is a project-based, introductory curriculum implemented as a course in statistics, research methods, data science, a capstone experience, and a summer research boot camp with students from a wide variety of academic settings. Funded by the National Science Foundation, the curriculum engages students in authentic projects with large, real-world data sets. Passion-Driven Statistics students were more likely to report increased confidence in working with data and increased interest in pursuing advanced statistics course work compared to students from the traditional statistics course (Dierker et al., 2018a). This presentation draws on pre/post data from 67 instructors attending a Passion-Driven Statistics faculty development workshop. Analyses evaluate instructor characteristics, attitudes, and experiences that predict its implementation. Findings show that nearly half of the instructors who reported being likely to implement passion-driven statistics and a quarter of the overall sample employed the project-based curriculum by the end of the first full academic year following the workshop. Those showing this fast uptake were more likely to be female than those who had not yet implemented (87.5% vs. 55.3%), were more likely to hold a Ph.D. (94.1% vs. 59.2%), and were more likely to be employed by a private rather than public institution (76.5% vs. 46.0%). Those showing fast uptake were also more likely to have been previously using statistical software (i.e., SAS, JMP, R, Stata, Python, or SPSS) in their target course (70.6% vs. 40.0%) and to have greater prior experience with project-based skills and fewer post workshop concerns about their likely success. Results from these analyses will guide recommendations for 1) engaging instructors ready to implement innovation in learning and teaching and 2) supporting those instructors requiring additional time, training and skills. Instructors are the most important resource for promoting innovations and all materials are open educational resourcesmore » « less
-
Flexible classroom spaces, which have movable tables and chairs that can be easily rearranged into different layouts, make it easier for instructors to effectively implement active learning than a traditional lecture hall. Instructors can move throughout the room to interact with students during active learning, and they can rearrange the tables into small groups to facilitate conversation between students. Classroom technology, such as wall-mounted monitors and movable whiteboards, also facilitates active learning by allowing students to collaborate. In addition to enabling active learning, the flexible classroom can still be arranged in front-facing rows that support traditional lecture-based pedagogies. As a result, instructors do not have to make time- and effort-intensive changes to the way their courses are taught in order to use the flexible classroom. Instead, they can make small changes to add active learning. We are in the second year of a study of flexible classroom spaces funded by the National Science Foundation’s Division of Undergraduate Education. This project asks four research questions that investigate the relationships between the instructor, the students, and the classroom: 1) What pedagogy do instructors use in a flexible classroom space? 2) How do instructors take advantage of the instructional affordances (including the movable furniture, movable whiteboards, wall-mounted whiteboards, and wall-mounted monitors) of a flexible classroom? 3) What is the impact of faculty professional development on instructors’ use of flexible classroom spaces? and 4) How does the classroom influence the ways students interpret and engage in group learning activities? In the first year of our study we have developed five research instruments to answer these questions: a three-part classroom observation protocol, an instructor interview protocol, two instructor surveys, and a student survey. We have collected data from nine courses taught in one of ten flexible classrooms at the University of Michigan during the Fall 2018 semester. Two of these courses were first-year introduction to engineering courses co-taught by two instructors, and the other seven courses were sophomore- and junior-level core technical courses taught by one instructor. Five instructors participated in a faculty learning community that met three times during the semester to discuss active learning, to learn how to make the best use of the flexible classroom affordances, and to plan activities to implement in their courses. In each course we gathered data from the perspective of the instructor (through pre- and post-semester interviews), the researcher (through observations of three class meetings with our observation protocol), and the students (through conducting a student survey at the end of the semester). This poster presents qualitative and qualitative analyses of these data to answer our research questions, along with evidence based best practices for effectively using a flexible classroom.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Journal Article:
- https://doi.org/10.1128/jmbe.v22i1.2473
