skip to main content

Title: Collaborating at the Centers: Report from a STEM Education Transformation Workshop Involving Leaders of Centers for Teaching and Learning and STEM Education Centers
This report details how universities can pair the work of STEM Education Centers and Centers for Teaching and Learning (CTLs) to improve teaching and student success in STEM fields. The Collaborating at the Center report, written by the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities (APLU) and the POD Network in Higher Education, presents key recommendations on ways these two distinct types of campus-based centers can work more closely to further national STEM education improvement efforts. The report is based on some of the key findings of 46 leaders from SECs and CTLs who gathered at a November 2015 workshop that APLU, the POD Network, and the Network of STEM Education Centers (NSEC) convened with support from the National Science Foundation. The workshop was designed to introduce these communities to each other, discuss areas of synergy, and explore ways that these communities could most effectively collaborate to improve student success on their campuses and nationally as networks. Some of the key recommendations from the report include: -Approach cross-unit collaborations by inviting everyone to the table, creating relevant leadership groups, and keeping stakeholders informed. -Map the "territory of collaboration": identify common elements of mission, differentiated strategies, shared goals, strengths, stakeholders, expertise, resources, roles for each center, more » and benefits from participating in shared projects. -Acknowledge stretched staffing and resources by articulating different possible modes of collaborating at various levels of commitment and normalizing different responses as helpful and not damaging to the centers' relationship. -Record progress and make success visible. « less
Authors:
; ; ; ; ; ; ;
Award ID(s):
1524832
Publication Date:
NSF-PAR ID:
10302949
Journal Name:
Collaborating at the Centers Workshop
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. This presentation reports on an ongoing National Science Foundation's (NSF's) Division of Undergraduate Education (DUE) funded project in the Department of Mathematical and Computer Sciences at Indiana University of Pennsylvania (IUP). The goals of the project include increasing the number of students graduating with a major, minor, or Master’s degree in mathematics; strengthening the academic culture in the department; and strengthening the relationships within the broader STEM community within and beyond the university. The project aims to achieve these goals by providing financial assistance to students in need to pursue their degree and developing a series of activities each semestermore »designed to strengthen relationships within the academic and STEM communities. Ways in which the goals of the project are being met will be shared including: recruiting strategies used to get students into the program; offering of activities in the form of presentations and workshops to help students prepare for careers the STEM industry; peer-led tutoring sessions to help with academic success in mathematics classes, and monthly meetings in which participants present original research. Data collected from student surveys at the end of each semester will be reported. Finally, the impact of transitioning to online learning as a result of COVID-19 in the middle of a semester on a project that focuses on community development will be shared. In addition, to students’ responses to online learning data collected from faculty teaching in STEM disciplines will also be shared. The following sources of information were used for this presentation; quantitative and qualitative data gathered from End of Semester surveys, student reflection narratives concerning their small group activities, and reports that summarizes and evaluates the peer-led team learning sessions.« less
  2. In 2016, 10 universities launched a Networked Improvement Community (NIC) aimed at increasing the number of scholars from Alliances for Graduate Education and the Professoriate (AGEP) populations entering science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) faculty careers. NICs bring together stakeholders focused on a common goal to accelerate innovation through structured, ongoing intervention development, implementation, and refinement. We theorized a NIC organizational structure would aid understandings of a complex problem in different contexts and accelerate opportunities to develop and improve interventions to address the problem. A distinctive feature of this NIC is its diverse institutional composition of public and private, predominantlymore »white institutions, a historically Black university, a Hispanic-serving institution, and land grant institutions located across eight states and Washington, DC, United States. NIC members hold different positions within their institutions and have access to varied levers of change. Among the many lessons learned through this community case study, analyzing and addressing failed strategies is as equally important to a healthy NIC as is sharing learning from successful interventions. We initially relied on pre-existing relationships and assumptions about how we would work together, rather than making explicit how the NIC would develop, establish norms, understand common processes, and manage changing relationships. We had varied understandings of the depth of campus differences, sometimes resulting in frustrations about the disparate progress on goals. NIC structures require significant engagement with the group, often more intensive than traditional multi-institution organizational structures. They require time to develop and ongoing maintenance in order to advance the work. We continue to reevaluate our model for leadership, climate, diversity, conflict resolution, engagement, decision-making, roles, and data, leading to increased investment in the success of all NIC institutions. Our NIC has evolved from the traditional NIC model to become the Center for the Integration of Research, Teaching and Learning (CIRTL) AGEP NIC model with five key characteristics: (1) A well-specified aim, (2) An understanding of systems, including a variety of contexts and different organizations, (3) A culture and practice of shared leadership and inclusivity, (4) The use of data reflecting different institutional contexts, and (5) The ability to accelerate infrastructure and interventions. We conclude with recommendations for those considering developing a NIC to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts.« less
  3. In response to the well-documented themes of unique challenges URM doctoral student experience (tokenism, stereotyping, microaggressions, etc.), faculty mentoring remains an especially critical resource to change the trajectory for URM students in graduate education. The purpose of this study is to examine the first two years of change in institutional culture which will increase the number of URM doctoral students who pursue the STEM professoriate. The primary research question asked is “Can a focus on developing and mentoring faculty catalyze change in the culture and practices of their doctoral programs to increase faculty diversity?” Based on the idea that facultymore »are drivers of lasting institutional change, three diverse public universities collaborate to adapt and implement an institutional change project, called “AGEP-NC Alliance: A Change Model for Doctoral to Faculty Diversity in STEM,” that prioritizes cultural frameworks for deep change in postsecondary education (Gumpertz et al., 2019). Key model components include faculty learning communities; use of national faculty mentoring networks; and use of institutional diversity data. Culturally relevant mentoring is among several approaches of interest to STEM reformers to shift the focus to institutional-level change and not student deficiencies. Operationalized as “cultural integrity,” the approach calls upon students’ racial and ethnic backgrounds as assets for reform in pedagogies and learning activities, while valuing those backgrounds as critical ingredients for acquiring academic capital and career success (Tierney, 1999). Kezar’s (2018) cultural framework for institutional change emphasizes knowledge formation in context as well as analysis of espoused meaning and values organizational members maintain. The researchers present the AGEP-NC Alliance as a narrative, rich case study and collaborative mentoring model, an approach allowing participant researchers to detail sustained data use in collaborative social interaction (Patton, 1990). Results will be shared that highlight faculty as cultural change agents, and organizational learning as a cultural process. Preliminary results show evidence of institutional change at several levels from classroom and laboratory practices to key departmental policies.« less
  4. Sustainability of the scientific enterprise requires being able to recruit, retain, and prepare ongoing generations of PhD-trained scientists ready to adapt with the evolving needs of the scientific workforce and society. This necessitates a broadened, trainee-centered view in doctoral and postdoctoral training—including a prominent focus on career planning, science across sectors, and development of professional skills. Although there is energy and movement to enhance graduate and postdoctoral training, actions remain disparate, leading to inefficiencies in implementation and lack of systemic change. In 2019, an emerging national initiative, Professional Development Hub (pd|hub), hosted a workshop to bring organizations and individuals togethermore »across stakeholder groups to discuss enhancing the development, dissemination, and widespread implementation of evidence-based practices for STEM graduate and postdoctoral education, with specific emphasis on career and professional development for PhD scientists. The fifty workshop participants represented nine key stakeholder groups: career development practitioners, scientific societies, disseminators, education researchers and evaluators, employers of PhD scientists, funders, professional associations, trainees, and university leaders and faculty. In addition, participants spanned different races, ethnicities, genders, disciplines, sectors, geographic locations, career stages, and levels of institutional resources. This report presents cross-cutting themes identified at the workshop, examples of stakeholder-specific perspectives, and recommended next steps. As part of the collective effort to develop a foundation for sustainable solutions, several actions were defined, including: incentivizing change at institutions and programs, curating and disseminating resources for evidence-based career and professional development educational practices, expanding evidence for effective training and mentoring, establishing expectations for STEM career and professional development, and improving communication across all stakeholders in STEM PhD education. Furthermore, the report describes national-level actions already moving forward via pd|hub in the months following the workshop. Building on a decade of reports and gatherings advocating for a shift in graduate and postdoctoral education, this workshop represented a key step and catalyst for change toward a more impactful future.« less
  5. As our nation’s need for engineering professionals grows, a sharp rise in P-12 engineering education programs and related research has taken place (Brophy, Klein, Portsmore, & Rogers, 2008; Purzer, Strobel, & Cardella, 2014). The associated research has focused primarily on students’ perceptions and motivations, teachers’ beliefs and knowledge, and curricula and program success. The existing research has expanded our understanding of new K-12 engineering curriculum development and teacher professional development efforts, but empirical data remain scarce on how racial and ethnic diversity of student population influences teaching methods, course content, and overall teachers’ experiences. In particular, Hynes et al. (2017)more »note in their systematic review of P-12 research that little attention has been paid to teachers’ experiences with respect to racially and ethnically diverse engineering classrooms. The growing attention and resources being committed to diversity and inclusion issues (Lichtenstein, Chen, Smith, & Maldonado, 2014; McKenna, Dalal, Anderson, & Ta, 2018; NRC, 2009) underscore the importance of understanding teachers’ experiences with complementary research-based recommendations for how to implement engineering curricula in racially diverse schools to engage all students. Our work examines the experiences of three high school teachers as they teach an introductory engineering course in geographically and distinctly different racially diverse schools across the nation. The study is situated in the context of a new high school level engineering education initiative called Engineering for Us All (E4USA). The National Science Foundation (NSF) funded initiative was launched in 2018 as a partnership among five universities across the nation to ‘demystify’ engineering for high school students and teachers. The program aims to create an all-inclusive high school level engineering course(s), a professional development platform, and a learning community to support student pathways to higher education institutions. An introductory engineering course was developed and professional development was provided to nine high school teachers to instruct and assess engineering learning during the first year of the project. This study investigates participating teachers’ implementation of the course in high schools across the nation to understand the extent to which their experiences vary as a function of student demographic (race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status) and resource level of the school itself. Analysis of these experiences was undertaken using a collective case-study approach (Creswell, 2013) involving in-depth analysis of a limited number of cases “to focus on fewer "subjects," but more "variables" within each subject” (Campbell & Ahrens, 1998, p. 541). This study will document distinct experiences of high school teachers as they teach the E4USA curriculum. Participants were purposively sampled for the cases in order to gather an information-rich data set (Creswell, 2013). The study focuses on three of the nine teachers participating in the first cohort to implement the E4USA curriculum. Teachers were purposefully selected because of the demographic makeup of their students. The participating teachers teach in Arizona, Maryland and Tennessee with predominantly Hispanic, African-American, and Caucasian student bodies, respectively. To better understand similarities and differences among teaching experiences of these teachers, a rich data set is collected consisting of: 1) semi-structured interviews with teachers at multiple stages during the academic year, 2) reflective journal entries shared by the teachers, and 3) multiple observations of classrooms. The interview data will be analyzed with an inductive approach outlined by Miles, Huberman, and Saldaña (2014). All teachers’ interview transcripts will be coded together to identify common themes across participants. Participants’ reflections will be analyzed similarly, seeking to characterize their experiences. Observation notes will be used to triangulate the findings. Descriptions for each case will be written emphasizing the aspects that relate to the identified themes. Finally, we will look for commonalities and differences across cases. The results section will describe the cases at the individual participant level followed by a cross-case analysis. This study takes into consideration how high school teachers’ experiences could be an important tool to gain insight into engineering education problems at the P-12 level. Each case will provide insights into how student body diversity impacts teachers’ pedagogy and experiences. The cases illustrate “multiple truths” (Arghode, 2012) with regard to high school level engineering teaching and embody diversity from the perspective of high school teachers. We will highlight themes across cases in the context of frameworks that represent teacher experience conceptualizing race, ethnicity, and diversity of students. We will also present salient features from each case that connect to potential recommendations for advancing P-12 engineering education efforts. These findings will impact how diversity support is practiced at the high school level and will demonstrate specific novel curricular and pedagogical approaches in engineering education to advance P-12 mentoring efforts.« less