An official website of the United States government
This study investigated the underexplored topic of teacher preparation program admissions processes by interviewing faculty and analyzing program documents. We investigated how 31 K-12 mathematics and science teacher preparation programs (MSTPPs) and faculty attend to diversity, equity, inclusion, and social and racial justice (DEIJ). Specific foci included applicant recruitment and selection, components of applications (e.g., forms, essays, and interviews), and how applicants’ DEIJ-related information and orientations factor into admissions. We found that all MSTPPs participating in the study collected information related to DEIJ (e.g., applicants’ ethnoracial backgrounds, citizenship), and all interviewed faculty expressed an interest in increasing the diversity of applicants and admitted students. Faculty expressed preferences for applicants who evidenced positive DEIJ orientations, such as recognizing social and ethnoracial injustices, but at the same time, differences were evident in how MSTPPs and faculty attended to DEIJ. Considerations, implications, and dilemmas for teacher preparation programs and faculty are discussed.
more »
« less
Faculty perspectives and values toward mathematics and science content information used in teacher preparation admissions processes
Abstract This qualitative study examines the information collected about applicants to mathematics or science teacher preparation programs (MSTPPs) and how university faculty perceive and value this information in admissions decisions. Based on document review and interviews with MSTPP faculty and admissions directors, we found that broad measures of mathematics and science content background (e.g., achievement test scores, past mathematics and science courses taken) were used more frequently than information on applicants‐specific mathematics and science content knowledge and dispositions. In many cases, application components (such as interviews and personal essay statements) were perceived by faculty to be conducive to surfacing applicants‐content knowledge and dispositions; however, they were not constructed or employed in a way that afforded the obtainment of this information. We highlight salient examples of MSTPPs‐collection and use of information related to mathematics and science and discuss implications for TPP admissions processes.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 1950030
- PAR ID:
- 10475093
- Publisher / Repository:
- Wiley-Blackwell
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- School Science and Mathematics
- Volume:
- 124
- Issue:
- 2
- ISSN:
- 0036-6803
- Format(s):
- Medium: X Size: p. 93-110
- Size(s):
- p. 93-110
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Faculty members involved in graduate admissions decisions have to determine who will be offered admissions to their respective graduate programs. In this study, we interviewed faculty at four institutions who currently serve or have served on their program's graduate admissions committee. The focus of this study was twofold: first, to explore what qualities faculty value in graduate students and second, to identify what sources of evidence faculty utilize in determining if a student possesses a desired quality. Results from these interviews showed that while qualities such as content knowledge and programming skills were valued, non-cognitive qualities such as self-motivation, resilience, and self-learning were also highly desired. The faculty noted that while current admissions practices can easily identify if a student has taken certain coursework, they typically lack the means to quickly assess non-cognitive qualities, which must often be inferred from the contents of personal statements and letters of recommendation. These results suggest that transparency on the part of graduate programs to better advertise the qualities they desire will assist letter writers and students writing personal statements to increase the impact of their application materials.more » « less
-
While there is movement to create more equitable and holistic admission review processes, faculty continue to place strong emphasis on a single piece of information when making admissions decisions: standardized test scores. This study used an experimental design to test whether instructions provided to faculty prior to assessing doctoral applicants could support holistic review by reducing the weight of the general record examination (GRE) in faculty appraisals of competence and merit for graduate study. Tenured and/or tenure-track faculty ( N =271) were randomly assigned to one of three instructional conditions: Control (no instruction), “Diamond in the Rough,” and “Weed Out.” In addition, faculty participants were randomly assigned to read one of two vignettes of a prospective first-generation student who either received high or average GRE scores. Faculty then rated the applicant’s competence using a three-item survey. As expected, faculty who read the vignette describing the candidate with the high GRE rated him as more competent than faculty who read the average GRE vignette. In addition, being instructed to seek out diamonds in the rough buffered the effect of the GRE score on competence. Faculty were also asked to indicate whether they would need additional information to make an admissions decision. They were more likely to ask about grades and research skills than about psychosocial factors that might contextualize the candidate’s performance and perceived competence. The results of this study have implications for creating more equitable doctoral admissions processes that center equity, diversity, and inclusion in decision making.more » « less
-
Abstract BackgroundThe lack of racial diversity in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) disciplines is perhaps one of the most challenging issues in the United States higher education system. The issue is not only concerning diverse students, but also diverse faculty members. One important contributing factor is the faculty hiring process. To make progress toward equity in hiring decisions, it is necessary to better understand how applicants are considered and evaluated. In this paper, we describe and present our study based on a survey of current STEM faculty members and administrators who examined applicant qualifications and characteristics in STEM faculty hiring decisions. ResultsThere are three key findings of the present research. First, we found that faculty members placed different levels of importance on characteristics and qualifications for tenure track hiring and non-tenure track hiring. For example, items related to research were more important when evaluating tenure track applicants, whereas items related to teaching and diversity were more important when evaluating non-tenure track applicants. Second, faculty members’ institutional classification, position, and personal identities (e.g., gender, race/ethnicity) had an impact on their evaluation criteria. For instance, we found men considered some diversity-related items more important than women. Third, faculty members rated the importance of qualifications with diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI)-related constructs significantly lower than qualifications that did not specify DEI-related constructs, and this trend held for both tenure track and non-tenure track faculty hiring. ConclusionsThis study was an attempt to address the issue of diversity in STEM faculty hiring at institutions of higher education by examining how applicant characteristics are considered and evaluated in faculty hiring practices. Emphasizing research reputation and postdoctoral reputation while neglecting institutional diversity and equitable and inclusive teaching, research, and service stunt progress toward racial diversity because biases—both implicit and explicit, both positive and negative—still exist. Our results were consistent with research on bias in recruitment, revealing that affinity bias, confirmation bias, and halo bias exist in the faculty hiring process. These biases contribute to inequities in hiring, and need to be addressed before we can reach, sustain, and grow desired levels of diversity.more » « less
-
The Computing Curricula 2020 (CC2020) report, issued by the ACM and IEEE Computer Society, identified knowledge, skills, and dispositions as the three main components of competency for undergraduate programs in computer engineering, computer science, cybersecurity, information systems, information technology, and software engineering, as well as data science. As earlier generations of curricular guidelines in computing have described knowledge and skills to some extent, the notion of dispositions is relatively new to computing. Dispositions are cultivable behaviors, such as adaptability, meticulousness, and self-directedness, that are desirable in the workplace. Multiple employer surveys and interviews confirm that dispositions are as crucial for success in the workplace as the knowledge and skills students develop in their academic programs of study. As such, the CC2020 report describes eleven dispositions that are expected of competent computing graduates. These are distinct and separate from the technical knowledge and disciplinary skills of computing and engineering. Dispositions are also distinct from baseline or cross-disciplinary skills, such as critical thinking, problem-solving, teamwork, and communication. In contrast, dispositions are inherently human characteristics that describe individual qualities and behavioral patterns that lead to professional success. Dispositions are learnable, not necessarily teachable. This work-in-progress paper motivates dispositions within computing disciplines and presents the background of this approach. It also discusses the use of reflection exercises and vignettes in understanding, promoting, and fostering behavioral patterns that undergraduate computing students identify as related to dispositions they experience in the course. Preliminary data and results from the study are also presented.more » « less
