An official website of the United States government
In this work-in-progress paper, we continue investigation into the propagation of the Concept Warehouse within mechanical engineering (Friedrichsen et al., 2017; Koretsky et al., 2019a). Even before the pandemic forced most instruction online, educational technology was a growing element in classroom culture (Koretsky & Magana, 2019b). However, adoption of technology tools for widespread use is often conceived from a turn-key lens, with professional development focused on procedural competencies and fidelity of implementation as the goal (Mills & Ragan, 2000; O’Donnell, 2008). Educators are given the tool with initial operating instructions, then left on their own to implement it in particular instructional contexts. There is little emphasis on the inevitable instructional decisions around incorporating the tool (Hodge, 2019) or on sustainable incorporation of technologies into existing instructional practice (Forkosh-Baruch et al., 2021). We consider the take-up of a technology tool as an emergent, rather than a prescribed process (Henderson et al., 2011). In this WIP paper, we examine how two instructors who we call Al and Joe reason through their adoption of a technology tool, focusing on interactions among instructors, tool, and students within and across contexts. The Concept Warehouse (CW) is a widely-available, web-based, open educational technology tool used to facilitate concept-based active learning in different contexts (Friedrichsen et al., 2017; Koretsky et al., 2014). Development of the CW is ongoing and collaboration-driven, where user-instructors from different institutions and disciplines can develop conceptual questions (called ConcepTests) and other learning and assessment tools that can be shared with other users. Currently there are around 3,500 ConcepTests, 1,500 faculty users, and 36,000 student users. About 700 ConcepTests have been developed for mechanics (statics and dynamics). The tool’s spectrum of affordances allows different entry points for instructor engagement, but also allows their use to grow and change as they become familiar with the tool and take up ideas from the contexts around them. Part of a larger study of propagation and use across five diverse institutions (Nolen & Koretsky, 2020), instructors were introduced to the tool, offered an introductory workshop and opportunity to participate in a community of practice (CoP), then interviewed early and later in their adoption. For this paper, we explore a bounded case study of the two instructors, Al and Joe, who took up the CW to teach Introductory Statics. Al and Joe were experienced instructors, committed to active learning, who presented examples from their ongoing adaptation of the tool for discussion in the community of practice. However, their decisions about how to integrate the tool fundamentally differed, including the aspects of the tool they took up and the ways they made sense of their use. In analyzing these two cases, we begin to uncover how these instructors navigated the dynamic nature of pedagogical decision making in and across contexts.
more »
« less
Progression from the mean: Cultivating instructors' unique trajectories of practice using educational technology
Abstract BackgroundIn taking up educational technology tools and student‐centered instructional practice, there is consensus that instructors consider the unique aspects of their instructional context. However, tool adoption success is often framed narrowly by numerical uptake rates or by conformity with non‐negotiable components. PurposeWe pursue an alternative ecosystems framing which posits that variability among contexts is fundamental to understanding instructors' uptake of instructional tools and the ways their teaching trajectories develop over time. Design/MethodThrough a multiple‐case study approach using interviews, usage data, surveys, and records of community meetings, we examine 12 instructors' trajectories to illustrate the dynamic uptake of a technology tool. ResultsCross‐case analysis found that instructors' trajectories are tool‐mediated and community‐mediated. We present five cases in detail. Two foreground ways that instructors gained insight into student learning from student responses in the tool. Two illustrate the role played by the project's Community of Practice (CoP), an extra‐institutional support for deepening practice. The final case illustrates the complexity of an evolving instructional ecosystem and its role in instructors' satisfaction and continued use. ConclusionsUse of the educational technology tool perturbed ecosystems and supported instructors' evolving trajectories through mediation of instructor and student activity. Instructors' goals guided initial uptake, but both goals and practice were adapted using information from interactions with the tool and the CoP and changes in instructional contexts. The study confirms the need to understand the complexity of the uptake of innovations and illustrates opportunities for educators, developers, and administrators to enhance uptake and support diversity goals.
more »
« less
- PAR ID:
- 10500675
- Publisher / Repository:
- Wiley Blackwell (John Wiley & Sons)
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Journal of Engineering Education
- Volume:
- 113
- Issue:
- 2
- ISSN:
- 1069-4730
- Format(s):
- Medium: X Size: p. 330-359
- Size(s):
- p. 330-359
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Abstract BackgroundDespite well‐documented benefits, instructor adoption of active learning has been limited in engineering education. Studies have identified barriers to instructors’ adoption of active learning, but there is no well‐tested instrument to measure instructors perceptions of these barriers. PurposeWe developed and tested an instrument to measure instructors’ perceptions of barriers to adopting active learning and identify the constructs that coherently categorize those barriers. MethodWe used a five‐phase process to develop an instrument to measure instructors’ perceived barriers to adopting active learning. In Phase 1, we built upon the Faculty Instructional Barriers and Identity Survey (FIBIS) to create a draft instrument. In Phases 2 and 3, we conducted exploratory factor analysis (EFA) on an initial 45‐item instrument and a refined 21‐item instrument, respectively. We conducted confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) in Phases 4 and 5 to test the factor structure identified in Phases 2 and 3. ResultsOur final instrument consists of 17 items and four factors: (1) student preparation and engagement; (2) instructional support; (3) instructor comfort and confidence; and (4) institutional environment/rewards. Instructor responses indicated that time considerations do not emerge as a standalone factor. ConclusionsOur 17‐item instrument exhibits a sound factor structure and is reliable, enabling the assessment of perceived barriers to adopting active learning in different contexts. The four factors align with an existing model of instructional change in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). Although time is a substantial instructor concern that did not comprise a standalone factor, it is closely related to multiple constructs in our final model.more » « less
-
Laboratory report writing instructional modules have been developed and refined using a community of practice (CoP) approach. Supported by the National Science Foundation Improving Undergraduate STEM Education initiative, researchers at three institutions have refined and reorganized a series of scaffolded laboratory writing modules based on the work of faculty and graduate students at a CoP meeting. This paper documents the process used at the CoP meeting where draft modules were made available and a model laboratory session was considered. Other published laboratory report writing resources were evaluated alongside the draft modules to determine areas of overlap and novelty and to ensure the completeness of the revised modules. The process of revising instructional modules was valuable for both the quality of the modules and the development of the community of practice. The modules are now organized into two guides, published at http://labs.wsu.edu/engineeringlab-report-writing/. An Instructor’s Guide to Engineering Lab Writing, targets instructors and provides model lab writing and data analysis learning outcomes for consideration when planning a laboratory session, as well as approaches for course organization and teaching to support lab writing outcomes. A library of lab report types and a model rubric for lab report scoring complete the instructor-oriented resource. A Student’s Guide to Engineering Lab Writing, supports students who are learning lab report writing for the first time or are advancing as technical writers. It is organized according to traditional lab report format and is aligned with the learning outcomes in the instructor modules. The content in the student-oriented modules is scaffolded to support continuous development. The modules are arranged in order of increasing cognitive difficulty, first addressing formatting conventions and arrangement, then section contents and methods of data analysis, and finally effective methods of interpretation, reasoning, and conclusion writing. This paper demonstrates the mutually reinforcing nature of collaboratively developed instructional material and the growth of a community of practice. The CoP approach to structuring a meeting was effective for gathering targeted and relevant feedback in a short period of time as well as for developing the CoP itself. The instructional modules revised at the CoP meeting were significantly improved creating a sense of ownership and inclusion by those participating in the meeting. They are now publicly available to serve a growing community of practice focused on engineering lab writing.more » « less
-
IntroductionOpen educational resources (OERs) provide instructors access to no-cost lesson materials they can incorporate into their courses. OER lessons can promote the use of innovative and evidence-based educational practices in biology education. Prior research suggests that teaching strategies are often implemented in different ways which can impact student learning. However, few studies have explored how OER lessons are modified to fit their local context. MethodsWe used the teacher-curriculum framework to understand how and why instructors modify these materials. Additionally, we explored how these materials supported instructors in enacting national priorities from Vision and Change. We surveyed 139 instructors who implemented lessons published inCourseSource, a peer-reviewed journal specifically designed to share OERs. ResultsWe found that the majority of instructors who used the lesson materials (e.g., slides, worksheets, assessments, protocols) did so without making substantial modifications, in contrast with prior research. Furthermore, we found that these materials were particularly helpful in incorporating student-centered teaching practices, like group work or discussions, sometimes for the first time. DiscussionThese insights into what instructors value in lesson materials can inform OER publishing guidelines so that these materials best meet instructional needs.more » « less
-
Abstract The practice of teacher noticing students' mathematical thinking often includes three interrelated components: attending to students' strategies, interpreting students' understandings, and deciding how to respond on the basis of students' understanding. This practice gains complexity in technology‐mediated environments (i.e., using technology‐enhanced math tasks) because it requires attending to and interpreting students' engagement with technology. Current frameworks implicitly assume the practice includes noticing the ways students use tools (including technology tools) in their work, but do not explicitly highlight the role of the tool. While research has shown that using these frameworks supports preservice secondary mathematics teachers (PSTs) developing noticing practices, it has also shown that PSTs largely overlook students' technology engagement when they are working on technology‐enhanced tasks (Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 2010; 41(2):169–202). In this article, we describe our adaptation of Jacobs et al.'s framework for teacher noticing student mathematical thinking to include a focus on making students' technology‐tool engagement explicit when noticing in technology‐mediated environments, the Noticing in Technology‐Mediated Environments (NITE) framework. We describe the theoretical foundations of the framework, provide a video case example, and then illustrate how the framework can be used by mathematics teacher educators to support PSTs' noticing when students are working in technology‐mediated environments.more » « less
