An official website of the United States government
Computer science education (CSEd) is a growing interdisciplinary area that continues to gain momentum from students, researchers, and educators. Yet, there are few formal programs or degree options for students interested in pursuing graduate work in CSEd. This article explores the existing state of CSEd in the United States (U.S.) through semi-structured interviews with ( n = 15) faculty engaged in CSEd research. Thematic coding of the transcripts revealed the complexities involved in the development of formal programs, the distinct considerations for faculty, and the value of having strong ties to both computer science and education. The themes described positive aspects of support and cohesion within the larger community and opportunities to expand knowledge across fields. Applying Cornell and Parker’s principles of interdisciplinary science to the field of CSEd, we provide recommendations for ways forward and discuss the potential impact on institutional structures, research capacity, individual and group identities, and teaching and learning. The findings from this investigation not only inform on the present state of CSEd in the U.S., but also offer guidance for CSEd-focused graduate programs.
more »
« less
This content will become publicly available on June 1, 2026
Implementing Interconnected Faculty Development Initiatives for STEM Faculty
Our evidence-based practice paper will present a Teaching Excellence Network (TEN) implemented at a large, multi-campus, North-Eastern US, R1 institution. TEN was funded by a 5-year NSF IUSE grant (institutional and community transformation track) that was part of a multidisciplinary collaboration of science and engineering faculty and Learning Centers staff. We discuss our practices, the reasons behind them, and impacts on participating faculty, emphasizing building connections between the institution’s offices, departments, and schools. TEN addressed perceptions of fragmentated and siloed faculty development initiatives at our institution. Faculty development efforts are distributed across departments, including an office for teaching with technology, one for assessment and evaluation, two school-based offices, a center for faculty research excellence, and an office for DEIB efforts. While each contributes significantly to faculty development, the siloes and disconnected communication channels lead to a perception of scarcity when it comes to support around teaching. In addition, most units focus on specific areas of development and not the kind of holistic teaching support we implemented. Recently, engineering departments have hired full-time teaching-focused faculty to improve teaching practice and education quality. While some science and math departments have many teaching-focused faculty, our engineering departments often have only a few faculty in these positions. We designed our BDI to bring siloed faculty together and create easier access to the many and varied programs across campus. TEN, and our study, are grounded in questions about how institutional structures impact faculty agency and motivation. Our work is guided by three theories: Structuration, Agency, and Expectancy-Value. These theories conceptualize human motivation as being connected to instructors’ expectations of success in an endeavour (e.g., transforming aspects of their course) and the perceived value of that endeavour, while allowing us to examine the interdependence of human decision-making and institutional structures. We planned TEN around maximizing value for faculty, while generating structures that supported faculty becoming involved in our programs and focusing efforts on teaching development. TEN has two major components: summer institutes are focused on pedagogical content delivery, and the production of usable materials and course design plans; semester support groups focus on the production or implementation of specific smaller projects, or the in-depth discussion of particular research-based ideas to provide faculty continuing support and a sense of connectedness with peers. Our analysis will start from a thematic analysis of interviews with faculty, in the style of Braun and Clark, to develop a sense of our data and the impacts that this program has had on participants. We will be using our theoretical lens to look for themes around how the structures of TEN have impacted faculty. Through the iterative process of thematic analysis, other themes may also emerge for investigation, which will enrich our understanding of participants’ experiences. Presentation of these themes, alongside illustrative cases of STEM faculty, will demonstrate the impacts of TEN on participants, provide context for engaging roundtable discussions of what participants are taking away from the programs, and present implications for faculty development initiatives.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 2013315
- PAR ID:
- 10635818
- Publisher / Repository:
- ASEE Conferences
- Date Published:
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Location:
- Montreal, Quebec, Canada
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Abstract—Expectations for faculty members are high: STEM faculty are expected to establish a sustainable research trajectory, a teaching practice, and a service/leadership role all while pursuing tenure and promotion success. Although many colleges and universities have established STEM faculty development programs, a deficiency in holistic professional support remains, specifically in the integration and alignment of these disparate professional activities with individual and institutional goals. This session will involve participants to continue the work undertaken to bring together multiple stakeholders in academia, government, and industry to establish a research agenda for STEM faculty development. The audience includes those interested in furthering this research agenda. Keywords—STEM, faculty development, research agendamore » « less
-
Equity-minded institutional transformation requires robust faculty learning. Research has shown that the single most important factor in student success is faculty interaction. Positive, supportive, and empowering faculty interaction is particularly important to the success of female students, poor and working class students, and students of color, but most faculty are not prepared to offer the kind of support that has been shown to be most effective for marginalized students. If institutions are serious about equity and about transformation, then they are obligated to provide professional development that will support the learning necessary for faculty to fulfill these important roles and to support faculty financially or by buying their time to participate in it. An effective way to do this is to align such professional development with the urgent needs of the campus and their related campus-wide initiatives. This article describes a community of practice model of identity-conscious professional development that engages faculty in a scholarly approach to the science of learning and evidence-based teaching and curriculum development while at the same time insistently and consistently incorporating critical reflection on and exploration of how systems of power and oppression impact learning. We believe this faculty engagement is key to transforming our institution into a more equitable and inclusive learning environment for students and faculty alike.more » « less
-
Faculty, Academic Careers, and Environments (FACE): Institutional Data Providers Focus Groups ReportGiven the critical role of institutional data collection for the FACE project, we conducted focus groups with institutional researchers from different institutional contexts to inform our institution-level data collection instruments and processes because we were interested in speaking first with the people who would be responding to our requests at the institutional level. We conducted focus groups of institutional data providers to understand the specific data that institutions maintain on faculty (e.g., length and continuity of employment, advancement, office space, instructional load), which institutional offices maintain those data, the format of the data, and institutional policies related to data sharing. The information gained from the focus groups informed the development of our data collection procedures, particularly in terms of identifying survey language and definitions.more » « less
-
CONTEXT Engineering education is an interdisciplinary research field where scholars are commonly embedded within the context they study. Engineering Education Scholars (EES), individuals who define themselves by having expertise associated with both engineering education research and practice, inhabit an array of academic positions, depending on their priorities, interests, and desired impact. These positions include, but are not limited to, traditional tenure-track faculty positions, professional teaching or research positions, and positions within teaching and learning centers or other centers. EES also work in diverse institutional contexts, including engineering disciplinary departments, first-year programs, and engineering education departments, which further vary their roles. PURPOSE OR GOAL The purpose of this preliminary research study is to better understand the roles and responsibilities of early-career EES. This knowledge will enable PhD programs to better prepare engineering education graduates to more intentionally seek positions, which is especially important given the growing number of engineering education PhD programs. We address our purpose by exploring the following research question: How can we describe the diversity of academic or faculty roles early-career EES undertake? APPROACH OR METHODOLOGY/METHODS We implemented an explanatory sequential mixed-methods study starting with a survey (n=59) to better understand the strategic actions of United States-based early-career EES. We used a clustering technique to identify clusters of participants based on these actions (e.g., teaching focused priorities, research goals). We subsequently recruited 14 survey participants, representing each of the main clusters, to participate in semi-structured interviews. Through the interviews, we sought to gain a more nuanced understanding of each participant’s actions in the contexts of their roles and responsibilities. We analyzed each interview transcript to develop memos providing an overview of each early-career EES role description and then used a cross case analysis where the unit of analysis was a cluster. ACTUAL OUTCOMES Five main clusters were identified through our analysis, with three representing primarily research-focused day-to-day responsibilities and two representing primarily teaching-focused day-to-day responsibilities. The difference between the clusters was influenced by the institutional context and the areas in which EES selected to focus their roles and responsibilities. These results add to our understanding of how early-career EES enact their roles within different institutional contexts and positions. CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS/SUMMARY This work can be used by graduate programs around the world to better prepare their engineering education graduates for obtaining positions that align with their goals and interests. Further, we expect this work to provide insight to institutions so that they can provide the support and resources to enable EES to reach their desired impact within their positions.more » « less
