An official website of the United States government
The pervasive underrepresentation of racially minoritized students in STEM fields and the workforce remains a concern to the scientific community. At the graduate level, underrepresented students have reported difficulties with advising, negative research group experiences, along with challenges in determining their long-term career interests. STEM intervention programs (SIPs) aid in students’ abilities to be academically successful in graduate school, expose students to career opportunities, and provide them with skills to help them be competitive and successful in those professional roles. This study centers the experiences of 25 racially and ethnically underrepresented graduate students, all of whom participated in a graduate STEM intervention program, to better understand how they gained more clarity about their post-graduate career plans, namely the professoriate. The new information presented in this study offers insights into STEM intervention programs and graduate programs to better support minoritized graduate students in the development of their faculty career clarity.
more »
« less
“It let me merge my love of teaching with research”: A qualitative investigation of the career pathways of biology education researchers
Discipline-based education research—a field of research that investigates teaching and learning within STEM disciplines—has emerged over the last few decades to improve the quality of STEM education worldwide. Simple qualitative questions concerning the career backgrounds and motivations of the individuals who conduct this research have yet to be explored. Here, we surveyed and interviewed discipline-based education researchers about their career trajectories and motivations to pursue this field of research. We focused specifically on recruiting biology education research faculty members at colleges and universities. We used the Social Influence Model and Social Cognitive Career Theory to develop and analyze survey and semi-structured interview questions. Findings revealed participant career paths all began with disciplinary undergraduate and graduate-level biology education. We noticed participants began conducting biology education research due to theirvaluesandpersonal interests, while additionally being swayed bycontextual factors. Specifically, participantsvaluedbiology education research because it allowed them to make a difference in the world and provided them with a community open to change and collaboration. Biology education research allowed them to explore theirinterestsin teaching and evidence-based approaches to education. Thesevaluesandinterestswere impacted bycontextual factors, including discoveries of opportunities, positive (or negative) experiences with mentorship, exposure to evidence-based teaching literature, considerations of salary and job security, and experiences with gender-based discrimination. Our results underscore the importance of harnessing individual values and interests—especially those centered on evidence-based teaching practices and making a difference in the world—while fostering a positive and supportive academic environment. This research reveals pathways toward discipline-based education research careers. Additionally, this research can inform the development of graduate programs and funding opportunities.
more »
« less
- PAR ID:
- 10636528
- Editor(s):
- Malele-Kolisa, Yolanda
- Publisher / Repository:
- PLOS
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- PLOS ONE
- Volume:
- 19
- Issue:
- 10
- ISSN:
- 1932-6203
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- e0312243
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Given the infancy of engineering education as an established field and the recent increase in early career faculty aligning themselves with the discipline, it is imperative that the community better understand the experiences of these new faculty members. As a result, we will be able to enhance national efforts to train and develop faculty prepared to drive change in engineering education. Accordingly, this two-phased study investigates how institutional context influences the agency of our research team and other early career engineering education faculty as it relates to facilitating change in engineering education. Faculty play a central role in making change, thus there is a need to further understand the factors that influence their ability to do so. This work leverages collaborative inquiry and collaborative autoethnography to explore the lived experiences of our research team, which consists of six engineering education faculty who have different roles and responsibilities and are positioned in varied settings at diverse institutions. We represent a variety of perspectives with regard to our goals, visions, and training in engineering education. This project officially started in May 2017; however, we began collecting data in August 2015. Our poster will present a summary of our current progress, which includes the use of the Q3 Research Quality workshop to guide data collection and analysis. In addition to the methodological impact of our study, the results will provide the engineering education community with evidence-based insights on conditions that facilitate change efforts by early career engineering education faculty. By sharing our findings with current and developing engineering education graduate programs, we will enable them to make programmatic changes to benefit future faculty. These findings also will provide a mechanism for divisions of the American Society of Engineering Education (ASEE) to develop programming and resources to support the sustained success of their members.more » « less
-
Abstract Whether doctoral students are funded primarily by fellowships, research assistantships, or teaching assistantships impacts their degree completion, time to degree, learning outcomes, and short- and long-term career outcomes. Variations in funding patterns have been studied at the broad field level but not comparing engineering sub-disciplines. We addressed two research questions: How do PhD student funding mechanisms vary across engineering sub-disciplines? And how does variation in funding mechanisms across engineering sub-disciplines map onto the larger STEM disciplinary landscape? We analyzed 103,373 engineering and computing responses to the U.S. Survey of Earned Doctorates collected between 2007 and 2016. We conducted analysis of variance with Bonferroni post hoc comparisons to examine variation in funding across sub-disciplines. Then, we conducted a k-means cluster analysis on percentage variables for fellowship, research, and teaching assistantship funding mechanism with STEM sub-discipline as the unit of analysis. A statistically significantly greater percentage of biomedical/biological engineering doctoral students were funded via a fellowship, compared to every other engineering sub-discipline. Consequently, biomedical/biological engineering had significantly lower proportions of students supported via research and teaching assistantships than nearly all other engineering sub-disciplines. We identified five clusters. The majority of engineering sub-disciplines grouped together into a cluster with high research assistantships and low teaching assistantships. Biomedical/biological engineering clustered in the high fellowships grouping with most other biological sciences but no other engineering sub-disciplines. Biomedical/biological engineering behaves much more like biological and life sciences in utilizing fellowships to fund graduate students, far more than other engineering sub-disciplines. Our study provides further evidence of the prevalence of fellowships in life sciences and how it stretches into biomedical/biological engineering. The majority of engineering sub-disciplines relied more on research assistantships to fund graduate study. The lack of uniformity provides an opportunity to diversify student experiences during their graduate programs but also necessitates an awareness to the advantages and disadvantages that different funding portfolios can bestow on students.more » « less
-
Abstract Here, we systematically review research on teaching knowledge in the context of undergraduate STEM education, with particular attention to what this research reveals about knowledge that is important for evidence-based teaching. Evidence-based teaching can improve student outcomes in undergraduate STEM education. However, the enactment of promising evidence-based teaching strategies depends greatly on the instructor and potentially on the teaching knowledge they are able to deploy. The review includes an overview of prevalent teaching knowledge theory, including pedagogical content knowledge, mathematical knowledge for teaching, and pedagogical knowledge. We compare and contrast teaching knowledge theory and terminology across STEM disciplines in order to build bridges for researchers across disciplines. Our search for peer-reviewed investigations of teaching knowledge in undergraduate science, engineering and mathematics yielded 45 papers. We examined the theoretical frameworks used in each study and analyzed study approaches, comparing across disciplines. Importantly, we also synthesized findings from research conducted in the context of evidence-based teaching. Overall, teaching knowledge research is sparse and siloed by discipline, and we call for collaborative work and better bridge-building across STEM disciplines. Though disciplinary divergences are common in discipline-based education research, the effect is magnified in this research area because the theoretical frameworks are themselves siloed by discipline. Investigations of declarative knowledge were common, and we call for increased attention to knowledge used in the practice of teaching. Finally, there are not many studies examining teaching knowledge in the context of evidence-based teaching, but the existing work suggests that components of pedagogical content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and content knowledge influence the implementation of evidence-based teaching. We describe implications for future teaching knowledge research. We also call on those who develop and test evidence-based strategies and curriculum to consider, from the beginning, the teaching knowledge needed for effective implementation.more » « less
-
In this evidence-based practice paper, we discuss design rationale, implementation and evidence from a professional development program for emerging education researchers (PEER). Many STEM faculty, trained only in disciplinary research, transition into research on the teaching and learning side of their discipline, with transitions occurring after typical formal training opportunities (e.g. grad school, postdocs) are over. There are limited opportunities for professional development when starting education research, and options are highly dependent on home institution type, department priorities, and faculty career stage. The PEER program helps faculty at any institution jumpstart their transition into discipline-based education research. Our goal is to help foster the next generation of STEM education researchers. PEER participants develop quality research projects, engage in targeted experiential work to develop their projects and skills, and collaborate and form a long-term support community of peers, mentors and collaborators. Over the last 8 years, more than 1000 participants have engaged in PEER field schools worldwide. In this paper, we lay out the guiding principles of PEER: collaboration, responsiveness, communication, and playfulness. We situate the program within existing models for faculty professional development and describe the available modalities of PEER field schools: extended introductory in-person field schools (3-5 days), online or in-person gateway workshops (1.5 hours), and the new advanced in-person field schools (5 days). Each of these modalities is built off collaborative work among participants, blending development of foundational skills in education research with individual progress in their own specific education research projects. Drawing on evidence from interviews and surveys with STEM participants, we demonstrate the impact of different module activities on their professional skills, identity, and self-efficacy. We discuss the affordances and constraints of different formats and implications for faculty professional development. We prefer to present this work through a roundtable discussion, but we are also open to a lightning talk or a poster.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript
- Journal Article:
- https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0312243
