An official website of the United States government
Abstract BackgroundThe University of California system has a novel tenure-track education-focused faculty position called Lecturer with Security of Employment (working titles: Teaching Professor or Professor of Teaching). We focus on the potential difference in implementation of active-learning strategies by faculty type, including tenure-track education-focused faculty, tenure-track research-focused faculty, and non-tenure-track lecturers. In addition, we consider other instructor characteristics (faculty rank, years of teaching, and gender) and classroom characteristics (campus, discipline, and class size). We use a robust clustering algorithm to determine the number of clusters, identify instructors using active learning, and to understand the instructor and classroom characteristics in relation to the adoption of active-learning strategies. ResultsWe observed 125 science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) undergraduate courses at three University of California campuses using the Classroom Observation Protocol for Undergraduate STEM to examine active-learning strategies implemented in the classroom. Tenure-track education-focused faculty are more likely to teach with active-learning strategies compared to tenure-track research-focused faculty. Instructor and classroom characteristics that are also related to active learning include campus, discipline, and class size. The campus with initiatives and programs to support undergraduate STEM education is more likely to have instructors who adopt active-learning strategies. There is no difference in instructors in the Biological Sciences, Engineering, or Information and Computer Sciences disciplines who teach actively. However, instructors in the Physical Sciences are less likely to teach actively. Smaller class sizes also tend to have instructors who teach more actively. ConclusionsThe novel tenure-track education-focused faculty position within the University of California system represents a formal structure that results in higher adoption of active-learning strategies in undergraduate STEM education. Campus context and evolving expectations of the position (faculty rank) contribute to the symbols related to learning and teaching that correlate with differential implementation of active learning.
more »
« less
This content will become publicly available on December 31, 2026
Participation in a discipline-based education research project mitigates barriers and enhances drivers to teaching reform differently across faculty positions and departments
Large enrollment, introductory science and engineering classes at research universities are frequently the subject of Discipline-Based Education Research projects and are commonly taught by non-tenure track faculty. However, tenure-track and nontenure-track faculty may encounter different institutional structures that impact their implementation of, or intention to use, evidence-based instructional practices. We used a multiple nested case study framed by the Teacher-Centered Systemic Reform model to identify structural, cultural, and personal components of reform that differed by faculty position and home academic department in the context of a discipline based education research project. Structural, cultural, and personal drivers and barriers to reform differed between position types and among departments but there were interactions between these two effects, suggesting both need to be considered in reform efforts and research projects. Overall, involvement in the discipline-based education research project served as a positive experience, addressed barriers and enhanced drivers for adopting EBIP. Our study highlights factors that promote and prevent the integration of evidence-based practices, and we suggest that involvement in discipline-based education research can encourage the adoption of student-centered pedagogy in science and engineering classes.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 2012342
- PAR ID:
- 10643510
- Publisher / Repository:
- Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Cogent Education
- Volume:
- 12
- Issue:
- 1
- ISSN:
- 2331-186X
- Subject(s) / Keyword(s):
- Teachers & teacher education classroom practice higher education Non-tenure-track professors discipline-based education research science education evidence-based instructional practices Teacher-Centered Systemic Reform model
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
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
-
In this essay, we share historical and structural components of mentoring within institutions of higher education and grapple with technical and moral obligations of support. We argue for more humanizing approaches that embed personal, social, and cultural aspects of mentoring, and seek to disrupt the purposes of mentoring, and for whom? Using a critical approach, we promote justice-oriented and equity-driven models of mentoring that account for excessive teaching loads and service commitments for faculty at minority-serving institutions and Black and Brown faculty at predominantly White institutions. Current promotion and tenure publish or perish models neglect the intellectual and scholarly contributions made through teaching and service and therefore hold the same level of expectations for engagement in and dissemination of research. We share our own stories as Faculty of Color navigating institutional structures during the promotion and tenure process, while also negotiating incongruent cultures of our personal and professional lives. Furthermore, we address the need for mentoring and networking within exclusionary spaces to support the productivity and critical research agendas of Black and Brown faculty that often challenge the white heteronormative cultures of our institutions, professional organizations, peer-reviewed journals, and prestigious funding mechanisms. Implications of this essay include an acknowledgment of oppressive systems that early-career Black and Brown faculty often navigate and a call for diverse mentoring programs and supports that conform with and validate our lives and needs. Furthermore, we provide recommendations on evidence-based resources and approaches that are available to science, technology, engineering, and mathematics faculty and science educators.more » « less
-
Over the past two decades, there has been a significant increase in the production of engineering education research. Worldwide, this increase is reflected in the growing number of papers that are submitted to engineering education-focused conferences; engineering education-focused journal outlets; and the increasing number of new schools and departments of engineering education, and tenure-track faculty positions opening up in the United States. In spite of these developments, it is often argued that there remains a gap between engineering education research and educational practice. Some studies attribute this gap to a focus on the dissemination of evidence-based practices, as opposed to working with instructors to adapt evidence-based practices to “fit” into new contexts (Froyd et al., 2017). Other research points to the need for broader cultural change, for example at the level of the school or department, in order to create the conditions that enable and encourage instructors to sustainably engage with scholarly teaching and learning practices (Henderson, Beach, & Finkelstein, 2011). In this paper, we describe a novel institutional model, currently embodied in the Engineering Education Transformations Institute (EETI) at the University of Georgia (UGA), which is designed to create such conditions (Morelock, Walther, & Sochacka, 2019). Philosophically, our model is based on a propagation (versus a dissemination) paradigm (Froyd et al., 2017), grounded in a strengths (Saleebey, 2012) (versus a deficit) approach to existing instructional capacity, and broadly informed by complex systems theory (Laszlo, 1996; Meadows & Wright, 2008). Practically, the model leverages ecological design principles (Hemenway, 2009) to inform the day-to-day operations of the effort. This paper describes these philosophical and practical underpinnings and investigates the following research question: How can ecological design principles be operationalized to cultivate a culture of innovative and scholarly teaching and learning in a college of engineering?more » « less
-
Contribution: This study aimed to improve understanding of context-based affordances and barriers to adoption of evidence-based instructional practices (EBIPs) among faculty in electrical and computer engineering (ECE). Context-based influences, including motives, constraints, and feedback mechanisms impacting EBIP adoption across six ECE faculty participants were documented using qualitative analysis. Background: Recent engineering education literature notes that the adoption of EBIPs by engineering faculty is lagging despite increased faculty awareness of EBIPs, belief in their effectiveness, and interest in integrating them. While researchers continue to investigate barriers to faculty adoption of EBIPs in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education settings, few studies have dedicated examinations within a specific disciplinary context, particularly among ECE faculty members. Research Question: What context-based barriers and affordances influence adoption of EBIPs by ECE faculty members? Methodology: This study qualitatively analyzed data from in-depth interviews with six ECE faculty members from engineering programs throughout the United States. The study applied an iterative combination of case study and thematic analysis techniques to identify context-relevant and unique factors relevant to each individual participant and synthesize the process of decision making when incorporating EBIPs using a systems perspective. Findings: Overall, the approach identified drivers, constraints, and feedback mechanisms in regard to four emergent categories of EBIP adoption cases: 1) no use; 2) discontinued use; 3) in development; and 4) continued use. The study reports examples of context-based influences among the six participants in relation to their level of EBIP adoption, highlighting the substantial variation in faculty experiences with incorporating EBIPsmore » « less
