Search for: All records

Effective teaching requires teachers to leverage their knowledge of how students think about and learn specific topics (i.e., pedagogical content knowledge). This longitudinal qualitative study of early-career biology instructors examines the development of this specialized teaching knowledge. 

We relied on change theory to design a 3-year intervention with STEM department heads to provide space for busy heads to focus on research-based change in teaching evaluation practices. The impact on departmental practices was variable and department head readiness for change mattered. 

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. 

Most science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) departments inadequately evaluate teaching, which means they are not equipped to recognize or reward effective teaching. As part of a project at one institution, we observed that departmental chairs needed help recognizing the decisions they would need to make to improve teaching evaluation practices. To meet this need, we developed the Guides to Advance Teaching Evaluation (GATEs), using an iterative development process. The GATEs are designed to be a planning tool that outlines concrete goals to guide reform in teaching evaluation practices in STEM departments at research-intensive institutions. The GATEs are grounded in the available scholarly literature and guided by existing reform efforts and have been vetted with STEM departmental chairs. The GATEs steer departments to draw on three voices to evaluate teaching: trained peers, students, and the instructor. This research-based resource includes three components for each voice: 1) a list of departmental target practices to serve as goals; 2) a characterization of common starting places to prompt reflection; and 3) ideas for getting started. We provide anecdotal examples of potential uses of the GATEs for reform efforts in STEM departments and as a research tool to document departmental practices at different time points. 

Abstract BackgroundSTEM instructors who leverage student thinking can positively influence student outcomes and build their own teaching expertise. Leveraging student thinking involves using the substance of student thinking to inform instruction. The ways in which instructors leverage student thinking in undergraduate STEM contexts, and what enables them to do so effectively, remains largely unexplored. We investigated how undergraduate STEM faculty leverage student thinking in their teaching, focusing on faculty who engage students in work during class. ResultsFrom analyzing interviews and video of a class lesson for eight undergraduate STEM instructors, we identified a group of instructors who exhibited high levels of leveraging student thinking (high-leveragers) and a group of instructors who exhibited low levels of leveraging student thinking (low-leveragers). High-leveragers behaved as if student thinking was central to their instruction. We saw this in how they accessed student thinking, worked to interpret it, and responded in the moment and after class. High-leveragers spent about twice as much class time getting access to detailed information about student thinking compared to low-leveragers. High-leveragers then altered instructional plans from lesson to lesson and during a lesson based on their interpretation of student thinking. Critically, high-leveragers also drew on much more extensive knowledge of student thinking, a component of pedagogical content knowledge, than did low-leveragers. High-leveragers used knowledge of student thinking to create access to more substantive student thinking, shape real-time interpretations, and inform how and when to respond. In contrast, low-leveragers accessed student thinking less frequently, interpreted student thinking superficially or not at all, and never discussed adjusting the content or problems for the following lesson. ConclusionsThis study revealed that not all undergraduate STEM instructors who actively engage students in work during class are also leveraging student thinking. In other words, not all student-centered instruction is student-thinking-centered instruction. We discuss possible explanations for why some STEM instructors are leveraging student thinking and others are not. In order to realize the benefits of student-centered instruction for undergraduates, we may need to support undergraduate STEM instructors in learning how to learn from their teaching experiences by leveraging student thinking. 

Abstract This article systematically reviews how change theory has been used in STEM higher educational change between 1995 and 2019. Researchers are increasingly turning to theory to inform the design, implementation, and investigation of educational improvement efforts. Yet, efforts are often siloed by discipline and relevant change theory comes from diverse fields outside of STEM. Thus, there is a need to bring together work across disciplines to investigate which change theories are used and how they inform change efforts. This review is based on 97 peer-reviewed articles. We provide an overview of change theories used in the sample and describe how theory informed the rationale and assumptions of projects, conceptualizations of context, indicators used to determine if goals were met, and intervention design. This review points toward three main findings. Change research in STEM higher education almost always draws on theory about individual change, rather than theory that also attends to the system in which change takes place. Additionally, research in this domain often draws on theory in a superficial fashion, instead of using theory as a lens or guide to directly inform interventions, research questions, measurement and evaluation, data analysis, and data interpretation. Lastly, change researchers are not often drawing on, nor building upon, theories used in other studies. This review identified 40 distinct change theories in 97 papers. This lack of theoretical coherence in a relatively limited domain substantially limits our ability to build collective knowledge about how to achieve change. These findings call for more synthetic theoretical work; greater focus on diversity, equity, and inclusion; and more formal opportunities for scholars to learn about change and change theory. 

College instructors faced a rapid transition to remote instruction in spring 2020, and with it a host of new teaching challenges. This qualitative study investigates what 26 college biology instructors learned about students and teaching during this time. We used semi-structured interviews and content analysis to identify instructor learning that is relevant beyond the COVID-19 pandemic. Participants described two related insights about students: They became more aware that students' lives outside the classroom are complex, and they realized that their campus can act as a neutralizing space for students. Participants also reconsidered how they assess student learning. New realizations about students and teaching have the potential to impact teaching practices when in-person instruction resumes. Especially promising is an increased focus on students as individuals and the recognition that not all students experience life and courses in the same way. We relate findings to existing research and propose self-reflection questions that these findings raised for us 

There has been a recent push for greater collaboration across the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields in discipline-based education research (DBER). The DBER fields are unique in that they require a deep understanding of both disciplinary content and educational research. DBER scholars are generally trained and hold professional positions in discipline-specific departments. The professional societies with which DBER scholars are most closely aligned are also often discipline specific. This frequently results in DBER researchers working in silos. At the same time, there are many cross-cutting issues across DBER research in higher education, and DBER researchers across disciplines can benefit greatly from cross-disciplinary collaborations. This report describes the Breaking Down Silos working meeting, which was a short, focused meeting intentionally designed to foster such collaborations. The focus of Breaking Down Silos was institutional transformation in STEM education, but we describe the ways the overall meeting design and structure could be a useful model for fostering cross-­disciplinary collaborations around other research priorities of the DBER community. We describe our approach to meeting recruitment, premeeting work, and inclusive meeting design. We also highlight early outcomes from our perspective and the perspectives of the meeting participants.