Search for: All records

Recent reports have highlighted the varied and complicated paths STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) students often take to graduation, which may include attending multiple institutions and increased time to degree. These issues can be addressed, in part, by better coherence between institutions of higher education, such as two-year colleges (TYCs) and four-year colleges and universities. This article presents a cross-case comparison of two faculty-driven partnerships between TYCs and four-year institutions. Outcomes include impacts on individual faculty and increased coherence across the partnering institutions, resulting in course and program transformation, evolution of faculty identity and roles, better coherence and alignment across institutions, and faculty participation in national dialogue surrounding educational transformation. These two partnerships developed and operated independently, but common features include a concrete programmatic focus; regular, equitable discussions between faculty from different institutions; participation of faculty from institutions with similar missions and values; and initial external funding. These cases illustrate how faculty-driven, nonhierarchical, and discipline-based partnerships can facilitate faculty growth, while increasing coherence between two- and four-year institutions in an effort to better serve STEM students. 

Recent reports have highlighted the varied and complicated paths STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) students often take to graduation, which may include attending multiple institutions and increased time to degree. These issues can be addressed, in part, by better coherence between institutions of higher education, such as two-year colleges (TYCs) and four-year colleges and universities. This article presents a cross-case comparison of two faculty-driven partnerships between TYCs and four-year institutions. Outcomes include impacts on individual faculty and increased coherence across the partnering institutions, resulting in course and program transformation, evolution of faculty identity and roles, better coherence and alignment across institutions, and faculty participation in national dialogue surrounding educational transformation. These two partnerships developed and operated independently, but common features include a concrete programmatic focus; regular, equitable discussions between faculty from different institutions; participation of faculty from institutions with similar missions and values; and initial external funding. These cases illustrate how faculty-driven, non-hierarchical, and discipline-based partnerships can facilitate faculty growth, while increasing coherence between two- and four year institutions in an effort to better serve STEM students.