Search for: All records

Professional learning communities (PLCs) can be a way to support college mathematics instructors in shifting their instruction to be more student-centered. This study focuses on what College Algebra instructors noticed when observing their colleagues’ teaching in a video club setting within the PLC. We used the instructional tetrahedron to classify what instructors noticed according to the four vertices: Content, Students, Teacher, and Tools and Technology. Results highlight that instructors’ discussions shifted away from Tools and Technology after returning to in-person classes and that instructors’ discussions about Tools and Technology differed depending on the in person or online class context. We also found that instructors frequently noticed Teacher interactions, which points to their perceptions about the goals of the PLC - to provide feedback about teaching and to generate ideas about how to improve one’s own instruction. Finally, what instructors notice about their colleagues’ teaching might shed light on that instructors’ goals and beliefs about teaching. 

While there is evidence that college students benefit from classroom activities that engage them, a shift in instruction from the lecture style of teaching to methods where students are actively involved in their learning is difficult to generate. This study focuses on providing structure and support for college algebra instructors to implement evidence-based instructional practices. We interviewed participants each semester they were involved with this project to gain insight into their perspectives on their teaching practices. We also video-recorded three lessons each semester when participants were implementing co-constructed in-class materials. Initial results showed how collaboration empowered instructors to implement evidence-based instructional practices in their class. Additionally, even though instructors collaborated to co-create in-class materials, results showed variation in their implementation styles as they moved towards more student-centered practices. 

Abstract Background STEM 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. Results From 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. Conclusions This 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. 

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.