Search for: All records

Abstract The development of reflective practitioners is one of four dominant change strategies in the Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) higher education literature. However, little research concerns the characterization of faculty’s reflections. Before professional development programs can effectively incorporate reflective writings as a tool for pedagogical improvement, it is necessary to first understand the current state of faculty’s reflections. To accomplish this goal, 98 physics and astronomy instructors were recruited from a teaching-focused professional development workshop and were asked to write a reflection on a self-identified challenging teaching experience. A combination ofa prioricoding to analyze the content and depth of the reflections, as well as in vivo coding to better capture instructors’ thinking were utilized. The majority of instructors wrote low-level reflections, wherein connections were not made between an instructors’ actions and the observed outcomes or the described experience was not centered on students’ outcomes or educational research literature. Approximately half of the instructors contemplated their own growth and the relationships with their students. However, only a small minority of instructors considered larger societal, cultural, or ethical factors. Plans created by instructors to address future, similar situations heavily relied on the instructors themselves, regardless of the depth of their reflections, and few planned to seek out knowledge from other resources such as peers or the education literature. This study indicates that instructors may not engage in the types of reflection that are considered to promote meaningful instructional change. Trends in the instructors’ plans show that ongoing support is necessary for them to effectively reflect and grow as practitioners. Overall, this work provides valuable insight into the poorly understood nature of faculty’s reflections and showcases the need for more research to fully characterize reflections across STEM disciplines and to better inform professional development. 

Active learning pedagogies are shown to enhance the outcomes of students, particularly in disciplines known for high attrition rates. Despite the demonstrated benefits of active learning, didactic lecture continues to predominate in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) courses. Change agents and professional development programs have historically placed emphasis on develop–disseminate efforts for the adoption of research-based instructional strategies (RBIS). With numerous reported barriers and motivators for trying out and adopting active learning, it is unclear to what extent these factors are associated with adoption of RBIS and the effectiveness of change strategies. We present the results of a large-scale, survey-based study of introductory chemistry, mathematics, and physics instructors and their courses in the United States. Herein, we evaluate the association of 17 malleable factors with the tryout and adoption of RBIS. Multilevel logistic regression analyses suggest that several contextual, personal, and teacher thinking factors are associated with different stages of RBIS adoption. These results are also compared with analogous results evaluating the association of these factors with instructors’ time spent lecturing. We offer actionable implications for change agents to provide targeted professional development programming and for institutional leaders to influence the adoption of active learning pedagogies in introductory STEM courses. 

Instructors’ interactions can foster knowledge sharing around teaching and the use of research-based instructional strategies (RBIS). Coordinated teaching presents an impetus for instructors’ interactions and creates opportunities for instructional improvement but also potentially limits an instructor’s autonomy. In this study, we sought to characterize the extent of coordination present in introductory undergraduate courses and to understand how departments and instructors implement and experience course coordination. We examined survey data from 3,641 chemistry, mathematics, and physics instructors at three institution types and conducted follow-up interviews with a subset of 24 survey respondents to determine what types of coordination existed, what factors led to coordination, how coordination constrained instruction, and how instructors maintained autonomy within coordinated contexts. We classified three approaches to coordination at both the overall course and course component levels: independent (i.e., not coordinated), collaborative (decision-making by instructor and others), controlled (decision-making by others, not instructor). Two course components, content coverage and textbooks, were highly coordinated. These curricular components were often decided through formal or informal committees, but these decisions were seldom revisited. This limited the ability for instructors to participate in the decision-making process, the level of interactions between instructors, and the pedagogical growth that could have occurred through these conversations. Decision-making around the other two course components, instructional methods and exams, was more likely to be independently determined by the instructors, who valued this autonomy. Participants in the study identified various ways in which collaborative coordination of courses can promote but also inhibit pedagogical growth. Our findings indicate that the benefits of collaborative course coordination can be realized when departments develop coordinated approaches that value each instructor’s autonomy, incorporate shared and ongoing decision-making, and facilitate collaborative interactions and knowledge sharing among instructors.