Search for: All records

Abstract Desired reforms in undergraduate education require shifts in departmental practices. Department heads are positioned to be change agents, but often lack formal leadership training, and their approaches to change have received little scholarly attention. Research findings from disciplines like organizational management can offer relevant insights. We drew on Kotter’s 8-step model for leading change as a theoretical lens for examining the ideas and actions of heads leading changes to departmental teaching evaluation practices. We used deductive and inductive qualitative content analysis to identify what was present and absent in the approaches taken by department heads. Department heads used some, but not all the steps in the 8-step model and prioritized additional actions. They sought faculty input to foster a sense of ownership in new practices and address concerns. Heads also proposed new changes strategically, worked with colleagues to develop new practices and build buy-in, and aimed to cultivate confidence about the feasibility of new practices. Compared to the 8-step model, heads did not foster a sense of urgency or intentionally craft messaging. Drawing on the collective wisdom of department heads and Kotter’s model, we present an adapted process for leading change in academic departments. The process recognizes the flat hierarchy of academic departments by including iterative steps of proposing, piloting, and revising new practices. It also highlights important steps that might not be the norm in departments, such as formulating careful messaging about the need for a change and repeatedly and intentionally broadcasting progress. 

Inadequate teaching evaluation practices undermine a department's ability to encourage, recognize, and reward effective teaching. Adopting more robust and equitable evaluation practices can address this, but faculty often worry their colleagues will resist such changes. We describe the development of the Teaching Evaluation Readiness Assessment (TERA), a survey to measure faculty readiness for reforming departmental teaching evaluation practices. The TERA is grounded in the readiness for change framework from organizational management, which stipulates components that contribute to productive engagement with an organizational change. This survey is designed to measure the extent to which faculty: (a) see value in teaching evaluation reform for themselves and their department, (b) feel their department would be capable of successfully changing teaching evaluation practices, and (c) perceive that their department head would be supportive of these changes. We used existing instruments, expert review, think-aloud interviews, exploratory factor analysis, confirmatory factor analysis, and comparisons across time and departments to develop the TERA and gather evidence of its validity as a measure of faculty readiness to change teaching evaluation. Findings suggest readiness for reform may be higher than what faculty and change agents perceived anecdotally. We discuss how the TERA can serve change agents and researchers. 

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 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.