Changing the Culture of Science Education at Research Universities

Anderson, William A.; Banerjee, Utpal; Drennan, Catherine L.; Elgin, Sarah C. R.; Epstein, Irving R.; Handelsman, Jo; Hatfull, Graham F.; Losick, Richard; O’Dowd, Diane K.; Olivera, B.M.; Strobel, Scott A.; Walker, Graham C.; Warner, Isiah M.

doi:10.1126/science.1198280

Cited by 206 publications

(165 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

157

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…On the surface, this result does not seem consistent with recommendations towards building a culture of teaching improvement through discussion about teaching [65,94,95]. We suspect that this apparent discrepancy arises because it is not the frequency of discussions that is important, but rather the content of the discussions that is important.…”

Section: Barriers To Innovative Instructionmentioning

confidence: 81%

“…(b) Focus on research over teaching. The reward structure in higher education that tends to favor research over teaching is often cited as a barrier to the use of RBIS [2,48,[63][64][65]. If this is the case, one might expect faculty at teaching-oriented institutions to use more RBIS than faculty at research-oriented institutions.…”

Section: Diffusion Of Research-based Instructional Strategiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Use of research-based instructional strategies in introductory physics: Where do faculty leave the innovation-decision process?

Henderson

Dancy

Niewiadomska-Bugaj

2012

Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res.

274

303

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

During the fall of 2008 a web survey, designed to collect information about pedagogical knowledge and practices, was completed by a representative sample of 722 physics faculty across the United States (50.3% response rate). This paper presents partial results to describe how 20 potential predictor variables correlate with faculty knowledge about and use of research-based instructional strategies (RBIS). The innovation-decision process was conceived of in terms of four stages: knowledge versus no knowledge, trial versus no trial, continuation versus discontinuation, and high versus low use. The largest losses occur at the continuation stage, with approximately 1=3 of faculty discontinuing use of all RBIS after trying one or more of these strategies. Nine of the predictor variables were statistically significant for at least one of these stages when controlling for other variables. Knowledge and/or use of RBIS are significantly correlated with reading teaching-related journals, attending talks and workshops related to teaching, attending the physics and astronomy new faculty workshop, having an interest in using more RBIS, being female, being satisfied with meeting instructional goals, and having a permanent, full-time position. The types of variables that are significant at each stage vary substantially. These results suggest that common dissemination strategies are good at creating knowledge about RBIS and motivation to try a RBIS, but more work is needed to support faculty during implementation and continued use of RBIS. Also, contrary to common assumptions, faculty age, institutional type, and percentage of job related to teaching were not found to be barriers to knowledge or use at any stage. High research productivity and large class sizes were not found to be barriers to use of at least some RBIS.

show abstract

Section: Barriers To Innovative Instructionmentioning

confidence: 81%

Section: Diffusion Of Research-based Instructional Strategiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Use of research-based instructional strategies in introductory physics: Where do faculty leave the innovation-decision process?

Henderson

Dancy

Niewiadomska-Bugaj

2012

Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res.

274

303

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…institutional culture. The value placed on these efforts [20] and the recognition of accomplishments along the way [15] were critical elements of rooting the new curriculum and educational culture in our institution. Furthermore, this opened the door for further integration of the doctoral education program.…”

Section: Box 3bmentioning

confidence: 99%

Leading change: Curriculum reform in graduate education in the biomedical sciences

Dasgupta

Symes

Hyman

2015

Biochem Molecular Bio Educ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Division of Graduate Medical Sciences at the Boston University School of Medicine houses numerous dynamic graduate programs. Doctoral students began their studies with laboratory rotations and classroom training in a variety of fundamental disciplines. Importantly, with 15 unique pathways of admission to these doctoral programs, there were also 15 unique curricula. Departments and programs offered courses independently, and students participated in curricula that were overlapping combinations of these courses. This system created curricula that were not coordinated and that had redundant course content as well as content gaps. A partnership of key stakeholders began a curriculum reform process to completely restructure doctoral education at the Boston University School of Medicine. The key pedagogical goals, objectives, and elements designed into the new curriculum through this reform process created a curriculum designed to foster the interdisciplinary thinking that students are ultimately asked to utilize in their research endeavors. We implemented comprehensive student and peer evaluation of the new Foundations in Biomedical Sciences integrated curriculum to assess the new curriculum. Furthermore, we detail how this process served as a gateway toward creating a more fully integrated graduate experience, under the umbrella of the Program in Biomedical Sciences. V C 2015 by The International Union of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, 43(2):126-132, 2015.Keywords: graduate education; curriculum reform; biomedical science; interdisciplinary; doctoral education Introduction Doctoral education has been based on an apprentice model in the biological sciences for many decades; however, even given this practical emphasis on the applied science, it has still been noted that, "We should focus less on the production of PhDs and more on the production of scientists. They are not necessarily the same thing" [1]. Certainly, the apprentice model does run the risk of producing graduates with highly specialized knowledge about their area of expertise with little appreciation of the context of their work [2]. Moreover, there has been a national call toward moving our scientific educational programs in an interdisciplinary direction, and much of the initial focus of these efforts has been at the undergraduate level [3,4]. However, a shifting funding landscape toward interdisciplinary and translational science [5] has helped to catalyze discussions on teaching science as an integrated process of inquiry that is less concerned with discipline-specific facts [6,7].As this educational movement has filtered into the arena of graduate education, a number of proposals have been put forth from encouraging curriculum fellows to develop integrated graduate courses [8,9] to developing graduate-level laboratory courses [10]. What these interventions have in common is a focus on developing interdisciplinary educational opportunities that apply to the research paradigm in which graduate students will be embedded [11][12][13]. In...

show abstract

“…This highlights the need for academics who do focus on education to take a scientific and scholarly approach and to do valid and productive research into science education. The need to for universities to better recognise, reward and support academics who are dedicated teachers is highlighted in a 2011 paper in Science "Changing the culture of science education at research universities" (Anderson et al 2011). They make several recommendations that reinforce the way forward including, "Educate faculty about research on learning", "Create awards and named professorships that provide research support for outstanding teachers", "create cross-disciplinary programs in college level learning" and "Engage chairs, deans and presidents".…”

Section: The Current Situation In Tertiary Science Educationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Science education in Australia: time of change

Ross

Poronnik

2013

Grumpy Scientists

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Changing the Culture of Science Education at Research Universities

Abstract: Universities must better recognize, reward, and support the efforts of researchers who are also excellent and dedicated teachers.

Cited by 206 publications

References 16 publications

Use of research-based instructional strategies in introductory physics: Where do faculty leave the innovation-decision process?

Use of research-based instructional strategies in introductory physics: Where do faculty leave the innovation-decision process?

Leading change: Curriculum reform in graduate education in the biomedical sciences

Science education in Australia: time of change

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About