Chemistry for Everyone: An Inclusive Approach to Teaching General Chemistry at Xavier University of Louisiana

Abdulahad, Asem; Privett, Janet A.; Adams, Michael R.

doi:10.1021/acs.jchemed.1c00419

Cited by 1 publication

(4 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Course coordination provides an opportunity for shared teaching and has been linked to improved student outcomes (Rasmussen et al, 2021;Abdulahad et al, 2021). To date, most studies on coordination in STEM undergraduate courses have focused on mathematics (Rasmussen and Ellis, 2015;Rasmussen et al, 2019Rasmussen et al, , 2021Villalobos et al, 2020;Martinez et al, 2022).…”

Section: Course Coordination In Stem Undergraduate Educationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Some courses may synchronize all four of these components (Bazett and Clough, 2020;Rasmussen et al, 2021) while others may synchronize some subset of the components. For example, the syllabus and pacing in a general chemistry course were synchronized in one study (Abdulahad et al, 2021). In mathematics, some institutions synchronized textbooks and content while others synchronized textbooks, content, and exams (Rasmussen and Ellis, 2015;Bazett and Clough, 2020).…”

Section: Course Coordination In Stem Undergraduate Educationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Shared decision-making in coordinated course environments has been reported as important for transforming instructors' teaching practices (Rasmussen and Ellis, 2015;Rasmussen et al, 2019Rasmussen et al, , 2021Villalobos et al, 2020;Abdulahad et al, 2021;Martinez et al, 2022). However, instructors also indicate a need for autonomy in decisionmaking around their courses (Stupnisky et al, 2018;Martinez et al, 2022).…”

Section: Autonomymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, greater RBIS adoption and less use of lecturing has been reported by physics instructors when compared to chemistry instructors (Lund and Stains, 2015;Yik et al, 2022a,b). Currently, the majority of research on coordination in STEM undergraduate education has been limited to mathematics (but see Fernández et al, 2021 for a study in physics and Abdulahad et al (2021) for a study in chemistry). We contribute to filling this gap by investigating chemistry, physics, and mathematicsthree disciplines that each provide foundational gateway courses for most STEM degrees.…”

Section: Autonomymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Examining whether and how instructional coordination occurs within introductory undergraduate STEM courses

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Course Coordination In Stem Undergraduate Educationmentioning

confidence: 99%