Measuring the Association of Departmental Climate around Teaching with Adoption of Evidence-Based Instructional Practices: A National Survey of Chemistry Faculty Members

Researchers, educators, and students have different roles in the chemistry education community and are subject to distinct evaluation criteria that inform how they approach their work. In this commentary, we leverage our experience as individuals positioned at the researcher−educator−student interface to describe how we consider these evaluation criteria to incentivize different priorities. These priorities often align synergistically but sometimes conflict. We argue that conflicts between priorities can lead to divisions among community members that undermine the achievement of our shared goals. Based on this understanding, we suggest examples of how the community might overcome these challenges by facilitating education research knowledge mobilization, expanding representation of chemistry education at the undergraduate level, and engaging in collaborative dialogue.

Section: Structural Factors That Distinguish Researchers Educators An...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Toward Collaborative Dialogue: Unpacking the Researcher–Educator Divide to Advance Chemistry Education

James,

McKenna,

Mishra

2024

“…The teacher-centered systemic reform (TCSR) model , is a framework that has been extensively leveraged in the literature to explore drivers and barriers to the adoption of active learning. ,,,, This model, which was developed to examine how reform initiatives influence instructional practices, includes contextual factors (e.g., institution type, tenure status), personal factors (e.g., instructors’ demographic profile, years of teaching experience, teaching-related professional development), and teacher thinking factors (e.g., instructors’ knowledge and beliefs about teaching and learning) . Previous empirical studies , explored the associations between these factors with both reduced lecturing time and increased RBIS use. ,, Although these studies provide valuable insights in terms of what factors might influence the enactment of active learning, little is known about the descriptive aspects of these factors. Thus, in this work, along with providing a snapshot of the level of awareness and use of active learning practices in introductory chemistry courses, we also aim to provide a description of the instructors who students are likely to learn from in introductory chemistry courses in terms of their demographics, training, teaching experience, and teaching responsibilities.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The teacher-centered systemic reform (TCSR) model 21 , 22 is a framework that has been extensively leveraged in the literature to explore drivers and barriers to the adoption of active learning. 17 , 18 , 20 , 23 , 24 This model, which was developed to examine how reform initiatives influence instructional practices, includes contextual factors (e.g., institution type, tenure status), personal factors (e.g., instructors’ demographic profile, years of teaching experience, teaching-related professional development), and teacher thinking factors (e.g., instructors’ knowledge and beliefs about teaching and learning). 21 Previous empirical studies 17 , 18 explored the associations between these factors with both reduced lecturing time and increased RBIS use.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“… 21 Previous empirical studies 17 , 18 explored the associations between these factors with both reduced lecturing time and increased RBIS use. 17 , 18 , 24 Although these studies provide valuable insights in terms of what factors might influence the enactment of active learning, little is known about the descriptive aspects of these factors. Thus, in this work, along with providing a snapshot of the level of awareness and use of active learning practices in introductory chemistry courses, we also aim to provide a description of the instructors who students are likely to learn from in introductory chemistry courses in terms of their demographics, training, teaching experience, and teaching responsibilities.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A National Snapshot of Introductory Chemistry Instructors and Their Instructional Practices

Wang,

Apkarian,

Dancy

et al. 2024

Self Cite

The effectiveness of active learning on promoting students' academic outcomes and persistence has been established in the literature. However, despite the effort of purposeful change agents, the uptake of active learning in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) is slow. While previous research from the chemistry education community has provided insights into the implementation of specific active learning strategies across the United States, the extent to which chemistry instructors leverage these strategies in general remains unknown. This article presents the results of a national survey aimed at exploring introductory chemistry instructors' knowledge and implementation of active learning, variations on this knowledge, and use across tenure statuses and institution types. This paper also aims to address the gap in the literature in our understanding of the characteristics of instructors of these courses. We thus provide a description of instructors' demographics, training, teaching experience, and teaching responsibilities. Our findings reveal that instructors in these courses are prominently males of European descent. Additionally, instructors come into their teaching position with minimal pedagogical training and participate mainly in short training once in their position. While the majority of instructors have knowledge of specific active learning strategies, their consistent implementation remains limited, with lecturing still being the instructional practice of choice. Variations were found between institution types and across tenure statuses within institutions in terms of pedagogical training, use of specific active learning strategies, and proportion of class time spent lecturing. The findings provide a baseline for future studies that aim to assess the effectiveness of interventions fostering the implementation of active learning in introductory chemistry courses and highlight the critical need for improved communication about teaching practices across institutions and tenure statuses.

“…A variety of reasons have been posited in the literature for the slow pace of change. At the individual instructor level, factors such as class size and classroom layout, , beliefs about learning, , and perceptions of department climate are associated with adoption, or lack thereof, of course reforms. At the collective level, factors include: a tendency for different communities to focus on small parts of the educational system and pay less attention to other vital actors/relationships, attempts at innovation in which prior research is not effectively utilized, and an assumption that great innovations will disseminate without intentional efforts .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Tweaking Instructional Practices Was Not the Answer: How Increasing the Interactivity of a Model-Centered Organic Chemistry Course Affected Student Outcomes

Schwarz,

DeGlopper,

Esselman

et al. 2024

It is common for conversations about improving college chemistry learning to focus largely (or solely) on changing the way classes are taught. We advocate treating chemistry courses as more than a collection of teaching methods; what is taught and assessed are likely at least as important as how courses are taught. To demonstrate the utility of a nuanced approach for characterizing learning environments, we report a study on the impact of changing instructional practices in a large-enrollment organic chemistry course. Two types of enactment were compared: one in which lecture was the sole instructional practice used and one in which classes spent ∼33% of their time together engaging with lecture-embedded questions. Analyses of what was taught and assessed demonstrates that both types of course placed substantial emphasis, in-class and on assessments, on students using fundamental disciplinary ideas (e.g., energy, bonding) to predict, explain, and model phenomena. We found that integrating interactivity into large group meetings, while keeping assessments and pacing the same, had no substantive impact on student performance on instructor-authored assessments or the correctness of explanations elicited by researcher-authored instruments. Encouragingly, many students in both cohorts were supported in using core ideas to construct expert-like explanations and models for phenomena in high-and low-stakes assessments. However, both more-and lessinteractive classes were similarly inequitable based on race and first-generation status, and to a lesser extent, binary gender. This suggests that, even in a model-centered organic chemistry course, addressing persistent inequities will require more fundamental changes than simply lecturing less.