Relationships between undergraduate instructors' conceptions of how students learn and their instructional practices

Abstract

Supporting changes in undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) instruction requires an understanding of the relationship between STEM instructors' conceptions and practices. In this study, the authors used the Teacher‐Centered Systematic Reform (TCSR) model as a framework to understand how instructors' conceptions are related to their instructional practices. This multiple methods study included interviews and classroom observations of 22 STEM instructors. We used qualitative methods to describe instructors' conceptions of how students learn and quantitative methods, including a hierarchical cluster analysis, to analyze the types of relationships that exist between their conceptions and practices. Results indicated instructors had a wide range of conceptions that exist along a continuum from teacher‐centered to student‐centered. While many faculty members perceived student‐centered practices as valuable, they conceptualized these practices in different ways. Instructors implemented a wide range of instructional practices, and these practices varied independently of conceptions. We identified three distinct clusters of participants based on the relationships between instructors' conceptions and practices: congruent lecturers, congruent active learning facilitators, and incongruent lecturers. In the first two clusters, instructors' conceptions were aligned with their instructional practices. However, incongruent lecturers thought that students learn through active learning approaches but primarily lectured in their courses. Instructors in this group described several personal and contextual factors that influenced the relationship between their conceptions and practices. The results include an in‐depth portrayal of one participant in each cluster. We found that student‐centered conceptions may be necessary but are not sufficient for instructors to implement active learning. Implications focus on instructional and institutional change efforts. To promote instructional change most effectively, it is important to address each component of the TCSR model, including personal and contextual factors. A focus on conceptions and practices alone may not sufficiently support faculty members in overcoming barriers that limit active learning instruction.