Supports: A Key Factor in Faculty Implementation of Evidence-Based Teaching

Abstract

Evidence-based teaching (EBT), such as active learning and formative assessment, benefits student learning but is not present in many college science classrooms. The choices faculty make about how to teach their science courses are influenced by their personal beliefs and motivations, as well as their departmental structures and institutional cultures. With data from 584 science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) faculty trained in EBT, we compare which of the following factors most relate to faculty’s use of EBT: 1) faculty’s personal motivations (e.g., teaching value, confidence, beliefs about intelligence); and 2) their experiences with their institutional teaching environments (e.g., departmental support, student enthusiasm). Faculty’s perceived supports in their teaching environments (e.g., having supportive colleagues, being able to access curricular resources) were by far most predictive of their use of EBT. Faculty’s personal motivations had little to no relationship when supports were included in these models. The effects were robust, even when controlling for faculty gender, minority status, and teaching experience. Much of the literature has focused on perceived barriers to EBT implementation (e.g., lack of time, constrained teaching space). The current data indicate that a focus on building supports for faculty may have the greatest impact on increasing the presence of EBT in college STEM courses.

A model of peer effects on instructor innovation adoption

“…A vast literature base already indicates that the rates of innovation adoption vary with environment (Bouwma-Gearhart et al 2016;Grunspan et al 2018;Lund and Stains 2015), instructors' perceptions of departmental climate impact their willingness to use innovations (Bathgate et al 2019;Landrum et al 2017;Shadle et al 2017), and persistence in using innovations is enhanced by a supportive community (Owens et al 2018;Thomson and Trigwell 2018;Tomkin et al 2019;Wieman et al 2013). We have developed a model that explicates the role of peer interaction in facilitating (or inhibiting) university STEM instructors' innovation adoption decisions.…”

“…The nature and frequency of interactions are influenced by the departmental and institutional context. Further, peer interactions also shape perceptions of context through communication of beliefs and practices (Grunspan et al 2018;Pataraia et al 2015;Roxå and Mårtensson 2009;Thomson and Trigwell 2018), thereby affecting perceptions of departmental supports and barriers and ultimately the likelihood of adopting teaching innovations (Bathgate et al 2019;Kezar 2014;Lane et al 2019;Shadle et al 2017).…”

“…Variation in climate and norms results in differential impacts on both individual instructor change and the potential for cultural change (Lund and Stains 2015;Reinholz and Apkarian 2018;Shadle et al 2017;Sturtevant and Wheeler 2019). Recent studies indicate that a supportive department is highly correlated with the adoption of teaching innovations (Bathgate et al 2019;Carbone et al 2019) and that outcomes of change initiatives in STEM are dependent on departmental climates and norms (Chasteen et al 2015;Sturtevant and Wheeler 2019).…”

“…Andrews and Lemons 2015;Bathgate et al 2019;Knight and Trowler 2000;Lund and Stains 2015;Pugh and Hickson 2007). Through peer interactions, undergraduate STEM instructors can receive the encouragement necessary to decide to implement their knowledge of an instructional innovation(Andrews and Lemons 2015;Dancy et al 2016;Lund and Stains 2015;Rogers 2003).…”

Environmental influences and individual characteristics that affect learner-centered teaching practices

“…The discourse and interactions among faculty in a department can be influential and ultimately affect teaching practices [82]. To best characterize the teaching climate of each department, we distributed a survey instrument called the Survey of Climate for Instructional Improvement (SCII) [75].…”