Understanding Educational Transformation: Findings from a Survey of Past Participants of the Physics and Astronomy New Faculty Workshop

Abstract

Abstract:We surveyed past participants of the Physics and Astronomy New Faculty Workshop to learn more about their experiences. Survey questions were based on areas that emerged as salient from a longitudinal three year study of 15 workshop participants. Questions included: current practice, experiences with student resistance to reform, perceptions of available curricular and support resources, perceptions of local climate, and demographics of both faculty and their students. In this paper we report on an initial analysis of the survey data.

Beyond the Biology: A Systematic Investigation of Noncontent Instructor Talk in an Introductory Biology Course

“…(2003 ) characterized students’ perceptions and attitudes toward student-centered learning environments and found that, while many students held positive views toward these teaching methods, ∼40% of students reported having more cynical views in a previous class (e.g., the instructor does not want to teach us and is making us do all the work). Similarly, a study of college physics instructors found that as few as 19% of instructors saw decreases in end-of-semester student evaluations—attributed to student resistance—while nearly 50% saw increases in evaluations after implementing research-driven teaching methods ( Dancy et al ., 2014 ). If it is the case that a small subset of instructors face student resistance while the majority do not, then what is different about the learning environments in these classrooms?…”

Transforming Institutions?

“…Despite this movement toward developing and supporting systemic reform in STEM undergraduate education, a majority of university STEM faculty members who teach undergraduate science and engineering classes have remained inattentive to the shifting landscape. Student-centered, evidence-based teaching practices are not yet the norm in most undergraduate STEM education courses, and the desired magnitude of change in STEM pedagogy has not materialized (Anderson et al, 2011;Dancy et al, 2013;Eiseman & Fairweather, 1996;Fairweather & Beach, 2002;Fisher, Zeligman, & Fairweather, 2005;.…”

Transforming Institutions

“…Despite this movement toward developing and supporting systemic reform in STEM undergraduate education, a majority of university STEM faculty members who teach undergraduate science and engineering classes have remained inattentive to the shifting landscape. Student-centered, evidence-based teaching practices are not yet the norm in most undergraduate STEM education courses, and the desired magnitude of change in STEM pedagogy has not materialized (Anderson et al, 2011;Dancy et al, 2013;Eiseman & Fairweather, 1996;Fairweather & Beach, 2002;Fisher, Zeligman, & Fairweather, 2005;.…”

“…Thus, a key element of our strategy was to leverage social networks in the form of faculty learning communities (FLCs) to enact cultural change. Evidence suggests such networks might be necessary for the dissemination of reformed practices and development of emergent practices (Dancy, 2013;Kezar, 2014), by providing social incentives for greater change work (Bouwma-Gearhart, 2012). In our model, all mentor-apprentice teams participate in interdepartmental FLCs (and some in intradepartmental FLCs).…”