Understanding How a Culture of Collaboration Develops Among STEM Faculty

Abstract

Many stakeholders have called for education reform and particularly regarding the outdated manner in which we generally educate engineers. As a result, understanding dissemination and implementation tactics of research-based instructional strategies (RBIS) has emerged as a critical topic within engineering education research. Additionally funding agencies such as the NSF, have encouraged interdisciplinary projects where STEM faculty work with education experts to apply innovations in teaching. However, how to make these joint ventures successful is less well understood. For example, collaboration in engineering education research typically focuses on student teams or how professional engineering teams learn to work together. Fewer studies articulate how to motivate engineering faculty to interact across engineering disciplines, let alone, with non-engineering faculty such as educational experts. Therefore, the research team sought to understand, how can we develop a culture of collaboration among STEM faculty around the issue of implementing teaching innovation including RBIS's? The specific guiding research question for the current study is how do faculty in STEM describe their experience participating in the Strategic Instructional Innovations Program (SIIP) -a program designed to promote and support the implementation of teaching innovation?This qualitative study employs an exploratory phenomenological approach, using semistructured interviews with 12 STEM faculty across academic ranks. The participants worked on a collaborative team project(s) to implement teaching innovations at a Midwestern large researchintensive, predominantly white institution (PWI). The project durations ranged from one to three years for sustainable implementation of teaching innovations. The semi-structured interviews covered the participant's previous teaching experience prior to joining the SIIP community, a description of their current role in the community including what did and did not work well, and a description of their vision for the community in the future. Consistent with phenomenological research, the interviews were evaluated holistically to allow essential themes of the experience to emerge.Preliminary results of the phenomenological analysis suggest three emergent themes. First, the participants specified the entry point for implementing instructional innovation. That is to say, the departmental culture was emphasized as a key structural support to ensure the sustainability of the implemented innovation. The second emergent theme articulated by the participants, was the recognition of individual skills and abilities within the SIIP community. Specifically, the expanded peer interaction fostered an environment for complimentary skills to thrive. For example, some of the STEM faculty were more comfortable than others with flipping their classroom, particularly with large service courses with over 100 students, and were able to share best practices or personal success stories. Finally, most participants acknowledg...

Engineering Faculty Perceptions of Diversity in the Classroom

“…Recent initiatives applied more robust theories of change such as building a COP or supporting faculty networks to infuse reform 11 . For example, a COP was utilized to promote instructional innovation throughout the entire college of engineering in a recent study 12 . A COP is a potential technique to influence faculty beliefs that impact faculty motivation to engage with instructional innovations such as implementing research based instructional strategies (RBIS's).…”

The Academic System Influence on Instructional Change: A Conceptual Systems Dynamics Model of Faculty Motivation to Adopt Research-Based Instructional Strategies (RBIS)

“…It promotes or hinders instructional change because professors are expected to cover all the content [40,42] that was originally defined for lecture-based instruction. Professors who want to adopt PBL and SGCs have found it highly difficult to cover all the content using these strategies [39,[42][43][44]. Also, professors who perceive they are expected to follow the defined content sequence with a specific timing designed for direct instruction [8,34] find it difficult to adopt PBL because these strategies usually require different timing than lectures [42,45].…”

“…Also, professors who perceive they are expected to follow the defined content sequence with a specific timing designed for direct instruction [8,34] find it difficult to adopt PBL because these strategies usually require different timing than lectures [42,45]. Although the content of the course is predefined and static, the flexibility allowed for its coverage could be a driver to change [43,44]; • Time allotted to adopt PBL and SGCs can be a barrier to change [44]. Adopting new instructional strategies is a process that requires time to learn its pedagogical principles [37,39], preparation of class activities [38,43], and class time for its implementation [12,33,[38][39][40]43].…”

“…Although the content of the course is predefined and static, the flexibility allowed for its coverage could be a driver to change [43,44]; • Time allotted to adopt PBL and SGCs can be a barrier to change [44]. Adopting new instructional strategies is a process that requires time to learn its pedagogical principles [37,39], preparation of class activities [38,43], and class time for its implementation [12,33,[38][39][40]43].…”

Master Educator Program in Engineering Technology Education

“…Collaborations between faculty from different background and majors can help to improve undergraduate education [11][12][13][14][15]. At our university, the collaboration between faculty from engineering technology and faculty from School of Education is established.…”