Untangling a complex relationship: teaching beliefs and instructional practices of assistant chemistry faculty at research-intensive institutions

Abstract

In this era of instructional transformation of Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) courses at the postsecondary level in the United States, the focus has been on educating science faculty about evidence-based instructional practices, i.e. practices that have been empirically proven to enhance student learning outcomes. The literature on professional development at the secondary level has demonstrated a tight interconnectedness between ones’ beliefs about teaching and learning and one's instructional practices and the need to attend to faculty's beliefs when engaging them in instructional change processes. Although discipline-based education researchers have made great strides in characterizing instructional practices of STEM faculty, much less attention has been given to understanding the beliefs of STEM about teaching and learning. Knowledge of instructors’ thinking can inform faculty professional development initiatives that encourage faculty to reflect on the beliefs that drive their classroom practices. Therefore, this study characterized the interplay between beliefs and instructional practices of nineteen assistant chemistry professors. Luft and Roehrig's Teaching Beliefs Interview protocol was used to capture beliefs; classroom observations and course artifacts were collected to capture practices. Clear trends were identified between faculty's beliefs (characterized through constant-comparative analysis and cluster analysis) and practices (characterized with Blumberg's Learner-Centered Teaching Rubric). Overall, beliefs of most of the participants were somewhat aligned with their instructional practices, with the exception of one cluster of faculty who held student-centered beliefs, but received only moderate scores on the Learner-Centered Teaching Rubric.

A Perturbed System: How Tenured Faculty Responded to the COVID-19 Shift to Remote Instruction

“…All chemistry department faculty were invited to participate in this study. Participants were tenured associate ( n = 3) or full professors ( n = 3), which provides a contrast from recent literature that has focused on early career individuals. , − , , The interview protocol did not include a question about the individual participants’ years of teaching experience; however all participants had taught classes at the institution for at least 10 years and more commonly for 20 years or more. Participants taught either one or two courses in Spring 2020; faculty in the department typically teach 3 courses per year, depending on grant activity.…”

“…Prior work has shown that chemistry instructors enact practices based on their beliefs about students and learning . However, due to many factorssuch as institutional or curricular barrierspractices often lag behind beliefs. , Efforts to examine or change chemistry instructors’ practices have largely focused on early career individuals such as graduate teaching assistants, − postdoctoral scholars, − and assistant-level professors, ,− possibly because their beliefs and instructional practices are thought to be more malleable. The global pandemic has changed instructional practices as courses move online.…”

Evaluating the impact of malleable factors on percent time lecturing in gateway chemistry, mathematics, and physics courses

“…explored departmental influences (e.g., perceived norms towards teaching) and classroom influences (e.g., class size and layout) on adopted pedagogies also finding that departments place high expectations on research output and such classroom elements further restrict instructor teaching. Studies by Gibbons et al (2018) and Popova et al (2020) explored the link between postsecondary instructors' thinking and enacted instructional practices, showing a connection between the two. Later, Popova et al (2021) found evidence for the interconnectedness of instructors' beliefs about teaching and learning with personal (e.g., nature and extent of instructors' preparation and learning efforts) and contextual factors (e.g., course, department, and broader cultural contexts).…”

Investigating educators’ perspectives towards systems thinking in chemistry education from international contexts

“…3 Experts and policy makers may find the adoption of educational change models to be helpful in guiding future direction of the STICE. 21,26,36 Specifically, in order for educators to change their willingness to adopt STICE approaches, efforts need to be made to increase educators' knowledge of STICE, minimize contextual factors primarily at the administrative level, and help align ST approaches with educators' values and current teaching approaches (personal factors).…”