Widespread distribution and unexpected variation among science faculty with education specialties (SFES) across the United States

Abstract

College and university science departments are increasingly taking an active role in improving science education. Perhaps as a result, a new type of specialized science faculty position within science departments is emerging—referred to here as science faculty with education specialties (SFES)—where individual scientists focus their professional efforts on strengthening undergraduate science education, improving kindergarten-through-12th grade science education, and conducting discipline-based education research. Numerous assertions, assumptions, and questions about SFES exist, yet no national studies have been published. Here, we present findings from a large-scale study of US SFES, who are widespread and increasing in numbers. Contrary to many assumptions, SFES were indeed found across the nation, across science disciplines, and, most notably, across primarily undergraduate, master of science-granting, and PhD-granting institutions. Data also reveal unexpected variations among SFES by institution type. Among respondents, SFES at master of science-granting institutions were almost twice as likely to have formal training in science education compared with other SFES. In addition, SFES at PhD-granting institutions were much more likely to have obtained science education funding. Surprisingly, formal training in science education provided no advantage in obtaining science education funding. Our findings show that the SFES phenomenon is likely more complex and diverse than anticipated, with differences being more evident across institution types than across science disciplines. These findings raise questions about the origins of differences among SFES and are useful to science departments interested in hiring SFES, scientific trainees preparing for SFES careers, and agencies awarding science education funding.

Making the Grade: Using Instructional Feedback and Evaluation to Inspire Evidence-Based Teaching

“…Survey data revealed that faculty frequently mentioned they would select faculty with education research expertise as feedback providers and that education research expertise was a characteristic they sought when seeking out further feedback. Biologists have clearly come to value what SFES can offer to their departments (Bush et al ., 2013). For SFES, our findings about professional development suggest that efforts should focus more on instructional feedback and less on disseminating evidence-based teaching practices.…”

Investigating introductory astronomy students’ perceived impacts from participation in course-based undergraduate research experiences

“…Formerly studied under the frame of authentic research within the body of science education literature, more discipline-specific studies of CUREs and QCUREs, as different types of course-based research, became prevalent in the years 2013-2016. This may be due to the increasing number of scientists participating in science education research [74,75], and their ability to bring research into their own undergraduate classrooms. Indeed, such was the case with our study, where all four of the authors' astronomy expertise led to the development and/or dissemination of the projects in their own and others' classrooms.…”

How Experienced SoTL Researchers Develop the Credibility of Their Work

“…Identifying with and aligning with SoTL colleagues, even those investigating aspects of teaching and learning in the same discipline, may not be as easy as aligning with a more tightly focused disciplinary research community (Kelley, 2008). Bush, Pelaez, Rudd, Stevens, Tanner, and Williams (2013;2015) identified that in science at least, a significant proportion of academics who undertake SoTL feel there is often a misalignment between the expectations of their employers and their own goals for undertaking SoTL research. Additionally, their employers frequently "misunderstand the nature of scholarly activity" that is SoTL in the science classroom (Bauer, Clevenger, Cole, Jones, Kelter, Oliver-Hoyo, & Sawrey, 2008, p. 900).…”