National Academies Press: OpenBook

Improving Undergraduate Instruction in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics: Report of a Workshop (2003)

Chapter: 4 Promoting Effective Instruction at Departmental and Institutional Levels

« Previous: 3 Evaluating Effective Instruction
Suggested Citation:"4 Promoting Effective Instruction at Departmental and Institutional Levels." National Research Council. 2003. Improving Undergraduate Instruction in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics: Report of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10711.
×
Page 50
Suggested Citation:"4 Promoting Effective Instruction at Departmental and Institutional Levels." National Research Council. 2003. Improving Undergraduate Instruction in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics: Report of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10711.
×
Page 51
Suggested Citation:"4 Promoting Effective Instruction at Departmental and Institutional Levels." National Research Council. 2003. Improving Undergraduate Instruction in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics: Report of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10711.
×
Page 52
Suggested Citation:"4 Promoting Effective Instruction at Departmental and Institutional Levels." National Research Council. 2003. Improving Undergraduate Instruction in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics: Report of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10711.
×
Page 53
Suggested Citation:"4 Promoting Effective Instruction at Departmental and Institutional Levels." National Research Council. 2003. Improving Undergraduate Instruction in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics: Report of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10711.
×
Page 54
Suggested Citation:"4 Promoting Effective Instruction at Departmental and Institutional Levels." National Research Council. 2003. Improving Undergraduate Instruction in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics: Report of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10711.
×
Page 55
Suggested Citation:"4 Promoting Effective Instruction at Departmental and Institutional Levels." National Research Council. 2003. Improving Undergraduate Instruction in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics: Report of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10711.
×
Page 56
Suggested Citation:"4 Promoting Effective Instruction at Departmental and Institutional Levels." National Research Council. 2003. Improving Undergraduate Instruction in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics: Report of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10711.
×
Page 57
Suggested Citation:"4 Promoting Effective Instruction at Departmental and Institutional Levels." National Research Council. 2003. Improving Undergraduate Instruction in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics: Report of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10711.
×
Page 58
Suggested Citation:"4 Promoting Effective Instruction at Departmental and Institutional Levels." National Research Council. 2003. Improving Undergraduate Instruction in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics: Report of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10711.
×
Page 59
Suggested Citation:"4 Promoting Effective Instruction at Departmental and Institutional Levels." National Research Council. 2003. Improving Undergraduate Instruction in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics: Report of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10711.
×
Page 60
Suggested Citation:"4 Promoting Effective Instruction at Departmental and Institutional Levels." National Research Council. 2003. Improving Undergraduate Instruction in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics: Report of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10711.
×
Page 61
Suggested Citation:"4 Promoting Effective Instruction at Departmental and Institutional Levels." National Research Council. 2003. Improving Undergraduate Instruction in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics: Report of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10711.
×
Page 62
Suggested Citation:"4 Promoting Effective Instruction at Departmental and Institutional Levels." National Research Council. 2003. Improving Undergraduate Instruction in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics: Report of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10711.
×
Page 63
Suggested Citation:"4 Promoting Effective Instruction at Departmental and Institutional Levels." National Research Council. 2003. Improving Undergraduate Instruction in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics: Report of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10711.
×
Page 64
Suggested Citation:"4 Promoting Effective Instruction at Departmental and Institutional Levels." National Research Council. 2003. Improving Undergraduate Instruction in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics: Report of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10711.
×
Page 65
Suggested Citation:"4 Promoting Effective Instruction at Departmental and Institutional Levels." National Research Council. 2003. Improving Undergraduate Instruction in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics: Report of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10711.
×
Page 66
Suggested Citation:"4 Promoting Effective Instruction at Departmental and Institutional Levels." National Research Council. 2003. Improving Undergraduate Instruction in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics: Report of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10711.
×
Page 67
Suggested Citation:"4 Promoting Effective Instruction at Departmental and Institutional Levels." National Research Council. 2003. Improving Undergraduate Instruction in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics: Report of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10711.
×
Page 68

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

4 Promoting Effective Instruction at Departmental and Institutional Levels This chapter explores how effective UPGRADING THE CURRENT instruction, as defined in Chapter 3, can CULTURE be promoted within a university culture that is otherwise dedicated primarily to The current culture of science, research and the advancement of technology, engineering, and mathemat- science. It examines how the personality ics (STEM) departments in most traits of individual faculty and the research-intensive (Research I and characteristics of organization, gover- Research II) universities embodies the nance, and incentive structures of principles of the scientific disciplines departments and institutions are related represented. This is a culture that to teaching and instructional programs. values the activities that lead to cutting- It also considers qualities that serve as edge research: intense concentration on barriers to implementation of effective laboratory or field investigations, instruction. Six presenters at the work- obtaining the grants needed to support shop discussed these characteristics that research, and training graduate and qualities and offered strategies to students and postdoctoral fellows to promote more effective instruction. extend it. As noted by Merton (1957), Expanded summaries of their presenta- “On every side the scientist is reminded tions as well as additional ideas and that it is his role to advance knowl- cautions put forward by participants edge…. Recognition and esteem accrue during plenary discussions are detailed to those…who have made genuinely within this chapter. original contributions to the common 50

stock of knowledge” (p. 642). As docu- leagues and education experts; (2) mented in a recent NRC report, the Funds must be made available to faculty culture that rewards research productiv- for such efforts—a centralized fund for ity more than teaching effectiveness has educational improvement in the dean’s changed little on many campuses in the office can send a powerful message past half century (2003). regarding a change in departmental Little wonder then that those educa- values; (3) Departmental committees, tional reformers who advocate that deans, and provosts should consider faculty enlarge their priorities to include efforts by faculty who engage students major improvements in undergraduate in learning-centered courses as impor- teaching have met resistance. At tant activities in matters of tenure, present, faculty members are likely to promotion, and salary decisions; and (4) face significant disincentives to learn Time spent in redesign of introductory new teaching approaches and reformu- courses or in research focused on late an introductory course: it requires a teaching and learning a discipline large investment of time, it is a distrac- should be considered as evidence of a tion from the focus on research, and faculty member’s productivity as a their investment may not be rewarded. teacher-scholar. In the NRC report Transforming Under- graduate Education in Science, Math- ematics, Engineering, and Technology ACHIEVING INSTITUTIONAL (1999), the Committee on Undergradu- REFORM ate Science Education suggests a four- point effort to reformulate faculty To accomplish such recommenda- incentives. The recommended reformu- tions as listed above, participants lation would encourage faculty to learn explored what individual faculty mem- new effective approaches to teaching bers could do to advance effective such as those outlined in Chapter 3 of science instruction within the culture of the present volume and to develop new their departments and institutions. They courses based on such knowledge. That also examined what efforts would be report includes the following recom- needed by administrators and national mendations: (1) Administrators should organizations to promote effective provide faculty with the resources STEM instruction. required for consultation with col- PROMOTING EFFECTIVE INSTRUCTION 51

Influencing Characteristics of curriculum to address barriers that Faculty were interfering with learning. On that The circumstances described above basis, Millar classified these faculty led to the concerns of two workshop members as education innovators, and speakers—Susan Millar, University of set out to define their common features. Wisconsin, and Elaine Seymour, Univer- After extended discussions about sity of Colorado—both of whom chose teaching and learning with her subjects to explore why, in the face of the well- and with other educators whom she documented research-oriented culture used to supplement her analysis, sets of of university departments, do some characteristics began to emerge and fell faculty nonetheless become educational into four topical areas: the change innovators? These faculty then model processes, interactions with students effective instruction and may have and colleagues, learning and teaching, direct or indirect influence on col- and course materials. leagues who teach currently and stu- dents who may choose to become General qualities. Millar first identified science faculty, either at the K–12 level general personality features that are or in higher education. characteristic of STEM education faculty innovators but are also character- Characteristics of Faculty Who Become istic of innovators in general. They tend Instructional Innovators to be risk takers and hard workers, and Susan Millar, University of Wisconsin individuals who are responsible about commitments, inspired by a sense of In her presentation Effecting Faculty mission, savvy and persistent about Change by Starting with Effective Fac- obtaining resources, and proud of doing ulty, Millar outlined characteristics of a good job for their constituents. She faculty who are successful in introduc- noted that charisma was not necessarily ing innovative programs of effective among these characteristics. STEM instruction. (Refer also to her paper in Appendix A.) During the last Interactions with colleagues and students. decade, Millar has served as external Starting with their interactions with evaluator for numerous STEM educa- students and colleagues, she outlined tion reform efforts. She identified the defining characteristics specific to faculty within these programs who STEM education faculty innovators (for showed sincere concern for students’ further elaboration, see Millar’s paper in learning and took actions to change the Appendix A): 52 I M P R O V I N G U N D E R G R A D U AT E I N S T R U C T I O N

• Their identity as scholars does not for her as part of her graduate training depend on placing themselves above at the California Institute of Technology, other faculty members, academic staff, mentioning in particular the influence of graduate students, or undergraduates. Max Delbruck in the biology depart- • They find great pleasure in seeing ment. Millar took note of these ex- students learn. amples of developed characteristics as a • They view students not as “outsid- result of interactions with students and ers” but as less experienced potential colleagues. peers and thus develop trust within their classrooms. Attitudes toward learning and teaching. • They trust undergraduate students Millar cited additional characteristics and seek ways to give them decision- that pertain to learning and teaching, making power. which she felt faculty could develop • They view graduate teaching more easily with experience: assistants as full members of the team and are eager for their input and feed- • They hold the conviction that good back. teaching demands ongoing creative effort. Millar questioned the extent to which • They experience teaching as faculty could be mentored to learn and intellectually exciting and as an opportu- develop these characteristics. Alan Kay, nity to learn that is no less engaging Viewpoints Research Institute, Inc., than the scholarship they pursue in countered by describing his experience their STEM discipline. with the Defense Advanced Research • They understand that learning Projects Agency (DARPA) community, depends on feeling puzzled, perturbed, which developed the Internet in the and curious, and on tolerating ambiguity. 1960s. Many of his colleagues in the • They seek to provide course group displayed these characteristics materials and an environment that initially, and as the community grew and pushes the students to do the thinking persisted, new participants took on and to “learn to learn.” similar traits as a result, seemingly, of • They believe that learning entails a the interaction with the group. Sarah constant moving back and forth be- Elgin, Washington University, added tween “practice” and “beliefs.” Effective that in fact many of the characteristics instruction develops from trying things, listed had been described and modeled reflecting on their effect, trying new PROMOTING EFFECTIVE INSTRUCTION 53

things, and finding ways to interact with ally, with networks of people who are colleagues. engaged in similar efforts and pursuing • They find that student learning similar strategies. Millar noted that entails reflection through genuine education innovators often discover the dialogue with senior peers, other stu- literature of research on learning and dents, and one’s self. teaching and the available networks “in • They tend to select assessment their own time and in their own way”; methods that match their learning they often have to develop effective objectives, and to use them more to instructional strategies for themselves determine their students’ preconcep- first. tions and concerns and less to grade Anticipating the presentations of them, thereby opening up opportunities upcoming speakers, Millar expressed for feedback. concern about problems that education • They want students to go beyond innovators face from other faculty, who “knowing that” to “knowing how” and all too often facilitate students’ inclina- “knowing why.” tions to take the “path of least resis- • They avoid teaching material that tance” in obtaining their degrees. not only the students will never use, but Acknowledging Robert Zemsky’s the faculty themselves would never use. reference to the conservatism of univer- sities as enduring institutions (see his Actions toward institutional change. paper in Appendix A), Millar com- How do such individuals affect the mented that colleagues often serve as systems within which they are embed- barriers to the spread of effective ded? STEM education innovators, Millar instruction within an institution. Be- found, try to institutionalize effective cause faculty traditionally enjoy freedom educational changes by taking a proac- and autonomy and cannot be directed to tive and pragmatic approach within their incorporate specific instructional prac- spheres of influence. They constantly tices, they often limit reform in educa- seek and reflectively use feedback tion or block it. As a group, faculty tend information. Initially, this information is to selectively embrace whatever change gathered from students and teaching will sustain the status quo. However, assistants. They reflect on feedback and because of their autonomy, faculty also assess their strategies in discussions cannot be stopped when they decide to with colleagues. To effect greater implement innovative programs of change, they engage purposively with effective instruction. peer learning communities and, eventu- 54 I M P R O V I N G U N D E R G R A D U AT E I N S T R U C T I O N

Millar noted that such opportunities all levels and build an atmosphere of for change are already underway in a trust between colleagues, teaching number of institutions. She left the assistants, and students. Given such, participants with two propositions to they tend to visit other instructors’ consider regarding innovators’ effect on classrooms to gain ideas from them. systems: “As faculty innovators… (1) They have a willingness to learn. Al- expand their spheres of influence, they though they may not have been “born” are reshaping and redefining what it is great teachers, they invest the effort to that the ungovernable faculty takes as develop necessary skills, such as acceptable norms for educating stu- communication and collaboration skills, dents…, and (2) The very act of articu- to become effective instructors. Such lating a set of characteristics of the development can result from dedication educator innovators helps make visible to a greater mission to see students the ways the innovators among us have learn or through formal mentor pro- contributed to the process of reshaping grams. The characteristics identified by what it is we take for granted.” Millar and other participants do not often exist in entirety in individual Additional traits proposed by workshop faculty members but are present in a participants. After outlining these continuum among science faculty within characteristics, Millar solicited feedback effective departments. As a conse- and additional thoughts from the work- quence of engagement with instruc- shop participants to use in revising the tional improvements, some effective characteristics described in her paper instructors discover gaps in the field of (see Appendix A). Several participants1 science education research and begin to offered the following ideas to extend the shift their research responsibilities to characteristics presented. Effective disseminate their educational efforts instructors respect their coworkers at and take steps to justify their education work as scholarship. Innovators’ Qualities That Overcome Resistance to Change 1 The participants providing ideas included Elaine Seymour, University of Colorado Sarah Elgin, Washington University; John Jungck, Beloit College; Priscilla Laws, Dickinson Following Millar’s talk, Seymour College; M. Patricia Morse, University of presented Barriers to Change: Resistance Washington; Robert Olin, University of Alabama; Elaine Seymour, University of Colorado; and Is the Normative Mode. In her talk, Robert Zemsky, University of Pennsylvania. Seymour also identified characteristics PROMOTING EFFECTIVE INSTRUCTION 55

of classroom innovators, which comple- reduce the overpacked curriculum and mented those of Millar and provided place emphasis on students’ responsibil- insight into the problems of under- ity for their own learning. They strive to graduate education and appropriate build a climate of trust. She noted that measures for institutionalizing effective students might initially demonstrate instructional strategies. Seymour saw resistance to these changes because classroom innovators as able to identify their long-developed and reinforced and address the dysfunctions of an study habits and learning strategies no undergraduate system. The dysfunc- longer work well. Colleagues and/or tions she named were an overreliance administrators may take note of such on a narrow range of pedagogical tools student resistance and shift blame to the and an incentive system that empha- innovative instructor. Classroom innova- sizes and provides more rewards for tors, therefore, look for ways to support excellence in disciplinary research. The their efforts and build an atmosphere of consequences of these priorities, she trust and acceptance among teaching reported, are: (1) students’ focus on assistants, colleagues, and departments. memorizing facts for tests, their distanc- Seymour reported that innovative ing behaviors such as low attendance educators also enlist researchers, rates, and the absence of long-term cognitive scientists, and other col- learning; (2) continuation of science leagues in education to provide support illiteracy; and (3) loss of potential for and supply evidence that their science majors, particularly students of intervention is necessary and effective. color and women of all races/ They document their educational ethnicities. scholarship. They find communities of Seymour pointed out that a traditional peers involved in similar education reaction to these systemic dysfunctions pursuits and strengthen cooperation is to blame the students and label them through face-to-face and online commu- as lazy, ill-prepared, or untrustworthy. nication, and seek national support for Students often appear to be much more their work through funding and dissemi- engaged in their own social interactions nation. They begin to use learning than in a learning community with assessment methods that better match faculty. Classroom innovators, however, their new learning objectives. Seymour realize that poor student outcomes identified the Field-tested Learning result in part from systemic effects, and Assessment Guide (FLAG) as such an they begin to restructure their curricu- assessment (http://www.flaguide.org/). lum and classrooms. They find ways to Classroom innovators explore ways to 56 I M P R O V I N G U N D E R G R A D U AT E I N S T R U C T I O N

make institutional changes by enlisting if it feels threatened. He defined the senior members of their institutions and guild as membership in a group that promoting review of departmental/ offers independence and autonomy. As institutional tenure criteria and redesign long as the independence and autonomy of classroom evaluation instruments. of the guild members are respected, they tend to continue traditional and Effective Strategies for accepted practices. Second, he noted Departments and Institutions that if students become better consum- While individual faculty members can ers of, and take a vested interest in, initiate educational innovation as a their education, they will demand result of their personal characteristics, change. Unfortunately, students often the culture of their department and express the attitude of “just tell me what their institution plays a powerful role in I need to know” to get a grade instead of enabling or inhibiting the success of recognizing the value of effective such innovation and its expansion to learning. Thus, students may need to be other members of the faculty. This was trained as consumers. Third, poor the issue considered in the presenta- results in measured outputs2 and tions of Robert Zemsky, University of outcomes incite necessary improve- Pennsylvania, and a panel of discus- ments. Some of the outputs identified by sants. Gloria Rogers, Elaine Seymour, and other workshop participants—such as A Market Approach to Institutional enrollment numbers, attendance, Change retention rates, grades, employment Robert Zemsky, statistics, tuition income, funding and University of Pennsylvania contributions, and number of faculty According to Zemsky, the key to publications—are relatively easy to changing institutional practices in ways that reinforce effective teaching is to understand what motivates institutions. In his presentation On Encouraging 2 Faculty to Pursue Instructional Reform, We have chosen to use the terminology summarized in Chapter 3 by Gloria Rogers, Rose- Zemsky listed several motivational Hulman Institute of Technology, to distinguish factors. between outputs and outcomes. Outputs are indicators, often statistical, whereas outcomes refer to the effects. Outcomes reveal what Reasons for change. First, he posited students have learned, what skills they have gained, how publications were cited, and how that the “faculty guild” will change only resources were used. PROMOTING EFFECTIVE INSTRUCTION 57

collect but may not accurately reflect an see this longevity as evidence of lasting institution’s shortcomings in teaching. resilience, while others perceive it to be In that regard, an important outcome the result of resistance to change. that is not as easily assessed (and Although Kerr’s appeal to the historic therefore not often collected) is a university makes clear that change in measure of student learning. As noted the academy is slow, Zemsky accepted in Chapter 2, evidence is accumulating the challenge to explore in his presenta- that traditional lecture-based courses tion some of the options that university may not result in the expected levels of presidents, deans, and department student learning (Halloun and chairs have at their disposal to encour- Hestenes, 1985; Wright et al., 1997; age and support their faculty in instruc- Loverude, Kautz, and Heron, 2002). The tional reform. In his paper (see Appen- realization of failure to educate students dix A), Zemsky outlines several as hoped can occasionally have a dra- programs that were able to show evi- matic impact on instructors and institu- dence of both improved student learn- tions. This is evident in a story related ing and increased retention of students by Zemsky. A science faculty member in the discipline. from a distinguished institution spent Illustrating the motivation for some of two years on the White House staff in these reform programs, Zemsky de- the Office of the Presidential Science scribed an effort in the 1980s supported Advisor. During that time he had the by Dr. Morton Lowengrub, then Dean opportunity to talk to two of his own of Arts and Sciences at Indiana Univer- former students who were then con- sity, to improve mathematics instruction gressional staff. During their conversa- for undergraduates. When asked why tion he realized that, although the he felt such change was needed, students had become accomplished at Lowengrub referred to mathematics policy procedures, they did not under- students as an “endangered species.” In stand science. He had failed to provide this case, the motivation to change was them with the working understanding of fear of extinction; the department was science necessary to conduct their jobs losing students and needed to invigorate as policy makers effectively. the curriculum to retain them. Medical Zemsky cited Clark Kerr’s observa- students are not in short supply, tion (1987) that universities are endur- Zemsky noted, but many medical ing institutions. In Europe, some sev- schools have adopted new teaching enty have existed in familiar forms with practices simply to keep up with trends similar functions for centuries. Many in the field. Self-paced, online learning 58 I M P R O V I N G U N D E R G R A D U AT E I N S T R U C T I O N

environments and other learner-cen- tional reform can be achieved more tered instructional practices have immediately and effectively by acquiring become essential for preclinical courses, and allocating resources selectively to as content in the fields has become so faculty who are willing to experiment extensive that students can no longer with new, learner-centered modes of absorb and memorize didactically all the instruction. Zemsky cited Barbara information received from instructors. Baumstark, an earlier presenter, as an example. She and her colleagues in the Possible plans. Based on his observa- Quality in Undergraduate Education tions of reformed programs, Zemsky (QUE) biology project group at Georgia offered advice to those considering State University have made great strides instructional change. He noted that in creating explicit learning outcomes recruitment of celebrated instructors for students in their biology program would not likely produce desired and have also encouraged the depart- changes at the institutional level: “Part ment to implement instructional of what we need to do [to effect change] changes designed to achieve those is create a market for good teaching. outcomes (see Chapter 2). As And that’s not easy to do, but star Baumstark was already motivated by teachers aren’t the way to do it.” He her participation in the QUE project and directed workshop participants’ atten- dedicated to student learning, she tion to two examples of institutions that required only modest additional incen- are considered successful because they tives, such as a summer stipend and an have developed their market niche. extra teaching assistant, to cover the Hamilton College has gained a wide- added commitment needed to encour- spread reputation among students for its age and mentor her colleagues. focus on writing and presentation of Zemsky concluded by encouraging one’s individual self, while Carleton participants to seek external markets, in College is perceived as the place to go addition to grants, for resources and to prepare for a career in science while funding. External markets may provide living a simple, environmentally focused funds for science education research3 as lifestyle. He also indicated that changing well as provide places to experiment the tenure rules to reinforce and pro- with instructional practices. Zemsky mote effective teaching would have limited impact because so few faculty 3 would be affected. See distinction between science research and science education research made in footnote #4, Instead, according to Zemsky, institu- Chapter 2. PROMOTING EFFECTIVE INSTRUCTION 59

identified three readily available mar- that efforts can be coordinated, effec- kets that would benefit from science tive, and sustained. Step two must be to instruction and programs to improve identify key players. Brakke listed what science literacy: primary and secondary he considered to be the characteristics schools, corporate groups, and congres- of key people: They must have the sional staff. Some university science ability to collaborate in a team, to programs have found “market” support communicate effectively, to motivate by allying themselves with technology- others, to recognize their own strengths rich industries. For example, through and weaknesses, to manage multiple the San Diego Science Alliance (http:// tasks, and to deal with ambiguity. They www.sdsa.org/), San Diego State must be recognized by their peers as University and the University of Califor- action oriented and trustworthy and as nia, San Diego, have established part- having integrity, courage, perseverance, nerships with about forty local corpora- and strategic ability. Although no indi- tions that hire graduates at the associate vidual will likely have all of these charac- in arts and baccalaureate levels in teristics, each key person should pos- technical positions. sess many of them, and teams should be Following Zemsky’s presentation, a built to encompass all these characteris- panel of three experts with experience tics by including individuals with differ- in governance and incentives at the ent strengths. Equally important is the institutional/departmental level made identification of future leaders to replace brief presentations. These were David people in the teams, since the efforts Brakke, Jack Wilson, and Herbert must be sustained when individuals Levitan. move on. Brakke suggested some tactics that A Team Building Strategy institutional leaders might employ to David Brakke, James Madison University excite individuals to work on such Brakke, Dean of the College of efforts. Starting new programs or Science and Mathematics, set the stage expanding existing successful programs by outlining some of the institutional often holds attraction for previously actions that are required for any type of uninvolved faculty. The opportunity for change to take place. The first step for a collaborative research across depart- leader, usually an administrator of the ments and perhaps institutions, with department, college, or institution, is to colleagues and students, is particularly begin asking questions about goals. A inviting. Anticipation that such efforts common vision must be developed so will improve teacher preparation and/or 60 I M P R O V I N G U N D E R G R A D U AT E I N S T R U C T I O N

education of the public often appeals to faculty networks, and organizations and those with altruistic motives. institutes such as Chautauqua (http:// Once instructional change teams are www.chautauqua-inst.org/ established, they need to have conversa- education.html), the Science Education tions within and across departments. for New Civic Engagements and Re- Direct involvement should come from sponsibilities (SENCER) program of the every level, from faculty to chair to American Association of Colleges and provost. Common interests and needs Universities (http://www.aacu-edu.org/ should be identified through dialogue SENCER/index.cfm), and Project and opportunities for connections with Kaleidoscope (PKAL) (http:// other disciplines explored. www.pkal.org/). Michael Zeilik, University of New Brakke added that institutions also Mexico, asked the panel members to need to invest in teaching faculty and address how to get individuals in admin- offered some ideas. Upon hiring, initial istration, such as chairs and deans, to funds should cover start-up costs for recognize that a problem even exists. teaching as well as research. Institutions He recalled his own experience with a can assist faculty in developing their new department chair who did not own plans for professional growth. They believe that a 40 percent decline in can support faculty experiences in students from the department was a science education research through problem. Brakke responded that an assignments—similar to those in sci- attitude change would require a number ence research (e.g., pre- and post-tenure of focused conversations over a period sabbaticals, internships)—at other of time. institutions to build connections and Educational improvement requires gather ideas to sustain their reform experimentation. For instructional efforts. reform, that means making decisions based on evidence from rigorous sci- Top-Down and Bottom-Up Strategies ence education research. Data and Jack Wilson, UMassOnline evidence should be gathered and Wilson drew upon his experiences analyzed to convince colleagues, boards, with many educational improvement and presidents of the need for change projects to discuss how people react to and possible appropriate actions. Re- change. Extending Zemsky’s comment sources to support science education that change must be top-down, Wilson research and reform efforts can include asserted that it also must be bottom-up. colleagues, consultants, students, An alliance between individuals at the PROMOTING EFFECTIVE INSTRUCTION 61

instructional level and those at the “Studio Physics” program at RPI, which institutional level must exist for change pioneered the use of the studio ap- to be sustained. Faculty who are capable proach to physics instruction (http:// of sustaining effective change have the www.rpi.edu/dept/phys/ ability to make such alliances because education.html). It took eleven years to they have earned respect from col- bring the program to fruition, during leagues through traditional science which the positions of president, pro- research or other scholarly endeavors. vost, deans, and chairs at RPI were To illustrate how people react to reassigned many times over. Each time change, Wilson described his experi- new individuals assumed these posts, ence while dean at Rensselaer Polytech- Wilson had to convince them that Studio nic Institute (RPI). He acknowledged Physics was worth continuing. This that undergraduate education often ongoing justification became part of the operates under an educational equiva- reform effort and some deans became lent of the old joke about Russian strong proponents of the program. employment contracts (“They pretend to pay us, we pretend to work”), which From the top. At one point, the dean of Wilson modified to: “We pretend to science supplemented the salaries of teach them, they pretend to learn. participating faculty who had become Nobody asks too many questions, involved, and the effort to expand and everybody is happy.” adapt the Studio Physics approach for use in other departments was thus From the bottom. Wilson pointed out supported more readily by faculty that when such pioneers in educational within the science division. On the other research in physics as Laws, hand, the dean of engineering was McDermott, and Hestenes began asking encouraging but offered no tangible questions about what students learned support, and the contributions of faculty from traditional courses (Laws, 1997; in that department lagged behind. McDermott, Shaffer, and the Physics The restructuring of physics instruc- Education Group, 1996; Halloun and tion at RPI had a number of positive Hestenes, 1985), nobody, neither faculty, effects that helped to sustain the pro- administration, nor students, was gram. Restructuring required more pleased to discover that many students faculty to be involved in the curriculum were failing to learn much of lasting and many developed a vested interest in quality. However that level of distress is the program. As the program was what prompted Wilson to develop the modified to include fewer overall 62 I M P R O V I N G U N D E R G R A D U AT E I N S T R U C T I O N

courses, faculty were forced to examine In the class. As described on its and justify the material they felt was website and noted in Chapter 2 of this important to include in each remaining report, the defining characteristics of course. RPI’s Studio Physics classes are an Wilson also indicated that their integrated lecture/laboratory format, a efforts were sustained because they reduced amount of time allotted to developed an extensive assessment lectures, a technology-enhanced learn- protocol. RPI administrators inter- ing environment, collaborative group viewed and surveyed faculty and stu- work, and a high level of faculty-student dents to gather reactions to the studio interaction. The Studio Physics environ- courses and administered authentic ment employs activities, computer tools, tests of conceptual understanding and and multimedia materials that allow problem-solving abilities. To meet state students to actively participate in their and national interinstitutional standards, own learning and to construct scientific traditional midterm and end-of-course knowledge for themselves. A high exams were used for student grading. priority is placed on allowing students These are less sensitive to conceptual to learn directly from interacting with understanding, but this had the advan- the physical world through hands-on tage of demonstrating that students in activities. the program were showing the same or Fewer graduate teaching assistants, improved performance over students though still a sizable number, were who had been instructed in the original assigned to oversee the studio courses format. The assessments also demon- and additional undergraduate assistants strated that the studio approach re- were brought in. Some of these teaching sulted in an improvement in both assistants were initially resistant to the student and faculty satisfaction with the changes to the overall structure of the process. Moreover, developments since course, but in the end most, if not all, have shown that the RPI innovations enjoyed the studio courses, particularly have had a national impact. Studio the opportunity to work in teams with Physics has now served as a model for faculty as colleagues. The team-teaching adaptation by other universities, most approach was effective as it reduced the notably through the Technology-En- occurrence of incorrect instruction (i.e., hanced Active Learning (TEAL) pro- someone in the team would be able to gram of studio physics at MIT (http:// explain material appropriately and research.microsoft.com/features/ correctly to students) and the demands TEAL.asp). on any individual. When the studio PROMOTING EFFECTIVE INSTRUCTION 63

program was fully established, it actu- and education in their programs and ally used fewer resources than the grant offerings. Examples include the traditional format of two faculty mem- Faculty Early Career Development bers and many graduate teaching (CAREER) program, the Distinguished assistants per course. Teaching Scholars (DTS) program, Biocomplexity in the Environment (BE): Guiding Principles from Granting Agencies Integrated Research and Education in Herb Levitan, Environmental Systems, and the Gradu- National Science Foundation (NSF) ate Teaching Fellows in K–12 Education Consideration of a larger social (GK–12) program. context—including granting agencies, Moreover, NSF has recently man- professional societies, institutions, and dated that every proposal for scientific faculty—was the concern of Levitan, research must be reviewed according to program director of the Division of two criteria: “intellectual merit” and Undergraduate Education. His presenta- “broader impact.” Examples of the latter tion was designed to describe NSF’s category emphasize education: Does response to the problem of promoting the research promote teaching, training, innovation in education. Referring to and learning? How will it improve Zemsky’s presentation, Levitan reiter- science education? Does it include ated that for change to occur the follow- undergraduate or precollege students as ing components are needed: agreement participants? Will the results contribute that a problem exists, evidence that to educational materials or databases? change will benefit everyone, sufficient Ramon Lopez, University of Texas, El time and resources to produce change, Paso, offered an example of the effect of and a top-down approach. this mandate. He is currently co- Since its inception, the mission of principal investigator and director for NSF has been to support science education at a new NSF-funded science research and any activities that contrib- and technology center, the Center for ute to its development. The leadership Integrated Space Weather Modeling of NSF has long feared that problems in (CISM; http://www.bu.edu/cism/), the educational system could lead to a where a large number of activities will decline in the pool of future researchers be education-related and focused on and to a failure to make the general learning in undergraduate education. public scientifically literate. To address Lopez believes that the center would not these possibilities, NSF has taken a top- have incorporated these activities if they down approach by combining research had not been mandated by NSF. 64 I M P R O V I N G U N D E R G R A D U AT E I N S T R U C T I O N

Levitan considered his own ideas for all research is that the outcomes will be improving science education to be communicated and available to an bottom-up. Levitan proposed that audience beyond those immediately educational change could be achieved involved in the research activity. Efforts by applying, to grant-funded projects should be disseminated so others can that integrate education and research, critique them. That can occur via peer- the same four principles that guide reviewed publication or commercial scientific research itself: products. The value of the research will then be measured by the impact—how • Be original and take risks. The best widely cited or otherwise used—of its research is that which builds on the product. efforts of others, explores unknown territory, and risks failure. Levitan emphasized that dissemi- • Provide opportunities for profes- nation of products (e.g., course materi- sional development. Research provides als, publications, websites) should be opportunities for personal growth for all the goal at the outset of any educational who are actively involved. Everyone in program. He concluded by restating the research group, from mentor that researchers, whether funded by (faculty project director) to learners NSF, NIH, or private foundations, (postdocs, graduate students, and should consider the development of undergraduates), has learning goals. education projects in the same ways Learners gain confidence and stature they develop science research projects: among peers as they gain proficiency in by reading the literature and consulting a field. They engage not only in the with colleagues to determine what is research process but also in the integra- already known, and then moving be- tion of the research process and educa- yond that with a novel approach to the tional process. problem. • Provide opportunities for collabora- tion and cooperation. Because the most Effective Faculty Professional interesting and important problems and Development questions are usually complex and Responding to Levitan’s charge to multidisciplinary, researchers with integrate research and education, Lillian diverse and complementary perspec- Tong, University of Wisconsin, posed tives and experiences often collaborate. questions about what is meant by • Evaluate efforts through peer review “teaching as research” and what are the and peer evaluation. The expectation of criteria by which education research PROMOTING EFFECTIVE INSTRUCTION 65

should be judged. The former is a for judging the quality of science educa- question posed frequently in the litera- tion research should be established by ture of science education (Boyer, 1990; editorial boards of appropriate journals. Shulman, 1990; NRC, 2002c, 2003) and The achievements of CIRTL, as well one that Tong recalled is heard over and as those of other programs for the over again by staff at the newly professional development of science launched Center for the Integration of faculty, can have far-reaching implica- Research, Teaching, and Learning tions. Several workshop participants (CIRTL) at the University of Wisconsin argued for placing science courses (http://www.wcer.wisc.edu/publica- designated for preservice teachers tions/news/research_notes/articles/ within science departments rather than cirtl_center.asp). schools of education because effective A university-level professional devel- teaching of undergraduate science, opment program that aims to change especially for these students, requires the definition of the teaching process, both specialized content knowledge and CIRTL’s emphasis is on “teaching as appropriate instructional strategies. If research”: University of Wisconsin preservice teachers are taught effec- STEM faculty are expected to approach tively by science faculty, this could teaching in the same evidence-based break the cycle noted in Chapter 2 by manner that they conduct their re- Bruce Alberts, President of the National search, which includes hypothesizing, Academy of Sciences, of incoming implementing, observing, analyzing, college students who have inadequate and improving. The efforts of CIRTL science backgrounds because they were encourage instructors to learn about educated by K–12 teachers who teach teaching strategies from evidence-based how they were taught in their own work, observe and assess the effects in undergraduate science courses and their own classrooms, and apply find- who, therefore, never developed a true ings to improve their teaching practices. feel for the nature of science. Bonnie Levitan added a twist to this assessment Brunkhorst, California State University, by suggesting that, just as one can San Bernardino, and Lillian McDermott, undertake research in unknown areas of University of Washington, agreed that science, an instructor can teach an such science preparation should be the unfamiliar subject and thereby demon- responsibility of science departments, strate to students how to learn some- but they encouraged continued conver- thing new. In response to Tong’s second sations among science faculty and their question, Levitan concluded that criteria colleagues in education departments (or 66 I M P R O V I N G U N D E R G R A D U AT E I N S T R U C T I O N

schools) on how to best meet the needs STEM discipline. Because of these of preservice teachers in introductory characteristics, they seek to provide science courses. course materials and an environment that pushes the students to do the thinking and to “learn to learn,” and SUMMARY they tend to use assessment methods more to determine their students’ The following is a summary of the preconceptions and concerns and less major ideas voiced by workshop partici- to grade them, thereby opening up pants regarding the impact on educa- opportunities for feedback. tional change of personality traits of At the institutional and departmental individual faculty and the characteristics level, strategies commonly used in of organization, governance, and incen- market analysis may be beneficial in this tive structures within departments and effort. University administrators have a institutions. The main goals for improv- number of options at their disposal in ing science instruction are to increase promoting instructional change, such as student conceptual understanding of the acquiring funds dedicated to educational science disciplines and to enhance their reform and publicly announcing that scientific reasoning skills. Among the such resources are available; arranging barriers to achieving these goals are for pre- and post-tenure mentoring in two systemic dysfunctions: an overreli- effective teaching (in collaboration with ance by faculty on a narrow range of the school or college of education if pedagogical tools and an incentive appropriate); establishing a top-down system that rewards excellence in dis- and bottom-up department-wide culture ciplinary research but not in teaching. in support of effective instruction; According to an ethnographic study selectively allocating funds to key by one of the presenters, faculty that are faculty who are willing to try new, instructional innovators are usually learner-centered modes of instruction; individuals who find great pleasure in offering summer stipends and sabbati- seeing students learn, view students not cal leaves for new course development, as “outsiders” but as less experienced extra teaching assistants, and reduction potential peers, and who experience of teaching loads during course im- teaching as an activity that is just as provement; and establishing a policy intellectually exciting and engaging as that every course in a department must the scholarship they pursue in their be designed to achieve specific, prede- PROMOTING EFFECTIVE INSTRUCTION 67

termined learning outcomes that in- Biocomplexity in the Environment (BE): clude both conceptual understanding of Integrated Research and Education in the subject and cognitive process skills. Environmental Systems, and the Gradu- At a national level, workshop partici- ate Teaching Fellows in K–12 Education pants considered what granting agen- (GK–12) program. NSF has recently cies such as the NSF can do to promote mandated that every proposal for educational change by combining scientific research must meet criteria research and education in their policies, for both “intellectual merit” and programs, and grant offerings. NSF “broader impact.” The latter criterion currently offers some programs to requires that proposals demonstrate promote educational change, including that the research will promote teaching, the Math and Science Partnership training, and learning; improve science program, the Learning and Teaching education; include undergraduate or Centers, the NSF Director’s Award for precollege students as participants; and Distinguished Teaching Scholars contribute to educational materials or (DTS), the Faculty Early Career Devel- databases. opment (CAREER) program, 68 I M P R O V I N G U N D E R G R A D U AT E I N S T R U C T I O N

Next: 5 General Discussion »
Improving Undergraduate Instruction in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics: Report of a Workshop Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $54.00 Buy Ebook | $43.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

Participants in this workshop were asked to explore three related questions: (1) how to create measures of undergraduate learning in STEM courses; (2) how such measures might be organized into a framework of criteria and benchmarks to assess instruction; and (3) how such a framework might be used at the institutional level to assess STEM courses and curricula to promote ongoing improvements. The following issues were highlighted:

  • Effective science instruction identifies explicit, measurable learning objectives.
  • Effective teaching assists students in reconciling their incomplete or erroneous preconceptions with new knowledge.
  • Instruction that is limited to passive delivery of information requiring memorization of lecture and text contents is likely to be unsuccessful in eliciting desired learning outcomes.
  • Models of effective instruction that promote conceptual understanding in students and the ability of the learner to apply knowledge in new situations are available.
  • Institutions need better assessment tools for evaluating course design and effective instruction.
  • Deans and department chairs often fail to recognize measures they have at their disposal to enhance incentives for improving education.

Much is still to be learned from research into how to improve instruction in ways that enhance student learning.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!