A close look at change: the role of an instructional-team community on an Instructor’s evolution during instructional reform

Katelyn M. Southard1, Susan D. Hester2, Jazmin Jurkiewicz2, Jane Curry3, Young Ae Kim2, Jonathan Cox4, Lisa Elfring1, Paul Blowers5, Vicente Talanquer2
1Office of Instruction and Assessment, University of Arizona, Tucson, USA
2Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of Arizona, Tucson, USA
3Department of Environmental Science, University of Arizona, Tucson, USA
4College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Arizona, Tucson, USA
5Department of Chemical and Environmental Engineering, University of Arizona, Tucson, USA

Tóm tắt

AbstractIn transforming undergraduate STEM education, it is important to understand the personal and contextual factors that impact instructors’ reform efforts. In this study we explored an instructor’s drivers and motivators for change in perspectives and practice, with an emphasis on the impact of an internal community (her ‘instructional team’) comprised of a co-instructor, graduate teaching assistants, and several undergraduate learning assistants (LAs). Data were collected over two semesters through classroom observations, interviews, faculty learning community discussion recordings, and team email communications. We identified pedagogical discontentment as a primary initial trigger for the instructor’s engagement in instructional reform, guided by personal values and beliefs about student learning and the nature of her discipline. The instructional-team community, which was established during a period of instructional distress, provided 1) consistent support in instructional planning, implementation, assessment, and reflection processes, 2) unique access to different perspectives on the nuances of the teaching environment and student challenges, 3) increased space, time, and motivation for the instructor to more critically reflect on her teaching and engage in creative instructional design. This case illustrates the potential effects of instructional team-based communities on instructors as they work to improve their practice and reform their courses.

Từ khóa


Tài liệu tham khảo

American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) (2011). Vision and change in undergraduate biology education: A call to action. Washington, DC.

Anderson, R. D. (2002). Reforming science teaching: What research says about inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015171124982.

Auerbach, A. J. J., & Andrews, T. C. (2018). Pedagogical knowledge for active-learning instruction in large undergraduate biology courses: A large-scale qualitative investigation of instructor thinking. International journal of STEM education, 5(1), 19. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-0112-9.

Bain, K. (2011). What the best college teachers do. Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvjnrvvb.

Blumberg, P. (2016). Factors that influence faculty adoption of learning-centered approaches. Innovative Higher Education, 41(4), 303–315. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-015-9346-3.

Brownell, S. E., & Tanner, K. D. (2012). Barriers to faculty pedagogical change: Lack of training, time, incentives, and … tensions with professional identity? CBE Life Sciences Education, 11(4), 339–346. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.12-09-0163.

Cox, M. D. (2004). Introduction to faculty learning communities. New Directions for Teaching and Learning 2004,(97), 5–23. https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.129.

Cox, M. D., & McDonald, J. (2017). Faculty learning communities and communities of practice dreamers, schemers, and seamers. In Communities of practice, (pp. 47–72). Singapore: Springer.

Czajka, C. D., & McConnell, D. (2016). Situated instructional coaching: A case study of faculty professional development. International Journal of STEM Education, 3(1), 10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-016-0044-1.

Dancy, M., & Henderson, C. (2010). Pedagogical practices and instructional change of physics faculty. American Journal of Physics, 78(10), 1056–1063. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.3446763.

Ebert-May, D., Derting, T. L., Hodder, J., Momsen, J. L., Long, T. M., & Jardeleza, S. E. (2011). What we say is not what we do: Effective evaluation of faculty professional development programs. BioScience, 61(7), 550–558. https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2011.61.7.9.

Feldman, A. (2000). Decision making in the practical domain: A model of practical conceptual change. Science Education, 84(5), 606–623. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-237X(200009)84:5<606::AID-SCE4>3.0.CO;2-R.

Feldman, A., Rearick, M., & Weiss, T. (2001). Teacher development and action research: Findings from six years of action research in schools. Retrieved February, 20, 2008.

Gess-Newsome, J., Southerland, S. A., Johnston, A., & Woodbury, S. (2003). Educational reform, personal practical theories, and dissatisfaction: The anatomy of change in college science teaching. American Educational Research Journal, 40(3), 731–767. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312040003731.

Goertzen, R. M., Brewe, E., Kramer, L. H., Wells, L., & Jones, D. (2011). Moving toward change: Institutionalizing reform through implementation of the learning assistant model and open source tutorials. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 7(2), 020105. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.7.020105.

Henderson, C., Beach, A., & Famiano, M. (2009). Promoting instructional change via co-teaching. American Journal of Physics, 77(3), 274–283. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.3033744.

Jardine, H. E., & Friedman, L. A. (2017). Using undergraduate facilitators for active learning in organic chemistry: A preparation course and outcomes of the experience. Journal of Chemical Education, 94(6), 703–709. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.6b00636.

Kember, D., & McKay, J. (1996). Action research into the quality of student learning: A paradigm for faculty development. The Journal of Higher Education, 67(5), 528–554. https://doi.org/10.2307/2943867.

Kim, Y. A., Cox, J., Southard, K. M., Elfring, L., Blowers, P., & Talanquer, V. (2019). Learning researchers: Promoting formative assessment in STEM courses. Journal of College Science Teaching; Washington, 48(5), 36–41.

NRC (2012). Discipline-based education research: Science and engineering. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

Otero, V., Pollock, S., & Finkelstein, N. (2010). A physics department’s role in preparing physics teachers: The Colorado learning assistant model. American Journal of Physics, 78(11), 1218–1224. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.3471291.

Southerland, S. A., Sowell, S., Blanchard, M., & Granger, E. M. (2011). Exploring the construct of pedagogical discontentment: A tool to understand science teachers’ openness to reform. Research in Science Education, 41(3), 299–317. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-010-9166-5.

Stains, M., Harshman, J., Barker, M. K., Chasteen, S. V., Cole, R., DeChenne-Peters, S. E., … Young, A. M. (2018). Anatomy of STEM teaching in north American universities. Science, 359(6383), 1468–1470. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aap8892.

Talbot, R. M., Hartley, L. M., Marzetta, K., & Wee, B. S. (2015). Transforming undergraduate science education with learning assistants: Student satisfaction in large-enrollment courses. Journal of College Science Teaching, 44(5), 24–30.

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge, [England]: Cambridge University Press.

Wenger, E. (2012). Communities of Practice: A brief introduction, https://wenger-trayner.com/introduction-to-communities-of-practice/

Woodbury, S., & Gess-Newsome, J. (2002). Overcoming the paradox of change without difference: A model of change in the arena of fundamental school reform. Educational Policy, 16(5), 763–782. https://doi.org/10.1177/089590402237312.

Woodbury, S. S. (2000). The reform of practice and the practice of reforms: Teachers and change in high school mathematics. The University of Utah.

Zuber-Skerritt, O. (1992). Action research in higher education: Examples and reflections, . Kogan page limited. London.

Cox, M. D. (2004). Introduction to faculty learning communities. New Directions for Teaching and Learning 2004,(97), 5–23. https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.129.