An oft-cited maxim in higher education is that ''faculty teach the way they were taught'' because they receive little formal training in teaching before entering the classroom. However, little is known about the origins of faculty knowledge about teaching or the role their prior experiences play in the development of their teaching practices. In this exploratory study, we interviewed and observed 53 science, technology, engineering, and mathematics faculty at three research institutions. Using qualitative analysis methods (i.e., thematic and causal network analysis), we find that faculty do not only model their teaching after previous instructors, but also draw upon a varied repertoire of knowledge and prior experiences. These include knowledge derived from their experiences as instructors (46 respondents), their experiences as students (22 respondents), their experiences as researchers (9 respondents), and from their non-academic roles (10 respondents). In-depth analyses of two faculty members elaborate on the relationship between these varied types of prior experiences and how they interact with other factors including beliefs about teaching, instructional goals, and features of the organizational context to ultimately shape their classroom practice. The results suggest that instead of assuming that faculty lack any knowledge about teaching and learning, professional developers and policymakers should instead acknowledge and build upon their preexisting ''craft'' knowledge as professional teachers. Future research should focus on relationships between specific types of knowledge and teaching practice and how these varied experiences influence identity formation.

Background: A growing body of research in cognitive psychology and education research is illuminating which study strategies are effective for optimal learning, but little descriptive research focuses on how undergraduate students in STEM courses actually study in real-world settings. Using a practice-based approach informed by situated cognition theory, we analyzed data from 61 STEM students about their study habits. Results: Results indicate that studying is a multi-faceted process that is initiated by instructor-or self-generated cues, followed by marshaling resources and managing distractions, and then implementing study behaviors that include selecting a social setting and specific strategies. Variations in some study behaviors are also evident according to the timing of their studying (e.g., cramming), course level, discipline, and social setting. Three cases of individual student practices reveal how studying is also shaped by how the course is designed and taught, students' own beliefs about studying, and aspects of their personal lives. Conclusions:The results indicate that studying involves various social, digital, and curricular resources, that many students persist in utilizing low-impact study strategies (e.g., re-reading text), and that the use of study strategies varies across different situations. We suggest that the focus on changing teaching behaviors that is dominant within STEM education be broadened to include a focus on instructional design that supports student self-regulatory behaviors and the adoption of high-impact study strategies.