National and local initiatives focused on the transformation of STEM teaching in higher education have multiplied over the last decade. These initiatives often focus on measuring change in instructional practices, but it is difficult to monitor such change without a national picture of STEM educational practices, especially as characterized by common observational instruments. We characterized a snapshot of this landscape by conducting the first large scale observation-based study. We found that lecturing was prominent throughout the undergraduate STEM curriculum, even in classrooms with infrastructure designed to support active learning, indicating that further work is required to reform STEM education. Additionally, we established that STEM faculty’s instructional practices can vary substantially within a course, invalidating the commonly-used teaching evaluations based on a one-time observation.

This study explores the relationship between teaching assistants (TAs) and student learning in undergraduate science laboratory classes. TAs typically instruct laboratory courses, yet little, if any, research examines professional development (PD) for TAs or relationships between instructors and students in laboratory settings. The use of undergraduate TAs (UTAs) in the same manner as graduate TAs (GTAs) in inquiry-based lab settings has yet to be explored. This quantitative study explored how TAs' content knowledge, beliefs about teaching, and teaching confidence change as a result of PD and how TAs' prior experience, UTA/GTA status, content knowledge, beliefs, and teaching confidence relates to students' content knowledge learning in an inquiry-based general chemistry laboratory. Participants included 14 GTAs, 5 UTAs, and their 529 students at a public university. PD supported TAs to lead inquiry-based general chemistry laboratory classes, involving a week-long workshop and 14 weekly follow-up meetings. Results demonstrate that TAs' content knowledge improved following PD and teaching, t(18) ¼ À3.62, p ¼ 0.002, and students' content knowledge significantly improved across the semester, t(528) ¼ À36.27, p ¼ 0.000, d Cohen ¼ 1.3. Further, TAs with higher content knowledge post-PD tended to have students with higher end-of-semester content (r ¼ 0.517, p ¼ 0.000). No differences existed between UTAs or GTAs on any TA characteristic or student outcome measure. Using a hierarchical linear regression model, student postsemester content knowledge was predicted by student demographics; however, no TA characteristics or demographics were significant predictors of student content knowledge. Students who perceived their TA as more supportive also believed they learned more content (r ¼ 0.280, p ¼0.000). Thus, UTAs can be used in lieu of GTAs in our inquiry-based general chemistry laboratory context and could be a possible alternative for TA instructors at other universities. Continued work examining TA PD, TA characteristics, TA practice, and student learning in inquiry-based laboratory contexts is warranted. #

Background: As institutions and science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) departments emphasize faculty use of evidence-based instructional practices (EBIPs), various barriers and faculty perceptions hinder that process. While a large body of literature exists in this area, no survey instrument has been developed to comprehensively and systematically capture all these factors. We developed and piloted a survey instrument, the Faculty Instructional Barriers and Identity Survey (FIBIS), to delineate university STEM faculty perceptions of barriers to using EBIPs and examine the composition and sources of faculty professional identity, use of and dissatisfaction with these practices. Results: Initial pilot study results with a small, targeted sample (n = 69) shows how FIBIS can be used to understand factors that impact instructional practices. For our sample, we found that higher perceived departmental barriers and limited supports correlate with lower work identity. Even at a research university, we do not see a negative correlation between research and teaching identities; STEM faculty can have both, despite hypothesized tensions in the literature. We also found that sense of belonging and faculty community were descriptively higher for underrepresented minority than non-underrepresented minority faculty. As previous work has suggested, use of EBIPs varied by department. Finally, descriptive differences were seen in faculty barriers for those who were and were not satisfied with EBIPs. This suggests another layer to add to models of faculty decision-making regarding the use of EBIPs: dissatisfaction with implementing these practices once they are attempted. Further work is needed to confirm and understand these initial findings. Conclusions: Many of the exploratory findings from our pilot of FIBIS align with previous qualitative work, suggesting that FIBIS is a tool that can capture faculty identity, use of EBIPs, and barriers to instruction. While we do not intend to generalize our claims, the following suggestions for our institution may demonstrate how FIBIS can be used to try and reduce STEM faculty barriers to implementing EBIPs: (1) developing a strong teaching community (especially needed for persistence of faculty from underrepresented minorities), (2) helping faculty connect to the university as a whole, and (3) working with departments to better support implementation of EBIPs. The results presented and implications of these findings demonstrate the potential of FIBIS as a tool for examining factors that influence STEM faculty instructional practice. Future work includes further validating the FIBIS barriers component of the survey so that FIBIS can be used to identify and support change in institutions of higher education.

The purpose of this qualitative investigation was to better understand teaching assistants' (TAs') perceptions of training in a guided inquiry undergraduate general chemistry laboratory context. The training was developed using existing TA training literature and informed by situated learning theory. TAs engaged in training prior to teaching (B25 hours) and attended weekly meetings throughout the year (B60 hours). Assessment of training utilized a constructivist framework to understand TAs' perceptions of training in supporting their implementation of guided inquiry in the laboratory. Participants included 20 graduate TAs and 8 undergraduate TAs of varying teaching experience. Data collection included three open-ended surveys across the academic year and two semi-structured interviews with a purposefully sampled subset of TAs. Data were analyzed using systematic data analysis (Miles and Huberman, 1994). Results indicated different aspects of the training were helpful for different subgroups of participants. For example, going over logistics and completing the experiments were most helpful for TAs with no previous teaching experience while discussing learning theory was least helpful for TAs whose future career goals were research-focused. Analyzing participants' experiences and perceptions through a situated learning theory lens suggested TAs with little prior teaching experience appreciated the authentic experiences (e.g., experiments and grading) provided by the training. The results of the study suggest TA training should address prior experiences, particularly language and teaching, as well as the larger context of research and future careers. Future research will focus on examining how TAs learn within a situated training and how that impacts TA beliefs, practices, and student learning.