Context and content of teaching conversations: exploring how to promote sharing of innovative teaching knowledge between science faculty

Abstract

Background Change strategies may leverage interpersonal relationships and conversations to spread teaching innovations among science faculty. Knowledge sharing refers to the process by which individuals transfer information and thereby spread innovative ideas within an organization. We use knowledge sharing as a lens for identifying factors that encourage productive teaching-related conversations between individuals, characterizing the context and content of these discussions, and understanding how peer interactions may shape instructional practices. In this study, we interview 19 science faculty using innovative teaching practices about the teaching-focused conversations they have with different discussion partners. Results This qualitative study describes characteristics of the relationship between discussion partners, what they discuss with respect to teaching, the amount of help-seeking that occurs, and the perceived impacts of these conversations on their teaching. We highlight the role of office location and course overlap in bringing faculty together and characterize the range of topics they discuss, such as course delivery and teaching strategies. We note the tendency of faculty to seek out partners with relevant expertise and describe how faculty perceive their discussion partners to influence their instructional practices and personal affect. Finally, we elaborate on how these themes vary depending on the relationship between discussion partners. Conclusions The knowledge sharing framework provides a useful lens for investigating how various factors affect faculty conversations around teaching. Building on this framework, our results lead us to propose two hypotheses for how to promote sharing teaching knowledge among faculty, thereby identifying productive directions for further systematic inquiry. In particular, we propose that productive teaching conversations might be cultivated by fostering collaborative teaching partnerships and developing departmental structures to facilitate sharing of teaching expertise. We further suggest that social network theories and other examinations of faculty behavior can be useful approaches for researching the mechanisms that drive teaching reform.

Factors associated with chemistry faculty members’ cooperative adoption of evidence-based instructional practices: results from a national survey

“…However, there is no evidence of an association between the numbers of people with whom a chemistry faculty member discusses the course textbook, content, or academic dishonesty/integrity and EBIP adoption. This finding differs from that of Lane et al (2022), where faculty members from multiple STEM disciplines (including chemistry, though data were not disaggregated by discipline) report that their conversations about course content influence their use of EBIPs. Given that chemistry faculty members report pressure to cover a breadth of content from multiple communities (Kraft et al, 2023), including their department colleagues, it is possible that chemistry faculty members choose to avoid this topic in conversations with colleagues or that conversations surrounding content coverage are not productive.…”

“…We found no evidence of an association between the number of people with whom a chemistry faculty member discusses course content and EBIP adoption, though in an investigation by Lane et al (2022), faculty members from multiple STEM disciplines report that their conversations about course content influence their use of EBIPs. Content coverage expectations are a barrier to EBIP adoption (Shadle et al, 2017), and chemistry faculty members report pressure from multiple chemistry communities to cover a breadth of content (Kraft et al, 2023).…”

“…These include but are not limited to the nature of teaching discussions (e.g., which aspects of teaching are discussed) and engagement in teaching evaluations with one's discussion partner. Results from one investigation across three science departments (biology, chemistry, and geoscience) suggest that both the context and content of teaching conversations may be important for promoting EBIP adoption (Lane et al, 2022). While data were not disaggregated by discipline, office location and course overlap were found to connect faculty and supported the sharing of innovative teaching knowledge.…”

“…While data were not disaggregated by discipline, office location and course overlap were found to connect faculty and supported the sharing of innovative teaching knowledge. Conservations that participants considered as influencing their use of EBIPs then focused on a range of topics, including course delivery, content coverage, teaching strategies, and the degree of course synchronization, among others (Lane et al, 2022). Moreover, it is possible that, while all discussions surrounding teaching are useful, only discussions about particular aspects of teaching drive EBIP adoption.…”

A model for principals' STEM leadership capability

“…While there have been positive reports on the outcomes of integrated STEM initiatives (e.g., Hobbs et al, 2018), there are relatively few longitudinal evaluation reports on the implementation of STEM programmes—a situation aggravated by funding within STEM that tends to be focused on single disciplines (e.g., Li et al, 2020). Of those programmes that claim successful outcomes, factors that seem key are interdisciplinary collaboration and the sharing of knowledge between and across faculties/departments (e.g., Lane et al, 2022; Li, 2020; Wang et al, 2020), positive teachers' dispositions and beliefs (Dong et al, 2020; El Nagdi et al, 2018; Goos et al, 2020), the provision of time and support for the acquisition of new capabilities (e.g., with digital tools) (Hollman et al, 2019; Kennedy et al, 2014)—all necessary for teachers and students to develop integrated STEM identities (e.g., Galanti & Holincheck, 2022). The lack of longitudinal data about students' attainment of relevant knowledge, understanding, skills, values, attitudes, engagement and participation following STEM interventions is compounded by limited research into the influence of teacher attitudes and school context on the implementation of STEM integration (Hudson et al, 2015; Thibaut et al, 2018) and challenges associated with the assessment of student learning in interdisciplinary STEM education (Gao et al, 2020), making it difficult to draw valid conclusions (Chachashvili‐Bolotin et al, 2016).…”