The importance of context: an exploration of factors influencing the adoption of student-centered teaching among chemistry, biology, and physics faculty

Abstract

Background: Research at the secondary and postsecondary levels has clearly demonstrated the critical role that individual and contextual characteristics play in instructors' decision to adopt educational innovations. Although recent research has shed light on factors influencing the teaching practices of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) faculty, it is still not well understood how unique departmental environments impact faculty adoption of evidence-based instructional practices (EBIPs) within the context of a single institution. In this study, we sought to characterize the communication channels utilized by STEM faculty, as well as the contextual and individual factors that influence the teaching practices of STEM faculty at the departmental level. Accordingly, we collected survey and observational data from the chemistry, biology, and physics faculty at a single large research-intensive university in the USA. We then compared the influencing factors experienced by faculty in these different departments to their instructional practices. Results: Analyses of the survey data reveal disciplinary differences in the factors influencing adoption of EBIPs. In particular, the physics faculty (n = 15) had primarily student-centered views about teaching and experienced the most positive contextual factors toward adoption of EBIPs. At the other end of the spectrum, the chemistry faculty (n = 20) had primarily teacher-centered views and experienced contextual factors that hindered the adoption of student-centered practices. Biology faculty (n = 25) fell between these two groups. Classroom observational data reflected these differences: The physics classrooms were significantly more student-centered than the chemistry classrooms. Conclusions: This study demonstrates that disciplinary differences exist in the contextual factors teaching conceptions that STEM faculty experience and hold, even among faculty within the same institution. Moreover, it shows that these differences are associated to the level of adoption of student-centered teaching practices. This work has thus identified the critical need to carefully characterize STEM faculty's departmental environment and conceptions about teaching before engaging in instructional reform efforts, and to adapt reform activities to account for these factors. The results of this study also caution the overgeneralization of findings from a study focused on one type of STEM faculty in one environment to all STEM faculty in any environment.

Stirring the Pot: Supporting and Challenging General Education Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Faculty to Change Teaching and Assessment Practice

“…For our mathematics participants, however, the department value on discourse about the balance between EBIPs and content coverage (e.g., Ann's narrative) exposed that tension and invited pedagogical innovation. Our findings thus echo the power of departmental culture cited elsewhere in the literature (Dubrow, 2004;Gess-Newsome et al, 2003;Lund & Stains, 2015) as a dominant factor in pedagogical reform.…”

Strategies to mitigate student resistance to active learning

“…Extensive research has shown that active learning strategies are generally more effective than traditional lecture for promoting a wide range of desirable educational outcomes, including increased student learning and better retention in STEM programs (Freeman et al 2014;Michael 2006;Prince 2004;Prince & Felder 2007;Lund and Stains 2015). However, the adoption of these evidence-based instructional strategies into actual classroom practice has been slow (National Research Council 2012; American Society of Engineering Education 2012; Friedrich et al 2009;Hora et al 2012).…”

“…However, the adoption of these evidence-based instructional strategies into actual classroom practice has been slow (National Research Council 2012; American Society of Engineering Education 2012; Friedrich et al 2009;Hora et al 2012). Past surveys of STEM instructors indicate a number of specific barriers that hinder their use of active learning strategies (Shadle et al 2017;Lund andStains 2015 Dancy andHenderson 2012;Finelli, Daly, & Richardson 2014;Henderson and Dancy 2009;. These barriers include concerns about (a) the effectiveness of these new methods, (b) preparation time, (c) the class time required to implement active learning and instructors' consequent ability to cover the syllabus, and (d) student resistance, which includes any number of possible negative responses to the new teaching methods.…”

Assessing the interactivity and prescriptiveness of faculty professional development workshops: The real-time professional development observation tool

“…Although we see disciplinary content knowledge as involving both core ideas and cross-cutting practices [104], practices often span many disciplines, and we choose to only select this code when illustrated with topics that are familiar to participants (i.e., disciplinary core ideas grounded in the disciplinary domain). Prior studies have shown that faculty's primary discipline influences how they teach and think about teaching [92,105], which suggests that a focus on disciplinary content knowledge could help faculty to perceive the teaching strategies presented at workshops as directly relevant and more easily applicable to their own teaching. When the workshop content aligns with faculty's instructional goals, they may choose to take student tasks from the workshop and use them as building blocks in their instruction.…”