The Lecture Machine: A Cultural Evolutionary Model of Pedagogy in Higher Education

Abstract

The benefits of student-centered active-learning approaches are well established, but this evidence has not directly translated into instructors adopting these evidence-based methods in higher education. To date, promoting and sustaining pedagogical change through different initiatives has proven difficult, but research on pedagogical change is advancing. To this end, we examine pedagogical behaviors through a cultural evolutionary model that stresses the global nature of the issue, the generational time that change requires, and complications introduced by academic career trajectories. We first provide an introduction to cultural evolutionary theory before describing our model, which focuses on how cultural transmission processes and selection events at different career phases shape not only who teaches in higher education, but also how they choose to teach. We leverage our model to make suggestions for expediting change in higher education. This includes reforming pedagogy in departments that produce PhD students with the greatest chance of obtaining tenure-track positions.

Are scientists biased against Christians? Exploring real and perceived bias against Christians in academic biology

“…Thus, discrimination at this stage could lead directly to underrepresentation of Christians as scientists. We recognize that graduate selection is only one context in which bias against Christians could manifest within science, but we chose to explore this context because it is one strong selection filter for who continues on as an academic scientist [35].…”

A model of peer effects on instructor innovation adoption

“…Instructors interacting within an academic unit form a social network through which information and opinions can be shared (Andrews et al 2016;Burt 2000;Grunspan et al 2018;Kezar 2014;McConnell et al 2019;Wasserman and Faust 1994). An individual's social network is known to be an influential factor in human behavior; the decisions an individual makes are heavily influenced by relationships and interactions (Dancy et al 2016;Lane et al 2019;Van Waes et al 2015).…”

“…The nature and frequency of interactions are influenced by the departmental and institutional context. Further, peer interactions also shape perceptions of context through communication of beliefs and practices (Grunspan et al 2018;Pataraia et al 2015;Roxå and Mårtensson 2009;Thomson and Trigwell 2018), thereby affecting perceptions of departmental supports and barriers and ultimately the likelihood of adopting teaching innovations (Bathgate et al 2019;Kezar 2014;Lane et al 2019;Shadle et al 2017).…”

“…The model presented here is unique in that it accounts explicitly for potential mechanisms by which peer interactions influence knowledge and affective state in particular. We assert that peers act on an instructor's innovation-decision process in three specific ways: (1) they provide information to shape an instructor's knowledge (e.g., Dancy et al 2016;Henderson et al 2011;Lane et al 2019;Pataraia et al 2015), (2) they reinforce or change an instructor's affective state (e.g., Andrews and Lemons 2015;Marbach-Ad and Hunt Rietschel 2016;Roxå and Mårtensson 2009;Sturtevant and Wheeler 2019;Wieman et al 2013), and (3) they shape and communicate the teaching climate of the department, which can indirectly impact an instructor's affective state (e.g., Grunspan et al 2018;Kezar 2014;Landrum et al 2017;Lund and Stains 2015;Shadle et al 2017). All downstream effects of peers (i.e., decisions by an instructor to implement or reject an innovation or seek more knowledge) are the result of one or more changes in either knowledge or affective state, or both.…”

BioSkills Guide: Development and National Validation of a Tool for Interpreting the Vision and Change Core Competencies

“…In support of (a), 51 out of 77 outcomes had greater than 90% support, likely due to our intentional study design of iteratively revising outcomes to reach consensus during the development phase. In support of (b), it is reasonable that college biology educators in the US are more culturally alike than different given broad similarities in their graduate education experiences (Grunspan, Kline, & Brownell, 2018). Thus, we believe the most likely explanation for the small size of the observed differences is a combination of study design and similarities in educator training.…”