Leading Change in Undergraduate STEM Education - ACS

Chapter 1

Leading Change in Undergraduate STEM Education Downloaded by 80.82.77.83 on December 29, 2017 | http://pubs.acs.org Publication Date (Web): October 24, 2017 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2017-1248.ch001

Adam K. Leibovich,1 Michael Hildreth,2 and Linda Columbus*,3 1Department

of Physics and Astronomy, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15260, United States 2Department of Physics, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, Indiana 46556, United States 3Department of Chemistry, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia 22904, United States *E-mail: [email protected].

Department culture and the prevailing status quo are major barriers to curricular and programmatic change in undergraduate STEM education. Many faculty members struggle to lead needed change in the context of these barriers; however, several have strategically navigated this change within their departments and universities. This chapter highlights important considerations and guidance for faculty wanting to become agents of change within their communities.

The Role of Faculty in Curriculum and Programmatic Reform There are many barriers to sustainable change in undergraduate STEM courses and programs. One barrier is fear. What if I put all this time into changing introductory chemistry and the students don’t learn and/or hate it? What if redesigning introductory chemistry takes so much of my time that I lose my research funding? If I care too much about teaching will I lose my research identity and the respect of my colleagues? These are real and valid fears (1). Time and resources are limiting reagents (2, 3). How does a single faculty member with a research program find the time to design and teach a large course with well-studied effective teaching practices? What resources does a university put forth to help faculty develop these types of courses so that the faculty member isn’t effectively obtaining another PhD in science education and learning? The © 2017 American Chemical Society

Waterman and Feig; Educational and Outreach Projects from the Cottrell Scholars Collaborative Undergraduate and Graduate ... ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.

Downloaded by 80.82.77.83 on December 29, 2017 | http://pubs.acs.org Publication Date (Web): October 24, 2017 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2017-1248.ch001

typical first-year introductory chemistry course at a public university can have over 1000 students with a student to faculty ratio of 400:1 or more. Thus, the challenge of developing a scalable curriculum that can be taught to a mass of students is difficult (4). Sustainability is also a major barrier to curricular change (5). An effective professor teaches a specific course, but when they retire or rotate to another assignment the incoming professor inevitably makes changes. As professors, we like to have our academic freedom and teach the content we want with our own teaching approaches. Yet, changing a working course model for spurious reasons wastes resources. Finally, culture and inertia contribute significantly to the lack of change in how and what we teach in introductory chemistry (6). Chemistry departments are an interesting mixture of disciplines that often have different “scientific cultures” with corresponding tribal behaviors and wars (7). Arguments about quantitative versus descriptive or depth versus coverage can consume hours of discussion (8). The idea of “weeding” out the students for the major is prevalent (9). On top of these conflicts are the curricular wars (e.g. “Atoms first” versus traditional “topical ladder” approaches (10)). One interesting commonality is that many faculty agree that much of the introductory course content isn’t very representative of chemistry in practice as an integrated science with deep connections to biology, physics, and engineering, as an observation of the physical world or in research and development (11–13). We have faced all of these barriers and, to some extent, overcome them to introduce course and programmatic changes at our institutions. Generalizations from our experiences are included here to provide some guiding principles to those interested in leading change in undergraduate (and likely graduate) STEM courses and programs.

Timing and Institutional Readiness Timing is a very important consideration before committing resources and effort to developing STEM curricula and programs. Many institutions have evolved to assist faculty in teaching and are now responding to a realization that the focus should be on learning. Along these lines, there is a shift from a student-centered model to an institutional readiness model. Rather than assuming students lack characteristics important to succeed and focusing on teaching to these deficits, institutions implement technology, design, and pedagogy that is effective to many students rather than the average (14–16). Thus, there are many important questions to think about in terms of timing and institutional readiness. Here are a few to consider. 1.

2.

Is undergraduate STEM reform part of the university’s strategic plan? In most cases, the answer is surely yes, but be sure to have this information to frame your initiative. Is this mere lip service or are resources committed to facilitate change? Are there more pressing problems in your department or college that might be a higher priority? Consider the current demands on your colleagues and the most important concerns the faculty have. For 2



3.

4. 5.

6.

instance, if your department just hired five assistant professors, you may want to focus on mentoring, sponsoring, and supporting these faculty and delay a reform until they are tenured. However, maybe you have a large faculty and you can incorporate the new faculty as part of the reform. Take the time to think and discuss what the priorities currently are for the department. What is the timeline for the curricular or programmatic change? Do you need to address inertia and culture? Change takes time. Investing in long term sustainable change requires discussion, inclusion, engagement, faculty buy-in and revision. Think of any curricular or programmatic change as a model that the faculty could use for any other large long-term proposed changes. Are there resources, faculty, and staff that you can identify that are interested in undergraduate STEM curricular and programmatic changes? Is the project design feasible for the scale and duration required of a STEM course? For instance, if you want to take students into the field as part of a classroom undergraduate research experience, are there funds available to continue the course with the anticipated number of students for the next 5 years? Has someone else conducted a recent STEM curricular or programmatic change? How did it go? What do the participants suggest? Conduct research at your home institution and with peers elsewhere, identify resources, and research the recent past for barriers and resources.

The answers to these questions will allow you to gauge whether your institution is ready to support and cultivate STEM curricular and programmatic change. The impact your initiative can have is directly correlated to the ability of your institution to sustain and facilitate curricular and programmatic change.

Examples of the Importance of Timing and Readiness •

•

•

•

Many more institutions are stressing the importance of updating curricula. Determine if your upper administration is pushing in this direction (e.g. an Association of American Universities (AAU) institution will have an appointed representative that is very familiar with the national push for STEM education reform (17)). If so, resources are most likely available to help facilitate change. This is a perfect time to begin. Having a plan to implement large curricular or programmatic changes without having faculty buy-in is a recipe for disaster. Spend time to obtain support before jumping into the process. Sometimes, rotation of new professors into a course or set of courses can open up an opportunity for change or reform. Be watchful for the opportunity to harness fresh enthusiasm and the will to collaborate. The time to start is now. It will take time to build up to the point of implementing your first reform. Don’t wait! You can vary the pace of the reform process to suit the evolving set of opportunities. 3



Leadership Leadership is a skill that is learned, cultivated, and developed and does not imply a particular title. Anyone can lead change if they invest in the development of these skills. All STEM departments should invest in the development of faculty leadership skills (e.g. workshops and programs through your institution, professional societies, or commercial services). There are a few traits that are especially important for leading change in undergraduate STEM education. The most important is being able to work with all of the stakeholders (18). The only expectation you should have for a reform is that the course or program will be better than it currently is. If, as a leader for change, you have many predefined ideas and expectations then you may not leave room for advancement or inclusion of other peoples’ thoughts. You cannot be an expert in all things related to STEM education and your colleagues may have better ideas about content, logistics, or implementation. Therefore, you should be open to the many possibilities that could lead to reform. Invest time in the process of having department members discuss the particular reform they think is important and have them brainstorm ideas, designs, and solutions. Listen to stakeholders and respond. Undergraduates, graduate student teaching assistants, faculty, staff, and administrators all have investments in the programs and courses offered at the institution. Therefore, they will all have opinions and experiences about the need for change, the process, and the implementation of the reformed course or program. People with ideas are a dime a dozen, but people who can do the work and implement good ideas (their own or from others) are rare. To lead reform, you need to have good ideas, but more importantly, you need to recognize other people’s good ideas and act on them. Be ready to step in when others won’t do the work even if it was their great idea. Examples Demonstrating Leadership •

•

•

•

Survey faculty with a short questionnaire focused on a particular topic to gauge interest or knowledge of curricula changes. There are many free online resources for creating and analyzing surveys. Meet with faculty to discuss what data would be helpful in assessing if and what curricular and programmatic change is needed. Have them prioritize the questions. Collect the data. Organize an undergraduate studies retreat with activities designed to have the faculty learn what is currently being taught and discuss what they think is great and what needs improvement. Circulate the list and facilitate a discussion among interested faculty to form strategies that tackle the top two areas identified for improvement. Before designing the curriculum of a new course, ask faculty members through informal or formal discussions about what they think is important to be taught in the course. Then, when you design the course send the syllabus to those that you involved indicating who thought what was important and where it was included in the course. 4


•

Be the leader for the change. This does not mean you do all the work. Team building will lessen your load and give you a greater chance of success.


Data Why do you want to change the curriculum or program? What are the goals for the change? To answers these questions, you will want to obtain data to support the claim that change is needed. If you can convince your colleagues that there is a need for some pedagogical change with data, they are more likely to support your efforts. This is particularly true in STEM fields such as Chemistry, where we are more easily convinced of the importance of making changes if it is backed with data. There is a large literature focused on effective teaching practices in STEM; however, since we as STEM faculty are not usually trained for education research we are unfamiliar with these publications. Indeed, many STEM faculty are unconvinced by the results in discipline-based science research, due to the “softness” of the science (19). However, these same faculty members can be convinced by data acquired within your own institution and designed around specific questions they have with the specific cohort that they teach. Institutions have a database of course grades, race, gender, major, transfer information, and can follow a student’s trajectory through a program or major by combing all of this information for each student. They may even have experiential information based on surveys like the Student Experience in the Research University sponsored by the Center for Studies in Higher Education (20). These data can be extremely powerful in motivating change in STEM instruction. Beyond institutional data, you can acquire data yourself for a particular cohort of interest. The cohort could be the majors, students in introductory courses, or students in a specific course. The results of pre- and post-testing within a course or over a set of courses is often very convincing data for colleagues to assess what students are really learning and can motivate them to support a redesign. Use the resources at your university to help design the instruments (e.g. survey or placement test) you want to use. Be sure to obtain institutional review board approval or exemption before beginning these studies. Student informed consent is very important if collecting data and reporting outcomes as a function of many criteria you are interested in studying (e.g. demographics). Examples of Important Data • •

• •

Determine what the rate of drop, withdraw, and failure is for a given course. Is this an acceptable number? Survey students within a major about their experiences. What would you want their experience to be? Is this what students report? Are they learning what you think you are teaching? Are underrepresented groups disproportionately earning lower grades? Are they experiencing the courses and program differently? How many students conduct research and publish papers? 5


•

Pre- and post-test results compared across different course sections and instructors. There are many assessments available online (e.g. Student Assessment of Learning Gains (21) for student experiences and concept inventories in different disciplines). The NSF and professional societies’ websites provide information about these assessment tools.


Inclusion and Communication Many faculty members reform their course independently of their surroundings. The result is that, when the faculty member no longer teaches the course, the reform and knowledge that went into the change is lost and the course must be redesigned anew or it defaults to a set of lecture notes passed on from previous instructors. In addition, institutions may not reward teaching excellence and leave faculty feeling underappreciated for the work that they put into course development (22). There have been many calls to universities to change and increase incentives for research faculty to design curricula and teach effectively (3, 17). To avoid these issues, you may want to consider including several people in the design and implementation of the reform. Including administrators, faculty, staff, and students creates a sense of community and investment in the change regardless of whether they are actively involved. Additionally, if you do not communicate your ideas and implementations, then no one will know the effort and impact that you have made. Engage faculty in collaborative projects focused around teaching. Collaborations foster innovation and can lead to sustainable change. Start with small projects or specific course material and lead informal discussions (e.g. over lunch or coffee) with faculty. Seek their advice and communicate back to them how you used their advice and expertise in your course or program. Allowing faculty to have impact without consuming too much of their time will increase their awareness and ownership of the new developments. Embrace opportunities to make presentations on your educational reform. Participating in these presentations does not detract from your research identity. In fact, your research identity can be used as a credential to help other research active faculty recognize the opportunity and importance of their involvement. Your local contributions to changes in STEM education can have a much broader impact just by sharing your experiences with colleagues in professional societies and seminars. Many have demonstrated the long-term impact that strong research scientists can have on STEM education reform; this group includes Eric Mazur, Jo Handelsman, Carl Wieman, S. James Gates, Jr. and others, many of whom have been honored with the distinction of HHMI Professors or Cottrell Scholars. Examples of Inclusion and Communication • •

Present a 5-minute pitch to an administrative unit about the reform ideas you have and the impact the expected outcomes could have. Create a “design team” for your course. Just because you are the instructor doesn’t mean you have to change the course by yourself. 6


•

•


•

Identify two or three people across the institution that can help you (e.g. librarian, technology staff, education expert). Create an advisory board for your initiative. Ask administrators, staff, and faculty to participate in the board. Update them once a year and ask for feedback. Discuss with your undergraduate students the reasons for the curriculum reform, and solicit feedback both before and after making changes. Buy-in from the students is important to lasting change and some useful approaches from engaging students in these discussion are provided on the POGIL resource website (23). Take the opportunity to discuss your plans with colleagues both at your institution and elsewhere. You do not need to reinvent the wheel. Many great ideas have been tried that you can use.

Building Relationships and Faculty Buy-In Reform in STEM education likely requires a cultural change in the environment. Cultural change does not happen quickly and requires continuous attention to positive relationships and communication. Internal politics, divisions, and factions are human nature and can create a difficult environment to navigate. If you want to invest in change, then you will need to consider activities and goals that can bring the faculty together on specific achievements. Within your department, it is important to find like-minded individuals who are interested in making reforms. Teaming up with these people will build a cohort that can be used to overcome the political and disciplinary divisions in the department. A team-based approach will also spread the workload around and make more people invested in the changes. Learning what works and what does not at your university and in your department will help your initiative be successful. Find out what reforms are happening in other departments. Meet with the people involved and listen to their thoughts and ideas about what was successful and what was challenging in their projects. Determine how they know they are accomplishing their goals. Partnering with these departments and the university resources that are helping them can be productive for all involved. Involving deans and provosts in these discussions is also crucial. The upper administration will not only know what is occurring across the university, but will be happy to have joint projects since they can be relatively inexpensive.

Examples of Building Relationships •

Start a small discussion group around pedagogical issues. Pick topics that either showcase the application of various pedagogical techniques or address perceived problems. Building small communities of like-minded faculty in informal non-threatening situations is an excellent way to build support for reform. 7


•

•

Invite “well-respected” individuals from outside your university who have been successful in implementing reform to give colloquia. Often, seeing that successful reform is possible elsewhere and hearing about the strategies that produced it can provide some local impetus for change. Having a Q&A session with the speaker after the talk is an effective way to communicate the procedural details of reform and discuss some of the obstacles that may or may not have come out in a formal talk. Build relationships with reformers in other departments on campus. They will be your allies in this endeavor.


Resources If your institution is ready for curricular and/or programmatic change, then you should be able to secure resources for your implementation. Securing these resources can be divided into two categories: (i) those that exist and (ii) those for which you have to ask. Many institutions have teaching, digital/media, computing, and learning design and technology resources. These entities are often spread across a campus without a central core that places them all together at your disposal. The personnel are typically overworked and under resourced, but very willing to help. Therefore, don’t expect them to come to you, but if you find them, they may be helpful. For the resources you need to ask for, first identify whom you should ask. In many cases, this person may not be your department head, but may be a Dean of Undergraduate Studies, the Provost, or other entities. Talk to your chair and then several other administrative entities to drum up support (see section on Communicating your work) and put together a pitch for your reform. Use data and existing resources to demonstrate investment and resourcefulness. Ask for the resources you need and consider a month summer salary, teaching assistants, a teaching postdoctoral fellowship, one-time funds for equipment and materials, and other types of instructional support. Examples of Identifying and Leveraging Resources •

•

•

•

Contact staff in teaching and learning centers or similar entities at your university to identify resources and other faculty developing or changing curricula or programs. Often, funds supporting innovative educational initiatives are available from, for example, a Dean’s office. Make sure to identify these opportunities, and if possible, get support from your Department chair when applying. Rely on networks of contacts through professional societies or others who have considered and implemented similar reforms. Often, they will be willing to share course materials and experiences. This will lessen the overall workload involved in implementing changes/reforms. Assessment is absolutely needed for all courses and programs. However, the development of the tools and continuous implementation of these 8


•

instruments is time demanding. Identify resources at the university that can help reduce the time and energy required for this aspect of the project. Once again, the professional societies have many resources available for course transformation and assessment tools. Spend time looking online for such resources.


Sustainability Sustainability is perhaps the hardest part of reform. Modifying a course is not hard; whenever a person teaches a course for the first time, the course is modified. However, the model of single instructor and single course implies that lasting change is difficult. Even if there is demonstrable improvement in the outcomes of a course, if only one person is involved, the changes will disappear when a new instructor takes over. Sustainability requires tenacity and foresight. Be prepared to resist the inevitable attempts to revert to the “good old way” of teaching the course because “it was fine” or “I have my notes from 10 years ago.” Based on your experience with your colleagues, try to anticipate what resources you can provide that will heighten their willingness to try out the reforms. A complete set of lecture notes and/or PowerPoint slides might be sufficient. Extra assistance preparing lecture demonstrations or class assignments could sweeten the deal. Be prepared to offer incentives to those that contribute time and energy, and make sure you can offer the resources necessary to get everyone new on board with the program. If you make the reform substantially easier to execute than the status quo, then the path of least resistance will be the most desired path leading to more support of the reform. To obtain lasting change, many people need to feel connected in the reform. Spreading the buy-in and investment will enhance sustainability. This can be done by creating teams and communicating the positive results to the department and to the dean. Team teaching a course with reforms can also help spread the changes and creates a cadre of supporters who can advocate for sustaining them. The more people who touch the reform, the better the chances are that it will stick. If the students believe in the innovation, they will also be useful allies in pushing for lasting change. Remember that the first attempt may not be successful. It is important to circle back to the beginning of the reform process, with surveys, discussions, and modifications. Data is important for continuous support and a way to build trust. It may take many iterations before the results are to the point where you are satisfied. Continuous improvement is the key to any reform. Examples Proposed To Sustain Change •

Create a digital archive of course materials where each faculty member can store a record of what they have developed for each course they teach. Assuming a culture of sharing exists, over time the archive will grow into a resource for all future faculty who can look back to see what materials 9



•

•

were used in past versions of each course. This is one way to preserve continuity for newly-developed course materials, since it dramatically lowers the adoption barrier. If a complete set of materials exists for a given course, a new instructor is much more likely to just use them as a starting point rather than to create new materials. Appoint reliable course management for reformed courses. If major reforms are to be enacted and sustained, appropriate course leadership is required to shepherd new faculty through the adoption and initiation process and to prevent “backsliding”. The course manager thus needs to be someone with sufficient stature and persuasiveness to influence senior members of the faculty if they are assigned to teach in the reformed curriculum. Ideally, the course manager should be in place for several semesters in order to insure uniformity and continuity. Without this type of support, the understanding of the logic behind the reforms and the details of their implementation can be quickly lost or diluted. Many departments have rotating chairs. These transitions can interfere with sustainable programs. Involving the faculty in various ways along the process will ensure that these transitions have less impact on the sustainability of the developed curriculum.

Roadblocks and Perseverance Just as in scientific research, there will be highs and lows in this adventure. There will be times when you will want to give up, feel underappreciated and misunderstood, and think that you are not impacting your students’ learning. Everybody who teaches, regardless of whether they are trying to change courses and programs or not, feels these ways. However, you are more vulnerable because you are sticking your neck out and trying new things. Accept that this is the way it is. There will be roadblocks and each department and institution will have its own set of barriers. Dig under, walk the long way around, leap above, do whatever you need to do to overcome the roadblocks. Use the above tips and examples to help you navigate this ever-changing landscape. Once you have identified and navigated your institutional roadblocks work to eliminate them for others. For instance, a common roadblock is a lack of incentives and reward system for excellence in teaching. Introducing prestigious awards within the department, college, and university and adding value of these awards among the faculty through praise, financial support, and fellowships will reduce one of the roadblocks to curricular change (3, 17). Examples Proposed To Help Navigate Roadblocks • •

Identify key administrators that can serve as mentors and seek their advice in navigating roadblocks and challenges you have identified. Think outside the box. Identify the key issue and think about the different perspectives. Brainstorm multiple solutions that address the key issue. For example, many faculty members are afraid of change or something 10



•

•

•

•

different, which may lead to resistance to a reform that you propose. Investigating their specific fears and discussing different options and solutions directly with these faculty could reduce their resistance. Investigate. Some roadblocks are logistical, such as the coding of a course or a requirement for committee approval of a new program. These appear to be set in stone, but often there are exceptions and other paths to your goals of which you may be unaware. Ask several administrators and administrative assistants how you can accomplish your goal. Don’t identify the challenges and roadblocks towards your goal; just pitch what you want to accomplish and ask how it can be done. You will likely get a few different answers ranging from “it can’t be done” to “this is how you can do it”. Communicate (I). Sometimes, the only way to work through obstacles is to sit down with your colleagues one-on-one and have a discussion. Listen to and respect their concerns and try to reach some middle ground of understanding. Often, roadblocks, opposition, or obstruction result from a misunderstanding of the intent of the reforms. Taking the time to visit your colleagues and have a dialogue can be very effective in smoothing the path to the reforms you seek. Communicate (II). Make sure that there is sufficient and sufficiently frequent communication among all of those involved in the reform effort. This way, you can identify problems early and work together to develop solutions. Assess early and often. It’s surprising how often simple logistical problems or minor issues can undermine reform efforts. A series of small annoyances can be compounded into outright resistance or resentment. Solicit feedback from the students early in each course where major changes are being implemented so that these problems can be corrected quickly and do not obscure the “big picture” reforms.

Conclusion As professors in STEM at all different types of universities and colleges we have an academic duty to deliver quality education to our students. The understanding of how students learn has produced effective practices that we can introduce into our classrooms and laboratories to aim for a high level and a high quality of educational engagement. Unfortunately, these effective practices are slow to be introduced into STEM courses and programs. Leaders of change are needed and if you are reading this chapter that leader can be you. Arm yourself with institutional knowledge, leadership skills and data and build relationships with faculty, administrators, students, and staff to design reform as a team.

11 Waterman and Feig; Educational and Outreach Projects from the Cottrell Scholars Collaborative Undergraduate and Graduate ... ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.

References 1.

2. 3.


4.

5.

6. 7. 8.

9. 10. 11.

12. 13.

14.

Brownell, S. E.; Tanner, K. D. Barriers to Faculty Pedagogical Change: Lack of Training, Time, Incentives, and...Tensions with Professional Identity? CBE-Life Sci. Educ. 2012, 11, 339–346. Anderson, R. D. Reforming Science Teaching: What Research Says About Inquiry. J. Sci. Teach. Educ. 2002, 13, 1–12. Anderson, W. A.; Banerjee, U.; Drennan, C. L.; Elgin, S. C. R.; Epstein, I. R.; Handelsman, J.; Hatfull, G. F.; Losick, R.; O’Dowd, D. K.; Olivera, B. M.; Strobel, S. A.; Walker, G. C.; Warner, I. M. Changing the Culture of Science Education at Research Universities. Science 2011, 331, 152–153. Chasteen, S. V.; Perkins, K. K.; Code, W. J.; Wieman, C. E., The Science Education Initiative: An Experiment in Scaling up Education Improvements at a Research University. In Transforming Institutions: Undergraduate STEM Education for the 21st Century; Weaver, G. C., Burgess, W. D., Childress, A. L., Slakey, L., Eds.; Purdue University Press: West Lafayette, IN, 2016. Barriers and Opportunities for 2-Year and 4-Year STEM Degrees: Systemic Change to Support Students’ Diverse Pathways; The National Academies Press: Washington, DC, 2016. Tagg, J. Why Does the Faculty Resist Change? Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning 2012, 55, 6–15. Becher, T. The Significance of Disciplinary Differences. Studies Higher Educ. 1994, 19, 151–161. Ege, S. N.; Coppola, B. P.; Lawton, R. G. The University of Michigan Undergraduate Chemistry Curriculum. 1. Philosophy, Curriculum, and the Nature of Change. J. Chem. Educ. 1997, 74, 74–83. Mervis, J. Undergraduate Science. Better Intro Courses Seen as Key to Reducing Attrition of STEM Majors. Science 2010, 330, 306–306. Talanquer, V.; Pollard, J. Let’s Teach How We Think Instead of What We Know. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2010, 11, 74–83. Abraham, M. R.; Cracolice, M. S.; Graves, A. P.; Aldhamash, A. H.; Kihega, J. G.; Gil, J. G. P.; Varghese, V. The Nature and State of General Chemistry Laboratory Courses Offered by Colleges and Universities in the United States. J. Chem. Educ. 1997, 74, 591–594. Cooper, M. The Case for Reform of the Undergraduate General Chemistry Curriculum. J. Chem. Educ. 2010, 87, 231–232. Kerr, S.; Runquist, O. Are We Serious about Preparing Chemists for the 21st Century Workplace or Are We Just Teaching Chemistry? J. Chem. Educ. 2005, 82, 231–233. Canelas, D. A. Teaching College Chemistry to the Edges Rather Than to the Average: Implications for Less Experienced Science Students. In The Promise of Chemical Education: Addressing Our Students’ Needs; Daus, E. K., Rigsbee, R., Eds.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, U.K., 2015; pp 11−28.



15. Smit, R. Towards a Clearer Understanding of Student Disadvantage in Higher Education: Problematising Deficit Thinking. Higher Educ. Res. Dev. 2012, 31, 369–380. 16. Twigg, C. A. Institutional Readiness Criteria. Educause Rev. 2000, 35, 42–51. 17. Bradforth, S. E.; Miller, E. R.; Dichtel, W. R.; Leibovich, A. K.; Feig, A. L.; Martin, J. D.; Bjorkman, K. S.; Schultz, Z. D.; Smith, T. L. University Learning: Improve Undergraduate Science Education. Nature 2015, 523, 282–284. 18. Brewer, C. A.; Smith, D. Vision and Change in Undergraduate Biology Education: A Call to Action; American Association for the Advancement of Science: Washington, DC, 2010. 19. Henderson, C.; Dancy, M. H. Barriers to the Use of Research-Based Instructional Strategies: The Influence of Both Individual and Situational Characteristics. Phys. Rev. Spec. Top.−Phys. Educ. Res. 2007, 3, 020102. 20. Center for Studies in Higher Education. http://cshe.berkeley.edu/research/ seru/ (accessed February 16, 2017). 21. Student Assessment of Learning Gains. http://www.salgsite.org/ (accessed February 16, 2017). 22. Fairweather, J. S. Beyond the Rhetoric: Trends in the Relative Value of Teaching and Research in Faculty Salaries. J. Higher Educ. 2005, 76, 401–422. 23. POGIL: Stage 1 - Shifting to a Student-Centered Classroom. https:// pogil.org/resources/implementation/hspi-implementation-guide/stage-1shifting-to-a-student-centered-classroom (accessed February 16, 2017).


Leading Change in Undergraduate STEM Education - ACS

Recommend Documents