This study is intended to develop better understanding of why changes in reform-based practices in higher education are slow to develop. The project aims to increase understanding of the relationship between mental models of faculty about effective pedagogy in STEM fields and the extent of consensus about such pedagogy. The research will also examine individual and institutional factors that may influence mental models and consensus and the individual and group level factors that are related to teaching practices and changes in cognitive structure and consensus over time. The study will use cognitive frameworks to explain institutional inertia and will develop methodological approaches to examine several different units of analysis using both cognitive and cultural frameworks. The investigators will create an evaluation design that will be tested in higher education institutions. It will describe the mental models held by individual faculty about effective pedagogy, describe the groups that have consensus on these structures, and describe how individuals and institutions vary in teaching approaches. The study will measure changes in faculty views of pedagogical practices over time by following faculty over time. Data will be gathered from faculty in math, life science and physical sciences over a three year period. The primary source of data will be a survey instrument given in the first and third year. There will also be in-dept interviews with subsets of faculty.
The Culture, Cognition, and Evaluation of STEM Higher Education Reform (CCHER) study resulted in outcomes relevant to both academic and practitioner audiences that represent positive contributions to the scientific literature and the nation's education systems. Project staff produced 12 research manuscripts that were submitted to peer-reviewed journals, each of which shed light on various factors that influence how postsecondary faculty plan and teach their courses. Insights into precisely how these factors influence instructional decision-making, which include self-efficacy beliefs, perceived cultural norms within departments, and academic status, represent substantive contributions to the research literature. The studies described in these papers draw on a variety of qualitative and quantitative datasets and analytic techniques, and are grounded in cutting-edge theoretical perspectives from situated cognition and socio-cultural theory. One paper titled "Instructional systems of practice: A multidimensional analysis of math and science undergraduate course planning and classroom teaching" was published in The Journal of the Learning Sciences (Hora & Ferrare, 2012). This paper addresses the problem of uni-dimensional views of classroom teaching that reduce instructional practice to the use of single methods such as lecturing or small-group work. In this paper we draw on interviews and classroom observations with 57 STEM instructors to explore these issues. Interview results highlight the critical role that the course syllabus plays in shaping how faculty plan their courses. These syllabi are often created by inter-departmental commitees or are inherited from other instructors, both of which represent potential points of intervention for instructional improvement. While course syllabi in many cases severely restricts the instructor's autonomy in terms of course content, many faculty perceive that they have complete autonomy in terms of how to teach. Thus, faculty are often constrained in terms of what to teach, but are rarely, if ever, provided with guidance or mandates regarding how to teach. Results from the classroom observations were then analyzed by disciplinary group, and results indicated important differences among math, chemistry, physics, biology, and geology faculty. These data provide some of the most nuanced and detailed accounts of postsecondary teaching available in the research literature. Insights into these issues are important for policymakers and educators to better diagnose the determinants of local teaching practices, which can then lead to the identification of specific leverage points in local colleges or universities that influence teaching practices. Other papers explored the role that cognitive characteristics of postsecondary teachers has on planning and teaching practices in undergraduate STEM courses. For example, one paper examined the degree to which perceived cultural norms about interactive teaching varied by discipline and institution, and if these norms dictated subsequent teaching decisions (Hora & Anderson, 2012). Results based on both qualitative and quantitative data and analyses indicated weak norms for interactive teaching that varied by both discipline and institution, and that strong norms were significantly related to only two teaching methods (online polling and group discussions). In addition to 12 research manuscripts, CCHER researchers also produced two policy briefs published by the Wisconsin Center for the Advancement of Postsecondary Education (WISCAPE), gave 11 peer-reviewed conference presentations, two peer-reviewed conference workshops, and were invited to give four seminars on the Teaching Dimensions Observation Protocol (TDOP) instrument. These presentations and workshops were the result of a dissemination plan that aimed to report project outcomes to both academic and practitioner audiences throughout the U.S. Perhaps the most significant outcome of the CCHER study is the TDOP instrument, which is being adopted across the U.S. by researchers and faculty developers to study postsecondary teaching. Reactions from practitioners in the field are that the TDOP provides more useful and detailed information about teaching than self-reported survey data, and is easier to use than many existing observation protocols. For example, data from observations of two biology faculty teaching similar lower-division courses, whose dominant teaching practice of "lecturing with PowerPoint slides" would likely have resulted in similar survey responses, reveals substantially different types of teaching behaviors (see Figure 1). Further, because the TDOP is a descriptive protocol rather than one that evaluates the quality of teaching, less burden is placed on the analyst and inter-rater reliability is less difficult to obtain than is the case with criterion-referenced and/or evaluative protocols. The CCHER project supported the development, field-testing, and digitization of the TDOP. With the data provided by the TDOP, educational leaders and faculty developers can enhance professional development programs, evaluate the impacts of instructional interventions, and conduct assessments of teaching practice within departments, colleges, and institutions. Hora, M.T., & Ferrare, J. (2012). Instructional systems of practice: a multi-dimensional analysis of math and science undergraduate course planning and classroom teaching. The Journal of the Learning Sciences. DOI: 10.1080/10508406.2012.729767. Hora, M.T., & Anderson, C.D. (2012). Perceived norms for interactive teaching and their relationship to instructional decision-making: a mixed methods study. Higher Education 64 (4), 573-592. For more information see: ccher.wceruw.org
