Description:
Institutions of post-secondary education in America can be classified into different categories based on various criteria including their primary focus and the demographic they serve. Research intensive universities, R1 institutions, like MSU, stress on research. They grant bachelors, masters and PhD degrees. Liberal arts colleges on the other hand usually have teaching as their primary focus, and usually grant bachelors degrees. Community colleges cater to a lot of undergraduate students and usually grant associates degrees. Whatever be the type of institution and it's focus, a major goal is to prepare students for the next phase in their lives - be it transferring to a 4 year degree granting institution, graduate school, or joining the workforce. Therefore what we teach them and how we teach them is of crucial importance.
Faculty, at any institution, who have adopted scientific teaching have done so because they are convinced that they are using evidence based methodologies. However, at the institutional level, acceptance and change has been slow. Faculty have faced resistance in terms of obtaining additional resources for teaching, getting access to modifies classrooms or even having to listen to disparaging comments about the value and efficacy of their teaching methodology. There are several myths which are still prevalent - and it is up to those who have already started using scientific teaching to dispel the myths and bring about institutional change.
One of the most pervasive myth is that investing in teaching conflicts with research. Since most rewards at research universities are ties to research publications and grant dollars, time spent in improving teaching is seen as unproductive time. This is a conversation that needs to be held at the institutional or perhaps even national level. We should be framing policies that reward teaching, consider it an important criteria when deciding things like promotions, tenure and faculty awards. Additionally another policy that could be instituted in to require that part of the start-up package be used to develop new courses based on Scientific teaching. This will send out a message to new faculty that they are at an institution that values teaching.
Pragmatically though, we know that data and the dollar talk. The data on the outcomes of scientific teaching is already in. Studies like Freeman, S., et al. (2014) have shown that active learning is followed by an increase in student performance outcomes and a decrease in their failure rates. So now, if we can show that by using scientific teaching we are not costing the university but rather bringing in money, this would do a lot to smoothen the road to institutional change. One major route of doing this is by attracting grant funding. There has been a national call to increase the number of STEM graduates. By decreasing failure rates, we would actually be increasing graduation rates - and this would lead to higher student success statistics. We can therefore leverage the efficacy of our teaching methodology to increase grant funding.
Another way to increase revenue would be by changing the marketing of our undergraduate programs. If we start to market ourselves as institutions where students will not only be exposed to cutting age research in the labs but also in the classrooms, institutions that are building a population of citizens who will be taught using scientific teaching and thus will develop transferable skills no matter what their major, I feel we will be able to attract a lot of students. Additionally, since education is so expensive, students will be attracted to programs that have shown to increase student performance and decrease failure rates. This could then be translated into more tuition dollars in the short term, and since we would have more graduating students, more alumni donations in the long run. The data on student success could also be pitched to donors to attract their endowments.
Institutions of post-secondary education in America can be classified into different categories based on various criteria including their primary focus and the demographic they serve. Research intensive universities, R1 institutions, like MSU, stress on research. They grant bachelors, masters and PhD degrees. Liberal arts colleges on the other hand usually have teaching as their primary focus, and usually grant bachelors degrees. Community colleges cater to a lot of undergraduate students and usually grant associates degrees. Whatever be the type of institution and it's focus, a major goal is to prepare students for the next phase in their lives - be it transferring to a 4 year degree granting institution, graduate school, or joining the workforce. Therefore what we teach them and how we teach them is of crucial importance.
Faculty, at any institution, who have adopted scientific teaching have done so because they are convinced that they are using evidence based methodologies. However, at the institutional level, acceptance and change has been slow. Faculty have faced resistance in terms of obtaining additional resources for teaching, getting access to modifies classrooms or even having to listen to disparaging comments about the value and efficacy of their teaching methodology. There are several myths which are still prevalent - and it is up to those who have already started using scientific teaching to dispel the myths and bring about institutional change.
One of the most pervasive myth is that investing in teaching conflicts with research. Since most rewards at research universities are ties to research publications and grant dollars, time spent in improving teaching is seen as unproductive time. This is a conversation that needs to be held at the institutional or perhaps even national level. We should be framing policies that reward teaching, consider it an important criteria when deciding things like promotions, tenure and faculty awards. Additionally another policy that could be instituted in to require that part of the start-up package be used to develop new courses based on Scientific teaching. This will send out a message to new faculty that they are at an institution that values teaching.
Pragmatically though, we know that data and the dollar talk. The data on the outcomes of scientific teaching is already in. Studies like Freeman, S., et al. (2014) have shown that active learning is followed by an increase in student performance outcomes and a decrease in their failure rates. So now, if we can show that by using scientific teaching we are not costing the university but rather bringing in money, this would do a lot to smoothen the road to institutional change. One major route of doing this is by attracting grant funding. There has been a national call to increase the number of STEM graduates. By decreasing failure rates, we would actually be increasing graduation rates - and this would lead to higher student success statistics. We can therefore leverage the efficacy of our teaching methodology to increase grant funding.
Another way to increase revenue would be by changing the marketing of our undergraduate programs. If we start to market ourselves as institutions where students will not only be exposed to cutting age research in the labs but also in the classrooms, institutions that are building a population of citizens who will be taught using scientific teaching and thus will develop transferable skills no matter what their major, I feel we will be able to attract a lot of students. Additionally, since education is so expensive, students will be attracted to programs that have shown to increase student performance and decrease failure rates. This could then be translated into more tuition dollars in the short term, and since we would have more graduating students, more alumni donations in the long run. The data on student success could also be pitched to donors to attract their endowments.
This is how I met the requirements for this competency:
Courses:
Workshops/Seminars:
Courses:
- TE 934, Introduction to Quantitative Methods in Education Research, Spring 2016
Workshops/Seminars:
- The IRB Process - Dr. Henry Campa and Dr. Mark Urban-Lurain, Fall 2017
- Qualitative Research Primer: Using Narrative Data in Your Teaching-as-Research Project - CIRTL Network, Fall 2017
- Teaching Philosophy - Dr. Melissa McDaniels, Fall 2017
- Preparing for Academic Careers: Administrator and Faculty Perspectives - Dr. Ann Austin, Spring 2018
Artifact and Rationale:
In preparation for her session on 'Teaching Philosophy', Dr. Melissa McDaniels requested that we complete a worksheet as best we can.
While completing the worksheet I realised that I have taught a diverse demographic and at various types of institutions. I have taught at the K-12 level in pubic and private schools, guest lectured at private undergraduate institutions (which using American classification would be liberal arts colleges), and now I am at a public research intensive university.
While teaching, for some of the classes I used to vary what is happening in class every few minutes. I would talk for a bit, then have my students talk, or conduct a group activity. When I was getting my bachelors in education, we referred to this as stimulus variation, but now I can see that it was a type of active learning. Thinking back, because of the activities and discussions that I would include in my classes, I would not be able to go through the curriculum as fast as my colleagues. While the students appreciated the diversion from the routine lecture based classes, my colleagues and administrators were not happy with my speed in progressing through the curriculum. When I reflect back though, I can see that those were the classes that I enjoyed the most and the ones where my students performed the best.
In preparation for her session on 'Teaching Philosophy', Dr. Melissa McDaniels requested that we complete a worksheet as best we can.
While completing the worksheet I realised that I have taught a diverse demographic and at various types of institutions. I have taught at the K-12 level in pubic and private schools, guest lectured at private undergraduate institutions (which using American classification would be liberal arts colleges), and now I am at a public research intensive university.
While teaching, for some of the classes I used to vary what is happening in class every few minutes. I would talk for a bit, then have my students talk, or conduct a group activity. When I was getting my bachelors in education, we referred to this as stimulus variation, but now I can see that it was a type of active learning. Thinking back, because of the activities and discussions that I would include in my classes, I would not be able to go through the curriculum as fast as my colleagues. While the students appreciated the diversion from the routine lecture based classes, my colleagues and administrators were not happy with my speed in progressing through the curriculum. When I reflect back though, I can see that those were the classes that I enjoyed the most and the ones where my students performed the best.
|
Reflections:
Change of any sort, does not happen overnight, and there is usually a lot of resistance to it. Even though it might bring in something better people are usually comfortable with the status quo. In the book Scientific Teaching, the authors compare change at the institutional level with changes in human behaviour. They used a model proposed by Carnes et al. 2005, to illustrate stages in institutional change. When it comes to adopting scientific teaching, institutions and faculty are at different stages along this continuum
|
Cover of Scientific Teaching by Christine Pfund, Jo Handelsman, and Sarah Miller
|
Even though it is presented as a step-by-step situation, we know that change is anything but linear. It is iterative and there are just as many steps back as there are forward. However, building a strong community which affords advances in teaching and learning the same values and is able to be collaborative and supportive will make change come faster.
At MSU, we are lucky to have some of the stalwarts of change. These faculty have paved the way and made it easier for us. Establishing research programs in discipline based education research, instituting graduate training programs like FAST, and having graduate courses on scientific teaching has shown that as an institution we do value teaching. However, despite that, a look at our undergraduate lecture halls makes it evident that not all faculty have bought into the idea. We are not all the way there yet - I doubt any institution is or perhaps ever will be - but it is in the hands of graduates from these programs to go and be further agents of institutional change.
At MSU, we are lucky to have some of the stalwarts of change. These faculty have paved the way and made it easier for us. Establishing research programs in discipline based education research, instituting graduate training programs like FAST, and having graduate courses on scientific teaching has shown that as an institution we do value teaching. However, despite that, a look at our undergraduate lecture halls makes it evident that not all faculty have bought into the idea. We are not all the way there yet - I doubt any institution is or perhaps ever will be - but it is in the hands of graduates from these programs to go and be further agents of institutional change.
