promoting instructional change in new faculty

8/14/2019 Promoting Instructional Change in New Faculty

1/39

New Faculty

Charles Hendersonestern c gan n vers ty

http://homepages.wmich.edu/~chenders/


2/39

Abstract

Roughly 300 new physics faculty are hired each year-

departments. These new faculty often have littlepreparation for their teaching roles and frequently

. ,opportunity exists for the physics education research

(PER) community to help new faculty in their teaching

materials based on PER. This talk will discuss therationale, outcomes, and costs of two strategies for

Physics and Astronomy New Faculty Workshop and 2)co-teaching.


3/39

Agenda

Part 1: Part 2: Part 3:

know aboutNew Faculty

AstronomyNew Faculty

-

to Teaching?

Henderson, C. (2008) Promoting Instructional Change in New Faculty: An Evaluation of the Physics and AstronomyNew Faculty Workshop, American Journal of Physics, 76 (2), 179-187.Henderson, C., Beach, A., and Famiano, M. (2009). Promoting Instructional Change via Co-Teaching. American Journalof Physics (Physics Education Research Section), 77 (3), 274-283.


4/39

Part 1: What do we Know about new Faculty?

Comprehensive study of197 new faculty at two

universities. Teaching (comprehensive)

Conducted interviews andteachin observationsduring first four semesters.

Boice, R. (1991). New faculty as teachers.Journal of Higher Education, 62(2), 150-173.


5/39

First Semester

Prior to first semester (common concerns) e t pressure to prepare pu cat ons an were worr e

that teaching would suffer in the process

Middle of first semester common concerns Lecture preparation dominated workweeks -- writing

could wait ,related to teaching

When asked about what teaching help they needed

e erm n ng e appropr a e eve o ec ure cu y Facts-and-Principles Lecturing dominated

instructional activities


6/39

Expectations for Second Semester

More Balance between Teaching and Research

Activity TeachingInstitutionEx ected

ResearchInstitutionEx ected

TeachingInstitutionActual

ResearchInstitutionActual

Teaching 8.5 4.8 8.4 4.1

Lecture Prep 13.0 7.8 22.4 16.6

Writing. . . .

Table: Expectations of typical workweek, in hours per week, for 2nd

semester. Made at middle of first semester.


7/39

Reality of Second Semester

Teaching still dominates work week, leaving little

(15:1 Teaching:Research ratio at both institutions)Activity Teaching Research Teaching Research

Institution(Expected)

Institution(Expected)

Institution(Actual)

Institution(Actual)

Teaching 8.5 4.8 8.4 4.1

Lecture Prep 13.0 7.8 22.4 16.6

ScholarlyWriting

13.7 8.0 0.7 1.3

Committees - - 3.1 3.8

Table: Actual typical workweek, in hours per week, reported for 2nd


8/39

Reality of Second Semester

Most new faculty focused on content and over

much material to present). Despite having no immediate plans to change their

workweeks, new faculty predicted more balanced

schedules in the near future. os new acu y rece ve me ocre eac ng ra ngs far worse than they had anticipated.


9/39

Third Semester

Teaching still seen as facts-and-principles lecturing

important teacher characteristics Plans for Improving Teaching (similar on both

campuses) included:

Teaching at lower levels of difficulty repar ng ec ures w e er an more organ ze

content

Teachin continued to dominate work week.

Began to attribute classroom difficulties tostudents, specifically their lack of preparation andmotivation.


10/39

Fourth Semester

Student evaluations remained mediocre Facult tended to attribute oor ratin s to students

inability to handle challenging material. Faculty assumed that their usual plans for improvement

, They almost never sought out advice about alternative styles of

teaching that might improve ratings.

manuscripts at rates well below the 1+ per yearnecessary to meet tenure requirements.

With this imbalance in time, new faculty began toexpress resentment toward the demands ofteachin .


11/39

Summary New Faculty

New Faculty Equate good teaching with

.

Teach cautiously anddefensively to avoid criticism. Often blame external factors for

eac ng a ures e.g., poorstudents, heavy teaching loads)

Do not know how to improvetheir teaching beyond im rovinglecture content and makingassignments and tests easier.

ecommen a ons rom o ce:We tend to let new faculty sink or swim with respect to teaching.Many sink.

more productive teachers as well as more productive researchers.


12/39

Barriers to

Much decision making is implicit.Teaching is Complex

Lack of how to and principles knowledge can lead toinappropriate modifications of a new instructional strategy.

Depends on student, institution, and teacher characteristics.

Ma lead to lower student evaluations at least initiall .

Instructional Change can beDangerous

May be seen by colleagues as an inappropriate use of time.


13/39

Two Approaches to Supporting New Faculty

New FacultyWorkshop Brief

dge

Principles Co-Teaching

n ro uc on o a

variety of types ofinnovative instruction. D

EPTH

ofKnowle

evelope

d)

How to

Co-Teaching

Immersion in one

(Level

D

Awareness

ew acu tyWorkshop

innovative instruction

BREADTH

1 many


14/39

Agenda




-

to Teaching?

Henderson, C. (2008) Promoting Instructional Change in New Faculty: An Evaluation of the Physics and AstronomyNew Faculty Workshop, American Journal of Physics, 76 (2), 179-187.

Henderson, C., Beach, A., and Famiano, M. (2009). Promoting Instructional Change via Co-Teaching. American Journalof Physics (Physics Education Research Section), 77 (3), 274-283.


15/39

Overview New Faculty Workshop

1. Description of the New Faculty Workshop (NFW)

.

3. Evidence that the NFW does work4. Possible reasons for success


16/39

The New Faculty Workshop

Run by professionalsoc et es: ,

AAS, APS

Funded by NSF

NFW Organizers and Advisory

Committee:

.Robert Hilborn Theodore HodappBernard Khoury Kenneth Krane

Steven Turley


17/39

New Faculty Workshop

Goals:1. Reach a large fraction of new physics and astronomy

.

2. Help participants develop knowledge about recentdevelopments in physics pedagogy.

3. Have participants integrate workshop ideas andmaterials into their classrooms.

Activities: 4-day conference at American Center for Physics

Presentations by prominent curriculum developers (e.g., BobBeichner, Eric Mazur, Lillian McDermott, Evel n Patterson, David Sokoloff,

Ronald Thornton) Small group breakout/discussion sessions

Limited follow-up at professional meetings


18/39

The NFW Should Not Work

- -. ,

2. It is transmission-oriented

Faculty development benefits from making use of extendedinterventions, over a full semester, a year, or more. (Emerson,

2000, . 29 .

Workshops and seminars are unlikely to produce lastingchanges in teacher behavior or lasting impact on studentsunless artici ants continue skill ractice and receive critical

feedback on their efforts. (Levinson-Rose, 1981, p. 419).

J. Levinson-Rose and R. J. Menges, "Improving college teaching: A critical review of research," Review of EducationalResearch 51, 403-434 (1981).

J. D. Emerson and F. Mosteller, "Development programs for college faculty: Preparing for the twenty-first century," inEducational media and technology yearbook 2000, edited by R. M. Branch and M. A. Fitzgerald, 2000), Vol. 25, p. 26-42.


19/39

The NFW Does Work

Fall 2007 web-based survey All 690 NFW artici ants who were still in

academia and could be located.

Response rate of 76%.

The NFW: Increases knowled e about and attitudes towards

PER-based instructional strategies

Results in changes in teaching behavior

Examples of supporting data will be presented here. Morecom lete su ort can be found in Henderson 2008 .


20/39

Knowledge/Use of PER Strategies

I currently use

I have used

in the past

I am familiar, but

have never used

Little or no

Knowledge

. . . .

Collaborative Learning 39.2 17.2 23.0 20.6Cooperative Group

47.2 21.9 22.9 8.0

Interactive LectureDemonstrations

46.1 24.2 23.4 6.3

- - . . . .

Peer Instruction 54.1 21.4 22.4 2.1

Realtime Physics 5.2 7.5 46.6 40.7

ersona esponseSystems 32.6 15.0 43.7 8.7

Physlets 19.7 21.4 41.3 17.5

Physics

13.1 20.9 45.8 20.3


21/39

Positive Attitudes

. g a er e ew acu y

Workshop weekend were youinterested in incor oratin some ofthe workshop ideas into yourteaching?

.

No 2.1

' .


22/39

Changes in Instructional Practices

Self-Assessment of Overall Teaching Style

60.070.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

.

P

ercent

Pre-NFW

Current

0.0

10.0

Highly Mostly Mostly Highly

traditional traditionalwith some

alternative

alternativewith some

traditional

alternative


23/39

Current Instructional Practices Compared to

Other Facult in Their De artment

70.0

50.0

60.0 Participant Self-Report

Department Chair Report

30.0

40.0

P

ercent

10.0

20.0

0.0significantly

more

a little more

traditional

about the

same

a little more

alternative

significantly

more

ra ona a erna ve


24/39

Why is the NFW Effective?

Hypothesis: It is a gatewayHypothesis: It is a gatewayexper ence a n ro uces

faculty to PER-basedinstruction and motivates

exper ence a n ro uces

faculty to PER-basedinstruction and motivatesthem to work on

instructional improvement

them to work on

instructional improvementa er e .a er e .


25/39

Evidence for Gatewa TheorParticipant self-report

It [the NFW] provided an important seed, andin that sense has influenced much of what I'vedone.

It's [the NFW] biggest impact was to make meaware of teaching issues. It led me to laterparticipate in many other teaching workshops.


26/39

Evidence for the Gateway Theory:

How much has our teachin chan ed since our

participation in the NFW?

1996

1997

1999

2000

2001

Not at all

Somewhat2002

2003

2004

2005

ConsiderablyFully

2006

All


27/39

Why is the NFW an Effective Gateway Experience(when many other programs are not)?

Keys to the success of the NFW maybe that:

Disciplinary cultures can havea significant impact on facultyDisciplinary cultures can havea significant impact on faculty

1) It is sponsored and run by threemajor disciplinary organizations.

behavior.behavior.

wide variety of PER-basedinstructional strategies and

workshops that sell oneparticular strategy.2

workshops that sell oneparticular strategy.2

.

3) Presentations are made by theleading curriculum developers in

Reputation of the reformerand/or their institution impactReputation of the reformerand/or their institution impact

.

1. J. S. Fairweather, Faculty work and public trust: Restoring the value of teaching and public service in American academic life(Allyn and

ow a re orm message sreceived.3ow a re orm message sreceived.3

Bacon., Boston, 1996).2. C. Henderson and M. Dancy, "Physics faculty and educational researchers: Divergent expectations as barriers to the diffusion of

innovations, American Journal of Physics (Physics Education Research Section), 76 (1), 79-91, 2008.

3. J. Foertsch, S. B. Millar, L. Squire, and R. Gunter, Persuading professors: A study of the dissemination of educational reform in researchinstitutions (University of Wisconsin-Madison, LEAD Center, Madison, 1997).


28/39

Summary New Faculty Workshop

The NFW has been effective in meeting its goals

and materials and motivating faculty to try theseideas and materials.


29/39

Agenda




-

to Teaching?




30/39

Co-Teaching: Who?

CH: Experienced faculty member in WMU,

with knowledge about many PER instructionalinterventions, co-teaching participant

MF: New faculty member in WMU Physics Dept.,all prior teaching experience as a TA, some

familiarity with PER via. grad study at OSU, co-eac ng par c pan

AB: Faculty member in college of education,

college faculty, outside observer of co-teaching


31/39

Co-Teaching: Why?

Goal: Enculturate MF into PhysTEC teaching

courses work through direct experience and tosee that it does work.

Reduce the risks of instructional

experimentation by working with an experiencedns ruc or.

Help MF develop a repertoire of materials and

PhysTEC-style courses.


32/39

Co-Teaching*: What?

Fall 2005: CH and MF co-taught Phys 2050:-

CH and MF alternate being in charge of class each week

Weekly meetings between CH and MF to reflect on previous weekand discuss initial plans for coming week

Course structure set up by CH to support PhysTEC designprinciples

MF had access to materials used by CH in previous semesters pr ng : eac es ys on s own

Data Collected Individual interviews (conducted by AB) with CH and MF at

beginning, middle, end of semester. Teaching observations (conducted by AB) of CH and MF at

beginning, middle, end of semester.

* More info about co-teaching in K-12 settings is available in Roth, W.-M. and Tobin, K. (2002) At theelbow of another: Learning to teach by coteaching, Peter Lang.


33/39

Results: MF Instructional Practices

Observed instructional practices were consistentw ys pr nc p es rom e s ar Few differences observed between MF and CH

MF instruction likel would have been moretraditional without co-teaching: I probably wouldnt do as many in-class activities as we are

doin now. . . . and so it will robabl be a little bit more like the formal lecture. (F1#228-233)


34/39

Results: MF Beliefs and Intentions Initial Beliefs: Skeptical

When I first came I was ske tical about havin students donothing but problems in class. Just sort of standing by while

they do problems. (F2#84-87)

- It taught me something that I am going to adopt aspects of

in future courses. You know, pick up the things that I think

discussions, things that are really useful. (F2#194-198)

End of term Beliefs: It is working very well y c ass s go ng o e very s m ar o w a we as

semester, even the structure will be the same structure. Itsgoing to be almost identical. (F3#272-273)


35/39

Conclusions

1. It worked! Significant changes documented in beliefs and intentions.

. .

Practices started out in PhysTEC mode and did not change.This was likely due to course structure that constrainedpossibilities.

3. The entire semester was necessary Although practices did not change, beliefs and intentions

continued to change throughout the semester.

-. Not student-teacher or mentor-mentee, but collegial

relationship. Well the thing that I liked the most about this is itwasnt like I was Charles protg. He recognizes me as a colleague

. . . . -

apprenticeship which at this level it might seem sort of insulting.(F3#283-286)


36/39

Why is Co-Teaching Effective?

Hypothesis: It is an immersionHypothesis: It is an immersion

develop how to and principlesknowledge by performing thedevelop how to and principlesknowledge by performing thetarget activity alongside anexpert for an extended periodtarget activity alongside anexpert for an extended period

..


37/39

Summary Co Teaching

Co-teaching is a cost-effective model that showssignificant promise as a way to promote research-

.

It may also be an applicable for graduate students orexperienced faculty.


38/39

Conclusions New faculty typically struggle with their teaching

and need additional support.

-

complementary strengths.-

Upsides Expose faculty to a widevariety of instructional

Provides direct experience with aparticular instructional strategy

.Sponsored and run by majordisciplinary organizations.

Features prominent

.Results in a set of instructionalmaterials.

Removes much of the risk ofcurr cu um eve opers. ns ruc ona nnova on.

Downsides Requires considerableadditional learning after NFW.

Restricts faculty to a singleinstructional strategy.

customization process.

appropriate master teacher.


39/39

Thank You




-

to Teaching?



promoting instructional change in new faculty

Documents