At
the end of January, it was my great pleasure to be part of the leadership for a
meeting at the MAA Carriage House of representatives of a collection of STEM
disciplinary societies [1] and concerned educational associations [2] to consider
ways that these societies can coordinate efforts to increase their collective
impact on undergraduate education. Across academia, but especially at research
universities, most faculty identify first with their discipline and department
and only secondarily with their university. Disciplinary societies therefore
have the potential to impact how faculty think about their teaching and how
willing they are to reach outside their own department in seeking ideas and
support for improving undergraduate education.
Many
disciplinary societies are actively promoting effective methods for engaging
students to improve both what they learn and their desire to persist. The
American Physical Society and the American Association of Physics Teachers have
been particularly effective in this regard. See, for example, the Physics
Education Research User’s Guide, perusersguide.org, described in
my column “Learning from the Physicists,” July, 2012. Over the past several years, the life sciences
community, scattered over some 147 disciplinary societies, has come together to
produce a joint report, Vision and Change in Undergraduate Biology Education: A Call to Action [3]. Recognizing
that it is not sufficient to issue a report, Vision and Change
continues to seek ways to implement the changes it champions. One outgrowth has
been PULSE, the
Partnership for Undergraduate Life Sciences Education, which is building
communities that share experiences of department-level implementation of the Vision and Change recommendations.
Inspired by the example of PULSE, the mathematics community began last summer
to build a comparable effort, INGenIOuS, Investing in
the Next Generation through Innovative and Outstanding Strategies.
We have much to learn from each other. Beyond just sharing
information, an ability to offer comparable statements of vision and comparable
programs to promulgate effective practices would increase their collective
impact. This would be especially true if the disciplinary societies were to
establish and promote linkages that enable individuals to connect with others
at their university who are working toward the same ends but within other departments.
With these goals in mind, 28 representatives of disciplinary
societies and educational associations met at the MAA Carriage House in
Washington, DC on January 30–31 for an NSF-sponsored workshop [4] entitled ISSUES,
Integration of Strategies that Support Undergraduate Education in STEM, to look
for opportunities to work collectively. As preparation, most of the societies
provided a summary of their current activities directed toward faculty
development and the improvement of undergraduate education. These Profiles can be
found within the ISSUES website at serc.carleton.edu/issues. A summary
of the workshop is available at serc.carleton.edu/issues/workshop14.
The workshop identified five concrete areas in which disciplinary
societies could increase their effectiveness by sharing and coordinating their
efforts:
- Supporting Early Career Faculty. Within the disciplinary societies, the task is to develop workshops for and build communities of early career faculty, as well as partnering with the Discipline-Based Educational Research community to assess the long-term effectiveness of this work. On individual campuses, the task is to work with deans and chairs to build cross-disciplinary networks of faculty who have been through these experiences, supported by networks of mentors both from the individual’s profession and from within the individual’s home institution.
- Strengthening Departments. There is a need to increase the value placed on the department chair and to provide support for the chair by supplying tools for departmental self-assessment of teaching effectiveness together with practical suggestions that chairs and departmental leaders can implement to improve teaching effectiveness.
- Communicating Career Pathways. We need to increase the diversity of students within our disciplines by increasing student awareness of the variety of pathways that are available to them, actively recruiting students to these pathways, preparing them for a variety of careers, and introducing them to a network of potential employers.
- Shifting Cultural Norms. Disciplinary societies should strive to move their members toward embracing teaching practices that align with what educational research has shown to be most effective and toward a mindset of continual efforts to improve undergraduate teaching and learning. This can be accomplished through policy statements, rubrics for assessing effective educational processes, and active promotion of these practices. Part of our collective goal should be the adoption of consistent language that reinforces this message across disciplinary boundaries.
- Measuring the Impact of Our Own Programs for Improving Undergraduate Education. The disciplinary societies can benefit from developing common rubrics for assessing the effectiveness of their own programs and using these to help frame discussion and dialog across the societies.
On
point 1, we are already working with
the Association of American Universities (AAU) to put together a pilot project
on AAU campuses that will build local networks of faculty from multiple
disciplines who have each been through an early career professional development
program run by their disciplinary society. On point 5, we are beginning the task of gathering information from the
disciplinary societies about their experiences with assessment of their own
programs. Within the next months, we hope to see progress on all of these
agendas.
Footnotes
and References:
[1]
The disciplinary societies that were represented were the American Association
of Physics Teachers, American Chemical Society, American Geophysical Union,
American Institute of Biological Sciences, American Institute of Physics,
American Mathematical Society, American Physical Society, American
Psychological Association, American Society for Engineering Education, American
Society for Microbiology, American Statistical Association, Mathematical Association
of America, National Association of Biology Teachers, National Association of
Geoscience Teachers, and the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics.
[2]
The educational associations that were represented included the American
Association for the Advancement of Science, Association of American
Universities, Association of Public Land-Grant Universities, Howard Hughes
Medical Institute, National Academy of Sciences, National Science Foundation,
and Project Kaleidoscope of the Association of American Colleges and
Universities.
[3]
Brewer, C.A., and Smith, D. (eds.). 2011. Vision
and Change in Undergraduate Biology Education: A Call to Action.
Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science. Available
at visionandchange.org/files/2013/11/aaas-VISchange-web1113.pdf
[4]
The workshop was made possible by a grant from the National Science Foundation,
#1344418. The opinions expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of NSF.
No comments:
Post a Comment