Notes from the HERI STEM Conference (UCLA)

In the next few days, I will be attending the HERI (Higher Education Research Institute) Workshop on STEM teaching on the college level (hosted by UCLA). The workshop leaders have suggested several articles for participants to read before the conference. Here are my notes from one of those readings - I hope you find them useful!

"Changing the Culture of Science Education at Research Universities" - Anderson, W. A., et al. 2011

This reading addresses the well-established anti-teaching attitude apparent at many universities. Especially at large research universities, it is obvious to teachers and graduate students that research is the primary objective, and teaching is something you "have to do." (and you should try and weasel your way out of teaching if at all possible to procure more time for research). To drive that point home, many universities offer fewer teaching responsibilities as a reward for excellence in research.

Here's the problem with that system, as I see it: most faculty reach tenure status without ever taking a course or even a workshop in formal teacher training. Practically none have ever taken a course on STEM education, specifically. The only time they can improve their teaching skills is by practicing the by teaching and developing undergraduate courses. However, unless they are self-motivated, there is little incentive for them to spend a significant amount of their time teaching or lesson planning, since research is the number one priority. The result is a highly respected research university where the undergrads are being taught by very talented researchers, but somewhat sub-par teachers. This is no fault of the faculty themselves - they are only playing the reward system in place at their university (although some truly dislike teaching).

While the problem may be obvious, the solution is definitely not so. This article presents a straightforward set of steps universities can take to change the attitude of faculty and administration towards STEM teaching.





1) Educate faculty on science learning

• most faculty do not consider educational research to be as important or as scholarly as their own scientific research. The article suggests hosting teacher training workshops for faculty which require the participants to read scholarly articles on STEM teaching. The problem here is that most faculty would not participate in such a program unless it were required by the department. Still, it seems like a worthy endeavor - as long as the articles were well-chosen.

2) Create awards and named professorships to provide support for outstanding teachers

• Actual monetary rewards are a great way to motivate faculty to get interested in STEM education. Not only does this introduce teaching to the rewards system already in place, but it also gives faculty the financial support to attend workshops, develop new pedagogical methods, purchase new lab equipment, etc. But where does the money come from? The department would either have to appropriate funds for this reward, or they would have to apply for outside funding. The time it would take to organize the funding would be an obvious barrier to enacting this step (although it shouldn't be).

3)  Require excellence in teaching for promotion

• To be granted tenure, faculty usually just have to have a strong teaching record - that is, they need to have taught for a certain number of hours, and their student evaluations need to be non-catastrophic. However, the amount of effort needed to be a truly excellent teacher is not rewarded in the tenure process. Beyond doing a satisfactory job, there is little motivation for faculty to go above and beyond the call of duty. Part of the problem here is in the rubric used to evaluate teachers. We usually have our students submit evaluation forms with questions such as "was the professor prepared for class" or "did you feel the professor cared about student learning." These evaluation forms are submitted online, and we usually get a return rate below 10%. The problem here is that faculty are not being evaluated by their peers. Their academic research is peer-evaluated - so should their teaching be. In a perfect world, faculty would sit in on each others' classes and evaluate the apparent effectiveness of the professor and the engagement of the students. The students themselves may not be the right judges for teaching excellence (a student will enjoy a class very much and give high ratings to a professor who gives them all the answers to the final, but that is not necessarily indicative of an excellent teaching strategy). So we must put more thought into the evaluation process before enacting this policy.

 4)  Create teaching discussion groups

• The article suggests that professors get together regularly to discuss, compare, and evaluate each others' teaching strategies. In a perfect world, this seems like a very good idea, but faculty will be very resistant to this idea as it does take up a significant amount of their time. At UCLA, we have group meetings (open to graduate students and faculty) to discuss academic papers, and faculty rarely attend those. To get faculty interested in attending a meeting about education would be significantly more challenging. Again, the only way that this would work (at least in my department) would be to make such meetings mandatory. Maybe a less time-consuming idea would be to have an online discussion group for teachers (also open to graduate student TAs) where people can post useful teaching strategies. 

5) Create cross-disciplinary programs in college-level learning and 6) Provide ongoing support for effective science teaching

•  The authors point out that most universities have an education department and/or an institute dedicated to educational improvement. However these groups are not well utilized by the STEM departments seeking to provide teacher training to their faculty. The education department can provide resources for teacher training while the STEM departments can provide labs and facilities needed to help improve undergraduate teaching practices. Such partnerships can be mutually beneficial. In the Physics & Astronomy Department, we have created a new program in partnership with the Education Department where graduate students can take graduate courses in the Education Department toward a teaching certification. This program is not geared toward faculty, however. I think this is probably the most helpful suggestion the article makes, since both departments are hungry for the others' resources. The trick is to make more people aware of what the university has to offer. I have been at UCLA and interested in STEM education for 3 years, and had never heard of the HERI institute before this spring. It would help if there was someone hired to STEM departments dedicated to improving teaching. That person could act as a liaison between the departments and the educational resources available on campus.  

 7) Engage chairs, deans, and presidents

• In an age where more and more students (and parents) are questioning whether a college education is even worth the cost (read: debt), universities must work harder than ever to provide a unique and competitive learning environment. To that end, chairs, deans, and presidents of universities should be interested in improving the quality of teaching. While many universities boast that they value teaching, it's time to put up the money to support that claim! Teaching improvement programs cost money, especially if it requires a new position within the department. Donors are interested in improving coursework at their alma maters, and universities are interested in courting those donors. It seems only natural that we propose innovative teaching improvement programs to fit the needs of our students and the wishes of our donors. But where do such efforts start? Usually with graduate students who are not sure how to navigate the bureaucracy of their universities. The trick is to gain an ally in faculty member or department chair, and let that person be your representative to the higher-ups.