Iterating toward change: Improving student-centered teaching through the STEM faculty institute (STEMFI).

One of the primary reasons why students leave STEM majors is due to the poor quality of instruction. Teaching practices can be improved through professional development programs; however, several barriers exist. Creating lasting change by overcoming these barriers is the primary objective of the STEM Faculty Institute (STEMFI). STEMFI was designed according to the framework established by Ajzen's Theory of Planned Behavior. To evaluate its effectiveness, the Classroom Observation Protocol for Undergraduate STEM (COPUS) tool was used before and after an intensive year-long faculty development program and analyzed using copusprofiles.org, a tool that classifies each COPUS report into one of three instructional styles: didactic, interactive lecture, and student-centered. We report the success of our program in changing faculty teaching behaviors and we categorize them into types of reformers. Then, thematically coded post-participation interviews give us clues into the characteristics of each type of reformer. Our results demonstrate that faculty can significantly improve the student-centeredness of their teaching practices in a relatively short time. We also discuss the implications of faculty attitudes for future professional development efforts.

Factors that influence STEM faculty use of evidence-based instructional practices: An ecological model.

Traditional teaching practices in undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) courses have failed to support student success, causing many students to leave STEM fields and disproportionately affecting women and students of color. Although much is known about effective STEM teaching practices, many faculty continue to adhere to traditional methods, such as lecture. In this study, we investigated the factors that affect STEM faculty members' instructional decisions about evidence-based instructional practices (EBIPs). We performed a qualitative analysis of semi-structured interviews with faculty members from the Colleges of Physical and Mathematical Sciences, Life Sciences, and Engineering who took part in a professional development program to support the use of EBIPs by STEM faculty at the university. We used an ecological model to guide our investigation and frame the results. Faculty identified a variety of personal, social, and contextual factors that influenced their instructional decision-making. Personal factors included attitudes, beliefs, and self-efficacy. Social factors included the influence of students, colleagues, and administration. Contextual factors included resources, time, and student characteristics. These factors interact with each other in meaningful ways that highlight the hyper-local social contexts that exist within departments and sub-department cultures, the importance of positive feedback from students and colleagues when implementing EBIPs, and the need for support from the administration for faculty who are in the process of changing their teaching.

Ideas for supporting student-centered stem learning through remote labs: a response.

This paper is in response to the article entitled "Identifying potential types of guidance for supporting student inquiry when using virtual and remote labs in science: a literature review" by Zacharia et al. (2015). In their review, Zacharia et al. (2015) adopted de Jong and Lazondo's (2014) framework of five inquiry phases for online labs: orientation, conceptualization, investigation, conclusion, and discussion. Zacharia et al. reviewed the literature on Computer-supported Inquiry Learning (CoSIL), and identified best practices for each phase. They concluded, for example, that the orientation/conclusion/discussion phases received the least amount of guidance, while there were many more tools and strategies for providing guidance in the conceptualization/investigation phases. In this paper, we adopt the same inquiry framework as Zacharia et al. (2015) and report strategies that we learned from STEM faculty about how they supported and guided virtual student lab-based learning in these five phases during the recent COVID-19 shutdown. While Zacharia et al. identified tools and processes for enabling all five inquiry phases, add additional practical examples of faculty implementing these phases online as part of COVID-19 emergency remote teaching, and we provide insights for extending the 5-phase framework for future research.