Please indicate the pieces we would each like to contribute to the project, the questions you see the paper answering, and/or what your goals are regarding your participation in this working group. At the bottom of the page is space for us to begin an outline of the review paper, each section will be labelled with who is responsible for that section.
Karen
There is a need for Biology faculty instructional development, based on the research of what works to help faculty learn new (to them) teaching practices and to sustainably implement them. I would like to synthesize what is known about the various strategies for helping faculty learn about and implement best practices in teaching and learning, synthesizing the relevant literature from other fields. Then I want to use this information to analyze the instructional development models that have been used with varying success, and come up with a model program to propose in an NSF grant. I have evidence that STLCs work, and I know something about why they work, but I would like to know more of the theory, and consider how the STLC model could be best adapted to various institutions and situations.
Nancy
My goal is to examine the evidence used to justify existing faculty development models. I am interested in helping to write a literature review paper. I am less interested in the faculty development grant proposal except, perhaps, in a role as evaluator. Although I do not plan to be a Co-PI, I will help you with that proposal since I know about NSF/DUE and TUES panels.
DonI am interested in partcipating in the production of both products, but I admit that my other obligations constrain me from taking a lead. On the positive side, three of my obligations are directly relevant - coordinating Graduate Certificate in University Faculty Preparation program, supervising 25 TAs, and developing a TA training program with the college of engineering. There is a body of literature that discuses obstacles or resistance to becoming a scholarly teacher. I think we should consider what part of either product that issue should play. Along with discussing the environment or factors that promote change, I (we) need to identify the range of models used to develop faculty successfully. From readings Karen's work, the key seems to be community, but to what extent does the environment (faculty, administrative, and/or institutional goals and values) affect this?
Kelly
Regarding the paper: My personal experience is related to K-12 teacher professional development using the "summer institute" model. We collected solid evidence that teachers 1) were interested, 2) learned new technologies and 3) increased their comfort level with content covered, but we found that implementation/integration of the new content/technologies was rather low. We wanted to study the factors that facilitated and impeded the adoption of the curriculum from the institute, but the grant we wrote for this work was not funded. We went for stimulus money through NIH and really should have gone to a different funding source, such as NSF. I got the job at CSUS and didn't rewrite (nor did I write up any of the data we collected over the years of the grant). So, I have a little bit of knowledge of the literature regarding the "summer institute" model of PD - again largely involving K-12 teachers, but don't know much about the "change" literature or the PD in higher ed (other than the papers Karen has passed along). I have also recently taken over the GTA (graduate teaching assistant) course/program at CSUS and I'm re-designing the entire course (as well as trying to get an increase in course credits). I've looked at various models for training graduate teaching assistants - many of who may be our future biology department colleagues - so this may be relevant to our paper. I also spoke to a friend of mine in the School of Ed that has been very involved in pre and in-service science teacher training for many years and she thought the idea of a meta-analysis or review article addressing different models of PD (the pros/cons) would be very valuable to the field. Regarding the grant: I am the first in my department with a science ed focus and there are only a couple others in the college of natural sciences and math. The good news is that many of the faculty in my department are very interested in what I am doing and seem eager to learn ways to improve their classes (through active learning, classroom assessment techniques, etc). The Chem Ed person attempted a Science Ed journal club a few years back (before I was on the faculty). Turnout was low and the primary people attending were those that already had some expertise. We've discussed re-vamping the "journal club" but using more of a Learning Community model.
John
I would be happy to be involved in the first of the two projects - collaboration in writing a paper for publication. As I understand it there are three components to the paper: 1. state of affairs in faculty development in biology higher ed, 2. exploring models that work 3. and constructing ideas for how these models may best be applied to biology higher ed faculty. I suggest that in the exploring models section we might go beyond biology as there are some exciting models in other science areas such as physics. What has been shown to work in say a physics department should have direct bearing on say a department of microbiology.
Trevor
I would be delighted to participate in both the paper writing and grant proposal projects. I have a major interest in both curriculum change/reform and faculty development.
Review paper outline
Please add to and edit this section
My suggestion for the review paper is as follows:
During the conference call, brainstorm some ideas, list who is interested in contributing, and select someone to be the first (lead) author.
After the conference call the lead author would make an initial outline of the paper (basically headings and sub-headings with a brief one sentence summary of that section. Other authors would volunteer to write the first draft of particular sections, being given the freedom to modify the original outline. The lead author would put it all together and circulate the first draft to all authors.
John
OUR PARTS
Please indicate the pieces we would each like to contribute to the project, the questions you see the paper answering, and/or what your goals are regarding your participation in this working group. At the bottom of the page is space for us to begin an outline of the review paper, each section will be labelled with who is responsible for that section.
Karen
There is a need for Biology faculty instructional development, based on the research of what works to help faculty learn new (to them) teaching practices and to sustainably implement them. I would like to synthesize what is known about the various strategies for helping faculty learn about and implement best practices in teaching and learning, synthesizing the relevant literature from other fields. Then I want to use this information to analyze the instructional development models that have been used with varying success, and come up with a model program to propose in an NSF grant. I have evidence that STLCs work, and I know something about why they work, but I would like to know more of the theory, and consider how the STLC model could be best adapted to various institutions and situations.Nancy
My goal is to examine the evidence used to justify existing faculty development models. I am interested in helping to write a literature review paper. I am less interested in the faculty development grant proposal except, perhaps, in a role as evaluator. Although I do not plan to be a Co-PI, I will help you with that proposal since I know about NSF/DUE and TUES panels.DonI am interested in partcipating in the production of both products, but I admit that my other obligations constrain me from taking a lead. On the positive side, three of my obligations are directly relevant - coordinating Graduate Certificate in University Faculty Preparation program, supervising 25 TAs, and developing a TA training program with the college of engineering. There is a body of literature that discuses obstacles or resistance to becoming a scholarly teacher. I think we should consider what part of either product that issue should play. Along with discussing the environment or factors that promote change, I (we) need to identify the range of models used to develop faculty successfully. From readings Karen's work, the key seems to be community, but to what extent does the environment (faculty, administrative, and/or institutional goals and values) affect this?
Kelly
Regarding the paper: My personal experience is related to K-12 teacher professional development using the "summer institute" model. We collected solid evidence that teachers 1) were interested, 2) learned new technologies and 3) increased their comfort level with content covered, but we found that implementation/integration of the new content/technologies was rather low. We wanted to study the factors that facilitated and impeded the adoption of the curriculum from the institute, but the grant we wrote for this work was not funded. We went for stimulus money through NIH and really should have gone to a different funding source, such as NSF. I got the job at CSUS and didn't rewrite (nor did I write up any of the data we collected over the years of the grant). So, I have a little bit of knowledge of the literature regarding the "summer institute" model of PD - again largely involving K-12 teachers, but don't know much about the "change" literature or the PD in higher ed (other than the papers Karen has passed along). I have also recently taken over the GTA (graduate teaching assistant) course/program at CSUS and I'm re-designing the entire course (as well as trying to get an increase in course credits). I've looked at various models for training graduate teaching assistants - many of who may be our future biology department colleagues - so this may be relevant to our paper. I also spoke to a friend of mine in the School of Ed that has been very involved in pre and in-service science teacher training for many years and she thought the idea of a meta-analysis or review article addressing different models of PD (the pros/cons) would be very valuable to the field.Regarding the grant: I am the first in my department with a science ed focus and there are only a couple others in the college of natural sciences and math. The good news is that many of the faculty in my department are very interested in what I am doing and seem eager to learn ways to improve their classes (through active learning, classroom assessment techniques, etc). The Chem Ed person attempted a Science Ed journal club a few years back (before I was on the faculty). Turnout was low and the primary people attending were those that already had some expertise. We've discussed re-vamping the "journal club" but using more of a Learning Community model.
John
I would be happy to be involved in the first of the two projects - collaboration in writing a paper for publication. As I understand it there are three components to the paper:1. state of affairs in faculty development in biology higher ed,
2. exploring models that work
3. and constructing ideas for how these models may best be applied to biology higher ed faculty.
I suggest that in the exploring models section we might go beyond biology as there are some exciting models in other science areas such as physics. What has been shown to work in say a physics department should have direct bearing on say a department of microbiology.
Trevor
I would be delighted to participate in both the paper writing and grant proposal projects. I have a major interest in both curriculum change/reform and faculty development.Review paper outline
Please add to and edit this sectionMy suggestion for the review paper is as follows:
During the conference call, brainstorm some ideas, list who is interested in contributing, and select someone to be the first (lead) author.
After the conference call the lead author would make an initial outline of the paper (basically headings and sub-headings with a brief one sentence summary of that section. Other authors would volunteer to write the first draft of particular sections, being given the freedom to modify the original outline. The lead author would put it all together and circulate the first draft to all authors.
John