Welcome to the IBP Faculty Instructional Development minigrant working group Wiki
The issue the project intends to address
The focus of this proposal is on the professional and instructional development needs of biology faculty and future faculty, including those with positions as Science Faculty with Education Specialty (SFES). Generally SFES, and others in similar positions, are scientists who have additional training in science education. Their appointments are usually in science departments where they are often referred to by their biologist colleagues as the department’s “biology educator;” this reflects the teaching vs. research cultural divide and illustrates the science education reform problem as aren’t all faculty in the biology department biology educators?
Although there is a need for continued pedagogical advancement in biology undergraduate education, what is more urgent is more widespread adaptation of pedagogical practices that research has already shown to promote learning in biology. Those practices include interactive engagement pedagogies such as active learning and inquiry based learning, technology integration in the classroom to promote learning, authentic learning experiences and assessment, and the importance of introductory level courses in recruitment, retention, and diversity of biology majors. The need now is to find ways to integrate and institutionalize these evidence-based strategies for teaching science and to help biology faculty learn about and implement them. SFES are often expected to share their expertise in teaching and learning with their biologist colleagues. Consequently, SFES are in a critical position to promote education reform, as it is the department that has the main control of biology education curriculum and learning goals. SFES then have two jobs, one as a biology educator for which they presumably have some training and/or experience as they begin their SFES appointments, and another as a faculty developer, for which many lack training and may not even realize the importance of such training until well into their appointments.
The purpose of this proposal is to provide some insights and practical ideas on how curriculum development and change can be brought about by SFES working with other faculty in biology departments to help motivate individual scientists who then become agents of change. Change almost always elicits opposing and supporting forces, examples of which will be given. The project team will produce a manuscript for publication with successful case studies as examples, to show how SFES have successfully influenced biology departments to change, with examples of strategies to deal with opposing and supporting forces discussed, including the concepts of a Zone of Feasible Innovation, the Zone of Tolerance (Rogan, 2007), and Scientific Teaching Learning Communities (STLCs) (Sirum and Madigan, 2010) as an agent for change. This project also brings together individuals who are working in faculty instructional development to coordinate efforts for a national cross-institutional biology faculty instructional development program to be submitted to the NSF.
Welcome to the IBP Faculty Instructional Development minigrant working group Wiki
The issue the project intends to address
The focus of this proposal is on the professional and instructional development needs of biology faculty and future faculty, including those with positions as Science Faculty with Education Specialty (SFES). Generally SFES, and others in similar positions, are scientists who have additional training in science education. Their appointments are usually in science departments where they are often referred to by their biologist colleagues as the department’s “biology educator;” this reflects the teaching vs. research cultural divide and illustrates the science education reform problem as aren’t all faculty in the biology department biology educators?Although there is a need for continued pedagogical advancement in biology undergraduate education, what is more urgent is more widespread adaptation of pedagogical practices that research has already shown to promote learning in biology. Those practices include interactive engagement pedagogies such as active learning and inquiry based learning, technology integration in the classroom to promote learning, authentic learning experiences and assessment, and the importance of introductory level courses in recruitment, retention, and diversity of biology majors. The need now is to find ways to integrate and institutionalize these evidence-based strategies for teaching science and to help biology faculty learn about and implement them. SFES are often expected to share their expertise in teaching and learning with their biologist colleagues. Consequently, SFES are in a critical position to promote education reform, as it is the department that has the main control of biology education curriculum and learning goals. SFES then have two jobs, one as a biology educator for which they presumably have some training and/or experience as they begin their SFES appointments, and another as a faculty developer, for which many lack training and may not even realize the importance of such training until well into their appointments.
The purpose of this proposal is to provide some insights and practical ideas on how curriculum development and change can be brought about by SFES working with other faculty in biology departments to help motivate individual scientists who then become agents of change. Change almost always elicits opposing and supporting forces, examples of which will be given. The project team will produce a manuscript for publication with successful case studies as examples, to show how SFES have successfully influenced biology departments to change, with examples of strategies to deal with opposing and supporting forces discussed, including the concepts of a Zone of Feasible Innovation, the Zone of Tolerance (Rogan, 2007), and Scientific Teaching Learning Communities (STLCs) (Sirum and Madigan, 2010) as an agent for change. This project also brings together individuals who are working in faculty instructional development to coordinate efforts for a national cross-institutional biology faculty instructional development program to be submitted to the NSF.