II. Background and Rationale

There is an urgent societal need for a more scientifically literate citizenry and increased recruitment into STEM-related careers (Center for Science Mathematics and Engineering Education. Committee on Undergraduate Science Education, 1999; National Science Foundation, 1996; Project 2061/American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1989). At the same time, there is widespread concern that present teaching practice in STEM higher education does not address these needs. Seymour and Hewitt (1997) found that 90.2% of students who switched from majors in science, mathematics, and engineering, and 73.7% of “non-switchers,” complained about poor teaching by STEM faculty.

A critical pressure point for change is the training of doctoral students at research universities. As Gaff and Lambert (1996) have pointed out, 102 universities award 80% of all doctoral degrees in the U.S. each year, and “these few universities operate as a funnel through which the vast majority of faculty members in America’s 3,500 diverse colleges and universities must pass” (p. 38). Since only 1 out of 10 new Ph.D.s will end up at another research university, the vast majority of doctoral recipients who remain in academia are hired by institutions—liberal arts colleges, comprehensive universities, and community colleges, for example—with values, institutional missions, and academic cultures different from the research universities where they were trained (Atwell, 1996). Changing the ways in which research universities educate doctoral students for faculty work will both improve teaching and learning at research universities and better prepare most newly hired Ph.D.’s for their first faculty position. Research universities in this country—the envy of the world for their research capability—have an unprecedented opportunity, and challenge, to lead the way in advancing change and innovation in graduate training, with the goal of systematically and rigorously preparing the future national STEM faculty to teach in ways that enhance student learning. Furthermore, the time to address this challenge is now. With large numbers of faculty retirements expected in the near future (Finkelstein, Seal, & Schuster, 1998), universities and colleges will soon be hiring young STEM scientists to replace their ranks.


II.a. Teaching-as-Research

A premise of this proposal is that the people doing the work must be the agents of change and reform, following a central principle of human factors engineering (Hackman, Oldham, Janson, & Purdy, 1975; Lawler, 1986). We suggest that the concept of teaching-as-research can play a powerful role in engaging STEM graduate-through-faculty in reform of teaching practice. Teaching-as-research – wherein STEM graduate-through-faculty hypothesize, experiment, evaluate, and improve their teaching practice – places teaching in a context with which STEM researchers are comfortable and skilled (albeit in different methods). Teaching-as-research also immediately makes STEM educators agents for the ongoing improvement of teaching practice.

Research by practitioners (known also as action research, teacher research, and classroom research) has proven a useful and influential form of research for improving teaching practice. Practitioner research has existed for more than half a century (Zeichner & Noffke, 2001) and played a significant role in improving teaching in K-12 settings over the past 20 years (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999, 1993). In higher education, Cross and colleagues (Angelo & Cross, 1993; Cross, 1990) have helped to guide a burgeoning classroom research movement. As Cross and Steadman (1996) explained, “The premise of Classroom Research is that if faculty are encouraged to become active participants in the search for knowledge about teaching and learning, they will become interested in building bridges across the chasm that separates the practice of teaching from knowledge about assessment, research, and faculty development” (p. 6).

Examples of investigations conducted by STEM research faculty that have led to improved teaching and learning are compelling. In one study, UW chemistry professor John Wright used systematic methods to develop an “active learning” approach for his large introductory analytical chemistry course (Wright et al., 1998). He then devised an innovative assessment strategy in which 25 independent chemistry faculty interviewed students to measure skills that the faculty could observe and value. By comparing two sections of the large analytical chemistry course—one using lecture-based teaching and the other active learning methods—Wright et al. found that students in the active learning section learned more on average than those in the lecture-based section. Many of the faculty assessors subsequently implemented Wright’s teaching methods. Other examples of classroom research, many involving graduate students, can be found at the National Institute for Science Education (NISE) College Level One Web site (www.wcer.wisc.edu/nise/cl1/ilt) and in the growing number of discipline-based journals on teaching (e.g., Journal of Chemical Education, Journal of College Science Teaching, Physics Education, Journal of Engineering Education).

Thus CIRTL will approach teaching as a setting for the generation of knowledge. CIRTL will use the teaching-as-research concept to recruit STEM graduates-through-faculty to teaching and learning reform and to produce a national STEM faculty that will itself drive ongoing improvement in STEM higher education.


II.b. Learning Communities

Calls for reform in STEM graduate (and post-doctoral) education highlight several specific concerns: (a) Preparation for the professoriate typically is not organized in a systematic or developmentally focused way; (b) the graduate experience primarily emphasizes research and publication, whereas STEM faculty work includes extensive teaching and service (especially at non-research institutions); (c) graduate students often lack opportunities to talk with faculty advisors about the multiple dimensions of faculty careers and the significant institutional differences in faculty roles; and (d) STEM graduates rarely engage in discussions with non-STEM colleagues and thus often have an insular view of teaching and learning (Austin, 2002; Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy, 1995; Golde & Dore, 2001; Nyquist & Woodford, 2000). These issues combine to deter interest in pursuing STEM academic careers and leave those entering academic careers not fully prepared to be effective teachers. Thus, calls for reform argue for (a) greater attention to preparing future faculty members for responsibilities in varied institutional settings and with diverse student audiences; (b) better mentoring and more feedback from faculty; and (c) more opportunities for interaction between graduate students, post-doctoral researchers, early career faculty, and established faculty (Austin, 2002; Golde & Dore, 2001; Gaff, Pruitt-Logan, Weibl, & Others, 2000).

Change in STEM graduate and post-doctoral preparation must be accompanied by change in the graduate faculty at research institutions. Research shows that for STEM faculty the most respected source of knowledge about teaching and learning comes from their “near peers” (Rogers, 1995; Foertsch, Millar, Squire, & Gunter, 1997). Thus, a critical means of fostering change in teaching and learning is communication among faculty. We stress that important change can vary widely in degree, and be incremental in nature. A change in faculty attitudes may be enough to open the door for graduate students and post-doctoral researchers to make use of opportunities for broader professional development. Faculty awareness of changes around them—including the attitudes and practice of their students and post-doctoral researchers—will produce further changes in faculty attitudes and practice.

In order to address these issues, CIRTL will form graduate-through-faculty learning communities as rich, enduring, integrative environments for change in teaching and learning. Learning communities are intellectual and physical places where members blend academic, professional, and social activities, and where growth occurs through collegial relationships and activities (Brower, & Dettinger, 1998). Learning communities help participants reach new goals and values, and they foster strong relationships among members across an institution that provides the foundation for true institutional change (Gabelnick et al., 1990; Shapiro & Levine, 1999). Learning communities are “life changing”—they change participants, and institutions, in ways that have lasting impact (Lenning & Ebbers, 1999).

The successes of undergraduate learning communities are well documented. (Brower, 2000; Lenning & Ebbers, 1999; Pike, 1999). Learning communities that support the development of graduates-through-faculty are less common, though a few models do exist (e.g., Yale’s McDougal Graduate Student Center, www.yale.edu/graduateschool/mcdougal/, and the Spencer Foundation’s “Discipline-Based Scholarships in Education” program, www.spencer.org/programs/index.htm). A compelling example is the UW faculty development program “Creating a Collaborative Learning Environment” (CCLE; Sanders et al., 1997). CCLE engages faculty and instructional staff from diverse disciplines in weekly small-group discussions about topics that reach to the heart of academic life. CCLE participants address questions such as “What is it like to be a learner?” before they address the question of how to be a better teacher; and “What does it mean to create a safe and respectful climate for learning?” before they explore how to teach diverse student audiences. CCLE has had a significant impact on the UW campus over the past 8 years, serving over 200 faculty and staff from over 80 departments. Its impact has been seen in curricular reforms, policy changes, and the elevation of CCLE participants to high-profile positions within the institution. It has also been adapted to other research universities, for example, Texas A&M.

Learning communities will support STEM graduates-through-faculty as they adopt new views of teaching and learning, help them transform their capabilities in teaching, prepare them to be effective teachers in a range of institutional settings and with a diverse array of students, and enable them to become change agents at their present and future institutions. Requiring only modest resources, learning communities are an efficient strategy for affecting large numbers of graduates-through-faculty. Learning communities can be implemented in departments, colleges, or a university as a whole. Our proposal calls for creating such learning communities and assessing how their structure, processes, and content promote CIRTL’s goals.

We stress that the union of the teaching-as-research and learning community concepts is greater than the sum of the two. Research has documented that success in training graduates-through-faculty to approach their teaching in new ways has been limited by the lack of structures to support and expand these changes (Druger 1997). Likewise, the creation of supportive environments without a clear conceptual focus does not lead to reform. Our proposal will create both a new conceptualization of higher education teaching practice and an environment to support this reform in ways that lead to institutional change (Angelo, 1997).