Author(s):
Need: Describe why this project is important and what needs it fulfills.
Literature shows that student engagement through active and inquiry-based learning improves student attitudes, retention, and understanding (e.g., Fry, 2014; Freeman et al., 2014; NRC, 2012) with an outsized impact on women and previously low- achieving students (Kogan & Laursen, 2014; Laursen et al., 2014). Motivating faculty to change their teaching is often challenging, and active learning is used sporadically. We are scaling up the implementation of active and inquiry-based learning by engaging faculty, graduate students, and undergraduates in changing the culture of teaching. The project builds course-based communities of transformation (CCTs) in targeted gateway courses within three STEM departments (mathematics, physics, and computer science). Multi-generational teams of faculty, graduate apprentice instructors, and undergraduate learning assistants receive training on active learning techniques and help to develop materials and assessments while receiving support through a network of learning communities.
Guiding Question: Describe the research questions and/or practical inquiries guiding this work.
The proposed change model combines a bottom-up, or grassroots, approach via individual faculty operating within STEM programs with top-down (university administrative) support. The research questions focus on how the change process unfolds at the faculty, department, and organizational levels, as well as the relationship between department-level change and organizational learning.
To what extent do the tactics outlined in the grassroots change theory and taught in the trainings help create sustainable course-level and department-level changes toward the use of inquiry-based learning?
To what extent do graduate apprentice instructors and undergraduate learning assistants assist in diffusing course-level change to the department or college level?
How do grassroots tactics, implemented through communities of transformation, interact to impact the diffusion of course-, department-, and institution-level change, and to influence organizational learning?
Outcomes: Describe outcomes and any key findings or deliverables anticipated or achieved.
One of the most significant outcomes of the project has been the development and implementation of a pre-semester workshop for new GTAs. Early on, we learned that GTAs who engage in professional development during their first-year teaching gain an understanding of key practices but still struggle in the classroom. Our two-day multi-disciplinary workshop alleviates some challenges presented by a solely in-semester PD model.
We have also learned about mechanisms that support adoption of active learning among communities of teaching staff. Establishing a “humble inquiry” style of interacting can allow group members to embrace new challenges and admit to struggling. Relatedly, building a grassroots group that encourages professional growth can help emergent leaders in pedagogical and cultural change.
Broader Impacts: Describe the broader impacts and implications of the results.
The learning-community model for building an active and inquiry-based learning culture uses support structures found on campuses locally, including a center for teaching, graduate student training, and a learning assistant program. Combined with a better understanding of organizational change within the university setting, this model will help other institutions succeed in efforts to change their own campus teaching cultures. By fostering a local culture of active learning, this project will also have a broad impact on thousands of STEM students.
Coauthors
Jill Nelson, Jessica Rosenberg, Mark Snyder, Nischal Thapa Magar, Marco Brizzolara — all George Mason University
