Measuring and Modeling Cultural Change in Higher Education
Initially, the institutional context obtained at TI relevant to the STEM faculty development workshops included: institutional leadership in favor of STEM pedagogical reform; structural and socio-cultural divisions between the two colleges; and limited exposure of STEM faculty to the learning sciences except for a small number of mathematics faculty. In this context, I postulate that the initial cultural model was comprised of the following schema:
Instruction in a STEM field is based on transmitting facts and direct involvement with lab- or field- based experiences (STEM instruction as transmission);
There is some value in the learning sciences but that value is unclear (learning science value);
COE faculty have the tendency to be impatient, arrogant, and/or unfamiliar with STEM disciplines (COE faculty impatience);
Improving instructional practice would greatly benefit the public, specifically future K-12 teachers (instructional practice value); and
The poor preparation of students in STEM disciplines limits the effectiveness of college-level STEM instruction (student preparation).
Through the professional development workshops for STEM faculty, SCALE created a structure for inter-college interaction, provided funds to release faculty from their demanding workload, and engaged a skilled COE faculty member who designed and facilitated the sessions. A critical aspect of this activity was the facilitator who focused on ameliorating disciplinary stereotypes and divisions, making lessons relevant and applicable to STEM, being sensitive to STEM faculty's rate of change, and encouraging a degree of comfort with pedagogical topics. The workshop participants reported being pleasantly surprised that the facilitator treated them as educators and not simply as STEM content experts. Upon being perceived this way, they began to experience themselves and their instructional practice in terms of pedagogical principles, which reinforced their schema for learning sciences value. In addition, the facilitator skillfully negotiated existing tensions and fears that the STEM faculty may have had regarding professional development, which shifted the schema for COE faculty impatience. The COE facilitator then successfully surfaced previously unconscious assumptions about teaching and learning, which is an important step in beginning to effect change in the tacit assumptions that inform an individual's practice. This process brought into bold relief the presence of the schema STEM instruction as transmission. Then, by introducing and modeling a more inquiry-based approach to STEM instruction, the facilitator demonstrated a pedagogical method that was remarkably similar to lab- or field-based instruction, which enabled a shift in the STEM instruction as transmission schema and reinforced the schema for instructional practice value. Finally the formation of a community of science faculty who supported one another was cited as an important factor in the social environment that contributed to these changes.
However, the respondents cited several factors that may compromise these outcomes, and have the potential to inhibit widespread or long-term change at this IHE. These include RTP policies that generally do not reward pedagogical improvement, disciplinary standards that base legitimacy as a scientist exclusively on research accomplishments, and an uncertain future for the long-term viability of these workshops. Given that these factors remained unchanged, resistance to diffusing or incorporating these changes at the departmental level seemed likely. It is also important to note that the changes observed in participant attitudes could also be explained in terms of individual psychological or attitude changes, as opposed to being linked to culturally shared schema.
