1 / 28

A Faculty Professional Development Model: Factors that Sustain Reform

Research Based Undergraduate Science Teaching: Investigating Reform in Classrooms – June 19-21 2011, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa AL. A Faculty Professional Development Model: Factors that Sustain Reform Dennis Sunal and Cynthia Sunal University of Alabama.

ida
Download Presentation

A Faculty Professional Development Model: Factors that Sustain Reform

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Research Based Undergraduate Science Teaching: Investigating Reform in Classrooms – June 19-21 2011, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa AL A Faculty Professional Development Model: Factors that Sustain Reform Dennis Sunal and Cynthia Sunal University of Alabama

  2. Higher Education Faces Significant Challenges • Nation at Risk (1983) • Benchmarks for Science Literacy, Project 2061 (AAAS, 1993) • Shaping the Future (NSF, 1996) • NASA Strategic Plan, Implementation Plan for Education (NASA, 1999 – 2003) • No Child Left Behind (DOE, 2001) • Evaluating and Improving Undergraduate Teaching in STEM (NRC, 2003) • Rising Above the Gathering Storm (NAS, 2007)

  3. Higher Education Faces Significant Challenges • Higher education faculty are attempting to improve the effectiveness of undergraduate STEM courses. • However, we face the problem of determining the extent to which undergraduate entry level science courses affect student learning outcomes.

  4. Based on this challenge:What do we need to know? One question might be: What is the impact of undergraduate courses, especially reformed courses, on short- and long-term student outcomes?

  5. National Study of Education in Undergraduate Science (NSEUS) • Funded by the National Science Foundation in 2006 • Implementation of a national study designed to determine the short- and long-term impact of reform in undergraduate science courses on students, with special emphasis on pre-service teacher education candidates. • Time line 2006-2012

  6. Sequenced NSEUS Study Components Components reviewed in the paper include: NASA/NOVA faculty development program, 1995-2006 Literature review on reform in undergraduate science NSEUS research model National survey of institutions involved in reforming undergraduate science, 2006-2007 Pilot study to determine the efficacy of a procedure and the instruments for gathering data in a large scale national study of undergraduate science teaching and learning. The focus of this presentation will be on the first and third items.

  7. Additional components to be reported next: • National study of a sample of institutions involved in course reform in education in undergraduate science, 2007-2012 • National conference on undergraduate science education – June, 2011

  8. NASA/NOVA Faculty Development Program, 1995-2006 NASA Opportunities for Visionary Academics (NOVA) first awarded in 1995, became a NASA Higher Education Program in 1997, and continued funding through 2006.

  9. NOVA Objectives • Disseminate NASA’s faculty development and pre-service education model. • Promote collaborative development within and among institutions through the model. • Utilization of the research and development activities from NASA’s strategic enterprises • Sustain the change process through continued professional development and collaboration with networking,and mentoring. • Stimulate and conduct action research and change.

  10. Sequence of Events during the NOVA Professional Development Program • Phase I—Professional Development Workshops and Proposal Development (Yr 1) • Phase II - Research and Dissemination grants (Yr 2) • Phase III - NASA Field Center Program, online course enhancements (Yr 3) • Leadership Development Conference (LDC) (annual) • Research and evaluation, including on-site action research assessment (continuous) • Collaborating , networking, and mentoring on teaching, technology, course design, and new funding (continuous and value added change)

  11. NASA/NOVA National University Workshop Locations 1995-2006 NOVA Dissemination: 1996-2006 – 23Workshops University of Alabama Eastern Michigan University Fayetteville State University NASA JPL/California State PolytechnicalUniv – Pomona NASA Langley Research Center, VA • New Mexico Highlands University NASA Lewis Research Center/Ohio Aerospace Institute University of Idaho, ID NASA Kennedy Space Flight Center, FL NASA Johnson Space Flight Center/Univ of Houston, TX University of New Hampshire, NH • Kansas State University, KS NASA Ames Research Center, CA Western Kentucky University, KY Bellingham, WA NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, AL Hampton University, VA Prairie View A & M University, TX Colorado Springs, CO NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, MD NASA Dryden Research Center, CA NASA Stennis Space Flight Center, MS NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, AL

  12. NOVA Annual Conference, Towson State Univ. MD Feb. 2005

  13. Characteristics of NASA/NOVA Institutions, Faculty, and Students • 240 institutions teams attended workshops from 1996 to 2006. • Institutions located in 44 states, Washington D.C., Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. • 354 multidisciplinary NOVA faculty were funded from 103 institutions. • 185 STEM courses; enrolling over 10,000 students annually, serving over 100,000 by 2006. • Institutions range dfrom Doctoral/Research I to Associate of Arts Community Colleges.

  14. NOVA Network of Institutions Involved in Undergraduate STEM Course Reform

  15. National Study of Education in Undergraduate Science (NSEUS) Research Model Problem:the extent to which undergraduate entry level science courses effect student learning outcomes. Central Research Question:What is the impact of undergraduate course reform as measured by the beliefs and actions of higher education faculty on short- and long-term student outcomes?

  16. Research Sub-Questions: 1. How do course characteristics relate to undergraduate students short-term learning outcomes? 2. How do reform science course characteristics differ from traditional courses? 3. What are the essential characteristics of an entry level reformed undergraduate science course? 4. How do characteristics differ between courses with varying degrees of reform? 5. How do varying degrees of reform characteristics relate to undergraduate students short-term learning outcomes? 6. How do reform and traditional courses differ in their long-term impacts on K-6 teachers in their own science classrooms?

  17. NSEUS Undergraduate Science Course Impact Research Model

  18. NSEUS Study Timeline • Year 1 National Survey and Literature Review Synthesis: Population = 103 higher education institutions reforming courses from 1996-2007 using a similar professional development model • Years 1-2 Pilot Study and Selection of Sample: Sample = 2 institutions, 4 courses, 12 in-service elementary teachers • Years 3-5 National Study: Sample = 20 US institutions, approximately 40 entry level undergraduate science courses, 100 in-service elementary teachers • Years 5-6 Analysis of Data and Dissemination: Sample data and national conference

  19. NSEUS Survey of Institutions Involved in Reforming Undergraduate Science Characteristics of the Institutions The population was diverse. Carnegie Classification of Institution Population

  20. Characteristics of the STEM Reform Courses 103 institutions with 185 reform courses. Nova-like courses offered at 49 institutions (a total of 118 courses) Total original reform courses = 303 Number still offered in 2007 (average course age = 8 years) 72 institutions with 146 reform courses Nova-like courses offered at 41 institutions (a total of 104 courses Total remaining STEM reform courses = 250

  21. Characteristics of the STEM Reform Courses

  22. Characteristics of Faculty Collaborative Teams At 72 institutions where courses were still offered 83% of the faculty teams were still functioning At 31 institutions where courses stopped being offered 39% of the faculty teams were still functioning A most important factor related to the sustained offering of reform courses was the continuous functioning of a collaborative team.

  23. Characteristics of NOVA Reformed and Comparison Undergraduate STEM Courses 1) 68% vs 16% of the weekly class time involving students in an inquiry/investigative approach to learning science, 2) 10% vs 3% using collaborative and cooperative learning or student guided activities during course activities, 3) 15% vs 63% of the weekly class time with lecture and discussion

  24. Integrated use of Lecture Traditional lab technology 4% 15% 3% 10% Student 68% discussion and presentation Inquiry-based integrated lab Characteristics of NOVA Reformed Undergraduate STEM Courses

  25. Characteristics of Comparison Undergraduate STEM Courses

  26. Survey Summary Reform courses were successfully developed in all of the diverse institution types Learning environments in reform courses at these institutions shared common course features Faculty collaborative teams were related to sustaining reforms in STEM undergraduate courses NOVA –like reform courses were significant value added outcomes to the professional development model Once developed, reforms created in the faculty professional development program have been sustained in the majority of the settings

  27. Research Based Undergraduate Science Teaching: Investigating Reform in Classrooms – June 19-21 2011, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa AL A Faculty Professional Development Model: Factors that Sustain Reform Dennis Sunal and Cynthia Sunal University of Alabama

More Related