Predicting implementation of active learning by tenure-track teaching faculty using robust cluster analysis.
Active learning
COPUS
Ensemble methods
Higher education
Lecturer with security of employment
Professor of Teaching
Robust clustering
STEM
Teaching Professor
Teaching focused faculty
Journal
International journal of STEM education
ISSN: 2196-7822
Titre abrégé: Int J STEM Educ
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 101738908
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2022
2022
Historique:
received:
12
07
2021
accepted:
08
07
2022
entrez:
2
8
2022
pubmed:
3
8
2022
medline:
3
8
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The University of California system has a novel tenure-track education-focused faculty position called Lecturer with Security of Employment (working titles: Teaching Professor or Professor of Teaching). We focus on the potential difference in implementation of active-learning strategies by faculty type, including tenure-track education-focused faculty, tenure-track research-focused faculty, and non-tenure-track lecturers. In addition, we consider other instructor characteristics (faculty rank, years of teaching, and gender) and classroom characteristics (campus, discipline, and class size). We use a robust clustering algorithm to determine the number of clusters, identify instructors using active learning, and to understand the instructor and classroom characteristics in relation to the adoption of active-learning strategies. We observed 125 science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) undergraduate courses at three University of California campuses using the Classroom Observation Protocol for Undergraduate STEM to examine active-learning strategies implemented in the classroom. Tenure-track education-focused faculty are more likely to teach with active-learning strategies compared to tenure-track research-focused faculty. Instructor and classroom characteristics that are also related to active learning include campus, discipline, and class size. The campus with initiatives and programs to support undergraduate STEM education is more likely to have instructors who adopt active-learning strategies. There is no difference in instructors in the Biological Sciences, Engineering, or Information and Computer Sciences disciplines who teach actively. However, instructors in the Physical Sciences are less likely to teach actively. Smaller class sizes also tend to have instructors who teach more actively. The novel tenure-track education-focused faculty position within the University of California system represents a formal structure that results in higher adoption of active-learning strategies in undergraduate STEM education. Campus context and evolving expectations of the position (faculty rank) contribute to the symbols related to learning and teaching that correlate with differential implementation of active learning. The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40594-022-00365-9.
Sections du résumé
Background
UNASSIGNED
The University of California system has a novel tenure-track education-focused faculty position called Lecturer with Security of Employment (working titles: Teaching Professor or Professor of Teaching). We focus on the potential difference in implementation of active-learning strategies by faculty type, including tenure-track education-focused faculty, tenure-track research-focused faculty, and non-tenure-track lecturers. In addition, we consider other instructor characteristics (faculty rank, years of teaching, and gender) and classroom characteristics (campus, discipline, and class size). We use a robust clustering algorithm to determine the number of clusters, identify instructors using active learning, and to understand the instructor and classroom characteristics in relation to the adoption of active-learning strategies.
Results
UNASSIGNED
We observed 125 science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) undergraduate courses at three University of California campuses using the Classroom Observation Protocol for Undergraduate STEM to examine active-learning strategies implemented in the classroom. Tenure-track education-focused faculty are more likely to teach with active-learning strategies compared to tenure-track research-focused faculty. Instructor and classroom characteristics that are also related to active learning include campus, discipline, and class size. The campus with initiatives and programs to support undergraduate STEM education is more likely to have instructors who adopt active-learning strategies. There is no difference in instructors in the Biological Sciences, Engineering, or Information and Computer Sciences disciplines who teach actively. However, instructors in the Physical Sciences are less likely to teach actively. Smaller class sizes also tend to have instructors who teach more actively.
Conclusions
UNASSIGNED
The novel tenure-track education-focused faculty position within the University of California system represents a formal structure that results in higher adoption of active-learning strategies in undergraduate STEM education. Campus context and evolving expectations of the position (faculty rank) contribute to the symbols related to learning and teaching that correlate with differential implementation of active learning.
Supplementary Information
UNASSIGNED
The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40594-022-00365-9.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35915654
doi: 10.1186/s40594-022-00365-9
pii: 365
pmc: PMC9334417
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
49Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2022.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Competing interestsThe authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Références
CBE Life Sci Educ. 2006 Winter;5(4):297-305
pubmed: 17146032
Science. 2011 Jun 3;332(6034):1213-6
pubmed: 21636776
CBE Life Sci Educ. 2018 Sep;17(3):ar39
pubmed: 30040531
CBE Life Sci Educ. 2021 Mar;20(1):ar7
pubmed: 33444106
Bioscience. 2021 Aug 04;71(10):1063-1078
pubmed: 34616237
PLoS One. 2019 Jul 17;14(7):e0219019
pubmed: 31314756
Bioinformatics. 2010 Jun 15;26(12):1513-9
pubmed: 20444838
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2020 Mar 24;117(12):6476-6483
pubmed: 32152114
CBE Life Sci Educ. 2011 Winter;10(4):394-405
pubmed: 22135373
Sci Adv. 2020 Jun 19;6(25):eaba2091
pubmed: 32596452
PLoS One. 2021 Feb 25;16(2):e0247544
pubmed: 33630945
CBE Life Sci Educ. 2016 Spring;15(1):ar6
pubmed: 26931397
PLoS One. 2020 Jan 13;15(1):e0227633
pubmed: 31929599
Sci Adv. 2019 Jun 05;5(6):eaav6403
pubmed: 31183399
Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 2011 Jan;65(1):47-55
pubmed: 21297852
Int J STEM Educ. 2017;4(1):25
pubmed: 30631681
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2017 Mar 21;114(12):3085-3090
pubmed: 28265087
CBE Life Sci Educ. 2019 Dec;18(4):ar60
pubmed: 31730385
Int J STEM Educ. 2018;5(1):3
pubmed: 30631693
Artif Intell Med. 2007 Nov;41(3):197-207
pubmed: 17719213
CBE Life Sci Educ. 2014 Fall;13(3):552-69
pubmed: 25185237
CBE Life Sci Educ. 2015 Summer;14(2):
pubmed: 25976654
CBE Life Sci Educ. 2016 Winter;15(4):
pubmed: 27810868
CBE Life Sci Educ. 2012 Winter;11(4):339-46
pubmed: 23222828
CBE Life Sci Educ. 2020 Dec;19(4):ar52
pubmed: 33001767
CBE Life Sci Educ. 2014 Winter;13(4):624-35
pubmed: 25452485
Science. 2011 Mar 11;331(6022):1269-70
pubmed: 21393529
CBE Life Sci Educ. 2018 Jun;17(2):ar30
pubmed: 29786474
CBE Life Sci Educ. 2021 Sep;20(3):ar39
pubmed: 34309411
CBE Life Sci Educ. 2013 Winter;12(4):618-27
pubmed: 24297289
CBE Life Sci Educ. 2021 Mar;20(1):ar3
pubmed: 33444101
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014 Jun 10;111(23):8319-20
pubmed: 24853505
PLoS One. 2016 Mar 08;11(3):e0150914
pubmed: 26954776
BMC Bioinformatics. 2018 Jan 15;19(1):11
pubmed: 29334888
F1000Res. 2018 Oct 5;7:1605
pubmed: 30647909
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013 Apr 30;110(18):7170-5
pubmed: 23589844
CBE Life Sci Educ. 2020 Sep;19(3):ar34
pubmed: 32762598
CBE Life Sci Educ. 2011 Spring;10(1):25-42
pubmed: 21364098
Science. 2018 Mar 30;359(6383):1468-1470
pubmed: 29599232
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014 Jun 10;111(23):8410-5
pubmed: 24821756
Adv Physiol Educ. 2013 Sep;37(3):233-41
pubmed: 24022769