Swimming Upstream: Pathways of New Engineering Faculty at Non-R1 Institutions

The landscape of engineering academia is varied, yet many graduate students are socialized to aspire to a tenure-track faculty position at a research-intensive institution, and are told that teaching is a necessary activity in order to focus on research. However, some graduate students seek out a PhD so that they can primarily teach at the college level. There exists a misalignment for some graduate students between the way graduate programs in engineering prepare their graduates for academic positions and the way graduates desire to be prepared. In this dissertation, I examined the experiences of twelve assistant professors in engineering who are at institutions with varying focus on teaching and research. The Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education classifies institutions in part based on research activity. Most engineering programs, and most tenure-track engineering professors, are at Doctoral Universities with the Highest Research Activity (R1). All twelve participants earned their PhDs at an R1 Institution and were assistant professors at the following four institution types at the time of the interviews: Baccalaureate, Master’s, DU with Moderate Research Activity (R3), and DU with Higher Research Activity (R2). All four of these institution types likely have more focus on teaching than R1 Institutions and I was interested in understanding the transitions to these institutions from the R1 environment. The findings are presented in two ways: First, a thematic analysis was conducted to understand how the participants’ experiences were similar and different from each other. The thematic analysis findings are presented in response to the two main research questions: The pathways and experiences are discussed first, and then the teaching conceptions are discussed Second. Next, a co-constructed narrative was written for each participant to showcase the pathways from graduate school to their current institution. In order to better make sense of the thematic analysis findings and the co-constructed narratives, I also present one narrative in greater detail through the use of narrative themes. I found that a majority of the participants felt underprepared for teaching and were socialized to believe teaching mattered less than research. Most participants specifically sought out non-R1 Institutions where they could focus on teaching in an environment where their dedication to teaching was supported. However, some participants still focus very much on research and scholarship, but enjoy the less intense expectations of their current institutions. In this dissertation, I introduce twelve stories about new engineering faculty at non-R1 Institutions so that current and future graduate students, as well as current and future faculty members, can learn more about the pathways to faculty positions at non-R1 Institutions

"My Blood Is Boiling When I Think About Advising": The Role of Academic Advising in STEM Student Retention

Student attrition from STEM disciplines is one of the most pressing issues in higher education. To better understand the causes of this attrition, this study examines STEM students’ college experiences and uncovers their perspectives on the existing support systems with a specific focus on the role of academic advising. Our research reveals that students from a particular STEM major identified academic advising as problematic, serving as one of the main factors pushing them out of the major, while the STEM major they transferred to did not have this issue. We examined whether this difference was also evident in the perspectives of the student affairs offices by interviewing academic counselors. This research emphasizes the responsibility of academic counselors in students’ decisions to leave STEM majors and the importance of care in their work. The findings suggest a need for STEM departments to re-assess academic advising philosophies and practices while creating more supportive learning environments

Limited or complete? Teaching and learning conceptions and instructional environments fostered by STEM teaching versus research faculty

Abstract: Background: An instructor’s conceptions of teaching and learning contribute to the establishment of learning environments that may benefit or hinder student learning. Previous studies have defined the continuum of teaching and learning conceptions, ranging from limited to complete, as well as the instructional practices that they help to inform (instructor-centered to student-centered), and the corresponding learning environments that these conceptions and practices establish, ranging from traditional to student-centered. Using the case of one STEM department at a research-intensive, minority serving institution, we explored faculty’s conceptions of teaching and learning and their resulting instructional practices, as well as uncovered their perspectives on the intradepartmental faculty interactions related to teaching. The study participants were drawn from both teaching-focused (called Professors of Teaching, PoTs) and traditional research (whom we call Research Professors, RPs) tenure-track faculty lines to identify whether differences existed amongst these two populations. We used interviews to explore faculty conceptions and analyzed syllabi to unveil how these conceptions shape instructional environments. Results: Overall, PoTs exhibited complete conceptions of teaching and learning that emphasized student ownership of learning, whereas RPs possessed intermediate conceptions that focused more on transmitting knowledge and helping students prepare for subsequent courses. While both PoTs and RPs self-reported the use of active learning pedagogies, RPs were more likely to also highlight the importance of traditional lecture. The syllabi analysis revealed that PoTs enacted more student-centered practices in their classrooms compared to RPs. PoTs appeared to be more intentionally available to support students outside of class and encouraged student collaboration, while RPs focused more on the timeliness of assessments and enforcing more instructor-centered approaches in their courses. Finally, the data indicated that RPs recognized PoTs as individuals who were influential on their own teaching conceptions and practices. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that departments should consider leveraging instructional experts who also possess a disciplinary background (PoTs) to improve their educational programs, both due to their student-centered impacts on the classroom environment and positive influence on their colleagues (RPs). This work also highlights the need for higher education institutions to offer appropriate professional development resources to enable faculty to reflect on their teaching and learning conceptions, aid in their pedagogical evolution, and guide the implementation of these conceptions into practice

Limited or complete? Teaching and learning conceptions and instructional environments fostered by STEM teaching versus research faculty

Abstract Background An instructor’s conceptions of teaching and learning contribute to the establishment of learning environments that may benefit or hinder student learning. Previous studies have defined the continuum of teaching and learning conceptions, ranging from limited to complete, as well as the instructional practices that they help to inform (instructor-centered to student-centered), and the corresponding learning environments that these conceptions and practices establish, ranging from traditional to student-centered. Using the case of one STEM department at a research-intensive, minority serving institution, we explored faculty’s conceptions of teaching and learning and their resulting instructional practices, as well as uncovered their perspectives on the intradepartmental faculty interactions related to teaching. The study participants were drawn from both teaching-focused (called Professors of Teaching, PoTs) and traditional research (whom we call Research Professors, RPs) tenure-track faculty lines to identify whether differences existed amongst these two populations. We used interviews to explore faculty conceptions and analyzed syllabi to unveil how these conceptions shape instructional environments. Results Overall, PoTs exhibited complete conceptions of teaching and learning that emphasized student ownership of learning, whereas RPs possessed intermediate conceptions that focused more on transmitting knowledge and helping students prepare for subsequent courses. While both PoTs and RPs self-reported the use of active learning pedagogies, RPs were more likely to also highlight the importance of traditional lecture. The syllabi analysis revealed that PoTs enacted more student-centered practices in their classrooms compared to RPs. PoTs appeared to be more intentionally available to support students outside of class and encouraged student collaboration, while RPs focused more on the timeliness of assessments and enforcing more instructor-centered approaches in their courses. Finally, the data indicated that RPs recognized PoTs as individuals who were influential on their own teaching conceptions and practices. Conclusions Our findings suggest that departments should consider leveraging instructional experts who also possess a disciplinary background (PoTs) to improve their educational programs, both due to their student-centered impacts on the classroom environment and positive influence on their colleagues (RPs). This work also highlights the need for higher education institutions to offer appropriate professional development resources to enable faculty to reflect on their teaching and learning conceptions, aid in their pedagogical evolution, and guide the implementation of these conceptions into practice