Misalignments: Challenges in Cultivating Science Faculty with Education Specialties in Your Department

Science Faculty with Education Specialties (SFES) are increasingly being hired across the United States. However, little is known about the motivations for SFES hiring or the potential or actual impact of SFES. In the context of a recent national survey of US SFES, we investigated SFES perceptions about these issues. Strikingly, perceptions about reasons for hiring SFES were poorly aligned with perceptions about potential and actual contributions reported by SFES themselves, and the advice they extended to beginning SFES was varied. While preparation of future teachers and departmental teaching needs were common reasons offered for SFES hiring, the potential and actual contributions of SFES highlighted instead their roles as pedagogical resources and as contributors to curricular reform. Misalignments between SFES perceptions about what motivates SFES hiring and their perceptions of their most valuable contributions present challenges for those interested in maximizing the impact of SFES

Widespread Distribution and Unexpected Variation: Science Faculty with Education Specialties (SFES) Across the U.S.

College and university science departments are increasingly taking an active role in improving science education. Perhaps as a result, a new type of specialized science faculty position within science departments is emerging--referred to here as science faculty with education specialties (SFES)--where individual scientists focus their professional efforts on strengthening undergraduate science education, improving kindergarten-through-12th grade science education, and conducting discipline-based education research. Numerous assertions, assumptions, and questions about SFES exist, yet no national studies have been published. Here, we present findings from a large-scale study of US SFES, who are widespread and increasing in numbers. Contrary to many assumptions, SFES were indeed found across the nation, across science disciplines, and, most notably, across primarily undergraduate, master of science-granting, and PhD-granting institutions. Data also reveal unexpected variations among SFES by institution type. Among respondents, SFES at master of science-granting institutions were almost twice as likely to have formal training in science education compared with other SFES. In addition, SFES at PhD-granting institutions were much more likely to have obtained science education funding. Surprisingly, formal training in science education provided no advantage in obtaining science education funding. Our findings show that the SFES phenomenon is likely more complex and diverse than anticipated, with differences being more evident across institution types than across science disciplines. These findings raise questions about the origins of differences among SFES and are useful to science departments interested in hiring SFES, scientific trainees preparing for SFES careers, and agencies awarding science education funding

Science Faculty with Education Specialties

lobally, efforts to improve science education continue (1, 2). In the United States, primary and secondary (K-12) science education lags on international assessments and struggles to sustain qualified K-12 science teachers and to prepare the next generation of scientists and engineers (2). At U.S. colleges and universities, more than half of entering science majors leave the sciences, most (90%) complaining of ineffective teaching (3). Of those who remain in science, 74% express the same complaint (3). Further work is needed within specific science disciplines on how students most effectively learn that discipline (4). To address K-12 science education, undergraduate science education, and discipline-specific science education research, one approach is seeding university science departments with Science Faculty with Education Specialties (SFES), scientists who take on specialized science education roles within their discipline (5). We present data on SFES in science departments throughout the 23-campus California State University (CSU) system (6), the largest U.S. university system (annual enrollment ∼450,000 students). The CSU\u27s primary missions are undergraduate, master\u27s-level graduate, and K-12 teacher education. CSU undergraduates are among the top one-third of their high-school graduating classes. The 23 campuses include institutions that differ substantially in their founding dates, settings, student populations, enrollment sizes, and levels of research orientation. We investigated SFES numbers, characteristics, training, professional activities, and persistence. We identified, with the aid of deans, 156 CSU faculty as SFES and invited all 156 to complete a 111-question survey (7), which we had face-validated using non-CSU faculty. Between December 2007 and January 2008, 103 of the invitees responded (66% response rate), representing 20 of the 23 campuses. We collected data anonymously and excluded surveys that were incomplete (n = 12), submitted by lecturers or non-tenure-track science faculty (n = 10), or lacked informed consent (n = 3). Of the remaining 78 survey respondents, 59 individuals self-identified as SFES, and 19 as not SFES. Our further analyses followed only the 59 tenured/tenure-track science faculty who self-identified as SFES

Description of SFES Interview Sample.

<p>Reported home institution type (PhD-granting, MS-granting, and Primarily Undergraduate Institutions) disaggregated by science discipline (A), considerations of leaving (B), the nature of the SFES position (C), and SFES gender (D).</p

Reported SFES Impact.

<p>Proportions of SFES reporting impacts in the three arenas of science education (A) and disaggregated impact themes in undergraduate science education (B).</p