Team Teaching

Team teaching has the potential to have a profound impact on both teaching and learning. Many who have taught as part of a team report the break from solitary practice brings renewed excitement for teaching and the course that makes them better teachers. It also creates a learning environment in which students can explore multiple perspectives and ways of knowing. Of course, along with the benefits come many challenges. This paper shares some of the advice gleaned from those who have written about their team teaching experiences to help others make the most of the opportunity

Can Reading Questions Foster Active Learning? A Study of Six College Courses

Many instructors strive to encourage student reading outside of class and active learning in class. One pedagogical tool, structured reading questions, can help do both. Using examples from question sets across six courses, the authors illustrate how reading questions can help students achieve the six active-learning principles described by Svinicki (1991). Qualitative and quantitative assessment data indicate that students often complete readings before class, that they view the questions as very helpful in their learning, and that they use the questions primarily to help understand what information is important and connect it to prior knowledge. Some differences in use are evident across class standing

Thriving in academe: The value of diversity

Diversity involves more than celebrating difference

The Paths People Take Through Teaching Center Services: A Descriptive Analysis

Teaching centers offer a variety of services, ranging from teaching orientations and one-time workshops to intensive programs such as learning communities to individual consultations. However, most instructors do not participate in all categories of service a center offers; rather, they create their own paths through various combinations and sequences of programs. What do we know about these pathways, and what can we learn from the patterns of use? This article shares findings from an analysis of several years of data to learn more about the sequence in which instructors experience educational development and to discuss the implications of these findings

Anatomy of STEM teaching in North American universities

A large body of evidence demonstrates that strategies that promote student interactions and cognitively engage students with content (1) lead to gains in learning and attitudinal outcomes for students in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) courses (1, 2). Many educational and governmental bodies have called for and supported adoption of these student-centered strategies throughout the undergraduate STEM curriculum. But to the extent that we have pictures of the STEM undergraduate instructional landscape, it has mostly been provided through self-report surveys of faculty members, within a particular STEM discipline [e.g., (3–6)]. Such surveys are prone to reliability threats and can underestimate the complexity of classroom environments, and few are implemented nationally to provide valid and reliable data (7). Reflecting the limited state of these data, a report from the U.S. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine called for improved data collection to understand the use of evidence-based instructional practices (8). We report here a major step toward a characterization of STEM teaching practices in North American universities based on classroom observations from over 2000 classes taught by more than 500 STEM faculty members across 25 institutions

Motivational decline and recovery in higher education STEM courses

Decline in student motivation is a concern for STEM education, especially for underrepresented groups in the sciences. Using the Science Motivation Questionnaire II, 41 foundational STEM courses were surveyed at the beginning and end of each semester in an academic year at a small primarily undergraduate university. Significant pre- to post-semester declines were observed in each of five measured motivational factors (Intrinsic motivation, Career motivation, Self determination, Self-efficacy, and Grade motivation), with effect sizes ranging from 0.21 to 0.41. However, in the second semester pre-survey, four motivational factors rebounded, including three returning to initial levels, suggesting that the observed motivational decline is not long-lasting. Analysis suggests that declines are not related to survey fatigue or student demographics, but rather to grades and, in the case of one motivational factor, to academic field. These findings suggest that a refocus on grading practices across STEM fields may influence student motivation and persistence in STEM