Abstract

BackgroundInvestigations into drivers and barriers to the uptake of learner-centered instructional practices in STEM courses have identified the climate within a department as a potential influential factor. However, few studies have explored the relationship between adoption of learner-centered instructional practices and departmental climate around teaching. Moreover, surveys that have been designed to measure climate around teaching have been focused on measuring individual faculty member’s description of their colleagues’ perceptions of the climate within their department (psychological collective climate) and ignored whether there was a consensus among respondents within the same department on these descriptions. This latter measure (departmental collective climate) is best aligned with the definition of organizational climate. There is thus a need to explore whether departmental climate measured at the individual or collective level relate to the use of learner-centered instructional practices.ResultsThis study demonstrates that the Departmental Climate around Teaching (DCaT) survey provides valid and reliable data that can be used to measure psychological collective climate within a STEM department. Analysis of the 166 faculty members who responded to the survey indicated that (1) four different types of psychological collective climate existed among our population and (2) multiple types could be present within the same STEM department. Moreover, it showed that measuring departmental collective climate is challenging as few constructs measured by the DCaT survey reached high level of consensus within faculty members from the same department. Finally, the analysis found no relationship between psychological collective climate and the level of use of learner-centered instructional practices.ConclusionsResults from the validation studies conducted on the DCaT survey that most elements that define a climate (e.g., policies, practices, expectations) are lacking when it comes to teaching. These findings could explain the challenges experienced in this study in measuring departmental collective climate. Without these climate elements, faculty members are left to work autonomously with little expectations for growth in their instructional practices. Establishing policies, practices, and expectations with respect to teaching is thus an essential step toward instructional change at a departmental level.

Highlights

  • A wave of instructional reforms within the last decade has focused on propagating learner-centered instructional practices in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) courses at the postsecondary level

  • We developed and collected the Departmental Climate around Teaching (DCaT) survey from STEM faculty at 4-year institutions of higher education in the USA to explore the following research questions: 1. What validity and reliability evidence support the use of the Departmental Climate around Teaching (DCaT) survey?

  • We added the construct of Resources since funding, space, and teaching budget have been identified as barriers to uptake of learner-centered instructional practices in prior studies (Sturtevant & Wheeler, 2019) and this construct was included in the most recent climate surveys developed for STEM higher education contexts (Landrum et al, 2017; Walter et al, 2014)

Read more

Summary

Introduction

A wave of instructional reforms within the last decade has focused on propagating learner-centered instructional practices in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) courses at the postsecondary level. Several studies have found that STEM faculty point to departmental climate around teaching as a barrier to instructional change (e.g., Henderson & Dancy, 2007; Shadle et al, 2017; Sturtevant & Wheeler, 2019) These three studies found that faculty cited departmental norms defined by lecture-focused teaching as a barrier to using learner-centered instructional practices. Surveys that have been designed to measure climate around teaching have been focused on measuring individual faculty member’s description of their colleagues’ perceptions of the climate within their department (psychological collective climate) and ignored whether there was a consensus among respondents within the same department on these descriptions This latter measure (departmental collective climate) is best aligned with the definition of organizational climate. There is a need to explore whether departmental climate measured at the individual or collective level relate to the use of learner-centered instructional practices

Objectives
Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.