Mining the PULSE community for the ideal V&C implementation

As part of the TtP group’s research for developing a recognition program that acknowledges departments that have already implemented V&C-based change and inspires those that have not yet done so, we have mined responses from the PULSE website and from other PULSE activities about what "Reformed" departments should look like. We provide below a brief summary of these dreams, and in some cases, highlight in-place successful realizations.

Our question to the PULSE community at large is:

Have we missed any critical characteristics of an ideal department in our summary?

(Please note, we did NOT take on the responsibility of describing ideal curricular content for a reformed Biology department).

PLEASE ADD YOUR COMMENT TO THE DISCUSSION FORUM

Common descriptions of Ideal Departments included the following categories (1-7):

1. The process of science—exemplified by inquiry-based educational opportunities for all students, access to research experiences, and collaboration across disciplines-- is integrated into the entire curriculum.

Most commonly mentioned as “ideal” are:

• undergraduate students can begin research endeavors as freshmen, and continue these for their whole career, with capstone senior research projects the norm
• there are enough faculty mentors, and lab spaces, for all interested
• students can learn that “science is a synthetic enterprise” by observing their mentors cooperate with other faculty in different disciplines
• Lab vs lecture distinctions are blurred, because all courses are inquiry-based and many of the questions asked in these courses are connected to the institution’s faculty research interests
• Students learn what research is by actually doing it
• Students see clearly the developmental path they need to take to become biological researchers themselves.

Success stories included:

• Biology faculty working with other departments (chemistry, math, computer science) on courses, curricula, and research questions
• Students who are the successful products of reformed departments subsequently acting as institutional advocates for continuing the reform model
• Inquiry-based labs begun as single courses that then became the standard model for the department
• Partnership with other departments in encouraging learning communities.

2.  Administrators, faculty, and students are to open evolution/change, aware of the evidence that supports educational change, and not afraid of the fact that change is a continual process.

Most commonly mentioned as “ideal” are:

At the Administrative level

• The leader (dean, chair) has an overarching vision that leads to the setting of big goals (“Incorporate active learning into the Mission of the institution”) and the courage to take the responsibility to move forward. He/she must have the confidence in the faculty to grant each individual the freedom to innovate.
• Regular educational training and support for all is offered and the administrators themselves attend regional educational meetings.

At the Faculty level

• All faculty respectfully communicate and interact about research, teaching, and life.
• They agree on programmatic learning goals and are supportive of each other’s role in reaching those goals.
• Robust mentorship programs are in place for both research and teaching skills.
• Peer evaluation of teaching is institutionalized and there is continual dialog concerning formative and summative evaluation of the curriculum.
• Faculty consider students partners in the educational process.
• The faculty function as a team, individuals have no egos, and of course, all have committed Vision and Change to memory!

At the Student level

• Students understand why they are being asked to work/learn differently. They are familiarized with how people learn (via educational psychology and neuroscience approaches) very early in their studies.
• Emphasis is placed on the process of science in order to draw students into taking responsibility for and actively participating in their education.
• They are provided with transparent expectations about course participation and their responsibilities.
• Students are offered opportunities to “own” their education goals (for example, community/town hall type meetings within a department including faculty, students, and administrators) and are regularly invited to contribute to the design of the learning process. 

Success stories included:

• All faculty/staff given a copy of the Vision and Change document
• Small education grants provided for curricular renovation
• An interdisciplinary coaching program for teaching methods
• Use of backward design clarified the goals of the change process
• In an Intro lab, students spontaneously used smart-phones and social media to communicate the process and beauty of science.

 3.  Sufficient resources and a robust infrastructure exist that together enable change in teaching and better learning to occur.

Most commonly mentioned as “ideal” are:

• Tech support, including
  • dedicated time from IT personnel to teach and support faculty in day-to-day use of technology, and assist in faculty production of techie curricular materials to supplement lectures, wet labs;
  • a unified electronic repository of teaching resources (examples: an Inquiry Question Bank, discipline-specific PBL and TBL cases, appropriate and conceptually based-texts or other primary resources, and useful, useable assessments that actually measure what is being learned,)
• Office/administrative/staff/student help, including:
  • full-time learning specialists, disciplinary advisors, departmental lab managers, grant writer/consultants
  • grad student TAs/RAs/ and/or post-docs to help with the “start-up” of active-learning methods\
  • a full-time educationally-savvy office assistant to the Chair who can help with drafting course schedules/catalogues, compiling assessment data, filing, helping students find the right classrooms, instructors, advisors, etc.
  • content-expert tutors.
  • an around-the-clock-staffed learning center
• Physical buildings/spaces, including:
  • flexible active-learning lab/classrooms, filled with state-of-the-art equipment that the students would use in their future fields
  • a pleasant space for faculty to come together informally and talk about their teaching, research, students, lives

4.  The institution rewards/recognizes/provides compensation for those willing to put effort towards educational change.

Most commonly mentioned as “ideal” are:

• roadmaps to provide guidance for naive institutions to appoint (their first) tenure track faculty with primary roles in education/pedagogy
• small but competitive grants for innovation in redesigning courses, including small amounts for faculty stipends and a bit extra for TA support/supplies
• institutional policies for faculty compensation for participation in professional development related to teaching (rather than requiring faculty to foot these bills on their own).

 5. Institutional policies are in place that emphasize fairness/sustainable practices for faculty (particularly the most vulnerable—new and part time and adjunct faculty.)

Most commonly mentioned as “ideal” are:

• support for junior faculty and post-docs, in terms of mentoring
• enough faculty to keep the teaching/service load reasonable and faculty open to investing change
• special workshops to meet adjunct schedules
• peer-evaluations of teaching (including adjuncts, so that they do not exist under-the-radar)
• dedicated departmental advisors, so that everyone does not have to deal with this

6. Multiple opportunities/resources are provided for life-long learning about educational practices.

Most commonly mentioned as “ideal” are:

• in-house speaker series on teaching (both internal faculty and outside speakers) open to all (regionally, across local institutions)
• encouraging faculty to invite visitors to their classes and to visit other classes themselves
• multiple multi-day workshops, at the beginning of semesters, around educational  strategies and methods, including universal design, service learning, information technology, classroom management strategies/techniques, active learning tips/tricks/methodologies
• materials including rubrics/tools for backward course design, SMART goal/objective setting, etc.

Success stories included:

• science education research journal clubs and pedagogy courses that bring together faculty and future faculty.

7.  The general structure of all courses aligns with V&C principles.

Most commonly mentioned as “ideal” are:

• Course quality evaluation includes assessing time in student-centered activities
• Courses and the overall curriculum have clear, understandable, and measurable objectives, with periodic review/update of content and objectives and evaluation of integration across the curriculum
• A recognition of the need to actively engage both majors and non-majors
• Department evaluations by students, outside evaluators, (and PULSE V&C recognition!)