Faculty Engagement in Partnership Work

1
Faculty Engagement in Partnership Work

• Nancy S. Shapiro
• University System of Maryland
• AACU 2007

2
Vertically Integrated Partnerships K-16 (VIP
K-16)

• 7.5-million, 5-year Math and Science Partnership
  grant of the National Science Foundation.
• Designed to bring inquiry science instruction to
  high-school and university students. Partners
  include
• 1 public school system, 1 community college, and
  7 USM IHEs
• Goals
• Develop a sustainable learning community
• Enrich science teacher knowledge
• Engage college faculty in enriching their
  teaching and pedagogy

3
VIP K-16 Activities Involving IHE Faculty

• Course Redesign
• Summer internships for HS teachers to work with
  IHE faculty
• Professional learning communities
• Dissemination of their results to the P-16
  Community

4
VIP K-16 Challenges to Faculty Engagement

• Different cultures among schools and universities
• Geography- distance between institutions and
  school system
• Little knowledge of educational research among
  Master Science Teachers, faculty fellows, and
  project staff
• Systemic barriers to change instructional
  practices
• Publish or perish-strong pressure to do research

5
CASHÉ Change and Sustainability in Higher
Education

• A three-year study that seeks to document
  curriculum transformation, faculty engagement,
  and sustainable change among higher education
  institutions involved in NSF Math and Science
  Partnership (MSP) Projects.

6
CASHÉ Goals

• Discover how MSPs have changed undergraduate STEM
  education and teacher preparation at
  participating higher education institutions.
• Identify what strategies MSPs have used to engage
  faculty in these change initiatives
• Assess the impact (if any) that MSPs have had on
  campus culture, policies, and priorities in such
  areas as hiring, promotion and tenure, faculty
  advancement, faculty development, and rewards
  structures

7
Breakout Questions

• Primary Questions
• How do faculty communities view partnerships with
  the K-12 community? Are they programs of
  scholarship or community service?
• What types of models and incentives is your
  institution using to encourage and reward higher
  education faculty involvement in P-16
  initiatives? 
• Which appear to be the most effective in terms of
  numbers of faculty involved and depth of
  engagement and participation?

8
Breakout Questions

• Secondary Questions
• To what extent has your institution created or
  adopted some form of the "community of practice"
  model to engage higher education faculty in P-16
  activities? 
• How are these communities structured and
  defined? 
• How do these communities contribute to and
  support broader institutional objectives?
• Have faculty in certain disciplines at your
  institution been able to make more headway than
  others through their involvement in P-16
  initiatives? 
• If so, what internal and external factors
  account for these differences?
• What is it that you have seen that may make you
  draw a conclusion (or not) that involvement in
  P-16 transforms faculty into more reflective
  practitioners (beyond more immediate outcomes
  that may include increased awareness, increased
  knowledge, changed pedagogy, etc.)? 
• What types of engagement foster such
  developments?