STEM Faculty Engagement in P-20 Partnerships: A Conflict of Interest?

1
STEM Faculty Engagement in P-20 PartnershipsA
Conflict of Interest?
American Association of Colleges and
Universities Faculty Work and The New
Academy Presenters Lynn Harbinson, Emc²
Project Manager Dewayne Morgan, Research
Analyst Danielle Susskind, P-20 Program
Specialist Other Authors Nancy Shapiro,
Associate Vice Chancellor of Academic Affairs
Jennifer Frank, P-20 Partnership Project
Evaluator David May, K-16 Partnership Project
Manager
2
Overview of Presentation

• Context University System of Maryland
• Faculty Engagement in P-20 Work
• Case Examples from an NSF-Funded P-20 Partnership
• Community College
• Masters Level University
• Two Research Universities
• Lessons Learned and Discussion

3
(No Transcript)
4
USM Policy on Faculty P-20 Engagement

• The assessment of teaching, research/scholarship/
  creative activities, and service during the
  promotion and tenure process shall give
  appropriate recognition, consistent with the
  institution's mission, to faculty accomplishments
  that are collaborative, interdisciplinary, and
  inter-institutional and to faculty innovations in
  areas such as undergraduate education,
  minority-achievement programs, K-16 curriculum
  development, and technology-enhanced learning.

Board of Regents Bylaws, Procedures, and Policies
II - 1.00 UNIVERSITY SYSTEM POLICY ON
APPOINTMENT, RANK, AND TENURE OF FACULTY
5
USM P-20 Partnership Grants

• U.S. Department of Education (TQE Grants)
• Project LINC Learning in Communities (4
  million)
• Emc2 Education Equals Mentoring, Coaching and
  Cohorts (6 million)
• National Science Foundation (MSP Grants)
• VIP Vertically Integrated Partnerships K-16 (8
  million)
• MSP2 Minority Student Pipeline Math and Science
  Partnership (12 million)

6
National Science Foundation Math and Science
Partnerships

• The Math and Science Partnership (MSP) program is
  a major research and development effort that
  supports innovative partnerships to improve K-12
  student achievement in mathematics and science.
• Five Key Features
• Partnership-Driven
• Teacher Quality, Quantity and Diversity
• Challenging Courses and Curricula
• Evidence-Based Design and Outcomes
• Institutional Change and Sustainability

7
USMs VIP K-16 Partnership

• Participants
• 3 four-year universities, 1 community college, 2
  non-degree granting research institutes, and the
  largest school district in the state.
• Goal
• To improve science instruction in Maryland high
  schools and colleges/universities through the
  creation of communities of teachers and faculty
  in which they develop inquiry pedagogy skills and
  science content knowledge by learning from each
  other.
• Scope
• 350 high school science teachers.
• 100 college/university faculty, graduate
  students, undergraduate students, and prospective
  science teachers.

8
Case Study 1 Community College

• Context
• Primary Mission- to prepare students for the
  workforce or for transfer to a 4 year institution
• Initially very little involvement by STEM faculty
  in the partnership
• Two years of an inactive partnership- the
  colleges science dean recruited a faculty
  project leader from outside the institution (a
  retired high school science teacher from the
  partner district)

9
Community College continued

• The new project leader assessed the needs and
  interest of the faculty and created a program
  centered on teaching and learning seminars and
  faculty professional development
• Project leader served as a peer coach to
  participating faculty
• Project leader created learning communities with
  faculty from different disciplines and other
  faculty leaders began to emerge

10
Community College continued

• LESSON The involvement of the administrator (the
  Science Dean) led to a strong and fruitful
  program and created a surge of faculty leadership
• A year after the project has ended, the learning
  communities and the collaborations have continued
  to grow
• At least 18 STEM faculty members are still
  involved in redesigning courses and curricula

11
Case Study 2 Masters University

• Context
• One of the strongest teacher preparation programs
  in the state
• Campus-based learning communities already existed
  in addition to a dedicated group of STEM faculty
  members interested in the projects work
• They hit the ground running

12
Masters University continued

• Faculty learning community doubled in size
• Expanded beyond department boundaries to other
  IHE partners and high school science teachers
• Redesigned 7 courses and created 3 new inquiry
  based courses
• For the 1st time in the institutions history,
  the faculty received financial support to
  continue participation in peer-learning
  communities

13
Masters University continued

• Still...faculty felt that their work was low
  priority as compared to other roles and
  responsibilities
• Faculty culture was in competition with the
  aspirational goals of the administration- the
  institution was looking to move up in research
  status and so was rewarding research over
  teaching

14
Masters University continued

• One faculty member was denied tenure because of
  her work on the project
• At the end of the 3rd year, a new Provost came
  aboard and the faculty learning communities
  regained some of their prestige
• LESSON Without support from the administration,
  even very engaged faculty have a difficult time
  sustaining their work

14
15
Case Study 3 Research UniversityHigh Research
Activity

• Context
• Role of highest level administrators
• Managing faculty expectations
• College of Education vs. College of Science

15
16
Research University High Research Activity
continued

• After two years- the project was sent to the
  universitys community outreach and
  service-learning center
• This center has high visibility and prestige
  across the campus which then attracted motivated
  faculty
• Faculty and high school teachers met and
  discussed ideas for participation resulting in
  mini-projects among faculty and teachers who
  shared similar goals

16
17
Research University High Research Activity
continued

• Connections between faculty and teachers led to
  college students being invited to schools to do
  demonstrations and high school students being
  invited to campus to participate in classes
• STEM majors were placed in high school science
  classes to expose students to others doing
  science
• LESSON The work was not initially were the
  faculty were located, but since the STEM faculty
  were involved in the Outreach Center, it was a
  natural home for the project because it pulled
  people in who would have been dispersed across
  campus then the institutional leadership began
  to take notice

17
18
Case Study 4 Research UniversityVery High
Research Activity

• Project originally housed in the campus Center
  for Teaching and Learning (without a departmental
  affiliation)
• No initial interest from STEM faculty, even with
  heavy recruitment and numerous financial
  incentives
• Resulted in no major faculty activity during the
  first two years of the partnership

19
Case 4 Continued

• At the same time, the president and provost were
  publicly working to create more visibility for
  STEM (especially increasing majors and teachers)
• Finally, an informal faculty group was convened
  by the associate provost, led by a nationally
  known and well-respected physics professor (also
  former chair of the campus senate), to discuss a
  campus-level plan for improving undergraduate
  STEM education

20
Case 4 Continued

• Over the course of the next year, six new
  interdisciplinary core courses for non-science
  majors were created by this faculty group, which
  became a signature program at the university
• LESSON Understanding the importance of creating
  concrete pathways for faculty involvement.
  Understanding the importance of identifying
  faculty leaders with considerable clout as
  champions and allies, especially in environments
  where this work falls so far outside of the
  rewards structure.

21
Lessons Learned

• Although all four institutions shared similar
  goals for faculty engagement in the partnership,
  the currency was different on each campus
• The emergence of faculty leadership was a
  function of campus context and administrative
  leadership as well as individual motivation
• Both top-down leadership and bottom-up ownership
  were necessary to bring about sustainable change
  neither was sufficient by itself
• THERE IS NO ONE SIZE FITS ALL!

22
Discussion Questions

• What best practices have you seen for encouraging
  and rewarding faculty leadership in P-20
  partnerships?
• What role can institutional leaders play in
  fostering a supportive campus environment for
  this work?

23
Contact Information

• Lynn Harbinson, Emc² Project Manager, University
  System of Maryland, lharbinson_at_usmd.edu
• Dewayne Morgan, Research Analyst, University
  System of Maryland, dmorgan_at_usmd.edu
• Danielle Susskind, P-20 Program Specialist,
  University System of Maryland, dsusskind_at_usmd.edu