11

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

American Association of Colleges and UniversitiesFaculty Work and The New Academy

Presenters: Lynn Harbinson, E=mc² 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

Overview of PresentationOverview of PresentationContext: University System of MarylandContext: University System of Maryland

Faculty Engagement in P-20 WorkFaculty Engagement in P-20 Work

Case Examples from an NSF-Funded P-20 Case Examples from an NSF-Funded P-20 PartnershipPartnership Community CollegeCommunity College Master’s Level UniversityMaster’s Level University Two Research UniversitiesTwo Research Universities

Lessons Learned and DiscussionLessons Learned and Discussion

USM Policy on Faculty P-20 USM Policy on Faculty P-20 EngagementEngagement

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

Board of Regents Bylaws, Procedures, and Policies II - 1.00 UNIVERSITY SYSTEM POLICY ON APPOINTMENT, RANK, AND TENURE OF FACULTY

USM P-20 Partnership GrantsUSM P-20 Partnership Grants

U.S. Department of Education (TQE Grants)U.S. Department of Education (TQE Grants) Project LINC – Learning in Communities ($4 million)Project LINC – Learning in Communities ($4 million) E=mcE=mc22 – Education Equals Mentoring, Coaching and – Education Equals Mentoring, Coaching and

Cohorts ($6 million)Cohorts ($6 million)

National Science Foundation (MSP Grants)National Science Foundation (MSP Grants) VIP – Vertically Integrated Partnerships K-16 ($8 million)VIP – Vertically Integrated Partnerships K-16 ($8 million) MSPMSP22 – Minority Student Pipeline Math and Science – Minority Student Pipeline Math and Science

Partnership ($12 million) Partnership ($12 million)

National Science Foundation

Math and Science PartnershipsThe 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

USM’s VIP K-16 PartnershipParticipants:

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.

Case Study #1: Case Study #1: Community CollegeCommunity 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

college’s science dean recruited a faculty project leader from outside the institution (a retired high school science teacher from the partner district)

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

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

Case Study #2: Case Study #2: Master’s UniversityMaster’s 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 project’s work

They “hit the ground running”

Master’s University continued…Master’s 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 institution’s history, the faculty received financial support to continue participation in peer-learning communities

Master’s University continued…Master’s 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

Master’s University continued…Master’s University continued…

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

1414

Case Study #3: Case Study #3: Research University–High Research University–High

Research ActivityResearch ActivityContext Role of highest level administrators Managing faculty expectations College of Education vs. College of Science

1515

Research University –High Research University –High Research Activity continued…Research Activity continued…

After two years- the project was sent to the university’s 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

1616

Research University –High Research University –High Research Activity continued…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 classesSTEM 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

1717

Case Study #4: Case Study #4: Research University—Very High Research University—Very High

Research ActivityResearch 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

Case #4 ContinuedCase #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

Case #4 ContinuedCase #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 universityLESSON: 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.

Lessons Learned

Although all four institutions shared similar goals for faculty engagement in the partnership, the “currency” was different on each campusThe emergence of faculty leadership was a function of campus context and administrative leadership as well as individual motivationBoth 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!

Discussion QuestionsDiscussion Questions

What best practices have you seen for encouraging What best practices have you seen for encouraging and rewarding faculty leadership in P-20 and rewarding faculty leadership in P-20 partnerships?partnerships?

What role can institutional leaders play in fostering What role can institutional leaders play in fostering a supportive campus environment for this work?a supportive campus environment for this work?

Contact InformationContact Information

Lynn HarbinsonLynn Harbinson, , E=mc² Project Manager, E=mc² Project Manager, University System of Maryland, University System of Maryland, lharbinson@usmd.edu

Dewayne MorganDewayne Morgan, , Research Analyst, University Research Analyst, University System of Maryland, System of Maryland, dmorgan@usmd.edu

Danielle SusskindDanielle Susskind, , P-20 Program Specialist, P-20 Program Specialist, University System of Maryland, University System of Maryland, dsusskind@usmd.edu