AERA 2021

Introduction

This paper examines university faculty engagement of lesson study practices in STEM as they redesign instruction in a large four-year Hispanic Service Institution (HSI) in Texas. The STEM Curriculum Redesign (SCR) project adapts the Lesson Study (LS) model to bring together an interdisciplinary group of faculty from education, engineering and physics (Lewis et al., 2012; Wood & Cajkler, 2017). The paper draws from an ongoing longitudinal study on how academic literacy is expressed, transformed, and appropriated by faculty and undergraduate STEM students. Over 50% of students identify as Latinx, 41% speak a language other than English, and 20% are born outside the U.S. 

Addressing the critical disparities in STEM achievement and promoting ways to diversify our current STEM workforce is a critical priority in K-16 education (NASEM, 2018). In this respect, HSIs can be productive sites for examining ways to promote greater equity and diversity nationally (Garcia, 2018). University contexts need to transform themselves to support minoritized students in STEM despite persistent and systemic breakdowns in K-12 schooling for minoritized students leading to their long-term marginalization in STEM subjects, particularly for English learners (Frehill et al., 2008; NASEM, 2018; Rincón, 2018). To promote more inclusive learning environments for minoritized students, we focus on transforming the teaching and learning spaces of university STEM students by establishing interdisciplinary communities of practice (CoP) focused on innovative sociocultural approaches to learning. We collaborate with faculty to use LS practices to enhance student learning opportunities. This paper reports on diachronic pedagogical changes resulting from STEM faculty engagement in LS activities.  

Theoretical Framework and Related Literature

Our study is guided by sociocultural principles of language and learning rooted in both lesson study and communities of practice (Lave & Wenger, 1991). Collaborators participated in cross-disciplinary interactions with the purpose of improving student engagement and learning through collective instructional planning and the integration of mentoring activities and university resources. This paper reports on findings from LS activities focused on an impactful lower-division undergraduate engineering course.

Communities of Practice

LS faculty interactions follow tenets of CoP as a group of practitioners working toward shared goals, with access to collective resources, and engaged in focused interaction (Author, 2014; Author, 2017; Cox, 2005; Lave & Wenger, 1991). Through weekly interactions, members from the colleges of engineering and education collaboratively planned and shared their ideas and learned from each other across three semesters from Spring 2019 to Spring 2020. 

Of importance here is that deliberate efforts, by CoP members toward accomplishing a common objective, can lead to the improvement of shared knowledge, practices,  and professional identities (Tomkin et al., 2019). Previous research in STEM education indicates that engagement in cross-institutional STEM CoP contributes to individual, departmental, and institutional change as well as meaningful professional development experiences and higher student achievement (Gehrke & Kezar, 2017; Lehman et al., 2014). Sustaining communities of practice moreover is an effective strategy to achieve pedagogical improvement and meet the academic needs of underrepresented minoritized students (Sack et al., 2016). 

Lesson Study

In order to address student learning challenges observed in previous course implementations, LS instructors met weekly to collaboratively plan, teach, and observe target lessons, with the goal of improving student learning (Wood & Cajkler, 2017). They engaged in continuous reflection and dialogue that focused on reviewing and revising pedagogical practices, lessons, curricular tools, and educational positions (Ricks, 2011; Saito, & Atencio, 2013). Although LS at the tertiary level is comparatively underexplored, LS can contribute to addressing critical issues related to student success and curricular examination (e.g., Becker, Ghenciu, Horak, & Schroeder, 2008). In our context, university disparities in passing rates for Hispanic and non-Hispanic students became a critical topic of attention in our initial LS meetings. Faculty reflected on ways to understand better how students from different backgrounds accessed and mastered course content. Members of our interdisciplinary engineering CoP carried out two iterations of the LS cycle per semester following the LS model including (1) identifying a learning challenge, (2) planning a lesson, (3) teaching and observing self/others teaching a lesson, (4) collecting evidence from student interviews, classroom materials, and faculty reflections, (5) evaluating data, and (6) connecting to new practices. 

Methodology

We use a case study, discourse-analytic approach to analyze how LS activities impact STEM faculty practices over time. The study focused on investigating how tertiary lesson study groups created sustainable practices that promote academic literacy and content learning in a critical gatekeeping engineering course. The LS group composition changed slightly between semesters. These LS groups involved faculty members (n=5) and graduate research assistants (n=4) from both colleges. Data are drawn from (a) audio-recorded data of weekly LS meetings focused on improving student outcomes; (b) interviews of faculty who participated in the LS group; (c) student debrief interview data reflecting on focal LS lessons; and (d) analysis of course syllabi and other course materials across 3 semesters. Audio and video recorded data are transcribed and coded thematically to identify patterns and salient themes across the data corpus (Saldaña, 2015).  The focal data includes 39 LS meetings, 11 faculty reflections, and 13 target lesson observations. We further traced the development of innovations and tracked their continuation across semesters, through examination of course syllabi and materials, as well as student outcome data and writing artifacts.

Analysis and Findings

We uncovered three recurring themes indicative of the impact of the project on STEM faculty dispositions and practices as well as the gradual transformation of curricular materials, resources, and routines. These findings are also reflective of the faculty collaborations in the creation of new communities of practice focused more explicitly on the academic achievement of minoritized students. First, in our analysis we describe the changes in instructors’ dispositions towards their pedagogical practices and roles. Second, we also connect these perspectives to changes in how STEM faculty attend to student learning needs in revised instructional practices. Third, we provide evidence that shows the emerging transformation of curricular materials, resources, and routines related to student learning. 

Changing Instructional dispositions in teaching STEM 

Meaningful professional development can lead to the re-examination of teaching values, beliefs, and attitudes towards minoritized students (Brown, 2004). Our analysis indicates more responsive faculty dispositions toward understanding student learning challenges were collaboratively constructed. This was often accomplished when faculty built on and clarified each other’s views and ideas about student learning and disciplinary practices. In the following excerpt, engineering faculty discuss strategies to revise the prerequisite mathematics exam which students have to pass in the first weeks of the semester. 

Line 1F1I think we’re trying to solve a problem that is not supposed to be our problem. When students are supposed to come to this class, knowing calculus, one or two, they don’t know… we’re trying to face that problem and solve it in just two lectures.
Line 2F2Unless we do something extra
Excerpt from EGR Lesson Study meeting in the second week, Fall 2020

In this example, F1 questions their responsibility and ability to solve problems of student underachievement and preparation. F2 however repositions the responsibility on their shoulders suggesting that as engineering educators they should be doing “extra” work to help students pass their pre-requisite exam. It is important to note also that framing student underachievement as “a problem” reflects an ideological orientation to teaching and learning and a stance that is reflective of broader social, institutional, and disciplinary expectations. Later, both agree to align course lectures with recitation sessions as spaces to help students review content that is required for this course at the beginning of the semester. This example also indicates faculty strives to provide support to students and not accept underachievement as part of an accepted course pattern. This example also illustrates how LS meetings open spaces for reflection and inquiry thus allowing faculty to challenge instructional positionalities and to reach consensus about the instructional decisions. This observation is consistent with previous literature on the role of collaborative inquiry to promote educator awareness of their practices, beliefs, and consequences (Roblin & Margalef, 2013). 

Changing How Students Learn STEM by Adjusting Instructional Practices

These changes in dispositions translated into changes in instructional planning and practices. Faculty acknowledged needing to offer more active learning activities in their course lectures. For instance, during an initial LS meeting, while introducing LS to a new faculty member, a returning faculty member reflected on creating more time for small group interactions. The faculty member notes that “the real value is when they got in groups of three and had the word problems and we walked around this is like passive versus active learning”. While course sessions were often dominated by lecture-style presentations, faculty considered ways to break traditional ways of holding course meetings characterized by the lecture format. Our qualitative analysis of LS meetings and observations show faculty increasing time for student participation in paired/group activities. This change is significant because active learning positively influences the knowledge development of minoritized students and their retention and persistence in STEM (Estrada et al., 2016). 

In addition, we found that faculty more consistently examined questions of fluency with content representation and mathematical writing precision in their lessons and assignments. STEM faculty spent a considerable amount of time planning ways to promote STEM practices and linguistic functions in their activities and materials. Explicit attention to disciplinary literacies is critical scaffolding move necessary for the development of content expertise (Langman & Hansen-Thomas, 2017; Gee, 2012). 

Finally, we found that faculty engaged in ways to connect course concepts to students’ cultural knowledge and experiences such as students’ real-world experiences. In another example, someone notes the need to frame course concepts in more contextualized ways noting that they need to “start the course with practical applications, perhaps in the very beginning, because otherwise they will simply memorize things and they don’t see the connection with reality”. This example also shows how faculty were willing to break traditional STEM teaching frames. These stances are consequential because contextualized teaching is closely connected to coherent meaning-making experiences which support the integration of marginalized knowledge (Perin, 2011; Waxman et al., 2004). 

Gradual Transformation of the Curriculum 

Finally, our analysis suggests that faculty engaged in thinking and brainstorming about instituting systemic and sustainable changes in the curriculum. As part of LS activities, participants problematized the course design while attempting to increase minoritized student academic learning. Some examples include modifications made or suggested to the syllabus, aligning teaching assistant training with course activities, and related recitation meetings. For instance, a bilingual faculty member indicated that some of his students often stayed after class to ask questions and clarify ideas in Spanish. In response to this observation, another faculty member proposed the possibility of offering future lectures or recitation sessions in Spanish or bilingually. By considering students’ linguistic background, engineering faculty advocated for providing access to content learning in Spanish if feasible.

Significance of the Study

Our analysis reports on three themes related to how STEM faculty are promoting more equitable student outcomes by redesigning learning spaces. Findings from the Curriculum Redesign Project contribute to the growing body of knowledge on the professional development of STEM educators at HSIs. STEM faculty reflect and grapple with their dispositions towards minoritized student learning challenges is particularly important as their dispositions have an effect on students’ self-esteem and academic performance (Helm, 2007). Second, the present study provides additional evidence with respect to the need to open spaces for interdepartmental collaboration between STEM instructors and education faculty in order to draw attention to instructional practices which need to be constantly reframed and updated according to student needs (Bouwma-Gearhart, Perry, & Presley, 2014) and contemporary disciplinary demands, for instance, by drawing attention away from passive learning and memorization and embracing active learning and building practitioner skills. Third, professional development also allows faculty to envision and propose improvements not only at the classroom level but also in their organizations (Guskey, 2000). This finding is relevant if we want to accomplish impactful transformations in policy and structural systems that also influence minoritized students’ historical academic failure in STEM. This study provides insight into how we can support university faculty professional development activities while promoting the success of marginalized students in STEM. 

Presentation Slides

References

Becker, J., Ghenciu, P., Horak, M., & Schroeder, H. (2008). A college lesson study in calculus, preliminary report. International journal of mathematical education in science and technology, 39(4), 491-503.

Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. K. (2003). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theories and methods (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Bouwma-Gearhart, J., Perry, K. H., & Presley, J. B. (2014). Improving postsecondary STEM education: Strategies for successful interdisciplinary collaborations and brokering engagement with education research and theory. Journal of College Science Teaching, 44(1), 40-47.

Brown, K. M. (2004). Assessing preservice leaders’ beliefs, attitudes, and values regarding issues of diversity, social justice, and equity: A review of existing measures. Equity & Excellence in Education, 37(4), 332-342.

Estrada, M., Burnett, M., Campbell, A. G., Campbell, P. B., Denetclaw, W. F., Gutiérrez, C. G., … & Okpodu, C. M. (2016). Improving underrepresented minority student persistence in STEM. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 15(3). 

Garcia, G. A. (2018). Decolonizing Hispanic-serving institutions: A framework for organizing. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 17(2), 132-147.

Gee, J. (2012). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses, 4thed. New York, NY: Routledge. 

Gehrke, S., & Kezar, A. (2017). The roles of STEM faculty communities of practice in institutional and departmental reform in higher education. American Educational Research Journal, 54(5), 803-833.

Guskey, T. R. (2000). Evaluating professional development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Helm, C. (2007). Teacher dispositions affecting self-esteem and student performance. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 80(3), 109-110.

Langman, J. & Hansen-Thomas, H. (Eds.). (2017) Discourse and Learning: Exploring English Learner Interaction, Intertextuality, and Appropriation in STEM classrooms. Springer. 

Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning. Legitimate peripheral Participation. Cambridge, UK: University of Cambridge Press.

Lehman, J., Kim, W., & Harris, C. (2014). Collaborations in a community of practice working to integrate engineering design in elementary science education. Journal of STEM Education, 15(3).

Lewis, C., & Perry, R. (2014). Lesson Study with mathematical resources: A sustainable model for locally-led teacher professional learning. Mathematics Teacher Education and Development, 16(1), n1. 

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (NASEM, 2018). English Learners in STEM Subjects: Transforming Classrooms, Schools, and Lives. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/25182.

Pareja Roblin, N., & Margalef, L. (2013). Learning from dilemmas: teacher professional development through collaborative action and reflection. Teachers and teaching, 19(1), 18-32.

Perin, D. (2011). Facilitating student learning through contextualization: A review of evidence. Community College Review, 39(3), 268-295

Saldaña, J. (2015). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (3ed). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.

Waxman, H. C., Tharp, R. G., & Hilberg, R. S. (Eds.). (2004). Observational research in US classrooms: New approaches for understanding cultural and linguistic diversity. Cambridge University Press.

White, J. W., & Ali-Khan, C. (2013). The role of academic discourse in minority students’ academic assimilation. American Secondary Education, 24-42.

Wood, P., & Cajkler, W. (2018). Lesson study: A collaborative approach to scholarship for teaching and learning in higher education. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 42(3), 313-326.

Yager, J., Waitzkin, H., Parker, T., & Duran, B. (2007). Educating, training, and mentoring minority faculty and other trainees in mental health services research. Academic Psychiatry, 31(2), 146-151.