TY - JOUR
T1 - Examining whether and how instructional coordination occurs within introductory undergraduate STEM courses
AU - Couch, Brian A.
AU - Prevost, Luanna B.
AU - Stains, Marilyne
AU - Whitt, Blake
AU - Marcy, Ariel E.
AU - Apkarian, Naneh
AU - Dancy, Melissa H.
AU - Henderson, Charles
AU - Johnson, Estrella
AU - Raker, Jeffrey R.
AU - Yik, Brandon J.
AU - Earl, Brittnee
AU - Shadle, Susan E.
AU - Skvoretz, John
AU - Ziker, John P.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
Copyright © 2023 Couch, Prevost, Stains, Whitt, Marcy, Apkarian, Dancy, Henderson, Johnson, Raker, Yik, Earl, Shadle, Skvoretz and Ziker.
PY - 2023
Y1 - 2023
N2 - Instructors’ interactions can foster knowledge sharing around teaching and the use of research-based instructional strategies (RBIS). Coordinated teaching presents an impetus for instructors’ interactions and creates opportunities for instructional improvement but also potentially limits an instructor’s autonomy. In this study, we sought to characterize the extent of coordination present in introductory undergraduate courses and to understand how departments and instructors implement and experience course coordination. We examined survey data from 3,641 chemistry, mathematics, and physics instructors at three institution types and conducted follow-up interviews with a subset of 24 survey respondents to determine what types of coordination existed, what factors led to coordination, how coordination constrained instruction, and how instructors maintained autonomy within coordinated contexts. We classified three approaches to coordination at both the overall course and course component levels: independent (i.e., not coordinated), collaborative (decision-making by instructor and others), controlled (decision-making by others, not instructor). Two course components, content coverage and textbooks, were highly coordinated. These curricular components were often decided through formal or informal committees, but these decisions were seldom revisited. This limited the ability for instructors to participate in the decision-making process, the level of interactions between instructors, and the pedagogical growth that could have occurred through these conversations. Decision-making around the other two course components, instructional methods and exams, was more likely to be independently determined by the instructors, who valued this autonomy. Participants in the study identified various ways in which collaborative coordination of courses can promote but also inhibit pedagogical growth. Our findings indicate that the benefits of collaborative course coordination can be realized when departments develop coordinated approaches that value each instructor’s autonomy, incorporate shared and ongoing decision-making, and facilitate collaborative interactions and knowledge sharing among instructors.
AB - Instructors’ interactions can foster knowledge sharing around teaching and the use of research-based instructional strategies (RBIS). Coordinated teaching presents an impetus for instructors’ interactions and creates opportunities for instructional improvement but also potentially limits an instructor’s autonomy. In this study, we sought to characterize the extent of coordination present in introductory undergraduate courses and to understand how departments and instructors implement and experience course coordination. We examined survey data from 3,641 chemistry, mathematics, and physics instructors at three institution types and conducted follow-up interviews with a subset of 24 survey respondents to determine what types of coordination existed, what factors led to coordination, how coordination constrained instruction, and how instructors maintained autonomy within coordinated contexts. We classified three approaches to coordination at both the overall course and course component levels: independent (i.e., not coordinated), collaborative (decision-making by instructor and others), controlled (decision-making by others, not instructor). Two course components, content coverage and textbooks, were highly coordinated. These curricular components were often decided through formal or informal committees, but these decisions were seldom revisited. This limited the ability for instructors to participate in the decision-making process, the level of interactions between instructors, and the pedagogical growth that could have occurred through these conversations. Decision-making around the other two course components, instructional methods and exams, was more likely to be independently determined by the instructors, who valued this autonomy. Participants in the study identified various ways in which collaborative coordination of courses can promote but also inhibit pedagogical growth. Our findings indicate that the benefits of collaborative course coordination can be realized when departments develop coordinated approaches that value each instructor’s autonomy, incorporate shared and ongoing decision-making, and facilitate collaborative interactions and knowledge sharing among instructors.
KW - STEM
KW - autonomy
KW - coordinated
KW - exams
KW - institutional change
KW - textbook
KW - undergraduate
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85158997760&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.3389/feduc.2023.1156781
DO - 10.3389/feduc.2023.1156781
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85158997760
VL - 8
JO - Frontiers in Education
JF - Frontiers in Education
M1 - 1156781
ER -