Characterizing the University of California’s tenure-track teaching position from the faculty and administrator perspectives


Autoři: Ashley Harlow aff001;  Stanley M. Lo aff002;  Kem Saichaie aff003;  Brian K. Sato aff004
Působiště autorů: School of Education, University of California Irvine, Irvine, California, United States of America aff001;  Section of Cell and Developmental Biology, Division of Biological Sciences and Program in Mathematics and Science Education, University of California San Diego, San Diego, California, United States of America aff002;  Center for Educational Effectiveness, University of California Davis, Davis, California, United States of America aff003;  Department of Molecular Biology & Biochemistry, University of California Irvine, Irvine, California, United States of America aff004
Vyšlo v časopise: PLoS ONE 15(1)
Kategorie: Research Article
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0227633

Souhrn

Teaching faculty are a potential mechanism to generate positive change in undergraduate STEM education. One such type of faculty is the Lecturer with Potential Security of Employment (L(P)SOE), a tenure-track faculty line within the University of California (UC) system. As a foundation for future studies, we sought to characterize individuals in the L(P)SOE position in terms of their background training, job expectations, and resources available for their success. Data were collected through an online survey completed by over 80% of STEM L(P)SOEs across the UC system, as well as interviews with over 20 deans and chairs in STEM departments at three UC campuses. From this work, we found that the majority of current L(P)SOEs were formally trained within their disciplines and not in an education field; however, they possessed substantial education experience, such as classroom teaching or participation in professional development opportunities. Expectations for time spent on teaching, research, and service are aligned between individuals within varying ranks of the L(P)SOE faculty and between L(P)SOEs and administrators. L(P)SOEs and administrators are also in agreement about what constitutes acceptable professional development activities. Interestingly, we identified differences that may reflect changes in the position over time, including increased start-up funds for more recently hired L(P)SOE faculty and a differing perspective on the role of discipline-based education research and scholarly activities between non-tenured and more senior L(P)SOEs. Overall, these data provide a snapshot of the L(P)SOE position that will aid in future work to identify the potential institutional impact of these individuals.

Klíčová slova:

Employment – Engineers – Graduates – Instructors – Jobs – Science education – Surveys – Undergraduates


Zdroje

1. American Association for the Advancement of Science. 1989. Science for All Americans.

2. American Association for the Advancement of Science, National Science Foundation. 2011. Vision and Change in Undergraduate Biology Education: A Call to Action.

3. Anderson W. A., Banerjee U., Drennan C. L., Elgin S. C. R., Epstein I. R., Handelsman J., & & Strobel S. A. (2011). Changing the culture of science education at research universities. Science, 331(6014), 152–153. doi: 10.1126/science.1198280 21233371

4. Association of American Medical Colleges, Howard Hughes Medical Institute. 2009. Scientific Foundations for Future Physicians.

5. Boyer Commission. 1998. Reinventing Undergraduate Education: A Blueprint for America's Research Universities.

6. Bradforth S. E., Miller E. R., Dichtel W. R., Leibovich A. K., Feig A. L., Martin J. D., et al. (2015). University learning: Improve undergraduate science education. Nature News, 523(7560), 282.

7. Lee S., Crane B. R., Ruttledge T., Guelce D., Yee E. F., Lenetsky M., et al. (2018). Patching a leak in an R1 university gateway STEM course. PloS one, 13(9), e0202041. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0202041 30188903

8. National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. 2011. Expanding Underrepresented Minority Participation: America's Science and Technology Talent at the Crossroads. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

9. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Barriers and Opportunities for 2-Year and 4-Year STEM Degrees: Systemic Change to Support Students' Diverse Pathways. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

10. National Research Council. 2003. BIO2010: Transforming Undergraduate Education for Future Research Biologists. National Academies Press. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

11. National Research Council (NRC) (2009). A New Biology for the 21st Century, Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

12. National Research Council (NRC) (2015). Enhancing the Effectiveness of Team Science. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/19007.

13. Office of Science and Technology Policy. (2016). Progress report on coordinating federal science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education. Retrieved from https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/stem_budget_supplement_fy_17_final_0.pdf

14. President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST). (2010). Prepare and Inspire: K-12 Education in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) for America’s Future. Washington, DC.

15. President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST). (2012). Engage to Excel: Producing One Million Additional College Graduates with Degrees in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. Washington, DC.

16. Deslauriers L, Schelew E, Wieman C. (2011). Improved Learning in a Large-Enrollment Physics Class. Science, 332(6031), 862–864. doi: 10.1126/science.1201783 21566198

17. Eddy SL and Hogan KA (2014). Getting Under the Hood: How and for Whom Does Increasing Course Structure Work? CBE—Life Sciences Education, 13(3), 453–468. doi: 10.1187/cbe.14-03-0050 25185229

18. Freeman S, Eddy SL, McDonough M, Smith MK, Okoroafor N, Jordt H, et al. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(23), 8410–8415. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319030111.

19. Association of American Universities. (2013). Framework for systemic change in undergraduate STEM teaching and learning. http://www.aau.edu/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=14357

20. Connolly M. R., Lee Y. G., & Savoy J. N. (2018). The effects of doctoral teaching development on early-career STEM scholars’ college teaching self-efficacy. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 17(1), ar14.

21. Froyd JE, Henderson C, Cole RS, Friedrichsen D, Khatri R, Stanford C. 2017. From dissemination to propagation: A new paradigm for education developers. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning 49: 35–42.

22. Henderson C, Beach A, Finkelstein N. (2011). Facilitating change in undergraduate STEM instructional practices: An analytic review of the literature. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(8), 952–984. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20439.

23. Owens M. T., Trujillo G., Seidel S. B., Harrison C. D., Farrar K. M., Benton H. P., et al. (2018). Collectively improving our teaching: attempting biology department–wide professional development in scientific teaching. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 17(1), ar2.

24. Brownell SE and Tanner KD. (2012). Barriers to faculty pedagogical change: Lack of training, time, incentives, and &tensions with professional identity? CBE Life Sciences Education, 11(4), 339–346. doi: 10.1187/cbe.12-09-0163 23222828

25. Bush SD, Pelaez NJ, Rudd JA, Stevens MT, Tanner KD, Williams KS (2015). Misalignments: Challenges in cultivating science faculty with education specialties in your department. BioScience, 65(1), 81–89. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biu186.

26. Baldwin R. G., & Wawrzynski M. R. (2011). Contingent Faculty as Teachers: What We Know; What We Need to Know. American Behavioral Scientist, 55(11), 1485–1509. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764211409194

27. Drake A., Struve L., Meghani S. A., & Bukoski B. (2019). Invisible Labor, Visible Change: Non-Tenure-Track Faculty Agency in a Research University. The Review of Higher Education, 42(4), 1635–1664.

28. Figlio DN, Schapiro MO, Soter KB. (2015). Are Tenure Track Professors Better Teachers? Review of Economics and Statistics, 97(4), 715–724. https://doi.org/10.1162/rest_a_00529.

29. Gadberry J and Burnstad H. (2005). Integrating Adjuncts into the Community Through Professional Development, Support. Academic Leader, 21(7), 1–4.

30. Kezar A., & Sam C. (2013). Institutionalizing equitable policies and practices for contingent faculty. The Journal of Higher Education, 84(1), 56–87.

31. Umbach PD. (2007). How Effective Are They? Exploring the Impact of Contingent Faculty on Undergraduate Education. The Review of Higher Education, 30(2), 91–123. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2006.0080.

32. Data Snapshot: Contingent Faculty in US Higher Ed. (2018). In AAUP: American Association of University Professors. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3929/ethz-b-000238666.

33. Baldwin R and Chronister J. (2002). What happened to the tenure track? In Chait R. (Ed.), The questions of tenure (pp. 125–159). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

34. Leslie D. (1998). Redefining Tenure: Tradition Versus the New Political Economy of Higher education. American Behavioral Scientist, 41(5), 652–679. https://doi.org/10.1177/07399863870092005.

35. Ehrenberg RG and Zhang L. (2015). Do tenured and tenure-track faculty matter? Journal of Human Resources, 40(3), 647–659. https://doi.org/10.3368/jhr.xl.3.647.

36. Jaeger A. J., & Eagan M. K. (2011). Examining retention and contingent faculty use in a state system of public higher education. Educational Policy, 25(3), 507–537.

37. Hoffman F and Oreopoulos P. (2009). Professor qualities and student achievement. Review of Economics and Statistics, 91(1), 83–92.

38. Bush SD, Pelaez NJ, Rudd JA, Stevens MT, Tanner KD, Williams KS. (2008). Science Faculty with Education Specialties. Science, 322 (5909), 1795–1796. doi: 10.1126/science.1162072 19095927

39. Bush SD, Pelaez NJ, Rudd JA, Stevens MT, Tanner KD, Williams KS. (2011). Investigation of science faculty with education specialties within the largest university system in the United States. CBE Life Sciences Education, 10(1), 25–42. doi: 10.1187/cbe.10-08-0106 21364098

40. Bush SD, Pelaez NJ, Rudd JA, Stevens MT, Tanner KD, Williams KS. (2013). Widespread distribution and unexpected variation among science faculty with education specialties (SFES) across the United States. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(18), 7170–7175. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1218821110.

41. Li D and Koedel C. (2017). Representation and Salary Gaps by Race-Ethnicity and Gender at Selective Public Universities. Educational Researcher, 46(7), 343–354. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X17726535.

42. Bettinger EP and Long BT. (2005). Do faculty serve as role models? The impact of instructor gender on female students. American Economic Review, 95(2), 152–157. https://doi.org/10.1257/000282805774670149.

43. Cotner S, Ballen C, Brooks DC, Moore R. (2011). Instructor gender and student confidence in the sciences: A need for more role models? Journal of Science College Teaching, 40(5), 96–101.

44. Young DM, Rudman LA, Buettner HM, McLean MC. (2013). The influence of female role models on women’s implicit science cognitions. Pyschology of Women Quarterly, 37(3), 283–292. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684313482109.

45. Bush SD, Pelaez NJ, Rudd JA, Stevens MT, Williams KS, Allen DE, et al. (2006). On hiring science faculty with education specialties for your science (not education) department. CBE Life Sciences Education, 5(1), 297–305. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.06-09-0189.


Článek vyšel v časopise

PLOS One


2020 Číslo 1