Corinne H. LardyCheryl L. Mason

San Diego State University

The Association for Science Teacher Education (ASTE)January 14-16, 2010

Sacramento, California

TPC 0554594

Reforming Undergraduate STEM Courses for Pre-Service K-6 Teachers:

How Much Does Funding Matter?

Presentation Outline

Background and Motivation

Research Questions

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Acknowledgements

Importance of Undergraduate STEM Courses

Where vast majority of science content is learned Especially important for pre-service teachers

Impact learning of science content and models for teaching

Influence pre-service teachers’ conceptions of science and how it should be taught

• Learning environment• Course structure• Teaching strategies

What is a “Reformed” Course?

Takes into account research on how people learn Incorporates the following characteristics;

• Based on national science standards• Emphasizes active student roles• Incorporates inquiry-based pedagogy• Builds on students’ prior knowledge• Incorporates interdisciplinary learning and collaborative

approaches

What is a “Reformed” Course?

Takes into account research on how people learn Incorporates the following characteristics;

• Based on national science standards• Emphasizes active student roles• Incorporates inquiry-based pedagogy• Builds on students’ prior knowledge• Incorporates interdisciplinary learning and collaborative

approaches

However, pre-college standards-based science reform is

often disconnected from undergraduate science education

NOVA Program

NASA Opportunities for Visionary Academics Mission: to improve the STEM literacy of future

teachers by implementing standards- and research-based change nationally in higher education using NASA’s unique content.

Process:

• Teams of faculty attended NOVA professional development workshops.

• Faculty applied for funding from NOVA to establish new reformed courses for pre-service K-6 teachers.

Between 1996 and 2003 approx. 170 universities participated in NOVA, but not all were funded.

Research Questions

1. To what extent were NOVA participants who did not receive funding from NOVA able to institute and sustain proposed reforms in their undergraduate STEM courses?

2. How did these faculty believe the non-funding of their proposals affected their ability to institute reform?

3. What other factors facilitated/hindered reform efforts of these faculty?

4. What motivated these faculty to participate in NOVA how might have these motivating factors impacted their reform efforts?

Methodology

Through the examination of original proposals and a web search, email addresses were identified for 142 faculty from 60 of the original non-funded universities.

A survey (“Survey Monkey”) was sent to all subjects 3 times over a two-month period.

• Objective: To assess subjects’ perceived success in instituting and sustaining reforms and factors influencing that success.

• Format:• Included multiple-choice and open-ended questions• Some questions adapted from the “Incentives and Supports for

Instructional Innovation Survey” (ISIIS) (Walczyk, et al., 2007)

Results

Ultimately, 31 subjects responded from 26 universities (response rate of about 30% based on deliverable surveys).

Question #1: Were non-funded NOVA participants successful?

75% of respondents reported that they were able to institute at least some reforms following their participation in NOVA, but…

Number of Non-funded Universities Able to Institute and Sustain Course (n=23)

024681012

Not able to institute courseCourse instituted, but notsustained

Course instituted and sustained

# of Universities

Question #2: How did participants feel non-funding impacted their reforms?

Individual Peceived Impact of Not Receiving NOVA Funding (n=28)

02468101214

Negative None Positive

# of Responses

Not able to institute course (n=13)Instituted course but not sustained (n=3)Instituted course and sustained (n=11)Unknown if instituted course (n=2)

Question #2: How did participants feel non-funding impacted their reforms?

Reported negative impacts varied in severity

• “Without funding, none of the changes were possible.”

• “We could have done more” A common theme among responses of negative impact

was a perceived validity attached to the funding

• “The NOVA funding for our course was coveted by the institution and its disappearance created an air of ‘invalidation’ to our reform effort…Essentially, ‘if NASA isn’t willing to fund these reforms, why should my institution do it,’ type of attitude.”

Question #2: How did participants feel non-funding impacted their reforms?

Individual Peceived Impact of Not Receiving NOVA Funding (n=28)

02468101214

Negative None Positive

# of Responses

Not able to institute course (n=13)Instituted course but not sustained (n=3)Instituted course and sustained (n=11)Unknown if instituted course (n=2)

Question #2: How did participants feel non-funding impacted their reforms?

Two subjects reported a positive impact:

• “Non-funding was a blessing. We were motivated to get the funds to make lasting changes.”

• “It made us more determined since we believed in our project. We now offer 4 sections of one course with a waiting list and 2 sections of a component course that is growing rapidly. We are very proud of our accomplishments despite [lack of] NOVA funding.”

Question #3: What factors facilitated non-funded participants’ reform efforts?

Factor % Responses

(n=29)

Examples

Release time from teaching 24.1

Receptive departmental/university climate

20.7 “A climate of support for reform from administrators and colleagues.”

Summer employment 20.7

Internal grants (course materials) 20.7

External grants 17.2

Internal grants (time compensation) 13.8

Teaching assistants 13.8

Support from colleagues 10.3 “Support within the NOVA team.” “Colleagues who are prepared to listen.”

Question #3: What factors hindered non-funded participants’ reform efforts?

Factor % Responses

(n=29)

Examples

Lack of time outside of class 41.4

Lack of resources 41.4

Lack of incentive 37.9

Colleague resistance 31.0

Administrator resistance 24.1

Lack of on-going professional development

20.7

Difficulty negotiating between STEM and teacher education

17.2 “At the time the college of science…had very limited interaction with the college of education.”

Question #4: How might motivating factors have affected

reform efforts? 46% of subjects indicated a combination of factors

motivating them to participate in NOVA 2 motivating factors with highest frequencies:

• Desire to improve pre-service K-6 teacher STEM education

• Potential funding Of the subjects who were not able to institute or

sustain their proposed courses, more were motivated by the desire to improve K-6 teacher STEM education than by potential funding.

For those who succeeded, the opposite was true.

Conclusions

Results are encouraging:

• Although they didn’t receive funding, about 75% of subjects were able to make some reforms following NOVA professional development, and over half were still successful at instituting their proposed reformed course.

• In two cases, non-funding was actually perceived to have a positive impact on personal reform.

Factors influencing success were not only practical or monetary, but social as well.

• Those who were successful were not only able to secure other funding, but also had a supportive social network. The organization of the NOVA program seems to have aided this aspect.

Acknowledgements

NSEUS Colleagues:• University of Alabama

• Dennis W. Sunal• Cynthia S. Sunal

• Kansas State University• Dean Zollman

Research participants

Thank you!

www.nseus.org