STEM disciplinary faculty have been an integral part of the Math and Science Partnership programs’ efforts to reform mathematics and science education. Ensuring the participation of STEM disciplinary faculty in MSP efforts requires understanding the factors that support and hinder their involvement, and taking steps to garner and sustain institutional support for their work.
Practice-based Insights on Ensuring STEM Disciplinary Faculty Participation
Advice from experienced MSP program leaders offers guidance to those involved in ensuring initial and ongoing participation of STEM disciplinary faculty in MSP efforts to improve mathematics and science education. Through a systematic process involving an online survey for MSP program leaders and review and written reflection on insights derived from the online survey by a number of MSP program leaders, MSP-Knowledge Management and Dissemination project staff organized advice into a series of insights. Insights provided by a group of MSP program leaders with diverse backgrounds and experiences in working with STEM disciplinary faculty and teachers included the following ideas:
- It helps to have friends in high places: Secure IHE administrator support
- Make the enterprise rewarding: Work to have MSP efforts count towards tenure and promotion
- There are only 24 hours in a day: Provide time for STEM faculty to do MSP work
- Look for a good fit: Match MSP work with STEM faculty interests
- Don’t let up: Maintain STEM faculty participation
Research on Involving STEM Faculty in Deepening Teacher/Teacher Leader Content Knowledge
Evidence from a targeted search of the empirical literature suggests that involving STEM faculty is an effective approach to deepening teachers’ mathematics/science content knowledge. Nine research studies were identified that investigated professional development programs that involved STEM disciplinary faculty in deepening teacher content knowledge. Each of the studies reported positive results on participating teachers’ content knowledge.
Ensuring the participation of STEM disciplinary faculty in MSP efforts to improve mathematics and science education requires considering the incentives that have significance for STEM faculty, on an institutional as well as on a personal level. While ensuring the participation of STEM faculty members certainly happens in the initial stages of participation, it is just as important to consider how to sustain STEM faculty participation in the MSP over time.
Experienced MSP program leaders offer advice about ensuring both initial and ongoing STEM faculty participation, as expressed in the insights below. After reviewing these insights, you will be provided with opportunities to share your own experiences with ensuring STEM faculty participation. The information you provide will be included in the analysis of insights and examples from other practitioners as this website is periodically updated.
Insight: It helps to have friends in high places: Secure IHE administrator support
Institutional support from IHE presidents, chancellors, provosts, deans, and department chairs, is critical to continued involvement of STEM faculty in MSP work. The public, verbal support of these individuals signals that MSP work is valued by the institution, and their actions demonstrate their support to the STEM faculty who participate in MSPs as well as to their non-participating colleagues. An MSP program leader made a “parallel analogy,” equating the support that IHE administrators give to STEM faculty with “the importance of principal and administrator support in the K–12 schools that we have all experienced.”
College and university administrators are in the position to demonstrate their support of MSP work. But, as one MSP program leader noted, “This had to go beyond lip service. Administrators have to ‘sell’ the MSP and its importance to the university.” A number of strategies were identified to build support among IHE administrators, including:
- Bringing together the chief academic officers from the various institutions to understand the work of the project, to pass a resolution that effective performance in MSP should be considered in advancement and tenure decisions, and to see first-hand the work of the project.
- Convening a semi-annual “Dean’s Dinner” where progress of the MSP and concerns within the IHEs are discussed.
- Inviting college administrators from each participating IHE to serve on the MSP advisory board.
MSP program leaders noted that securing IHE administrator support happens at many points in time. It is certainly important at the time of developing an MSP and its vision, but is also critical during early stages as key decisions about operation are worked out, during implementation of an MSP as programs are fully realized and revised, and as programs grow and develop to encompass more partners.
Insight in action
Administrative leadership that was inviting and not authoritarian was especially important in recruiting STEM faculty…(and) allowed for recognition that the work was valued by the administration, which resulted in having faculty involved that wanted to be involved and faculty knew this work would count in promotion and tenure decisions.
Department chair support is also crucial, given the control they often have over course assignments and teaching loads. As one MSP program leader commented, an important factor in STEM faculty involvement in MSPs was the “flexibility of the department to rearrange or reassign courses,” given the advanced planning that may be needed for courses or activities designed for an MSP program.
In some situations, securing the support of the dean, chancellor, and/or president was necessary to secure the support of the department chair. One MSP program leader advised initiatives to “begin with support from the Dean of the College of Letters and Sciences. With his support, the Department of Mathematical Sciences was more willing to become involved in the work because they had the support of the college.” In other situations, department chair support was a critical first step to securing the support of other administrators. Especially in light of the turnover that can be found in the ranks of administrators, securing support at many levels of the institution was seen as valuable. This applied both for the duration of the funded MSP and “for the long haul”, particularly regarding long-term personnel decisions that can help to institutionalize the MSP program.
Insight in action
In construction of our MSP, we had an extremely high level of support from the University Chancellor, Deans of Letters and Sciences and of Education, and the Math Department Chair. We built a structure of supports, had extensive discussions about incentives of likely value to faculty to be recruited (course release, team with shared work responsibilities, and support for curriculum development). [We had] direct contact to administrative leaders – when we needed their clout.
Insight: Make the enterprise rewarding: Work to have MSP efforts count towards tenure and promotion
STEM faculty’s participation in MSP efforts is enhanced when their work counts in promotion and tenure decisions. This might be handled differently in different institutions, with MSP involvement considered teaching, service or outreach, or in the case of scholarly work, research. An MSP program leader noted that, because teaching, research, and service or outreach are not typically weighted equally (with less weight given to service or outreach), it matters how MSP work is characterized. If it is “lumped into the service category”, it “counts” less in tenure or promotion decisions.
MSP program leaders noted that it was critical to have a “clear statement of how faculty’s service in the program is to be credited towards tenure and advancement” or even a “resolution…to commit each IHE to consider MSP activities in tenure-granting decisions.” This would include outlining how “grants, invited talks, and publications are recognized by the department personnel committee and deans.” Without such support to shape tenure review, post-tenure review and merit reviews, many STEM faculty will opt out of MSP participation. As one MSP program leader commented,
Many faculty are very interested in participating, but when they weigh the demands on their time, they feel that this kind of work will detract from their own research in a way that could impact their tenure, promotion, or professional reputation. Most of this perceived pressure seems to come from the department level.
Bottom line, though, as one MSP program leader affirmed, “it is crucial that the university support our work by considering teaching, research, and service aspects as part of our normal effort and evaluation.” Some program leaders noted that it was important for the MSP itself to support the exemplary innovative teaching and the scholarly work of STEM faculty, carried out as part of MSP project activities. One MSP “provided forums for them [STEM faculty] to share their MSP work and help for them in terms of conducting educational research.” Another MSP assisted STEM faculty to publish accounts of their work (e.g., course design or instructional approaches), since such publishing outlets might be unfamiliar and outside the disciplinary venues for publication. Another MSP noted that the opportunity for STEM faculty in community colleges to participate in education research, through the MSP, was a “powerful recruiting tool”, particularly when it came with “the prospect of getting some release time for community college faculty who don’t have time to do much but prepare and teach.”
Insight in action
From the start, our MSP was considered to be a scholarly research activity as well as a development project. Therefore, faculty, graduate students, and teachers conducted action research as the program developed, and were encouraged and aided in publishing results …Their work needs to be recognized as serious scholarly endeavors within their field through the promotion and tenure process (one faculty who was involved from the start nearly lost his bid for tenure due to the time he spent on this project). They need to have the opportunity to try out their ideas in college classrooms too – in small, studio science rooms – so not be assigned exclusively huge lecture sections.
One MSP utilized a particularly strategic approach to securing institutional support for MSP work, as described below.
Insight in action
We brought together the chief academic officers from each institution to understand the work of the project. In this context, a resolution was unanimously passed that effective performance in MSP should be considered in advancement and tenure decisions. The resolution was then published in our annual Journal which is distributed to all school districts and participating IHEs in the region. While the resolution and its publication was a significant step to insure the value of participation in MSP for STEM faculty, follow-up with Chief Academic Officers is essential. Having them see the work of the project first-hand made the difference between the institutions that continued the support and those that did not.
A program leader advised looking at the MSP as the “solution to somebody’s problem”, in that STEM faculty members’ work in the MSP are opportunities to support IHE goals of equity and diversity, outreach to K–12 education, and even innovation in teaching and research.
In addition to having policies address the value of MSP work toward tenure and promotion decisions, some MSPs found that the active support of tenured faculty made a difference in the participation of not-yet-tenured faculty, by legitimizing the work of the MSP.
Finding a senior, tenured faculty member who is excited about your project is priceless! Not only can this faculty member help ensure department support for the project, but their participation can both implicitly and explicitly make it OK for young, tenure-track faculty to express interest and participate.
When IHE policies do not support MSP work in promotion and tenure decisions, then it is important to recognize the real bind that non-tenured faculty are in, especially at research-intensive institutions, and consider what other incentives will make it worthwhile for them to be involved in MSP work. Some MSP program leaders noted that community colleges were more likely than research-intensive universities to value MSP work in promotion and tenure decisions, and these institutions were often promising places to start in building a cadre of STEM disciplinary faculty participating in MSPs.
Insight: There are only 24 hours in a day: Provide time for STEM faculty to do MSP work
Acknowledging the time needed for full and active participation by STEM faculty in MSP programs meant providing release time, or at least considering how MSP work could mesh with other research and teaching commitments. Because MSP activities often come with expectations for developing new courses, collaborating with others, and connecting with other parts of the MSP program, it was important that attention be given to the amount of time needed – and when that time was needed – to ensure STEM faculty participation. As one MSP program leader noted, providing “small, limited load commitment to the MSP” to engage in timely course development or consultation was critical; this meant having an MSP plan that took into account when and for what purpose STEM disciplinary faculty were most needed.
Many MSP program leaders noted that, consistent with NSF guidelines, they provided course buyouts or release time. This proved to be a double-edged sword: it supported some STEM faculty to participate in MSPs, but it also limited participation of other STEM faculty. Particularly in small IHEs, it was hard for faculty to take release time “due to departmental staffing issues. This issue limited the number of faculty who could participate in the project.” Another MSP program leader noted that the engagement of “many potential faculty members who, for various reasons, could not be released but who were very interested in participating on lower levels of engagement,” was hampered by the release time requirement. Some MSP program leaders recommended involving STEM faculty in the summer, noting that “faculty were more available and generously gave of their time and talents” during the summer.
Whether the time was spent during the academic year or the summer, MSP program leaders agreed that time was a key variable in STEM faculty’s participation.
Administrators seeking to recruit faculty should recognize the time constraints that [MSP] outreach places on normal faculty duties and make liberal allowances to enable faculty to become involved, particularly during the initial stages of involvement. Without this sort of concession, hardly any faculty would get much involved.
Insight: Look for a good fit: Match MSP work with STEM faculty interests
Fundamentally, it is important that STEM faculty members see a clear and compelling connection between their interests and the work that they can do in the MSP. As one MSP program leader noted,
Faculty being recruited should understand the enormous advantages of this work in their own domains: it enhances their college teaching, it improves the pool of students coming to their institutions, it raises their institutions’ visibility in the community, and it represents a research project in its own right.
STEM faculty’s participation in MSP activities is more likely to be sustained when there is a good fit between the MSP activities – the work that the MSP is supporting and promoting to improve mathematics and science education – and the interests and capacities of the STEM faculty member. MSP work that matches the disciplinary interests of the STEM faculty and that fits with their teaching interests will be of greater appeal and contribute to greater participation, leading an MSP program leader to recommend:
Before approaching STEM faculty about potential involvement, it is important to become familiar with the faculty member’s professional interests and consider ways that those interests mesh with project activities. If involvement with the project builds on existing interests of the faculty member, there is greater likelihood of getting a high level of commitment and effectiveness.
It is particularly important to maximize the match between MSP activities and the STEM faculty’s disciplinary interests if there are no other incentives to encourage participation. One MSP program leader noted that “since most disciplinary faculty in Science and Engineering believe that their participation in such projects is not recognized, rewarded, or even welcomed by administration, it is only possible to recruit faculty and place them in roles that are intrinsically interesting – aligning with their personal interests and expertise.” Or, as another program leader noted, tapping into STEM faculty’s desire to “share their enthusiasm for the discipline and wanting others to share in the excitement.”
A few MSP program leaders noted that, for some STEM faculty members, their interest in K–12 education is quite personal: they are motivated by their interest in and commitment to their school-aged children’s (or their grandchildren’s) education. As STEM faculty members participating in the MSP, these individuals have the opportunity to act on that commitment to education to benefit children like those in their own family.
Insight: Don’t let up: Maintain STEM faculty participation
Ensuring the participation of STEM disciplinary faculty is something that happens throughout the life of the MSP. While there may be particular strategies that are used to secure initial participation of STEM faculty, sustaining that participation is just as important for MSPs. The incentives that matter most to STEM faculty at the beginning of the MSP may not be the ones that hold greatest meaning after a year or two of participation. Thus, MSP program leaders must work to keep STEM faculty members engaged for the duration of the MSP, or for as long as there is mutual interest (where STEM faculty members make a contribution to the MSP and where the MSP supports their work) . This means regular attention among MSP program staff to keep STEM disciplinary faculty on the “MSP radar”.
Recognizing and celebrating the work of STEM faculty in the MSP, in formal and public ways, is one strategy for maintaining faculty participation. One MSP program leader recommended merit awards, or preference for upgraded equipment or office space, as tangible expressions of the value of STEM faculty participation. Another MSP program leader commented on the strategic role played by the MSP, noting that “we worked hard to provide recognition of the faculty work beyond the department – within the university, recognition by schools/teachers, and public recognition.” Continuing to monitor and act upon those issues that matter to STEM faculty –administrator support, promotion or tenure policies, release time, or a good match with a faculty member’s interests – is key to ensuring active participation over time.
If you are interested in how these practitioner insights were collected and analyzed, a summary of the methodology can be found here.
Research on providing classroom release time to teacher leaders
Teacher leaders may be released from daily classroom responsibilities to attend to their work as teacher leaders. The amount of release time provided for teacher leadership shapes the ways in which teacher leaders may impact teachers’ practice. Release time among teacher leaders varies: teacher leaders may receive no release time, indicating that teacher leader responsibilities occur during the regular school schedule or on the teacher leader’s own time; part-time release, in which a teacher leader’s classroom may serve as an important aspect of his/her leadership role (such as by inviting other teachers in to observe a demonstration lesson); or full-time release, which allows a teacher leader to work with teachers as they engage in instruction in their own classrooms. Seven studies were identified in a review of the empirical literature that included findings on teacher leader release time. Findings from these studies indicated that the extent of release time influenced the type of support teacher leaders were able to offer to classroom teachers, with a lack of release time linked to teacher leader practices that were less likely to impact teachers’ classroom instruction.
(Click on the name of each study to read a description of the intervention involving structuring teacher leaders’ preparation.)
Seven studies were identified in an extensive review of the empirical literature and were analyzed through a rigorous process developed by the MSP-KMD project (read a detailed description of the process) that applied standards of evidence to the findings of each study. Among these studies, release time was investigated as a factor that may influence teacher leader practice (Doyle, 2000; Manno and Firestone, 2006; Moore, 1992; Neufeld and Woodworth, 2000; Ryan, 1999; Spillane et al., 2001), and the development of teacher leadership (Lewthwaite, 2006).
Studies of teacher leader practice provided evidence that part- or no- time release teacher leaders did not work directly with teachers in their classrooms and that additional release time was needed to support their impact on teachers’ classroom instruction. Findings across studies (Doyle, 2000; Moore, 1992; Ryan, 1999; Spillane et al., 2001) were consistent in reporting that the absence of release time greatly reduced opportunities for teacher leaders to work in teachers’ classrooms, such as by providing demonstration lessons or observing and giving feedback on instruction. In these studies, teacher leaders with no-time release or limited (one hour per week) part-time release fulfilled duties such as ordering textbooks and purchasing supplies (Spillane et al., 2001), explaining the curriculum at staff meetings (Moore, 1992), serving as a liaison between the district and the school (Doyle, 2000), or participating in a school-wide decision making council (Ryan, 1999).
In addition, Moore (1992) and Doyle (2000) found that increased release time would allow for greater opportunities for teacher leaders to impact teachers’ classroom instruction. Doyle (2000), in a study of teacher leaders working in separate schools, attributed differences in teacher leader practice in part to whether or not teacher leaders were granted release time. Doyle (2000) found that teacher leaders who had part-time release were able to work directly with classroom teachers around improving teachers’ classroom instruction and content knowledge of mathematics; teacher leaders without release time were unable to provide this type of support. According to Moore (1992), two-thirds of surveyed teacher leader indicated that, with additional release time, they would be able to work more directly with teachers to improve their classroom instruction. There was strong support for the validity of these findings across studies. In particular, Doyle (2000) and Spillane et al. (2001) employed several measures to protect against threats to the validity of their findings, including the use of multiple data sources and clear articulation of data analysis strategies. It should be noted these findings were consistent across studies of different grades and subject areas, providing support to their generalizability across school settings.
Manno and Firestone (2006) and Neufeld and Woodworth (2000) called attention to release time in the selection of teacher leaders to participate in their studies of teacher leader practice. These two studies were designed to examine the practice of teacher leaders and their work with classroom teachers, but did not include findings specific to teacher leader release time. However, because the release time of teacher leaders was clearly documented in the study descriptions, it is possible to include the descriptions of teacher leader practice in Manno and Firestone (2006) and Neufeld and Woodworth (2000) as part of this review of the influence of release time on teacher leadership. Manno and Firestone (2006), in a study that included teacher leaders with and without release time, examined the extent to which teacher leaders had successfully supported teachers in the implementation of school curricula. Manno and Firestone (2006) found that teacher leaders who were able to work directly in classrooms, such as conducting classroom observations and regular meetings with teachers, had a greater influence on teachers’ implementation of curricula than teacher leaders who had limited or sporadic access to teachers. Neufeld and Woodworth (2000) found that strong teams of teacher leaders with part-time release engaged in direct classroom support to teachers, leading examinations of student work that impacted teachers’ classroom practice. These descriptions of activities of teacher leaders with and without release time in Manno and Firestone (2006) and Neufeld and Woodworth (2000) are consistent with the findings on the effects of release time on teacher leader practice presented in Doyle (2000), Moore (1992), Ryan (1999) and Spillane et al. (2001).
Among the studies in this set, Lewthwaite (2006) was unique in examining the effect of classroom release time on participation in a program to prepare teachers for teacher leadership responsibilities. Lewthwaite (2006) found that release time was one of several environmental factors (also including collegial support and school expectations) which could impact the effect of the preparation program. The study reported that the extent of release time to participate in the program contributed to improvements in participants’ knowledge of subject matter content and pedagogy. The validity of these findings was supported by the use of multiple data sources and the inclusion of the reliability and validity of data collection measures.
This set of seven studies consistently pointed to the influence of classroom release time on teacher leaders’ ability to impact teachers’ classroom practice. Teacher leaders with part- or full-time release were able to engage in support practices that were closely connected to classroom instruction, such as classroom observations or demonstration lessons, and were reported as important strategies for influencing teachers’ classroom instruction. Teacher leaders without release time supported teachers through administrative practices that were further removed from direct classroom support, such as ordering supplies or participating in school wide leadership teams.
Release time is an aspect of teacher leader practice that should be clearly documented in future studies of teacher leadership. As a construct in these studies, release time had a common definition that appeared to mean the same things across studies. A lack of shared definition is often a limiting factor in analyzing across studies of teacher leadership, where many terms are used differently in each study. Attention to release time in descriptions of future studies will allow researchers to examine the influence of release time on teacher leaders’ practice and its impact on teachers and students.