STEM disciplinary faculty have been an integral part of the Math and Science Partnership programs’ efforts to reform mathematics and science education. Once STEM faculty have been identified for particular MSP roles in deepening teacher/teacher leader content knowledge, it is important that they are oriented and prepared for their work from the start.
Practice-based Insights on Orienting STEM Disciplinary Faculty to the MSP Work
Advice from experienced MSP program leaders offers guidance to those involved in orienting STEM disciplinary faculty to MSP efforts to improve mathematics and science education. Through a systematic process involving an online survey for MSP program leaders 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:
- Building a solid foundation—Create a shared vision of effective teaching and learning.
- Getting on the same page—Create a shared “theory of action” for deepening teacher/teacher leader content knowledge toward improved teaching and learning.
- Bridging the divide—Ground STEM disciplinary faculty in the world of K–12 education.
- Establishing a collaborative culture—Involve people from different backgrounds in “real work” where collaboration is essential.
- Knowing your audience—Orient STEM faculty to the content knowledge needs of K–12 teachers.
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.
Once STEM disciplinary faculty have been identified for involvement in deepening teacher/teacher leader content knowledge in an MSP project, it is essential that they are well oriented for their work.
Experienced MSP program leaders have offered advice about initial and ongoing efforts to orient STEM faculty to the work and needs of K–12 teachers. Their insights stress the need for creating a community of sharing and collaboration between STEM faculty and other project participants, including education faculty and K–12 teachers/administrators. Some of their experiences and suggestions are expressed in the insights below. After reviewing these insights, you will be provided with opportunities to share your own experiences with orienting STEM faculty. The information you provide will be included in the analysis of insights and examples from other practitioners as this website is periodically updated.
Insight: Building a solid foundation—Create a shared vision of effective teaching and learning.
MSP leaders stressed the importance of building a shared vision of effective teaching and learning among all members of the project team, including STEM faculty. Although it is easy to agree in the abstract that everyone wants improved teaching and learning for all students, there will likely be different visions about what constitutes quality mathematics and science education. Intentionally working to build a common understanding of the program vision creates the groundwork for consistency in the design and implementation of program activities.
MSP leaders caution not to assume that there is a shared understanding. They sometimes found that people who appeared to have the same view of what the project was trying to accomplish, in fact had very different ideas about what constitutes quality mathematics/science instruction. Said one MSP leader, “I think that faculty THOUGHT they shared the vision but did not perhaps ACTUALLY do so.”
In our MSP we had a core Leadership Team that was responsible for the design and implementation of mathematics content courses for teachers. This leadership team consisted of three STEM mathematicians, two mathematics educators, and four teacher leaders. As we began our work together, we believed that it was important for the STEM mathematicians to gain a sense of the NSF-funded mathematics curriculum materials available for K–12 students that our partner districts were using. To this end, the four teacher leaders developed a one-day mathematical experience that took the strand of algebra and engaged the STEM faculty in experiences from some of the NSF curricula that illustrated how the strand of algebra was developed K–12. This activity served us very well in the project as it both modeled pedagogical practices that we would expect to see in a K–12 classroom and allowed the mathematicians to get a sense of how mathematical ideas related to algebra developed throughout these curricula. This experience was a “shared professional development experience” in that the STEM mathematicians were sharing their views about the mathematics throughout the work together.
MSP PI
Although the press of project activities can make it difficult to find the time to reconcile differences and create a shared vision, moving ahead without doing so can lead to problems downstream. Said one MSP leader:
In the beginning we worked with a STEM member that did not share our project’s goals although she said she did. During [professional development] sessions she sometimes said things that were counter to our goals and created problems with teachers. They did not know whom to believe-us or the STEM member. What is the vision for math education for students? Is it still the traditional, strictly procedural approach or should we consider change? If you are not on the same page you can have a disaster on your hands, or at the very least, some ground to make up.
MSPs used a variety of strategies for building a common vision. Some projects engaged STEM faculty in viewing videos of science lessons; others involved STEM faculty in experiences as learners that modeled the type of instruction that is the goal of the project work. One MSP decided to involve STEM faculty with content outside their specialty to help orient them to the work. Having physicists engage in learning biology, including serving as co-facilitators, was an opportunity to learn new content that helped them focus on the learning process.
Insight: Getting on the same page—Create a shared “theory of action” for deepening teacher/teacher leader content knowledge toward improved teaching and learning.
Once project team members, including STEM disciplinary faculty, have at least a good start on a shared vision of teaching and learning, they can begin to work toward a shared understanding of strategies the project plans to use to attain its goals. One of the benefits of applying for funding is that it provides an opportunity to develop a shared theory of action among the core team; the proposal development process typically includes consideration of different goals and alternative strategies for addressing those goals.
Projects used different strategies to ensure that all of the key players were on the same page, understanding not only how individual project activities were expected to contribute to the development of teacher knowledge, but also how they were intended to work in concert. Often, the people who designed the project convened meetings of participating STEM faculty and other key players to discuss the plans for the project.
During the first year of the project, STEM faculty had numerous meetings to work through the type and level of content that was appropriate for teachers and teacher leaders participating in this project. These meetings were arduous to say the least; however, they were extremely productive in having all of the players, community college participants and [university] faculty, come to a common vision of what the content should be and should look like. During this initial phase of the project, those individuals who were not willing or interested in participating in the collaborative vision that was being developed opted out. Therefore, what was left was a cadre of extremely hard working and committed faculty who shared a common vision that was aligned with the project goals. … Make it very clear that the process of doing this type of work is difficult, time consuming, and prone to many false starts. However, the reward for success is great for both the STEM faculty and the teachers and teacher leaders.
MSP Program Leader
Discussions of the plan can help avoid problems as the project progresses, giving STEM faculty the opportunity to consider how specific strategies will and will not be likely to lead to certain goals, and to understand what their involvement might entail. MSP leaders emphasized the importance of being clear with STEM faculty about how their work will fit into the broader picture. In the words of two MSP leaders:
Engaging faculty in the preliminary stages of proposal writing to be sure they have bought-in and are willing to participate is extremely important, as doing this will help prevent finding out after the award that the faculty are not willing to participate and what their reasons are for not participating. § §
STEM faculty in our project were either involved in preparing the initial grant application or they became involved after the grant had been awarded. In the first case they were part of the discussions of goals leading up to the proposal, and in the second case they joined the project only if they shared the project’s goals. … It is essential that STEM faculty thoroughly understand the goals of the project and how their involvement relates to those goals. A detailed discussion of these matters should precede any agreement about STEM faculty involvement in specific activities.
Still, some differences of opinion on how to attain project goals may have been papered over in order to get the proposal submitted on time, and other differences may surface as additional players are brought in to help out. It may take a great deal of time and effort, but MSP leaders report that the work involved in coming to agreement on strategies for attaining the project vision is well worth the effort. In the words of one:
The STEM faculty need to spend many hours together doing meaningful work prior to content delivery. During this time there need to be ample opportunities for revision of one’s own ideas as well as those of the rest of the group. There needs to be an understanding that the development of a common vision and commitment to a program takes great amounts of time and effort. The reward for allocating this time is the development of a highly skilled and committed team that shares a common vision.
Insight: Bridging the divide—Ground STEM disciplinary faculty in the world of K–12 education.
MSPs are more likely to be effective in helping teachers if participating STEM disciplinary faculty understand the realities of K–12 education. Especially if they have not had experience with the K–12 sector since they themselves were in school, STEM faculty may not realize that teachers are responsible for many hours of instruction each week, typically under less than optimal working conditions, with multiple preparations. For example, most elementary teachers provide instruction not only in mathematics and science, but also in reading, writing, social studies, etc. Similarly, a middle grades science teacher may be responsible for topics in the life, earth, and physical sciences, and at any given time, a high school mathematics teacher might have classes in algebra, geometry, and calculus. Said one MSP leader, “Once [STEM] faculty understand the demands placed on teachers, they can design [professional development] curricula that address the most important problems the teachers face.”
Sometimes, it is difficult enough for faculty to transition from teaching at the level of their college classes, to the level that is appropriate for lower grade teachers. It is even more difficult if they are fundamentally unaware of the differing cultural practices and traditions of their audience. To create trust and a collaborative atmosphere between faculty and teacher partners, it is essential for faculty to get to know-really know-their project partners: their backgrounds, beliefs, demographics, resources, etc., if they expect to have any influence on deepening their science content. It is important for the project to anticipate these needs and create opportunities for faculty to be well-prepared.
MSP Program Leader
MSP leaders recommend being direct with STEM faculty to develop their understanding about the differences between university and K–12 cultures.
University faculty have fewer restrictions and more resources than do K–12 teachers. We often don’t understand why teachers are reluctant to try something or say they can’t do it. Often they don’t want to add yet another thing to their plates or it doesn’t fit in with the standards. It is very important to help STEM faculty understand these challenges and to be sensitive to them. § §
For our project we created a shared vision and clear goals as well as established a collaborative culture. I believe what was missing was informing STEM disciplinary faculty of the K–12 culture. Luckily, our mathematician had some experience in schools with both children and teachers, but even he had to work to build the relationship with the teachers. More up-front support and information on our part would have made the path easier.
MSP leaders suggested a variety of strategies to help STEM faculty understand the world of K–12 teaching in the partner districts, including orienting them to unfamiliar contexts, such as schools serving American Indian students or large numbers of English Language Learners.
From inception, the project has hosted workshops and seminars for disciplinary faculty to better understand project partners, their needs, and current research on issues of relevance to the partnership’s goals. Particularly important to our project has been educating faculty about the culture, history, and beliefs of our tribal partners and how instructor experience with culturally-competent instruction can influence science learning. This is an area in which most of our faculty partners have little knowledge or experience and in which their interest to learn is high. This has fostered an outstanding opportunity for our faculty to learn from our teacher partners who either are American Indian, or who have many American Indian students in their classrooms and establish our faculty members as community learners as well as teachers. Deepening science content knowledge in our teacher leaders depends critically on our faculty partners growing understanding of our teacher’s cultural environment and background.
MSP Program Leader
In some cases, the MSP leaders described approaches they had tried and found successful; in other cases, they suggested strategies that in retrospect they wished they had used. Having STEM faculty observe K–12 teaching was viewed as particularly important, including observations of “typical” teachers and observations of master teachers to get a sense of how the vision of quality mathematics and science instruction plays out in the classroom.
For those STEM folks who are unfamiliar with K-6 mathematics education, they can use this “observation period” to interact with teachers and teacher leaders. STEM faculty who are not intimate with K-6 education and educators are often surprised about what actually happens in schools as well as what K-6 teachers actually do in their jobs. § §
When the faculty began to design the syllabi and coursework for the MSP teachers, those that visited classrooms had a clearer understanding of how to design courses to meet the needs of teachers. § §
One of the pieces that we believe was missing from our “orienting” work that we believe would be important to include (and we had suggested it to our STEM faculty but not required it), was K–12 classroom observations (preferably “live”, but could be with video). This could provide STEM faculty with a clearer image of the work that K–12 teachers/students are engaged in and to see the “curriculum in action.”
Other MSP representatives recommended that STEM faculty go beyond observing and actually “work a few days in the classroom of the middle school teachers to gain a better feel for the job.” Others suggested that STEM faculty attend school meetings and talk with administrators as well as teachers. Said one:
As a partner with the school(s), they should be expected to be part of some school functions that relate to the project and learn about the school culture. Communication with the school principal and other involved administrators is also important. They should KNOW the school and teachers with whom they work.
Finally, MSP leaders cautioned that simply exposing STEM faculty to K–12 education is not sufficient; projects also need to provide time and structure for STEM faculty to consider what they are learning about K–12 teachers/teaching and the implications prior to their work with teachers. Said one PI, “It helps to have lots of conversations ahead of time about the audience.”
Insight: Establishing a collaborative culture—Involve people from different backgrounds in “real work” where collaboration is essential.
Even when higher education and school district partners join forces with a shared mission and the best of intentions, culture clashes are likely. STEM faculty and K–12 teachers have had different training, work under different conditions, and are judged by different standards. Under these circumstances, miscommunication and misunderstandings are to be expected. On the one hand, teachers (and education faculty) may feel like they are treated as lower on the totem pole, with the knowledge they bring to the table undervalued compared to the disciplinary content expertise that STEM faculty bring. On the other hand, STEM faculty may feel they are being stereotyped as poor teachers or somehow lacking in social skills. Said one MSP leader:
I’ve been in many meetings between educational specialists and research scientists in which individuals of each affiliation attempt to inform the other of their value. It usually takes the form of educationists implying that scientists know nothing about teaching and scientists implying that educationists “water-down” their content.
The best approach, MSP leaders counsel, is to establish “a collaborative and mutually respectful relationship among those groups, recognizing that each brings vital information and insights, was essential to the functioning of the project.” Said one:
Disciplinary faculty need to be (and in our case were) aware of how much we don’t know. Conversely, our counterparts in the other areas need to acknowledge the things we do know. You need really good people from all sides: knowledgeable, respectful, confident of their own expertise while recognizing that of others.
MSP leaders advised that establishing a culture that values the contributions of each member of the team does not happen by accident. They emphasized the need to provide informal opportunities for STEM faculty to engage with K–12 educators. It is the “casual conversations” and other kinds of informal interactions that help build relationships that foster the mutual trust, respect, and understanding that are prerequisite to an effective working relationship. As one MSP leader explained:
Having STEM faculty and teachers engage with each other in casual, informal conversations is critical in developing relationships. Our most successful partnerships have used the terminology of building trust in order to share and absorb knowledge from each other.
One MSP leader noted that these informal interactions and the relationships that result can augment the work of the project, and lead to long-lasting collaborations.
We have definitely found that providing informal opportunities for conversation (setting aside time at workshops, optional dinner get-togethers, etc.) between faculty and teacher partners has not only led to brainstorming ideas for future collaborations – both inside and outside the project – but also helped faculty and teachers connect in ways that would not be possible in more formal, structured settings. We feel that these have been essential for creating the kinds of friendships and bonds that will endure and continue to be productive long after the grant ends.
At the same time, MSP leaders recommended that partnerships go beyond providing opportunities for informal interaction between STEM faculty and K–12 educators. As one leader stated, “Informal conversations may be helpful, but I think they need to be in the context of a concrete project to be most effective.”
One of the things that we found to be particularly helpful in scaffolding/supporting STEM disciplinary faculty AND the four teacher leaders working with them AND the two mathematics education faculty members took place during the planning sessions for the K–12 teacher’s math content course that we were co-developing. What we did was to actually work with the mathematics/mathematical ideas that we were thinking about using as we developed the course. We would spend many an afternoon working through/coming to a better understanding of the mathematics and how we were each thinking about it in various contexts. This helped us to grow as a group, clarify language, and also to identify things that may be problematic for the participants of the course.
MSP PI
Formal structures can help ensure that the conversations help move the work in the desired direction. For example:
My advice is to create structures that keep the conversations going (e.g., design teams) and that infuse new knowledge into the discussions (e.g., colloquia and professional meetings). § §
Try to build in lots of structured opportunities for those from different backgrounds to collaborate in analyzing project goals and planning how best to achieve them.
MSP leaders recommended involving people from different backgrounds in “real work,” drawing on the collective expertise of the group, highlighting the fact that no one had all of the necessary knowledge, but that everyone had something to contribute to solving the problems that had been identified. These types of experiences not only provided opportunities to move the work forward, they also allowed for members of the project team to benefit and learn from each other. Said these MSP leaders:
There were many opportunities for STEM faculty to work collaboratively with K–12 teachers in the development of materials and the structure of the Summer Academies. These collaborations provided numerous opportunities for STEM faculty to learn from our K–12 peers. § §
I have experienced successful, meaningful discussions between these groups only when they are engaged in mutual problem solving. The institute creates lots of opportunities for joint problem solving if we take the risk to involve each other. Currently, I am looking for ways to create these problem-solving spaces where it takes both perspectives to do the job. § §
The most important lesson was learning how to get STEM faculty to be a participant in collaborative activities with teachers. For example, as teachers work on designing a lesson in geometry that will be used by all the geometry teachers, the STEM faculty becomes one of them, working to craft an exemplary lesson. After STEM faculty experience this process a few times, they become accepted by the teacher community and can give content advice.
Still, MSP leaders caution that while collaboration is essential, it isn’t easy. Projects will need strategies to defuse the tensions that will inevitably continue to surface. Said one MSP leader “We have a saying ‘Isn’t collaboration fun?’ which we use when things get touchy.”
Insight: Knowing your audience—Orient STEM faculty to the content knowledge needs of K–12 teachers.
Unless they have already worked extensively in the K–12 arena, STEM faculty are likely to need help in understanding the content-related needs of teachers in the partner districts, both where they are starting in terms of mathematics/science content knowledge, and the nature and depth of content knowledge they need in order to be effective in the classroom.
MSP leaders noted that some STEM faculty were surprised by the content deficits they encountered when they started working with K–12 teachers. As one explained:
It is most problematic for the STEM faculty to understand the scope of teacher content knowledge or lack thereof. It is also difficult for them to see where the starting and stopping point in content deepening should be.
Enabling STEM faculty to anticipate where teachers are starting avoids having them blindsided by the gaps they encounter, and may help them focus on the glass being half full in terms of teachers’ content knowledge. Said one MSP PI,
It’s important to have your eyes wide open and realize that some good people who are probably good at working with students can still be seriously deficient in mathematical knowledge. This is not evidence of lack of ability to learn. Work with them and you will be pleased with their progress.
Rather than leaving it up to individual STEM faculty members to figure out through trial and error what teachers know and what they need, MSP leaders suggested that projects take time to orient STEM faculty to what teachers are likely to know, whether or not it is based on a formal needs assessment. Said one MSP leader:
We first learned from the teachers what they did not feel confident with in their knowledge and designed a curriculum to help address their needs. …Learning from the teachers what they wanted/needed made our job much easier.
The next step, of course, is to consider how the MSP can best contribute to enhancing teachers’ content understanding. MSP leaders noted that it is particularly important to be explicit with STEM faculty about “how content useful for teachers is similar to and different from the content they might include in their other graduate courses.”
It was sometimes challenging to negotiate between what the professors thought was fundamental knowledge in their disciplines and what the teachers really needed for their students. This is not to say that teachers can get by with only the level of content knowledge they teach, but they do not need the same level of expertise as a professor in the discipline.
MSP Program Leader
Finally, MSP leaders stress that while initial orientation is vital, STEM disciplinary faculty and the rest of the program team will need opportunities to continue their growth throughout the initiative, a topic to be addressed in a forthcoming knowledge review.
If you are interested in how these practitioner insights were collected and analyzed, a summary of the methodology can be found here.