Curriculum Development as a Mechanism for Changing Science Faculty Knowledge and Beliefs About Teaching and Learning
Data from the multiple sources strongly suggest that participation in professional development, curriculum development, and curriculum implementation influenced faculty attitudes and beliefs about science teaching and learning. Through surveys faculty cited increased awareness of constructivism and science education research as a result of professional development activities. Faculty also reported increases in their knowledge of science teaching and learning and described specific changes in their own classroom practice. Multiple faculty reported that "participation in (the partnership had) significantly influenced (their) beliefs and practice related to science learning and teaching." Data reported in the NSF Management Information System were consistent with those reported in partnership surveys. Survey results were further supported by comments collected in interviews. Nearly every faculty member interviewed said she/he had learned more about learning and teaching and had incorporated new strategies and practices aligned with how people learn (especially inquiry labs, questioning, and listening to and addressing students' ideas). Results from classroom observations of the new science education courses provided evidence that the faculty not only increased their knowledge of how people learn, but translated that learning into the implementation of the new courses.
Survey data collected by the partnership and the NSF MIS indicated that faculty were also more aware of the needs and challenges of preservice and inservice teachers. Faculty specifically cited working with K12 teachers as one of the most valuable components and as influential to changes in their thinking, knowledge and practice. They also noted that they gained important insights into K12 education as a consequence of their experiences working with and learning from K12 teachers.
Survey data collected early in the project revealed that not all faculty felt that all partners were listened to or treated equally, that communication was inadequate, and that decision-making processes were not clear or shared. Efforts to define principles of collaboration, develop shared values, and implement collaborative norms led to substantial increases in participant satisfaction with group interactions and perceptions of openness and respect across individuals and institutions. An observation protocol aligned with the principles of the partnership was developed to assess group interactions against established criteria. Initial analyses suggest that these principles are becoming "norms" within the groups. In surveys administered in Year 2 and Year 3 the majority of faculty expressed a high degree of satisfaction with interactions among co-facilitators, responsiveness of management to individual needs, and overall communication and decision making.
A number of institutional changes have occurred as a consequence of partnership activities. A year-long science course sequence with common curricula and assessments is now offered as a general undergraduate requirement at all partner higher education institutions. Faculty across all institutions collect student work and assessment data on these courses and collaboratively address evidence of learning and curriculum revisions needed based on student data. Despite encouraging enrollment trends, one or more of the courses is sustainable at several institutions largely through the efforts of the faculty members who were part of the course development team. In some cases the original design of one or more courses is being modified in order to exist within the department. Some faculty indicated that they anticipate even more "adaptation" in the future, especially if revisions were not done collaboratively for the existing course materials.
