(Bickerstaff & Cormier, 2015), and many effective programs are modeled after the idea that one workshop or intensive experience is not sufficient, and, rather, it is constant engagement in a community that supports changes in behavior. Instructors within STEM education have reported engaging in ongoing informal discussion with peers in the community to be beneficial in the long term (Chadha, 2022). We discuss PLD here as a key tool in the effort to improve undergraduate STEM teaching.

This chapter starts with a discussion of the critical need for ongoing PLD for equitable and effective education throughout an instructor’s teaching career. It calls out the need for professional learning to encompass all instructor types, including VITAL instructors and even undergraduate learning assistants. It then presents approaches to developing common values and goals for teaching. Following this, we present short comments on some of the topics on which STEM instructors need expertise, including how students learn, course design, classroom practices, and equitable and effective teaching strategies. The chapter goes on to discuss methods for professional learning, including both formal and informal approaches. The important role of community in professional learning is explored, primarily through examples of ways instructors can connect with each other through professional societies and national networks, as well as locally within their academic unit or institution. The current and potential future role of digital tools and communities in professional learning is specifically called out as a promising method. The chapter concludes with some specific thoughts on how PLD for equitable and effective education can play a role in preparing future faculty, including some research on graduate students. Together, all of these approaches can help support instructors in developing and using equity-minded pedagogical practices and thereby support institutional efforts toward continuous change.

CURRENT NEED FOR PROFESSIONAL LEARNING

Many instructors have never received formal instruction in how to teach, in the science of learning, in how to assess learning, or in proven strategies to use in the classroom, laboratory, etc. Given the research showing that professional development for instructors in linked to student success, there is a clear need to engage instructors in PLD (Biswas et al., 2022; Wheeler & Bach, 2021). Ongoing educational development can increase awareness of equitable teaching practices, increase self-efficacy in implementation, and provide opportunities for the instructor to obtain feedback about, reflect on, and refine their teaching practices (Biswas et al., 2022; DeChenne et al., 2015; Duncan et al., 2023; O’Leary et al., 2020; Wheeler & Bach, 2021).

equitable teaching approaches. Because of this lack of emphasis on improving instruction, graduate students, postdoctoral fellows, and faculty might need to seek out campus resources such as centers for teaching and learning or external support on their own accord or never engage in PLD.

Successful PLD involves instructors knowing the diverse attributes that their learners bring to their courses and having the flexibility to adapt to the needs of changing student populations. Also important is instructor awareness of the powerful influence that various socio-psychological phenomena—such as growth mindset, sense of belonging, microaggressions, stereotype threat, imposter phenomenon, and trauma—can have on the classroom experiences of diverse learners as well as instructors themselves (related to Principle 3: Affective and social dimensions). Awareness and responsiveness to the diverse assets that students bring to their courses can support equitable and effective learning (see Principle 2: Leveraging diverse interests, goals, knowledge, and experiences and Principle 4: Identity and a sense of belonging). As instructors engage in ongoing PLD and reflect on their own identity, power, and privilege, they are better able to understand how those have an impact on their teaching and make changes in their approach to create an equitable, student-centered teaching environment.

Including and Supporting VITAL Educators

One of the communities that is often excluded from intentional PLD are VITAL instructors, despite the fact that they make up over two-thirds of post-secondary instructors (American Association of University Professors, 2023). Because of the nature of their positions, VITAL educators may not be involved in the planning or decision making about when and how PLD is offered and thus may not be able to participate or fully engage. In many cases, these instructors have fewer institutional connections and less available time to connect with their academic units. They may also be new to teaching and sometimes hired immediately prior to the start of a term, resulting in less time to properly prepare. In addition, their academic units and institutions may not be providing them with any incentive to improve and may have low expectations for their participation or not provide compensation for time spent on PLD. And yet, their professional development is critical to advancing equitable and effective teaching in STEM (e.g., Lee et al., 2023) and academic units can play critical roles in the PLD for VITAL educators. Kezar (2013) describes various departmental cultures and their influences through 25 case studies. The study describes three departments that provided VITAL instructors with an orientation, mentoring, and course materials such as syllabi, and teaching expectations to support student learning as having a “learning culture.” When VITAL instructors are teaching courses with multiple sections that have coordinators there may

be structures and opportunities to engage them in professional learning and development (more information on course coordinators and PLD is in the section on community, below). Box 8-1 discusses concentrated efforts to increase support for this important group of educators in other ways.

KEY TOPICS FOR PROFESSIONAL LEARNING

Much work has been done to understand how instructors learn how to teach effectively (Shulman, 1986). The development of subject matter and pedagogical knowledge concurrently is critical since the two knowledge areas influence each other and together contribute to the development of the instructors’ pedagogical content knowledge, e.g., the knowledge of how to teach specific subject matter (Andrews et al., 2022; Grossman, 1990). Fernández-Balboa and Stiehl (1995) found that college instructors develop their expertise in teaching through their expanding understanding of the

subject matter, their learners, instructional strategies, the contexts in which they teach, and their teaching beliefs and purposes. There is some evidence that STEM instructors develop teaching expertise largely through their experiences teaching and through reflection on whether student outcomes have been achieved (Lawrie et al., 2019). PLD is important in that it can help instructors develop an understanding of how people learn, how to use teaching practices with intentionality, and how to use equitable and effective approaches. The key topics for professional learning discussed in this section are important in part because they address some of the major barriers to implementing the Principles for Equitable and Effective Teaching. Instructors describe major personal and institutional barriers that can interfere with the adoption of equitable and effective teaching (Addy et al., 2021b). Personal barriers include not having an awareness of inclusive teaching approaches, not being aware of the diversity that exists within their student population, not noticing the classroom climate or its impact on students, not recognizing their own biases, a fear about making mistakes, not wanting to change teaching practices, not wanting to be responsible, and not knowing how to manage student-student interactions that were not inclusive (Addy et al., 2021b).

Institutional barriers include not being supported by administration, inadequate resources (including professional development), lack of incentives as tied to institutional rewards systems that place less emphasis on effective teaching, lack of diversity among instructors, racism, and sexism, as well as a lack of time to discuss inclusive teaching (Addy et al., 2021b). Notably, the findings of Addy et al. (2021b) highlight how some instructors express needs for more PLD and rewards systems that value equitable teaching.

All instructors need guidance and support to overcome barriers and develop expertise and a level of comfort with evidence-based instructional practices. As Chapter 5 discusses, the Principles can be used to design for learning and to create productive student-centered learning environments. While all of the topics mentioned in Chapter 5 are relevant, here we focus on some central topics of PLD as it promotes equitable and effective teaching that have been studied in the context of professional learning: course design, classroom practices, and awareness of beliefs, values, and positionalities related to teaching.

All of these important topics of PLD address a critical aspect of equitable and effective teaching practices, which is that the instructor does not simply know about them but also knows how to implement them. PLD that centers on the following topic areas, as well as others, can provide opportunities for instructors to learn to apply practices that have the potential to interrupt inequitable experiences.

et al., 2013), Equity Quantified In Participation (EQUIP; Reinholz et al., 2020), and the Protocol for Advancing Inclusive Teaching Efforts (Addy et al., 2022). While they can be used to provide formative feedback to instructors there are challenges in using them in a systematic and consistent way.¹ Challenges may include lack of buy-in from instructors and departments if there is no clear institutional strategy making this a priority, as well as lack of staffing and capacity to conduct these observations. At research institutions, heavy emphasis on research can create competing priorities with teaching; thus, usage is not typically widespread.

Observations and reflections can provide insights into pedagogical approaches and foster changes to improve equitable and effective teaching. Instructors can use tools in a diagnostic manner to identify which teaching approaches they currently favor and to consider opportunities for future instructional techniques. Instructors can also set equity goals and reflect over time on how their practices have changed and whether they are achieving their aims.

TECHNOLOGY AND PROFESSIONAL LEARNING

The work of teaching has become increasingly multifaceted, demanding much more from an instructor than simply “delivering” content. As active learning and other evidence-based practices have become more understood and accepted as strategies to support student learning, instructors have started learning ways to adapt their teaching. The increasing use of technology in education has also required instructors to learn and adopt new tools, from gradebooks that are now part of a learning management system to smart screens/boards, computerized testing, simulations for laboratory experiments, the integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into assignments and curriculum design, and communication tools that have propelled hybrid and flex formats for courses. Instructional technologies will continue to emerge and change, requiring all educators to be continuously learning and adapting their teaching.

Technology will continue to impact teaching and learning, and instructors will need to continue to develop and refine their expertise on how to integrate such tools within their disciplinary contexts as new technologies emerge (Chai et al., 2013; Dysart & Weckerle, 2015; Fernández-Batanero et al., 2022; Jaipal-Jamani et al., 2015; Keengwe et al., 2010; Kyei-Blankson et al., 2009; Manduca et al., 2017; Mercader & Gairín, 2020). Research suggests that the degree to which instructors use digital tools depends on factors such as their knowledge of how to incorporate them within their particular contexts, the discipline in which they teach, and policies at their

___________________

¹ Matthew Hora, presentation to the Committee, 2023.

institution (Marcelo & Yot-Domínguez, 2019). The Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge framework, developed by Mishra and Koehler (2006), focuses on how technology, subject matter, and pedagogy interact to contribute to an instructor’s technological pedagogical content knowledge. Therefore, it is important to consider different perspectives prior to the development and implementation of any educational technology.

A variety of digital tools can support equitable and effective teaching, and multiple criteria can be used to evaluate if these tools are suitable for PLD. These include whether instructors are aware of the tool and are able to feasibly and equitably use the tool (i.e., access and use of the tool should not be limited to only certain instructors, reflecting Principle 7: Intentionality and transparency). Like developing expertise in teaching, instructors can develop knowledge in how to use technology in ways that are equitable and effective. One of the main tools licensed by institutions is the learning management system (e.g., Canvas, Moodle, Brightspace, Blackboard), used to develop courses and share core and supplemental learning resources. Institutions may have instructional technologists who provide PLD for instructors to gain proficiency in using learning management systems and other licensed technologies such as polling software, assessment delivery and grading systems, discussion boards, social annotation tools, media production, and more. For purposes of equity, access to PLD for learning management systems would not be limited to only those who show an interest but rather available to all faculty (related to Principle 7: Intentionality and transparency).

PLD is also needed to navigate the affordances and pitfalls of emergent and changing technologies, and the myriad implications for equity introduced. Online courses (synchronous and asynchronous) can sometimes provide more equitable access to students if they would not otherwise be able to take the course, and open educational resources can provide students more equitable access to course material. Even disruptive technologies such as generative AI have the potential to advance equity by providing more personalized learning opportunities for students. In the case of AI in particular, PLD can provide essential guidance to instructors as they incorporate these new tools into their classrooms. AI poses complex challenges to academic integrity across disciplines as well as opportunities for learning, suggesting the need for PLD that supports instructors in finding and using new, equitable approaches to address these challenges (Mahmud, 2024). Without sufficient instructor preparation, instructors may find themselves at a disadvantage when working with those students who have access to and knowledge of how to use AI tools; these students may also have an unfair advantage over other students (Bowen & Watson, 2024).

Whether courses are fully online, fully onsite, or somewhere in between, digital tools can be leveraged to promote equitable and effective teaching

in STEM disciplines. One prominent example in STEM is how polling tools can advance learning by promoting more equitable participation and deeper engagement in course material. For example, polling tools can be useful in peer instruction approaches where students actively problem-solve independently, share their own ideas via the poll, and then discuss the question in small groups to deepen their learning through their interactions with peers (Crouch & Mazur, 2001; Mazur, 1997). Multiple digital learning tool initiatives have been designed to support equity. The Gates Foundation has funded multiple grants² in an effort to create better online learning environments. That work has explored questions such as should the online curriculum be modular or structured? Standardized or custom? Designed for the instructor or the student? On one level these may seem like graphic-user-interface questions, but they are central to both learning and equity, especially when considering the demographics of students using courseware in online environments.

Another initiative around courseware is Carnegie Mellon University’s Open Learning Initiative,³ which strives to democratize learning through collaborative online communities with asynchronous courses that are not based on college credit, starting or ending date, or certification/completion. These courses are expansive uses of online education that include virtual experiments and community collaboration. Using these and other digital technologies and resources—not just in themselves, but in equitable and inclusive ways—requires PLD that supports instructors in such pursuits.

Additionally, there are digital PLD resources that explicitly promote equity. For example, an online observation tool called EQUIP⁴ can be used together with an external observer to improve equitable teaching in the classroom.

COMMUNITY IS A KEY COMPONENT OF SUPPORTING STEM INSTRUCTORS

We now turn to communities, which can play an important role in PLD experiences. They can allow instructors to engage with other STEM instructors within or across similar communities (such as discipline or institution type) and share teaching approaches (a form of the transparency called for in Principle 7: Intentionality and transparency). Furthermore, communities

___________________

² More information about one of the undergraduate-level courseware initiatives is available at https://www.coursewarechallenge.org/

³ More information about the Open Learning Initiative is available at https://oli.cmu.edu/courses/

⁴ More information about EQUIP is available at https://www.equip.ninja/about https://www.equip.ninja/

can serve as valuable structures that support understanding of the role of equity in teaching and learning (Goldstein et al., 2017).

A community can be defined as a group where a shared identity around a topic promotes the intent to steward a domain of knowledge and to sustain learning about it (Wenger et al., 2002). Communities can be formal or informal, large or small, and connect locally or virtually. They can exist for a short period of time or persist indefinitely. There are multiple ways in which communities facilitate communication and work to sustain change. Below we discuss communities in education research, communities around academic units, institutional communities including centers for teaching and learning, and larger communities of the sort that connect people working in the same discipline or focusing on similar pedagogical goals.

Community in the Education Literature

Multiple types of communities have been discussed in the literature on system change in higher education, these include Communities of Practice (CoP), Professional Learning Communities (PLCs), and Networked Improvement Communities (NICs). Box 8-3, below, on the Inclusive STEM Teaching Project, mentions another type of community, the Faculty Learning Communities (Cox, 2004, 2005; Russel et al., 2017; Vescio et al., 2008) or Learning Communities, which also come up in the literature. Some people also refer to communities of transformation in STEM reform, which are a variation of Communities of Practice designed to focus on the change aspect of the community (Gehrke & Kezar, 2016). While there is not a definitive line between each type of community, we present information below on three types to illustrate the range of options and perspectives (Lenning et al., 2013). Each of these types of communities can help instructors learn about pedagogy and how to flexibly and responsively support equitable and effective teaching and learning.

Communities of Practice

Communities of Practice are defined by three main pillars: domain (shared knowledge), practice (uses of shared knowledge), and community (identity and collaboration around the practice; Wenger, 1999). Together, these three pillars define a community of members who use the domain and practices to connect as a group (Wegner & Nückles, 2015). Reinholz et al.’s (2021b) study of change theory in undergraduate STEM education used a large meta-analysis to illustrate that CoPs are the most commonly used community structure. CoPs often develop naturally from the participants, rather than from external or administrative influence. As such, they can include members from multiple levels (e.g., both instructors and

administrators), depending on the domain and practice. By virtue of including members from multiple levels, CoPs are capable of adapting and being flexible (reflecting aspects of Principle 6: Flexibility and responsiveness). For example, a community may coalesce around a common goal (here, equitable and effective teaching) and work together on developing strategies and trying out practices in the courses they teach. More specifically, multiple instructors may want to create similar lesson plans on a digital cloud so that they can draw upon each other’s experiences, try new teaching methods to help their students, and have equitable access to each other’s effective ideas. However, what one instructor values about a lessons’ equitable or effective features may not be clear in the shared lesson plan. Thus, an instructor may not use the shared lesson plan or think it is not valuable. If enough CoP members do not value a certain instructor’s resources, that instructor’s contributions may be written off, which can damage the member’s sense of belonging to the CoP. If communication is used appropriately, this tension could be resolved by having all shared lesson plans begin by providing clear learning objectives, relative to equitable and effective teaching. This example demonstrates how tensions in the potential stage can grow or diminish a CoP.

CoPs typically involve groups of 5 to 15 instructors who are part of a cohort or who are focusing on a particular topic (Cox, 2004). By coming together and focusing on the implementation of effective and equitable teaching practices, CoPs can provide instructors with an additional support system, which can bring in additional resources including reading and discussing books focused on effective and equitable practices. Such CoPs could be developed to accommodate whatever instructional, departmental, or institutional needs exist. For example, a smaller group of STEM instructors within a department who are teaching similar courses or similar students can gather to discuss their equitable teaching practices and might engage in formative peer observations of teaching to learn from one another. A broader STEM or community-wide Community of Practice could be facilitated in part through centers for teaching and learning that focus on equitable teaching practices across disciplines. These cross-disciplinary communities can enable both interdisciplinary learning and collaboration. A great asset of the CoPs is that if the participating instructors are given autonomy in the way they design their courses, they can be flexible and responsive to varying changes impacting students and institutional structures (related to Principle 6: Flexibility and responsiveness).

Professional Learning Communities

PLCs are teams of educators that share ideas to enhance teaching (Blankenship & Ruona, 2007; Dufour, 2004). They are common in K–12 schools

and also found at colleges and universities (Stoll et al., 2006; Vescio et al., 2008). Some describe them as more formally organized than CoPs in that they can be implemented by administrators (Brummer et al., 2024). Facilitators of PLCs can provide resources, organize group work, and cultivate community while building opportunities for learning via reflection (Margalef & Roblin, 2018). One small study found that those who participated in PLCs reported increased energy, enjoyment, and engagement in work, as well as an opportunity to reflect on teaching and expand skills and knowledge. These participants also reported developing more self-confidence and achieving a sense of accomplishment (McAnuff-Gumbs & Verbeck, 2013). PLCs could be helpful in promoting the use of equitable and effective teaching, when instructors work together to meet a common teaching goal. One case study found that Communities of Practice could support the adaptation of material from another institution for use in teaching inquiry-based mathematics courses (Brummer et al., 2024).

Networked Improvement Communities

NICs emphasize evidence-based research, known as improvement science, as a means to change (Bryk et al., 2015). This approach grew out of the recognition that translating good ideas from one educational setting to another generally has a low probability of success (Bryk et al., 2015, p.6). Improvement science has evolved by focusing on specific problems and implementing clear goals and drivers to methodically improve at scalable speed (Feygin et al., 2020; LeMahieu et al., 2017). A NIC can grow participants’ understanding, using evidence in the Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycle (Bryk et al., 2011; Poole & Germain, 2022). In this model, administrators and instructors work together to address a problem using change regulated by manageable and achievable goals using PDSA cycles. If one instructor finds great success in a STEM course using a specific active learning method for equitable and effective teaching, rather than the coordinator requiring all instructors of the same course to implement that method, the instructor could work with three other instructors through a lesson study design (Fernandez & Chokshi, 2002) to identify what characteristics and what results seem transferable. Thus, a NIC can have participants from many levels, but the pace at which the community grows is regulated by evidence collected (Principle 5: Multiple forms of data) through tools such as the PDSA cycle.

Institution-Level Communities

At an institutional level, multiple approaches can support improvements to community around teaching including STEM education centers, science education specialists, and Centers for Teaching and Learning

(CTLs). Science education specialists work directly with instructors in the academic unit to understand and apply better teaching methods (Wieman, 2017). Many centers focused on STEM teaching and learning were formed in the early 2000s although some have since merged with CTLs⁵ (Carlisle & Weaver, 2015; Horii et al., 2015). Centers for teaching and learning can foster community across academic units and act as change agents on campuses through their goals, programs, and services (Wright, 2023). CTLs can help colleges and universities embed PLD within the institutions’ culture through their programs. This of course requires adequate staffing and funding, and some level of alignment with institutional values and strategic goals around equitable and effective education (Coryell, 2016; Hines, 2017; Sorcinelli, 2002). Increasing the numbers of instructors engaged with PLD efforts builds up expertise at the institution and may allow for the creation of self-sustaining and robust structures that support equitable and effective teaching.

The work of CTLs has been conceptualized across four dimensions: hub, incubator, temple, and sieve (POD Network, n.d.). This framework, derived from the work of Stevens et al. (2008), can be used to describe how a CTL can support equitable and effective STEM teaching within an institution. As a hub, a CTL can bring together STEM instructors to share equitable teaching approaches and learn from one another, as well as highlight evidence-based teaching across STEM disciplines. As an incubator, the various instructor-level initiatives that the CTL offers can cultivate instructors as change agents who share their practices more widely within and beyond their academic units. As a temple, the CTL can be a place where STEM instructors talk about teaching and become inspired about equitable and effective instructional practices. Lastly, as a sieve, CTLs can share evidence-based practices for equitable teaching in STEM to increase awareness and dissemination of such practices across their campuses. In performing one or any number of these functions, CTLs can be critical partners to instructors, departments, and institutions.

Below is a list of potential ways that CTLs and STEM centers can directly support STEM instructors in their implementation of equitable and effective practices for instructors as well as academic units. The list is inspired by the work of Wright (2023), Hines (2017), Coryell (2016), and Sorcinelli (2002):

• Local communities of practice for and among STEM instructors
• Workshop series
• Department-specific workshops

___________________

⁵ More information about the Network of STEM Education Centers can be found at https://www.aplu.org/our-work/2-fostering-research-innovation/stem-education-centers-network/

• Panel discussions
• Community book reads
• Sharing of teaching strategies
• Open classrooms to formatively observe courses on campus
• Course design institutes
• Course transformation grants
• Intensive multi-day initiatives
• Teaching symposia and conferences
• Climate studies for STEM departments
• Student perspectives sessions
• Consultations with individual instructors or departments
• Formative reviews of teaching focused on equitable teaching practices
• Teaching fellowships

Community and Academic Units

Academic units play critical roles in establishing cultures that support equitable and effective teaching. They can take actions and create structures for PLD that support their instructors in engaging in equitable and effective teaching. Young, minoritized, or part-time instructors may face pushback from learners when teaching equitably and effectively; this can be compounded by student bias and job security concerns. It is important for academic leaders to recognize these possibilities and provide intentional support to instructors. As articulated in Principle 4: Identity and a sense of belonging, identity can influence the experiences of instructors as well as their learners.

The role of academic units in teaching is discussed extensively in Chapter 6; here the Committee presents a few examples of potential academic unit-level actions that in their experience have the potential to elevate and address equitable and effective teaching via attention to multiple Principles:

• Conducting climate studies and obtaining data on existing inequities to identify opportunities for improvement
• Creating and implementing departmental or program-level strategic and assessment plans
• Facilitating discussions at team meetings on equitable teaching practices across courses
• Holding department or program retreats focused on equity
• Engaging in curricular revision to advance equity
• Hiring science education or STEM education experts to work with instructors

• Facilitating speaker series on approaches to equitable and effective teaching
• Creating teaching circles consisting of instructors teaching similar courses
• Identifying instructors with knowledge of pedagogy and equity issues who can serve as mentors or peer advisors
• Supporting instructors by facilitating review of teaching in a low-stakes formative manner in which the instructor receives feedback designed to inform improvement from a peer or expert serving as a critical friend (more on the “critical friend” approach can be found in Chapter 9)
• Advertising notable teaching examples and helping other faculty to learn from them
• Identifying instructors with knowledge of pedagogy and equity issues who can serve as mentors or peer advisors and rewarding them for that work
• Adjusting faculty schedules to ensure collaboration time is possible
• Paying VITAL faculty to participate in PLD and/or communities of transformation
• General support from departmental and program leadership and tenured colleagues when instructors integrate equitable teaching approaches
• Fostering a culture of inquiry and continuous improvement

Achieving a culture where equitable and effective STEM teaching and learning is valued will be difficult if there is not buy-in at all levels of the institution and PLD is an expectation. The list above includes a variety of intentional steps that instructors, units, and institutions can take to support sustained engagement with PLD around equitable and effective teaching practices. For example, when academic units discuss what types of PLD they want to undergo as a unit, they could choose to include lessons on assessment practices and how to best collect data to support the work of their faculty. Instructors could set yearly goals to identify one thing they could do to support their learning as an equitable instructor and what they might want to accomplish in the next two or three years, given that some approaches can take more time to fully implement. Institutional leaders who publicly support these efforts can encourage instructors to work toward equitable and effective teaching approaches. They can also play a key role in decision making by encouraging the unit to develop goals around learning.

A more specific example builds on the discussion in Chapter 6 on coordinators for multi-section courses; units can consider how these coordinators

can function as change agents within communities of practice. A study of 19 coordinators and 53 instructors across introductory mathematics courses at seven institutions described a framework that illuminates how coordinators approach their work, categorizing them into a humanistic-growth orientation or a resource-managerial orientation (Martinez et al., 2022). They propose embedding professional development into the course coordinator role, pointing out that coordinators are well positioned to facilitate changes to teaching approaches.

When unit and institutional leaders recognize the varying ways that instructors might react to reform methods, they can develop strategies to support those who are ready and eager to modify their practices as well as those who might benefit from more time and support as they start their change journey. Instructors may also vary in the type of activities and modalities they find useful and variations offered could include on-campus to online to hybrid experiences. Institutions and departments may choose to invest in their own resources in PLD or encourage instructors to participate in external initiatives and compensate and schedule accordingly. An internal analysis on existing and desired PLD support for implementing effective and equitable teaching can inform development of strategic plans and identify the appropriate resources.

National Networks

Multiple national initiatives have worked to improve teaching by college STEM instructors (see Boxes 8-2, 8-3, and 8-4) through the formation of networks based on the idea that participation in PLD can lead to more equitable student learning outcomes. National networks can provide community when an instructor is isolated in their discipline, institution, and/or approach to pedagogy. These connections can be powerful sources of motivation and moral support as well as professional learning. CoPs discussed in an earlier section of this chapter are sometimes integrated into the design of networks to allow instructors to share their approaches and learn from each other. These kinds of networks can link engaged STEM faculty in learning communities that allow them to learn from instructors who are also actively teaching. Communities around teaching can form in all sorts of organizations.

Organizations focused on one institution type include the Association of American Universities (AAU), and the Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities (APLU). Achieving the Dream and the American Association of Community Colleges are two of the groups focused on community college stakeholders. The AAU Undergraduate STEM Education Initiative has elevated attention to evidence-based teaching and system change at the

department level⁶ (Coleman et al., 2019). APLU has coordinated a network of STEM education centers focused on undergraduate learning, among many other relevant projects. The American Association of Colleges and Universities links across institution types and serves as a network for education in higher education. Their Project Kaleidoscope initiative, including its regional networks, is of particular relevance for undergraduate learning.⁷

Places where instructors connect and build community in their discipline include numerous associations large and small, some focused on teaching and some more general in nature. Examples include the American Chemical Society, American Geophysical Union, American Society for Engineering Education, National Association of Biology Teachers, American Association of Physics Teachers, and the National Association of Geoscience Teachers, among many others. The activities of these groups vary but they sometimes provide workshops for new or experienced instructors and often serve as venues for instructors to meet others with similar goals and share resources.

Funders of STEM education and STEM education research have also supported communities. For example, the Inclusive Excellence (IE) Initiatives of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI), especially the IE3 cohort, linked educators across institutions in work groups in an effort to foster community as they worked together to increase institutional capacity for inclusion of all students in science.⁸ The annual principal investigator (PI) meetings of the Improving Undergraduate STEM Education (IUSE) initiative of the National Science Foundation are also a source of community for education researchers and change agents.⁹ The PI meetings¹⁰ and central hub¹¹ of NSF’s Advanced Technological Education (ATE) program are a source of community for community college instructors engaged with career and technical education and partnership with employers in their communities.

Another group of organizations and associations are those focused on a particular underrepresented group, such as the American Indian Science and Engineering Society and the Society for Advancing Chicanos and Native

___________________

⁶ More information about the AAU Undergraduate STEM Education Initiative is available at https://www.aau.edu/education-community-impact/undergraduate-education/undergraduate-stem-education-initiative

⁷ More information about the Kaleidoscope Project is available at https://www.aacu.org/initiatives/project-kaleidoscope

⁸ More information about the IE3 initiative of the HHMI is available at https://www.hhmi.org/programs/inclusive-excellence-3

⁹ More information about IUSE is available at https://aaas-iuse.org/

¹⁰ More information about the National ATE Principal Investigators Conference is available at https://www.aacc.nche.edu/programs/advanced-technological-education/ate-conference/

¹¹ More information about ATE is available at https://atecentral.net/

Americans in Science, and the Society for Black Engineers. Another category of group includes particular initiatives such as the Community College Presidents’ Initiative in STEM, Sloan Equity & Inclusion in STEM Introductory Courses, and many others. In this next section we present three selected examples of some initiatives that focus on professional learning about teaching. The Student Experience Project (SEP) described in Box 8-2 focuses on instructors, mostly within STEM disciplines, who participate in professional development focused on growth mindset, belonging, revised

course syllabi, and using evidence-based equitable and effective practices in their classrooms (Student Experience Project, 2022a). As discussed later in this chapter, the Center for the Integration of Research, Teaching and Learning (CIRTL)¹² is another key group that has created a learning community to engage in systematic use of research methods to develop and implement teaching practices that advance learning. Their work focuses on graduate students as future educators of undergraduate students.

This project embodies several of the Principles for Equitable and Effective Teaching by providing PLD that focuses on Principle 3: Affective and social dimensions, Principle 4: Identity and a sense of belonging, Principle 5: Multiple forms of data, and Principle 6: Flexibility and responsiveness. Students reported increases in positive perceptions of their learning environments (Principle 3: Affective and social dimensions). D, F, and withdraw rates for students decreased. By engaging in this PLD opportunity and supporting students, many instructors reported that even their sense of belonging and job satisfaction increased (Principle 4: Identity and a sense of belonging).

The Inclusive STEM Teaching Project (ISTP; Box 8-3) is a large mainly online initiative that provides significant professional learning and development opportunities that instructors can join as individuals, as opposed to the focus of the SEP on specific institutions.¹³

The ISTP modules center identity of both students and instructors (Principle 4: Identity and a sense of belonging) and provide a systematic curriculum around pedagogy and inclusive teaching that all participants engage in in a carefully planned sequence. Another example of professional learning is the National Institute on Scientific Teaching (NIST). NIST has a more varied collection of opportunities that instructors can engage with on an ad hoc basis (see Box 8-4). Some choose to attend individual virtual learning sessions on defined topics while others have been able to participate in longer experiences.

As embodied within the case examples presented in Boxes 8-2, 8-3, and 8-4, the substance of promising approaches to STEM PLD in equitable and effective teaching involves building community, providing resources and tools, engaging with disciplinary content, practice applying approaches, and reflection on teaching.

Initiatives Through Disciplinary Professional Societies and Networks

Another critical source for creating PLD programs are disciplinary professional organizations and networks within STEM disciplines. These

___________________

¹² More information about CIRTL is available at https://cirtl.net/

¹³ See https://www.inclusivestemteaching.org/

groups can gather in ways that make space for Principle 1: Active engagement while also supporting the development of instructors’ pedagogical content knowledge.

Sample networks in this category include BioQUEST Curriculum Consortium, the Process Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning Project, Project Kaleidoscope, and the Science Education for New Civic Engagements and Responsibilities. These groups have distinct philosophies that drive their work. They host “annual events, community-specific newsletters and journals, curricular materials, and sub-groups on more focused topics or made up of faculty who are geographically close to one another” (Gehrke & Kezar, 2016, p. 31). They provide spaces and a community for instructors to reflect on and modify their practices, bringing them into alignment with equitable and effective teaching approaches, and have led to a number of positive instructor and organizational outcomes, including for women and faculty of color in STEM fields.

with peers (Connolly et al., 2016). Notably, efforts to improve teaching skills have actually been reported to also enhance and improve their research skills (Feldon et al., 2016) and research confidence (Shortlidge & Eddy, 2018), suggesting that time spent on teaching may not detract from graduate students’ disciplinary research but in fact may benefit it. In the long term, participants use more learner-centered approaches than their peers nearly ten years later (Emery et al., 2020), and are more likely to be in a tenure-track teaching position (Connolly et al., 2016), all without increasing their time to degree (Connolly et al., 2016).

However, these same findings highlight two persistent challenges that inhibit more widespread, deeper, and sustained engagement in teaching-focused PLD: (a) a lack of time, or lack of appropriately scheduled time to participate (Connolly et al., 2016), and (b) the perceived low priority given to development of teaching skills (Connolly et al., 2016) and perception that participation in teaching reduces effort and commitment to research (Shortlidge & Eddy, 2018). In other words, although effective opportunities are available for graduate students and postdocs to become better prepared for both their current and future teaching responsibilities, many do not make use of these opportunities to the extent that they could because such opportunities are not integrated into their programs (thus requiring extra time) or may not be supported by their community (thus being perceived as low value).

Overcoming these challenges requires attention not just to the availability of PLD for graduate students and postdocs, but to the value placed on teaching and professional development in teaching, and to the power dynamics that play a significant role in their choices (and perceived ability) to participate (National Academies, 2024c).

The dual role of graduate students as both instructors and students requires them to navigate complex policies, cultures, and power dynamics, particularly because they may be reliant on their funding as an instructor to support their role as a student. As a result, though graduate students and postdocs may desire to build their skills as an equitable and effective educator, they may not perceive those skills as valued or supported by their advisor, department, or program (or may be explicitly told that they are not valued), and thus choose not to participate.

Though there are a substantial and growing number of institutions that offer and often require training for their graduate teaching assistants (TAs), some institutions, departments, and colleges still lack such support, which has far-reaching consequences. In many cases, graduate students may teach the majority of laboratory sections, and in these settings may have the most direct contact with undergraduate students; thus, they have the potential to make connections that faculty does not necessarily have. Many graduate students have not had the opportunity to develop their skills as a teacher and are provided with minimal support structures when they begin

teaching (Speer et al., 2005; Teasdale et al., 2019). As instructors, they may deliver pre-scripted laboratory procedures, create and facilitate laboratory exercises, as either recitation section facilitator or the instructor of record. When they play a supportive role for a course, they report to a faculty member who is the instructor of record for the course. This power dynamic between the instructor of record and the TA is critical: depending on how that power is wielded, TAs may have limited agency in their teaching experience, particularly in building their own skills and making decisions about how to transform a course to be more equitable and effective. They may also be looking to the instructor of record as a mentor in teaching, but if that instructor does not make use of equitable and effective strategies, they may be perpetuating and internalizing inequitable practices in response to power dynamics. Thus Principle 7: Intentionality and transparency is needed to articulate if not diffuse tension from these power dynamics.

As students, they must pass necessary departmental content-based exams and work closely with an academic mentor/advisor (Johnson & Nelson, 1999). If research is part of their work, they must also navigate the expectations of their primary investigator who may send messages like “focus less on teaching,” “complete your teaching requirements as fast as possible,” or “put less time into your teaching.” As an instructor, these are difficult messages to hear and may be even more difficult to overcome if they strive to be effective educators. This can critically impact their identity and sense of belonging within the academy (Principle 4: Identity and a sense of belonging). Therefore, it is important for mentors and advisors to recognize their position in the relationship and make decisions that support the students in all their roles within the department.

Lessons Learned from the Preparation of Future K–12 Teachers

Teacher preparation programs are ubiquitous, though they are concentrated at the institutions formerly known as “normal schools” across the United States (Morey et al., 1997). Many of these teacher education programs have evolved to use an approach that involves pairing the apprentice teacher with an experienced master teacher and a university supervisor (e.g., Goodell & Koç, 2020). In the UTeach Replication Model, the apprentice teacher has sustained teaching experiences with a master teacher, who provides them with advice and guidance on how to put their educational theories into practice (Goodell & Koç, 2020). The university supervisor assures that the apprentice teacher is receiving the appropriate support and is not exploited. The supervisor can also mediate any challenges that arise between the master teacher and the apprentice teacher.

A similar model could support graduate students in their roles as teaching assistants, though the instructor of record may or may not be the person

best situated to support them in implementing equitable and effective practices. The preparation of graduate students as instructors is highly variable across institutions and uneven within institutions. If a pedagogy course or seminar exists, the graduate student may be able to lean on the instructor for support, like the university supervisor in the model discussed above, but they may not be paired with a master teacher who can introduce them to equitable and effective practices.

Methods for Delivering Professional Learning and Development

Professional learning and development can occur either before or while the graduate students are teaching. Yee et al. (2023a) found the following structures to be the most dominant around the country:

• An orientation that often occurs before a graduate student teaches to set departmental expectations and give some information about teaching approaches.
• Seminars and pedagogy course(s) where a PLD provider facilitates situations and experiences to help graduate students become equitable and effective instructors.
• PLD through course coordination or co-requisite courses that may offer credentials for teaching.
• PLD that has expanded from K–12 in the use of mentoring with graduate students.

Johnson and Nelson (1999) argue that mentoring is central to “quality graduate education” (p. 205). Moreover, studies have shown that marginalized groups benefit greatly from mentored PLD (Crisp & Cruz, 2009). It is important to note that Johnson and Nelson (1999) did find that if the mentor is a faculty member, relationships are complicated and multifaceted because of the roles faculty must play, such as doctoral advisors and qualifying exam evaluators, and the power dynamics involved. Peer-mentoring is another option with less complexity as well as significant flexibility and responsiveness to any potential struggles that graduate students would have with teaching (Yee et al., 2023b). Similar to K–12 mentoring structures for new in-service teachers, a peer mentor (a fellow graduate student with experience teaching) can provide more options and flexibility for delivering PLD.

Mentoring and induction has been shown to be successful in teacher education (Portner, 2005). Moreover, it has been shown to be successful with novice DBER instructors, especially peer-mentoring (Yee et al., 2022, 2023b). Although teaching experience is necessary, it is not sufficient for mentoring because mentors need to understand their role and purpose in facilitating meaningful pedagogical decision-making conversations with

protégés (Rogers & Steele, 2016). Consequently, the design of a mentor-based professional development curriculum should focus on preparing mentors to guide and support protégés’ understanding of their pedagogical decisions (Boyle & Boice, 1998; Crisp & Cruz, 2009) One study compared spontaneous mentoring (talk to the mentor if there are problems) and systematic mentoring (meeting regularly every week), and found that the systematic mentoring was more effective in supporting graduate students and new faculty because the mentor could not prepare appropriately when it was spontaneous (Boyle & Boice, 1998). The same study also observed that the topics that dominated mentor meetings in decreasing order of frequency were (a) discussions of undergraduates, (b) teaching styles, (c) teaching-related goals, (d) grading issues, and (e) course preparation. Box 8-5 presents a specific example of mentoring of graduate students.

Providers of Professional Learning and Development

Structures for providers of graduate student PLD fall into two general categories. In one the provider’s job is to support graduate student PLD by regularly designing, organizing, and modifying PLD opportunities

throughout their unit or the institution (e.g., COMInDS, 2020). In the second, the providers come into the unit or institution to offer PLD in addition to teaching other courses. In this second model, the structure and system has been established with a desired PLD curriculum. In both cases, the providers of PLD can be teaching, research, or adjunct faculty or staff (e.g., CMI Prep; see Yee et al., 2023c). Regardless of their title and role, the provider’s success is dependent upon many other unit and institutional logistics and expectations. One specific group that has grown over the years are DBER scholars who have significant expertise in a content discipline and focus their scholarly activities on investigating learning and teaching in that discipline using a range of methods with deep grounding in the discipline’s priorities, worldview, knowledge, and practices. Science faculty with education specialties have also been considered a critical group of DBER associates who have taken on their own role as change agents within units often associated as PLD providers (Bush et al., 2019). When academic units have access to such scholars as faculty and instructors, the other members of the unit can leverage their knowledge to improve their own understanding of pedagogy.

Developing Instructor Identity

Many graduate students have experience-based beliefs about teaching established from their role and identity as a learner. From a constructivist lens, to help graduate students grow, change, and identify what is possible and what decisions are necessary in order to prepare and teach, certain experiences with teaching can provide a safe way for these graduate students to validate their beliefs and decisions as instructors. This can take time and repeated teaching experiences. Some activities/experiences that providers have found to support graduate students in finding their teaching identity include

• Reflections on teaching
• Peer observations
• Self-observations via video
• Micro-teaching
• Mock teaching

Through these activities, graduate students (ideally) work within in a safe environment where they can wrestle with what they believe, what they observe, and how they want to approach their own teaching, possibly even writing a teaching philosophy. Such work, supported by mentors, can help graduate students synthesize pedagogical theory and practice.

___________________

¹⁴ More information about the IRACDA program is available at https://www.nigms.nih.gov/training/careerdev/Pages/TWDInstRes.aspx

¹⁵ More information about the HMS CFP is available at https://curriculumfellows.hms.harvard.edu/

¹⁶ More information about the Carl Weiman Science Education Initiative is available at https://cwsei.ubc.ca/

¹⁷ More Information about the TRESTLE initiative is available at https://trestlenetwork.ku.edu/

This page intentionally left blank.