The process of making instructional changes has not been studied much at all—perhaps because it seems like a simple process. We discover a new idea, are persuaded it’s something worthwhile, think it’s doable, and we do it! But if that’s all that’s involved, then how do we explain the widespread failure to implement the changes repeatedly documented by research to promote more and better learning? Or, how do we account for the millions of dollars spent by organizations such as the National Science Foundation (NSF) on educational reform that has resulted in few lasting changes?
The process of changing how we teach is more complicated, and research is starting to uncover the reasons why. Some of the most interesting and substantive work is being done in physics, which does mean that the findings are discipline-specific, but as the research team reports, “we expect that these conclusions are more widely relevant.” (010110-13)
The findings highlighted here are based on interviews with 35 physics faculty members who were purposefully selected. The sample included faculty from two- and four-year institutions, as well as places offering graduate degrees in physics. The interviews focused on Peer Instruction, an innovation developed by a physicist, Eric Mazur, which is more specific than the general ideas of students learning together, often in groups. Peer Instruction as Mazur developed it involves the following sequence, usually repeated several times during a class session: a short lecture followed by a conceptual multiple-choice question, which students first answer individually, then discuss with a classmate, after which they may revise their answer. This Peer Instruction approach has been the subject of a great deal of research in physics and other STEM fields where it consistently shows positive effects on learning.
The interviews (each an hour in length) solicited information the research team used to answer five questions: 1) How reliable are faculty self-reports of their use of Peer Instruction? 2) When faculty modify Peer Instruction, what components do they describe using, modifying, or abandoning? 3) What do faculty report knowing about Peer Instruction? 4) How do faculty learn about Peer Instruction? 5) Is there a relationship between the method of Peer Instruction exposure and the extent to which an instructor implements components of Peer Instruction? (010110-1-2)
Findings are explained at length in the article. In a nutshell, here’s what the interviews revealed: “Faculty self-reported user status of Peer Instruction is not particularly useful in characterizing their actual practice.” (010110-7) The team had identified nine defining characteristics of Peer Instruction as developed by Mazur. Some faculty who claimed to be users of the technique reported only using one or two of the nine features. Using their own categorizations, the research team identified less than half of the self-reported users as high users. Quite obviously those using the approach were modifying it. “Faculty do not use certain features that may be essential to the success of Peer Instruction implementation.” (010110-8)
“Overall, about half of faculty who reported to be familiar with PI did not indicate awareness of any specific features of PI beyond getting students to work together.” (010110-9) This lack of awareness may be explained by how faculty reported learning about it. Fifty-eight percent said they first learned about Peer Instruction via informal discussion with a colleague. About a quarter learned about it through a workshop. Only 8 percent first encountered it by reading. The data do not support a conclusive answer to the last question but “they point toward informal discussion and working on an educational research or curriculum development project” as being ways that enhance implementation. (010110-13)
From these findings, the research team draws three conclusions. First, “there are communication gaps in current dissemination efforts.” (010110-13) Faculty are learning about Peer Instruction from each other, and that informal passing of information compromises the accuracy of what’s being communicated. Said another way, faculty aren’t learning about this instructional approach from the sources (books, articles, websites, etc.) that share accurate information about it. Second, faculty are modifying the innovation and need more guidance to do so effectively. Replicating it exactly isn’t the point. “We do not view modifications in general as a problem. Faculty teach in a wide variety of settings, with a wide variety of students, local structures, course expectations, etc.” (010110-14) But making modifications without guidance does put the outcomes in jeopardy. The research community needs to be more helpful on this front. And finally, “informal social interactions among colleagues are a key mechanism of communication about reforms.” (010110-14) The change process is a highly social one. The team recommends “promoting and supporting more opportunities for faculty to come together over an extended period of time to learn and support each other in a structured environment.” (010110-15)
This is important and excellent work that goes a long way in advancing our understanding of the change process. It’s a very specific case in point, but for those of us who work on change agendas with faculty across disciplines, the findings ring true.
Reference: Dancy, M., Henderson, C., and Turpen, C., (2016). How faculty learn about and implement research-based instructional strategies: The case of Peer Instruction. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 12, 010110
