Reflective Practice, Teach@CUNY

Supporting CUNY Instructors through STEM Communities of Practice: The Incubator Model

Close up image from above of a tray divided into 5 compartments, each containing eggs of different sizes and colors. In the bottom compartment, two egg shells sit next to three small eggs; in the second compartment from the left, a small rooster figurine lay above two small eggs.

Photo by Elena Mozhvilo on Unsplash

By Şule Aksoy

In the summer of 2022, the Teaching and Learning Center (TLC) launched the STEM Pedagogy Institute (SPI) with support from the NYC Economic Development Fund and Workforce Development Corporation. The SPI team has developed an ecosystem of professional development opportunities for faculty and graduate student instructors in response to challenges to attract, retain, and support marginalized identities in STEM. Drawing from research on effective pedagogical practices, the SPI has identified three core areas of focus: 1) Community Science, 2) Computational Methods, and 3) Early Research Immersion. Organized into these incubators, thirty SPI fellows came together to reflect upon and implement equity-oriented and employment-focused teaching practices.

Each thematic incubator included ten early career and experienced instructors across the CUNY system who teach STEM skills from the sciences, humanities, and social sciences. Our design aimed to enhance pedagogical knowledge across disciplines through these interdisciplinary cohorts and provide reflective practice opportunities. Instead of forming communities around disciplinary boundaries, we wanted to support expert communities around methods and learning experiences. In this way, fellows could share their expertise and learn from each other for instructional improvement around a common goal. In addition, SPI fellows, as practitioners, could bring their knowledge and questions from the field to discuss, reflect, and build a shared repertoire of pedagogical ideas.

In our meetings, fellows shared observations from the field, how they incorporated inclusive career readiness practices and changes in curricular design. They also read scholarly work on inclusive STEM teaching practices and reflect on how those ideas can come into their pedagogies. Many of them used early-semester surveys to learn about student backgrounds, experiences, career goals, and aspirations to tailor their classroom materials to student needs. In addition, a small group of instructors within the Community Science incubator designed assignments and activities highlighting the relationship between science and student communities.

Common instructional issues emerged from discussions across three incubators, such as peer instruction, fostering student agency, promoting a growth mindset, and enhancing scientific understanding and skills. Below, we will briefly introduce these themes and share examples of how they are incorporated into the classrooms.

Peer learning and small group discussions were of particular interest to SPI fellows. Research shows that peer instruction promotes participatory learning and inclusive feedback (Pon-Barry et al., 2017). For example, the implementation of Peer-Led Team Learning (PLTL) in postsecondary biology and chemistry courses increased student academic performance and conceptual reasoning skills (e.g., Peteroy-Kelly, 2009; Snyder et al., 2016; Tenney & Houck, 2003). With this in mind, an SPI fellow Dr. Elena Vesselinov, Associate Professor of Sociology at Queens College, teaching a class called Data and Society, incorporated peer instruction to foster agency and better prepare them for classroom assignments. Students worked in small groups to discuss the materials assigned in class, and they rotated the leadership role throughout the semester. In this way, students gain ownership in the learning process and develop independence and leadership skills.

Fellows in the computational methods group raised some concerns regarding the sustainability of peer-led team learning approaches at CUNY. Limited resources and funds to train mentors might create challenges for sustaining such programs. However, as seen above, SPI fellows continued incorporating peer learning in their classrooms within their capacity. They also seek funding opportunities to train peer mentors and maintain a sustainable model at CUNY.

Centering student agency in the classroom has been another issue of interest among the SPI fellows. Traditional forms of STEM instruction place the focus on content and teacher instead of student choice. Nonetheless, SPI fellows aimed to maintain students’ full participation and engagement in authentic learning tasks. For example, fellows invited students to think about opening questions to elicit prior understanding and anchor the classroom activities. Dr. Stephen J. Gosnell, Associate Professor of Biology at Baruch College, incorporated graphs from the NYT’s Learning Network to engage his students in analytical challenges. Students looked at COVID impact data to discuss differences across groups and the reasons for health care disparities. It allowed students to think critically about the use of an algorithm and social justice aspects of the health care system.

SPI fellows also explored how to promote a growth mindset in STEM classrooms and research labs. For example, participants in the early research immersion incubator spent time on how to facilitate growth and achievement through failure and frustration. There was a greater focus on how failure and encountering difficulty in learning are part of scientific practices. Fellows shared how they use grading student work as an opportunity to provide constructive feedback, iterative process, and refinement. For example, a group of graduate teaching fellows returns annotated lab reports, so students can learn from their mistakes and improve in future tasks. They have also reflected on how instructors can scaffold learning activities for students to make connections with their lives by providing equitable and accessible portrayals of scientific practice instead of stereotypical depictions of science and scientists.

In conclusion, the SPI aimed to provide a space for reflective engagement to enhance pedagogical knowledge through these interdisciplinary cohorts. We believe the SPI incubator model could result in long-term, lasting changes in teaching practices since it focuses on capitalizing on community goals and agency. Our goal is to shift from a focus on research on faculty barriers to an account of how teachers are supported within their communities to build fruitful professional learning and, eventually, to create opportunities for students beyond classrooms. With this in mind, we look forward to sharing our inquiry into SPI’s impact and deepening our understanding of inclusive STEM pedagogy.

———-

Dr. Şule Aksoy is a Post-Doctoral Fellow at the Teaching and Learning Center, and Director of Curriculum and Research for the TLC’s STEM Pedagogy Institute.

Leave a Reply