Can I Help You?
Small development groups can assist instructors in implementing new approaches—especially if they follow five principles for success.
By Jill Nelson and Margret Hjalmarson
Supporting innovations in teaching is a challenge and an opportunity for engineering programs. Instructors might learn about a new teaching strategy from a peer or at a workshop, but need help thinking through how it could work in their own classes.
For our study, we created teaching development groups in engineering programs at several institutions. The groups gave instructors opportunities to discuss and try comparable approaches. An engineering faculty member facilitated each group and recruited interested colleagues. Participants wanted to explore new techniques, such as in-class problems, small group work, and collaborative programming.
Over two years, we developed the Five “S” Principles to guide leaders in creating and facilitating effective teaching development groups.
Build small groups. A limit of about five people will simplify logistics (e.g. easier scheduling) and enable greater member engagement. When groups are small, each participant is an important contributor.
Focus on small changes. Low-risk changes made incrementally accumulate to substantial shifts over time, and allow instructors to modify courses at a comfortable pace.
Enable self-motivation. Instructors should identify their own reasons for participating. In our study, participation was voluntary. Instructors who joined were interested in interactive teaching, and some had prior experience using interactive pedagogies.
Scaffold knowledge. Teaching development groups are more productive (and participants find them more valuable) when resources are used to scaffold group discussions. Provide sample strategies and help instructors learn about the theory and rationales for changing their teaching.
Create structure. Groups are most successful in sustaining activity when they have a facilitator or organizer who sets a meeting schedule, identifies group goals, coordinates meeting agendas, and facilitates discussion.
These five principles work together to create a community that supports faculty at different stages of trying, revising, and adopting new teaching approaches. Small groups of instructors with similar interests and disciplines can provide advice to their colleagues about teaching changes they might consider. Small changes allow instructors to try new ideas without reinventing their courses. These changes accumulate over time as instructors gain experience and become more comfortable.
Modest changes can also be helpful for trying a strategy and then refining or expanding it. For instance, an instructor can try a new technique (e.g., having students do a few short tasks during lecture to practice what the instructor just explained) in one or two class sessions, and then reflect on the outcomes before implementing the approach on a larger scale.
In our study, instructors with a genuine interest in improved pedagogy committed to regular meetings. The groups were often driven by instructors’ questions about their own teaching. Small groups were linked to self-motivation since instructors need support from colleagues to consider how they might try a new technique in their courses. The groups helped to create connections among instructors who were most interested in teaching, which in turn provided ongoing support beyond the length of the project. For scaffolding resources, groups found that both books and videos helped prompt discussion and generate new ideas. Finally, a structured schedule enabled regular meetings and prioritized learning together.
We have found these principles helpful for creating a sustainable teaching development group. Used together, they create a space for talking about teaching that might not be available elsewhere. Departmental discussions of teaching tend to focus on logistics of course size and sequence without space to focus on how instructors teach. The principles are adaptable to different settings and needs in various departments, providing flexibility for instructors to shape teaching development groups to meet their collective needs.
Jill Nelson is an associate professor of electrical engineering and Margret Hjalmarson is a professor of education at George Mason University. Both are STEM education researchers.
This article is adapted from “Practices for Implementing Interactive Teaching Development Groups” in the October 2021 issue of Advances in Engineering Education. The material is based on work supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF) under grants 1037683 and 1347675 and while the authors served as NSF program officers. Any opinions expressed in this material are the authors’ and do not necessarily reflect the views of NSF.
© Getty Images