Institutional transformation through curriculum and faculty development to serve the modern chemistry student: Action research as a professional development strategy

Abstract

The rapidly evolving landscape of STEM education necessitates a proactive approach from educators to integrate current research and societal issues into curricula and adopt evidence-based best practices to create inclusive learning environments. To meet this need, the University of Illinois Chicago's Department of Chemistry initiated a project "Institutional Transformation through Curriculum and Faculty Development to Serve the Modern Chemistry Student" in 2021. The project focuses on revising undergraduate courses using evidence-based and student-centered approaches and providing professional development opportunities for both tenure-track and non-tenure track faculty. Within this context, we are employing Collaborative Action Research (CAR) as a professional development strategy. This involves a collaboration between chemistry education researchers and chemistry course instructors. As of Spring 2024, we have sequentially conducted CAR with three instructional teams—organic, inorganic, and biochemistry—each in a different semester. The CAR process involves reflecting on and identifying problems, suggesting literature-based solutions, implementing these solutions, and assessing the impact through data collection and analysis. Our collaboration has included a diverse group of instructors, including a graduate teaching assistant, three tenured faculty members, and two non-tenure track faculty members.

While implementing CAR, we also examine the outcomes, challenges, and best practices. We employ various data collection instruments, including reflection journals, field notes, audio/video-recordings of CAR meetings, and exit interviews with participating instructors. Preliminary findings indicate that CAR enhanced instructors’ professional growth, reflective teaching, sense of ownership, and capacity to solve immediate issues within the context of their classrooms. Moreover, CAR contributed to building a culture of collaboration and shared inquiry in the department. The study's implications extend beyond its immediate context, offering insights into implementation of CAR in higher education settings.

Full text

RESEARCH
The Process of Implementation
ACTION
Abdul Rauf
Department of Chemistry
University of Illinois, Chicago
Minjung Ryu, PhD & Don Wink, PhD
Department of Chemistry
Learning Sciences Research Institute
University of Illinois, Chicago
1
INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION THROUGH CURRICULUM AND FACULTY DEVELOPMENT
TO SERVE THE MODERN CHEMISTRY STUDENT-THE ACTION RESEACH COMPONENT
Collaborative

Promote reflective teaching
Modify instructional practices based
on the findings of the action
research
Promote the culture of collaboration
and mutual discussions in
chemistry department
Evaluate the effectiveness of the
revised courses
•Evidence-centered inclusion practices
•Collaborative Action Research
•Course analysis: Content sequencing (Using ACCM)
•Course analysis: Scientific practices
•Developing assessment systems to support learning
INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION TO SERVE THE MODERN CHEMISTRY STUDENT
•Research on the program
Curriculum
Development
Faculty Development
Research on Faculty
and Institutional
Change
Goals

WHY THE ACTION RESEARCH AS A PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY
As a professional development strategy, Action Research:
•Emphasizes classroom-based self-inquiry
•Promote self-reflection and evaluation
(Goodnough 2001, 2016; Kemmis et al. 2014; Koutselini 2008;
Koutselini and Patsalidou 2015).
Professional development via
traditional methods
Focuses on transition of
knowledge from an expert to
practitioners via workshops and
meetings
Individual concerns not valued
much
Little to no reflection process
involved
Practice-based, situation-based, context-specific
Bridges the gap between theory and practice
Professional
development
via Action
Research Foregrounds the agency of practitioners
Participant-driven; Self-inquiry; Active strategy
Contributes to social and cultural transformation

BEYOND THE OUTCOMES: EXPLORING THE PROCESS
OUR RESEARCH GOAL
Evaluate the effectiveness of the Collaborative
Action Research process between university-
based chemistry instructors and ChemED
researchers
RQ1: How does the collaborative action research
process work between university-based chemistry
instructors and chemistry education researchers?
RQ2: How could collaborative action research be
used as a tool to improve instructional practices of
university-based chemistry instructors?
OUR DISSEMINATION GOALS
Sharing the process
Sharing the final outcomes
and findings from the
project
The insights from process and findings
could guide the development and
implementation of equivalent projects in
peer institutions

Recruitment for faculty
participants
(Oct- Nov 2022)
Faced challenges:
•Conflicting and busy schedules of course instructors
•Logistic issues: Instructors not teaching the same courses
Conducted a brief workshop
with faculty members to
introduce the idea of
Collaborative Action Research
(Dec 2022)
Interest shown by
instructors to
participate
(Jan 2023)
OUR JOURNEY OF KICKSTARTING THE ACTION RESEARCH COMPONENT
Initiated Collaborative
Action Research project for
Inorganic chemistry course
(Jan 2023)

COLLABORATIVE ACTION RESEARCH: UNDERGRADUATE INORGANIC CHEMISTRY COURSE

“Majority of students don’t get much useful
knowledge from this (Walsh diagram) lab”
“There should be away to change the lab”
“They either messed up calculations or they
just could not follow the instructions”
Goal:Identify the core issues of practice that matter the most
to the instructor
Reflective Interviews*
STEP 1: BRAINSTORMING
(IDENTIFYING ISSUES & FORMULATING RQs)
*Techniques adapted from: 1) Sagor, R. (1992). How to conduct collaborative action research. 2) Roulston, K. (2010).
Reflective interviewing: A guide to theory and practice.
2 meetings
1 hour each
•Surprises or challenges faced while
teaching?
•Core issues/ concerns that stand
out?
•Any areas where you feel you need
additional support or resources?
Clarifying and
probing questions

Goal:Understand the core issues surfaced during the
reflective interviews process
Analytic Discourse
STEP 1: BRAINSTORMING
(IDENTIFYING ISSUES & FORMULATING RQs)
*Techniques adapted from: 1) Sagor, R. (1992). How to conduct collaborative action research. 2) Roulston, K. (2010).
Reflective interviewing: A guide to theory and practice.
1 meeting
(2 hours)
•Can you tell more about your experiences
with this issue?
•How does this issue impacts students’
learning experience?
•Can you provide examples to help better
understand your perspective on this
issue?
Questions to
comprehend the issue
“I think they feel lost because they have no motivation”
“so it is abig part for this last (Affective domain) thing”

Goal: Visualize surfaced issues with the influencing factors
Graphic Representations*
Poor understanding of the context
Poor performance in calculations
STEP 1: BRAINSTORMING
(IDENTIFYING ISSUES & FORMULATING RQs)
*Technique adapted from: Sagor, R. (1992). How to conduct collaborative action research.
2 meetings
1 hour each
Picture the reflections
•List possible factors the seem to
influence the issues identified so far
•Arrange in relational order
Analyze the picture with critical eye
•Any other issues/variables to consider?
•Are we forgetting something?

STEP 1: BRAINSTORMING
(IDENTIFYING ISSUES & FORMULATING RQs)
Formulating Research Questions
“maybe we can include a small exercise and
provide a better description on this lab’s work”
“a scaffolded worksheet?… have them perform
calculations involved before coming to the lab
so they could have an idea what is going to
happen in this lab and they already have a little
bit of practice of that”
Motivation for the lab
Understanding the
instruction
Understanding the context
of the lab
Does prelab help students
get a better picture?
Does pre-lab help students
get/stay motivated?
Does prelab help students
understand the lab better?
Brainstorming
intervention
ideas Formulating
research
questions
Introduce a pre-lab!
Determining
intervention
goals to address
the identified
issues

STEP 2: SUGGESTING SOLUTIONS
Identification of LOs and
goals of the pre-lab activity
Literature review
Mapping out the pre-lab
structure
Feedback from other
stakeholders on first draft
Iteration and refining based
on the feedback
Prototype of the lab
Reflections on
the proposed
intervention
Bruno Latour’s
design process
approach 1,2 Refining of
the pre-lab
Reflect on the strengths and
weaknesses of the proposed
intervention (a pre-lab activity in
case of our recent CAR cycle
1Bradbury, S. (2014). Learning from actor network theory: Bridging the gap between research in science and research by design.
2Latour, B. (2008, September). A cautious Prometheus? A few steps toward a philosophy of design. In Proceedings of the 2008 annual
international conference of the design history society (pp. 2-10).

STEP 3: SETTING UP DATA COLLECTION PLAN
Identify
possible data
sources for
each RQ
Identify
variables to
observe as
evidence
Develop
Observation
protocol

COLLABORATIVE ACTION RESEARCH: UNDERGRADUATE INORGANIC CHEMISTRY COURSE
WHERE WE STAND

LESSONS LEARNED AND KEY TAKEAWAYS
Empowerment: Enhanced ownership and
engagement of instructor
Inculcating literature reported strategies into
instructors’ own lesson designing
Increased awareness of student needs through
reflections
Enhanced sense of collegiality via continuous
feedback from stakeholders
Training in setting data collection: Identifying
variables, collecting evidences for observation,
observation skills
Be Flexible: Process demands flexibility,
patience and an adaptive mindset
Plan ahead: Pace is much faster. Facilitators
must plan well to keep things moving
Use graphical representations: We found it to
be an excellent tool for reflections, connecting
dots and identifying concerns
Cultivate Trust: Build safe environment and
trust with participating instructors
Document the Process: Keep detailed records
of the process, including notes, audio/video
recordings and other artifacts to facilitate
reflection and analysis
Suggestions for future
implementation
Possible outcomes
vv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This work was supported
by National Science
Foundation
NSF-DUE 2111446
Ryu Group members
•Roshni Bano
•Qiuyan Wu
•Atiiyah Ibrahim
Peers from UIC CER community
•Ashley Brock
•Adrian Wierzchowski
•Robert Milligan
•Tyler Barton
Minjung Ryu, PhD.
PhD Advisor
Project Co-PI
Department of Chemistry
Learning Sciences Research Institute
University of Illinois at Chicago
Donald J. Wink, PhD.
Project PI
Department of Chemistry
Learning Sciences Research Institute
University of Illinois at Chicago
•Maggie O'Brien
•Fatima Ali
•Adeesha Kiribathgala Kankanam
•Jacob Markut
•Mustafa Demirbuga
•Sidney Spurgeon
•Elizabeth Kelley
(UChicago)