Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access

Transitioning to online instruction: Strong ties and anxiety

Eric Brewe1, Adrienne Traxler2, and Sarah Scanlin3

  • 1Drexel University, Department of Physics, School of Education, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104, USA
  • 2Wright State University, Department of Physics, Dayton, Ohio 45435, USA
  • 3Drexel University, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104, USA

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 17, 023103 – Published 22 July, 2021

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.17.023103

Abstract

We surveyed a national sample of United States physics faculty about the COVID-19 transition to online learning. Most faculty had 1–2 weeks to prepare and no experience with teaching online. They relied on department peers to discuss approaches and used lecture adaptations such as video conferencing rather than new curricular elements. Their responses were empathetic to the students’ situation, and 90% believed they were average or above at implementing online instruction. Faculty’s preference for local resources and existing methods suggests that in a crisis, strong network ties will dominate as information sources, with consequences for professional development and instructional change.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (22)

  1. K. Lewin, Frontiers in group dynamics: Concept, method and reality in social science; social equilibria and social change, Human Relat. 1, 5 (1947).
  2. M. Borrego and C. Henderson, Increasing the use of evidence-based teaching in STEM higher education: A comparison of eight change strategies, J. Eng. Educ. 103, 220 (2014).
  3. M. Dancy and C. Henderson, Pedagogical practices and instructional change of physics faculty, Am. J. Phys. 78, 1056 (2010).
  4. C. Henderson, A. Beach, and N. Finkelstein, Facilitating change in undergraduate STEM instructional practices: An analytic review of the literature, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 48, 952 (2011).
  5. C. Henderson, N. Finkelstein, and A. Beach, Beyond dissemination in college science teaching: An introduction to four core change strategies, J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 39, 18 (2010), https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ887499.
  6. C. Henderson and M. H. Dancy, Physics faculty and educational researchers: Divergent expectations as barriers to the diffusion of innovations, Am. J. Phys. 76, 79 (2008).
  7. C. Henderson, M. Dancy, and M. Niewiadomska-Bugaj, Use of research-based instructional strategies in introductory physics: Where do faculty leave the innovation-decision process?, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 8, 020104 (2012).
  8. M. Tschannen-Moran and A. W. Hoy, Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct, Teach. Teach. Educ. 17, 783 (2001).
  9. M. Peker, Mathematics teaching anxiety and self-efficacy beliefs toward mathematics teaching: A path analysis, Educ. Res. Rev. 11, 97 (2016).
  10. C. Helba, A. M. Porter, S. Nicholson, and R. Ivie, Women among physics and astronomy faculty, Tech. Rep. (American Institute of Physics, College Park, MD, 2019).
  11. R. Ivie, G. Anderson, and S. White, African Americans & Hispanics among physics & astronomy faculty, Tech. Rep. (American Institute of Physics, College Park, MD, 2014).
  12. S. van Buuren and K. Groothuis-Oudshoorn, mice: Multivariate imputation by chained equations in R, J. Stat. Softw. 45, 1 (2011).
  13. R Core Team, R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing, R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria (2017).
  14. RStudio Team, RStudio: Integrated Development Environment for R (RStudio, PBC., Boston, MA, 2020).
  15. D. Navarro, Learning statistics with R: A tutorial for psychology students and other beginners (2013) pp. 1–542, https://learningstatisticswithr.com/.
  16. R. D. Morey and J. N. Rouder, BayesFactor: Computation of Bayes Factors for Common Designs (2018), R package version 0.9.12-4.2.
  17. M. Stains et al., Anatomy of STEM teaching in North American universities, Science 359, 1468 (2018).
  18. R. E. Kass and A. E. Raftery, Bayes factors, J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 90, 773 (1995).
  19. M. Dancy, C. Henderson, and C. Turpen, How faculty learn about and implement research-based instructional strategies: The case of Peer Instruction, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 12, 010110 (2016).
  20. D. Krackhardt, The strength of strong ties: The importance of philos in organizations, in Networks in the Knowledge Economy, edited by R. Cross, A. Parker, and L. Sasson (Oxford University Press, New York, 2003), pp. 216–239.
  21. C. Henderson, The challenges of instructional change under the best of circumstances: A case study of one college physics instructor, Am. J. Phys. 73, 778 (2005).
  22. K. Quardokus and C. Henderson, Promoting instructional change: Using social network analysis to understand the informal structure of academic departments, Higher Educ. 70, 315 (2015).

Outline

Information

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation