Catalysts for Achieving Sustained - 麻省理工学院人工智能研究专业

Catalysts for Achieving Sustained
Improvement in the Quality of
Undergraduate STEM Education

Mary Sue Coleman, Tobin L. 史密斯
& Emily R. 磨坊主

Promoting excellence in undergraduate STEM (科学, 技术, 工程师-
英, and mathematics) education at major research universities is necessary to
ensure that we have the STEM-literate workforce and general population re-
quired to propel the nation forward into the twenty-first century and beyond.
This essay provides a brief contextual history of the Association of American
Universities’ (AAU) effort to improve the effectiveness of undergraduate STEM
education at member campuses and delineates the specific goals of this initia-
主动的. The essay then illuminates the essential role of the academic department
and department chair in achieving long-lasting change and improving the
quality of undergraduate education. It also discusses critical strategies and ap-
proaches for promoting the most effective methods for undergraduate STEM
teaching and learning, with numerous examples from AAU member universi-
领带. The essay concludes with an acknowledgment of key challenges and oppor-
tunities that continue to face undergraduate education at research universities.

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

e
d
你
d
A
e
d
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

1
4
8
4
2
9
1
8
3
1
3
5
7
d
A
e
d
_
A
_
0
1
7
5
9
p
d

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

哦
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

I n the late 2000s, Association of American Universities (AAU) staff recog-

nized that its member institutions were vulnerable to criticisms concern-
ing the quality of undergraduate STEM (科学, 技术, 工程,
and mathematics) 教学, 学习, and retention, such as those raised in
这 1998 Boyer Commission Report on educating undergraduates in the re-
search university.1 At the same time, the rise of MOOCs (massive open on-
line courses), growing calls for higher education accountability at the state
and federal level, and mounting pressures to justify the cost and value of an
undergraduate degree at a research university were topics of growing discus-
sion among the AAU membership. Following reports such as Rising Above the
Gathering Storm by the National Academy of Sciences, a significant degree of
national attention was also placed on the need to improve STEM education to

© 2019 by Mary Sue Coleman, Tobin L. 史密斯 & Emily R. 磨坊主
在知识共享下发布
归因 4.0 国际的 (抄送 4.0) 执照
https://doi.org/10.1162/DAED_a_01759

ensure that an adequate pipeline of domestic STEM talent was being produced
to generate the ideas, 产品, and industries that would drive future U.S.
global competitiveness.2 It was also well documented at the time that over 40
percent of students who entered research universities intending to major in
a STEM field did not complete their degrees or ended up earning degrees in
non-STEM disciplines.3

During this same time period, research on teaching and learning had
also led to the development of instructional methods that were more engag-
ing and effective at helping students learn. The positive impact of these im-
proved teaching methods had been extensively documented in STEM fields
and was summarized in reports issued in 2010 by both the National Academy
of Sciences and the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technolo-
gy.4 A comprehensive meta-analysis of 225 studies revealed that undergradu-
ate students in classes with traditional lectures are 1.5 times more likely to fail
than students in classes that use active learning methods.5 Evidence was also
新兴的 (and now is firmly established) demonstrating that learning gains
from using these teaching approaches in highly structured classrooms are
particularly good for students from disadvantaged and diverse backgrounds.6
Active learning also has been shown to confer disproportionate benefits to fe-
male students in male-dominated fields.7

Reflecting on undergraduate STEM education from 2009 到 2012, the AAU
found that most university efforts to support student success in STEM fields
occurred outside the classroom, and that a majority of STEM faculty members
remained inattentive to scholarship on effective pedagogy. Student-centered,
evidence-based teaching practices were not yet the norm in most undergrad-
uate STEM education courses, and the desired magnitude of change in STEM
pedagogy had not materialized.8

Most scholarship on STEM educational reform has focused on individu-
al faculty members and the students in their classrooms. This literature of-
ten centers on microlevel assessments of the classroom, which are crucial to
assessing the effect of pedagogy on student learning and informing the broad
audience of instructors about what works. Much less evident is research about
the larger institutional and external environments, including the costs and po-
litical challenges in scaling up reforms.9 Concern about more macrolevel en-
vironments requires a change in assessment from looking solely for benefits
and learning outcomes at the course or program level to a more nuanced con-
sideration of factors that facilitate, impede, or influence widespread transfor-
mation in undergraduate STEM education.

Education scholar Ann Austin has recommended that sustainable STEM
reform requires engaging institutional leaders such as department chairs,

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

e
d
你
d
A
e
d
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

1
4
8
4
2
9
1
8
3
1
3
5
7
d
A
e
d
_
A
_
0
1
7
5
9
p
d

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

哦
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

代达罗斯, 美国艺术学院学报 & SciencesAchieving Sustained Improvement in the Quality of Undergraduate STEM Education

deans, and presidents in rethinking institutional structures and culture.10 Re-
lying on her well-documented systems approach to change, Austin has also
suggested that external stakeholders, such as disciplinary societies, 治理-
ment agencies, and employers, are crucial to long-lasting change.11 Trans-
forming undergraduate STEM education requires multiple facilitators or “le-
vers” pushing for change that can counterbalance the forces that sustain in-
effective instructional practices and that address the systemic obstacles that
work against educational innovation and reform.12

在 2011, the AAU launched the Undergraduate STEM Education Initiative,
which was designed to assist AAU institutions in widely implementing effec-
tive teaching practices in STEM education and supporting student learning
and persistence in STEM. This ambitious project has sought to increase the
importance and value of effective undergraduate STEM teaching in the na-
tion’s leading research universities and continues to promote the implemen-
tation of a systemic view of educational reform within academia.13

Since its launch, the initiative has made significant progress in advancing
these goals. At the institutional level, although many of the interventions are
still in progress, initial data and analyses point toward their positive impact.
Of the eight initial AAU STEM Initiative project sites, all have reported some
improvement in student learning outcomes. The magnitude and significance
have varied according to the different stages of the reform process across the
institutions and departments. Several campuses have experienced dramatic
reductions in achievement gaps, especially for women, underrepresented mi-
诺里斯, and first-generation students. Reports of decreased DFW (D grades, F
grades, and withdrawals from a course) rates are common, as is increased stu-
dent persistence and success in subsequent courses as measured by grade per-
formance. AAU project sites also found improved performance on exams de-
signed and sponsored by disciplinary societies to assess knowledge of core dis-
ciplinary concepts (那是, concept inventories). Some campuses also have
tracked the effects of instructional interventions on more general psycholog-
ical factors, such as self-efficacy, metacognition, and student attitudes toward
science.14

然而, evidence alone is not enough to change faculty behavior. As AAU
principal investigator James Fairweather has explained, “research evidence of
instructional effectiveness is a necessary but not sufficient condition” for fac-
ulty to change their teaching practices. Fairweather has suggested that the as-
sumption that “the instructional role can be addressed independently from
other aspects of the faculty position, particularly research, and from the larg-
er institutional context” is misguided.15 Given the size and scale of higher ed-
教育, changing individual faculty members or even isolated departments

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

e
d
你
d
A
e
d
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

1
4
8
4
2
9
1
8
3
1
3
5
7
d
A
e
d
_
A
_
0
1
7
5
9
p
d

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

哦
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

148 (4) Fall 2019Mary Sue Coleman, Tobin L. 史密斯 & Emily R. 磨坊主

will have minimal impact. To achieve long-lasting and broadly disseminated
educational reforms, efforts must go well beyond this microlevel focus.

像这样, AAU member campuses are implementing specific strategies to cat-
alyze change, partner with academic departments, and support faculty mem-
bers to improve the effectiveness of undergraduate education. 而且, 二
cross-cutting resources–data and funding–are being committed to advanc-
ing these strategies. Before describing these approaches, it is important to dis-
cuss the academic department and its role in facilitating long-term sustained
改变. The department is the location where these strategies obtain buy-in
and commitment, as well as connect with faculty members in the university.

在 2017, the American Academy of Arts and Sciences’ Commission on the

Future of Undergraduate Education published a report that examined the
current state of American undergraduate education, projected the na-
tion’s short-term and long-term educational needs, and offered recommen-
dations for strengthening all aspects of undergraduate education.16 One of
the primary recommendations of the Commission is for institutions to make
a systemic commitment to the improvement of undergraduate teaching. 乙酰胆碱-
cording to the Commission, strengthening college teaching will require insti-
tutional collaboration with academic departments. In a supplemental report,
the Commission recommended that institutions provide sustained support
for department chairs to enable them to become more knowledgeable about
the research base on effective college teaching and help them create teaching
improvements in their home departments.17

From its inception over six years ago, the AAU’s Undergraduate STEM Ed-
ucation Initiative has recognized that academic departments are the primary
loci for cultural change and that academic units and colleges are central to im-
proving the quality of undergraduate education. Institutions rely on individ-
ual academic departments to coordinate and manage the academic process.18
Departments determine course offerings, curricula, and teaching assign-
评论; appoint and promote teaching and administrative staff; and manage
essential services for faculty members and students. 而且, faculty mem-
bers typically identify more strongly with their departments than with their
university as a whole because their identities are most closely tied to their ac-
ademic disciplines and because academic work is primarily carried out in sep-
arate department-based worlds.19 Thus, the department is the primary unit in
which faculty members see themselves as having the greatest influence, 和
the space in which they can create desired change.20

The department chair plays a significant leadership role at a university. 在
addition to leading their departments, chairs also situate their departments

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

e
d
你
d
A
e
d
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

1
4
8
4
2
9
1
8
3
1
3
5
7
d
A
e
d
_
A
_
0
1
7
5
9
p
d

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

哦
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

代达罗斯, 美国艺术学院学报 & SciencesAchieving Sustained Improvement in the Quality of Undergraduate STEM Education

within institutional context and priorities: they lie at a pivotal junction be-
tween the administration and the faculty, maintaining the department as well
as meeting the needs of the institution.21 The chair is a linchpin that connects
institutional priorities and faculty work by translating messages from senior
institutional leaders, and interpreting questions, 问题, and concerns ex-
pressed by faculty members.22 Department chairs have meaningful, ongoing
interactions with faculty members, 学生, and other department chairs.
They advocate within the university for the interests of those engaged in their
particular fields.23 Department chairs can help create cultures in their units
where teaching excellence is valued and rewarded.24 Overall, the work of de-
partment chairs has an immediate and lasting impact: their actions affect the
daily experience of faculty members, 职员, and students. Research has shown
that department chairs are responsible for 80 percent of administrative deci-
sions on campuses.25

Consistent with the importance of department chairs in reforming un-
dergraduate STEM education, the AAU convened teams of department chairs
from member campuses in 2015 和 2018. During these workshops, the AAU
discussed the evidence of improved learning gains and STEM-major retention
in classes using engaged and structured teaching methods. The chairs then
discussed topics such as creating inclusive and welcoming classroom environ-
评论, using data to inform and assess curricular innovations, introducing
practices to evaluate and reward teaching effectiveness, and developing pro-
ductive partnerships between academic departments and centers for teaching
和学习. By engaging STEM department chairs in these critical teaching
and learning issues, the AAU has worked to increase the magnitude and speed
of change in the quality and effectiveness of undergraduate STEM education
at research universities.

T he AAU Undergraduate STEM Education Initiative has found that de-

partments taking collective responsibility for improving the effec-
tiveness of their foundational courses are the ones most likely to em-
phasize evidence-based active-learning strategies. Collective responsibility is
related to developing a uniform departmental vision of educational improve-
ment among faculty members and implementing strategies necessary to sup-
port a cycle of continuous improvement.

The AAU has observed six key drivers for the continuous improvement of

undergraduate STEM teaching and learning.

Embedding discipline-based education and pedagogical expertise in departments to
assist in educational improvement. To improve introductory foundational STEM
courses, many AAU institutions are investing in faculty members who have

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

e
d
你
d
A
e
d
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

1
4
8
4
2
9
1
8
3
1
3
5
7
d
A
e
d
_
A
_
0
1
7
5
9
p
d

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

哦
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

148 (4) Fall 2019Mary Sue Coleman, Tobin L. 史密斯 & Emily R. 磨坊主

subject matter expertise, a deep understanding of effective pedagogy, 和前-
perience in using evidence-based teaching practices. Crucial to the effective
use of these personnel is finding ways to incorporate them in departmental
decision-making about teaching and curricula.

These education-based faculty appointments vary widely across institu-
系统蒸发散. Some are discipline-based education researchers hired in tenure-track
faculty lines. Others are faculty members in lecture positions aligned with a
promotion track, which provides some level of employment security. 一些
are postdocs who provide expert pedagogical guidance to faculty members.
Appointments vary by title, tenure-track status, teaching load, research ex-
pectations, performance expectations, and promotional level.26 The role and
responsibility to advance institutional, college-wide, or department-based
educational improvement efforts by faculty members in these positions is a
function of hiring expectations and the acceptance by departments and insti-
tutions of their contributions to improving undergraduate education.

Embedding faculty with disciplinary and educational expertise in depart-
ments can assist in department-wide educational improvement, 包括
design and teaching of foundational courses. When linked with colleagues
across departments, these individuals can also assist in achieving broader, 在-
stitution-wide, systemic STEM teaching reforms. Although many of these fac-
ulty members exclusively teach (especially introductory courses), when giv-
en the opportunity, they are quite effective as change agents, leading refine-
ments in course curriculum and assessments, helping tenure-track faculty
teach these introductory courses more effectively, conducting educational re-
search and assessments, and linking their academic department to other uni-
versity teaching and learning units. These broader departmental reforms are
more difficult to achieve if these newer types of faculty members are not giv-
en time to engage in nonteaching activities. Acceptance and support from de-
partmental leadership and tenure-track faculty members of individuals with
instructional expertise are essential to make maximum use of their expertise
to promote long-lasting reforms in teaching and learning.

A number of AAU institutions are testing an adaptation of an expert-guided
course-transformation process. 例如, TRESTLE (Transforming Educa-
的, Stimulating Teaching and Learning Excellence) is a multi-institution,
National Science Foundation–funded project that studies and implements a
model for improving STEM education at public research universities. The em-
bedded pedagogical experts lead their department colleagues through depart-
ment planning and course transformation using a backward mapping design
process consistent with improvement science. This process is complement-
ed by a curriculum-mapping step to promote a sense of shared ownership of

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

e
d
你
d
A
e
d
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

1
4
8
4
2
9
1
8
3
1
3
5
7
d
A
e
d
_
A
_
0
1
7
5
9
p
d

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

哦
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

代达罗斯, 美国艺术学院学报 & SciencesAchieving Sustained Improvement in the Quality of Undergraduate STEM Education

courses and curricula and to generate a common vision. 此外, TRESTLE
is building intellectual communities around evidence-based educational im-
provement, within and across departments and institutions. It is also collect-
ing and making visible evidence of the impact of reforms on teaching and
学习.

Creating inclusive and welcoming classroom environments. Unstructured learn-
ing environments can lead to unfairness, feelings of exclusion, and colli-
sions of students’ cultural backgrounds with the learning environment. 在一个
structured learning environment, the instructor designs classroom interac-
tions with the intention of maximizing student learning.27 Adding structure
to learning environments can mitigate unfairness, promote feelings of inclu-
锡安, and foster student success.28 At some institutions, faculty members are
participating in mentee-mentor coteaching teams to implement inclusive,
evidence-based teaching methods designed to close achievement gaps in
foundational science courses. Inclusive teaching has two main components:
putting more structure into a course by giving clear instructions so that all
students know what to do before, 期间, and after class; and facilitating class
discussion so that everyone can participate.

Another effective strategy to create inclusive learning environments is
to partner with undergraduate students. Undergraduate learning assistants
(ULA) are undergraduate students who have done well in the class previously.
They help facilitate learning activities during instructional time. Frequently,
ULAs support instructors making extensive use of innovative, evidence-based
pedagogies in their courses. Depending on the university, recognition for
ULAs range from course credit to financial stipends. In addition to the support
ULAs offer instructors, studies indicate that learning-assistant programs have
several benefits, such as improved learning outcomes and knowledge reten-
tion for students who take courses with ULAs compared with students who
take parallel courses without ULAs; reduced DFW rates in courses that have
ULAs; 和, after being a ULA, students have equivalent knowledge to gradu-
ate students in the field.29 Undergraduates can also be employed to facilitate
peer-led team learning (PLTL). PLTL groups typically consist of six to eight
undergraduate students who work together to solve problems and are facili-
tated by a peer leader. Peer leaders are undergraduate students who have pre-
viously taken and performed well in the course. PLTL is designed to help stu-
dents become conscious of the problem-solving process. It also helps students
develop important collaboration skills, including how to approach problems
effectively as a group, how to communicate well, and how to exchange and
critique ideas in a collaborative environment. Peer leader training is an im-
portant component of the program. Peer leaders often are enrolled in courses

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

e
d
你
d
A
e
d
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

1
4
8
4
2
9
1
8
3
1
3
5
7
d
A
e
d
_
A
_
0
1
7
5
9
p
d

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

哦
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

148 (4) Fall 2019Mary Sue Coleman, Tobin L. 史密斯 & Emily R. 磨坊主

to learn how to be mentors for their groups; they form a collaborative group
of their own to help one another address common PLTL challenges.30

Employing collaborative active learning techniques in the classroom is
an important strategy for achieving student engagement and for enhancing
学习. Numerous studies provide significant evidence that engagement is
critical to student success. In collaborative and flexible learning spaces, fac-
ulty members are using innovative teaching and learning strategies that pro-
mote higher-order thinking skills that lead to better understanding and im-
proved ability to transfer knowledge to other applications. These rooms are
often an important catalyst for faculty members to redesign courses and are
cited by students as providing more inclusive learning environments.31

Implementing practices to value, evaluate, and reward teaching effectiveness. 上校-
lege and university efforts to improve undergraduate teaching and learning
require the recognition of faculty who use teaching practices shown to sup-
port student learning. Despite decades of scholarship to develop rich, 多-
source systems for evaluating teaching, these methods have not been broad-
ly implemented into or recognized within faculty reward systems.32 Many
departments, colleges, and institutions are now developing innovative ef-
forts to support the implementation of higher-quality approaches to teach-
ing evaluation.

Evidence shows that stated policies about teaching alone do not strong-
ly influence faculty behavior, much less encourage academic culture to more
highly value teaching. A richer, more complete assessment of teaching quali-
ty and effectiveness for tenure, promotion, and merit is necessary for system-
ic improvement of undergraduate education.33

Several institutions have adopted strategies to create an environment in
which the continuous improvement of teaching is valued, 评估的, 并重新-
warded at various stages of a faculty member’s career, and is aligned across
the department, college, and university levels. The AAU has developed a ma-
trix to map the landscape of efforts working to improve policy and practices
related to the evaluation of faculty work.34

Staff at some centers for teaching and learning are developing frameworks
and rubrics to provide a more comprehensive view of faculty teaching. 这些
tools are often designed to structure departmental evaluation of faculty mem-
bers’ teaching with defined expectations and dimensions of effective teach-
ing practice. At other institutions, in partnership with centers for teaching
和学习, departments are using a variety of tools (such as the Classroom
Observation Protocol for Undergraduate STEM and the Decibel Analysis for
Research in Teaching) to help conduct more effective observations of facul-
ty teaching.35 In some instances, a radical revision of teaching observations

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

e
d
你
d
A
e
d
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

1
4
8
4
2
9
1
8
3
1
3
5
7
d
A
e
d
_
A
_
0
1
7
5
9
p
d

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

哦
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

代达罗斯, 美国艺术学院学报 & SciencesAchieving Sustained Improvement in the Quality of Undergraduate STEM Education

is underway. 举个例子, some faculty members observe classes taught by
others with evidence-based instruction. Instead of evaluating that instruc-
tor’s performance, they write a self-reflection on their own teaching to in-
clude in annual reviews. Faculty senates are also leading efforts to reconsider
the institutional process for the evaluation of teaching.

Developing productive partnerships between academic departments and units dedi-
cated to educational effectiveness. Across the AAU, a variety of institutional struc-
tures exist to support faculty members in improving the quality and effective-
ness of teaching and learning. The AAU has recognized that when academic
departments develop productive working partnerships with units dedicated
to educational effectiveness, it results in change at scale.

This reflects a core principle that the ultimate responsibility for teaching
quality lies with the department, especially the department chair. This effect
occurs through three main mechanisms: determining the curriculum (typi-
cally developed by a faculty committee and enforced by the chair), 制作
teaching assignments, and evaluating faculty teaching. Many institutions
have recognized the interdependence of support units and departments in
improving teaching and learning. They are elevating and reorganizing the tra-
ditional teaching center into a full division or more closely aligning it with
university leadership, oftentimes an associate provost responsible for teach-
ing innovation or excellence with a direct reporting line to the provost. By ex-
panding and more centrally locating these teaching responsibilities at high-
er levels within the university, the institution can make its expectations for
teaching more explicit to academic units. More centralized leadership pro-
vides the necessary scaffolding for individual faculty members who wish to
incorporate evidence-based teaching approaches into their course or depart-
ment-level projects that promote student learning, create inclusive class-
房间, and retain highly qualified students. Individual faculty members are
also provided assistance to design and conduct assessments to evaluate cur-
ricular innovations as well as determine the impact of pedagogical changes
on student learning. In this new light, centers for teaching and learning can
bridge instructional teams (faculty, 研究生, undergraduates, 和
postdocs) and experts in assessment, 技术, pedagogy, and student sup-
港口. 日益, these support units provide department chairs with a suite
of necessary information to generate appropriate conversations and reflec-
tion on teaching and teaching quality.

最后, these more visible and institution-wide units are better posi-
tioned to compete for extramural grant funds to facilitate course transfor-
运动, teaching development efforts, and cultural change across the insti-
tution around teaching. In some instances, more visible centers for teaching

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

e
d
你
d
A
e
d
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

1
4
8
4
2
9
1
8
3
1
3
5
7
d
A
e
d
_
A
_
0
1
7
5
9
p
d

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

哦
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

148 (4) Fall 2019Mary Sue Coleman, Tobin L. 史密斯 & Emily R. 磨坊主

and learning have helped departments to submit proposals and receive grant
funding from the institution to encourage and facilitate high-impact learning
实践, technology-enhanced learning, and a culture of educational excel-
lence at the department and college levels.

Using data to inform and assess curricular innovations. Research universities
can facilitate STEM education improvement by supporting the development
and use of institution-wide data and analytical tools on student instruction
and learning outcomes. It is critical that data collected by the institution are
compiled and shared with departments in ways that help them and their fac-
ulty members to enhance continually the quality of their STEM instruction.
Central to the successful use of data analytics is to distinguish between the
types of data useful for individual faculty members designing and assessing
their courses and the types of data that can be used to inform departmental
决策. 例如, information about incoming student back-
理由, demographics, and past performance (such as SAT scores); pre- 和
post-tests to assess student understanding of core concepts; data from vari-
ous course observation protocols; and data provided by student evaluations
and assessments can be helpful to individual faculty members. Data regarding
student performance in subsequent courses, DFW rates over multiple semes-
特尔斯, and data that enable comparisons across various sections of a class can
be useful to the department. The ease and efficiency of the use of data are also
important factors in broad acceptance of teaching-related metrics. Last and
最重要的, data must be seen as part of the policy- and decision-making
过程. Among the more important lessons learned on the use of data in edu-
cational reform are that actionable and supported strategies based on data an-
alytics must be developed within academic units.

Several AAU institutions are developing analytical tools to examine stu-
dent demographics, student preparation, student performance, student
选择, curricular complexity, instructional resources, and student learning.
The aim is to foster a cycle of progress in which faculty members and admin-
istrators move from awareness and understanding to a continuous cycle of ac-
tion and reflection.

Creating new business models. Systemic improvement of undergraduate
STEM education at research universities should not be done from one grant
to the next. Although this is an acceptable approach for supporting research,
it is not appropriate for the institutional instructional mission. Symbolical-
ly and practically, establishing and maintaining lasting business models and
organizational structures that support STEM educational reform are required
elements for eventual institutionalization. Systemic changes in undergrad-
uate STEM education require long-term administrative financial support.

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

e
d
你
d
A
e
d
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

1
4
8
4
2
9
1
8
3
1
3
5
7
d
A
e
d
_
A
_
0
1
7
5
9
p
d

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

哦
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

代达罗斯, 美国艺术学院学报 & SciencesAchieving Sustained Improvement in the Quality of Undergraduate STEM Education

Institutionalization of reform efforts will frequently require funds for per-
索内尔, 基础设施, and space. 在过去, institutions have not fully taken
advantage of the fundraising potential that exists around efforts to improve
the quality of their STEM teaching. 然而, more and more institutions are
finding that donors are inspired by these new teaching practices and learning
environments and will provide funds to support these efforts.

同样地, new funds are needed to support embedding high-level, 教学-
oriented faculty with deep disciplinary expertise within departments. 大学-
versities have for many years sought funds to endow research chairs within
departments. These chairs often have been funded by industry or industrial
领导者. Endowed chairs can provide more space and recognition for facul-
ty wanting to devote time to helping their departments improve the quality
of their teaching. Institutions and departments would be wise to capitalize on
this growing interest by endowing education-oriented chairs within their de-
partments and providing these faculty with the resources needed to enhance
and improve teaching in their departments. 同时, industry would
be wise to seek to support such endowed chairs to help ensure a well-trained
STEM workforce in disciplines critical to their continued success.

W hile the AAU is working to help universities advance these critical

catalysts necessary for systemic change in undergraduate STEM
education and to leverage the influence of peer institutions, chal-

lenges remain.

第一的, institutions and departments need to find ways to better value the
contributions of individuals (such as teaching professionals and teaching fac-
ulty) working to achieve the university’s educational mission. The AAU has
observed at research universities a significant challenge in recognizing the ac-
ademic unit as a team of faculty members all making contributions to under-
graduate education. 此外, the value of activities to improve undergrad-
uate education, particularly the more invisible elements of teaching (例如
course or curriculum redesign and assessment), is weighted differently across
and within institutions. And as faculty members work to demonstrate effec-
tiveness in research, 教学, and service as part of the promotion and ten-
ure process, it is often unclear where to discuss this work. The AAU has found
differing opinions by deans and department chairs within universities on this
话题. Some consider efforts such as collaborating with faculty colleagues on a
curriculum design as a service role or as part of committee work. Others con-
sider this task a core element of teaching. This ambiguity can make it difficult
to reward faculty for making key contributions to the full range of departmen-
tal educational objectives.

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

e
d
你
d
A
e
d
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

1
4
8
4
2
9
1
8
3
1
3
5
7
d
A
e
d
_
A
_
0
1
7
5
9
p
d

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

哦
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

148 (4) Fall 2019Mary Sue Coleman, Tobin L. 史密斯 & Emily R. 磨坊主

For faculty members hired to provide pedagogical, discipline-based exper-
tise with long-term contracts and the opportunity for professional advance-
蒙特, there is considerable debate about teaching loads, research expecta-
系统蒸发散, how contributions to improving courses or mentoring faculty members
in evidence-based pedagogy are counted in annual review, as well as policies
about their rights to participate in department governance and service com-
mittees. The AAU has observed that departments are relying on these facul-
ty members to make significant educational improvements to foundational
introductory courses but have not figured out how to provide these faculty
members voice in departmental governance or how to give faculty members
credit for their teaching and educational leadership contributions. This grow-
ing tension must be addressed.

第二, for sustainable undergraduate STEM education reform, depart-
ments will need to create environments to support the interactions necessary
to build trust and respect among the whole team of faculty members and ad-
dress some of the critical barriers to undergraduate education improvement.
A recent study by higher education scholar Adrianna Kezar examined the role
of the AAU in scaling improvements in undergraduate STEM education.36 The
study found that through in-person convenings of faculty members and cam-
pus leaders, the AAU has facilitated a community of change leaders by creat-
ing an environment in which they can share challenges, learn from peers in
similar institutional contexts, and provide multiple dimensions of support to
one other. 而且, the AAU has found that the in-person component of net-
working is important. Even in our technological age, physical proximity mat-
ters for collaboration: productive collaborations are driven by face-to-face
interactions in shared spaces.37 Networks are central to facilitating and scal-
ing change since they provide the emotional support and sense of communi-
ty necessary for participants to feel that they can safely take risks and experi-
ment together.

第三, there is the challenge of expanding beyond STEM. Effective teach-
ing and learning and creating inclusive and welcoming classroom environ-
ments are critical not just in STEM but for all disciplines. The AAU is pleased
that member institutions are expanding their efforts to include the full range
of disciplines represented on their campuses. The AAU has found such efforts
in the social and behavioral science courses that enroll a large number of stu-
dents as well as in foundational or general education curriculums. In these
spaces and in the humanities, there is growing recognition that these cours-
es are also important for student learning and for departmental budgets; 他们
account for a significant amount of credit hours and tuition every term. 这样的
courses are also very difficult to teach, enrolling students from a wide variety

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

e
d
你
d
A
e
d
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

1
4
8
4
2
9
1
8
3
1
3
5
7
d
A
e
d
_
A
_
0
1
7
5
9
p
d

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

哦
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

代达罗斯, 美国艺术学院学报 & SciencesAchieving Sustained Improvement in the Quality of Undergraduate STEM Education

of backgrounds, 兴趣, and goals, as well as endeavoring to prepare them
for subsequent study across a range of fields.

最后, institutions must commit to a cycle of continuous improvement.
At the national policy level, we have begun to see a more coordinated effort to
improve undergraduate education across relevant organizations and actors.38
We have observed a shift away from isolated directives within individual dis-
ciplines and nationally funded efforts that do not require long-lasting reforms
within academic institutions. 今天, many funders are designing solicitations
with expectations for projects to build and sustain institutional change.39 At
the institutional level, universities are designing institutional structures and
committing to leadership roles necessary to support the diverse, 复杂的
pathways students take to earn degrees, as well as ensure effective teaching for
the growing diversity of learners.40 Universities are also engaging in a reflec-
tive practice of assessing institutional improvement efforts in teaching and
learning and then adjusting practice at multiple levels of the university. Ul-
timately, effective undergraduate education will require a sustained institu-
tional commitment to a continuous cycle of improvement. The AAU will con-
tinue to work to promote the use of evidence-based teaching practices and
drive systemic change to improve the quality of undergraduate education at
research universities.

about the authors

Mary Sue Coleman, 自此成为美国科学院院士 2001, is Pres-
ident of the Association of American Universities. She was previously Presi-
dent of the University of Michigan and President of the University of Iowa. 她
served as Cochair of the American Academy’s Lincoln Project: Excellence and
Access in Public Higher Education.

Tobin L. Smith is Vice President for Policy at the Association of American
Universities. He is the author of Beyond Sputnik: 我们. Science Policy in the 21st Century
(with Homer A. Neal and Jennifer B. McCormick, 2008) and has published in
such journals as Nature and Issues in Science and Technology.

Emily R. Miller is Associate Vice President for Policy at the Association of
American Universities. She has published in such journals as Nature, CBE–Life
Sciences Education, and Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning.

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

e
d
你
d
A
e
d
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

1
4
8
4
2
9
1
8
3
1
3
5
7
d
A
e
d
_
A
_
0
1
7
5
9
p
d

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

哦
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

148 (4) Fall 2019Mary Sue Coleman, Tobin L. 史密斯 & Emily R. 磨坊主

尾注

1 Boyer Commission on Educating Undergraduates in the Research University, Rein-
venting Undergraduate Education: A Blueprint for America’s Research Universities (Stony
Brook, 纽约: Boyer Commission on Educating Undergraduates in the Research
大学, 1998), https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED424840.

2 The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, Rising Above the
Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future (Wash-
因顿, 华盛顿特区: The National Academies Press, 2007).

3 Elaine Seymour, Talking about Leaving: Why Undergraduates Leave the Sciences (博尔德,

科罗拉多州。: 西景出版社, 2000).

4 Susan R. 歌手, Natalie R. Nielsen, and Heidi A. Schweingruber, 编辑。, Discipline-Based
Education Research: Understanding and Improving Learning in Undergraduate Science and
Engineering (华盛顿, 华盛顿特区: The National Academies Press, 2012), https://
www.nap.edu/catalog/13362/discipline-based-education-research-understanding
-and-improving-learning-in-undergraduate; and Executive Office of the Presi-
凹痕, President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, Engage to Excel:
Producing One Million Additional College Graduates with Degrees in Science, 技术, Engi-
neering, and Mathematics (华盛顿, 华盛顿特区: The President’s Council of Advisors on
科学技术, 2012).

5 Scott Freeman, Sarah L. Eddy, Miles McDonough, 等人。, “Active Learning Increas-
es Student Performance in Science, Engineering, and Mathematics,” Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences 111 (23) (2014): 8410–8415, https://doi.org/10.1073/
pnas.1319030111.

6 Sarah L. Eddy and Kelly A. Hogan, “Getting Under the Hood: How and for Whom
Does Increasing Course Structure Work?” CBE–Life Sciences Education 13 (3) (2014):
453–468, https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.14-03-0050; David C. Haak, Janneke Hille
Ris Lambers, Emile Pitre, and Scott Freeman, “Increased Structure and Active
Learning Reduce the Achievement Gap in Introductory Biology,“ 科学 332 (6034)
(2011): 1213–1216, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1204820; Kyle F. Trenshaw,
大卫·M. Targan, and James M. Valles, “Closing the Achievement Gap in STEM:
A Two-Year Reform Effort at Brown University,” Proceedings from ASEE NE ’16:
The American Society for Engineering Education Northeast Section 2016 会议 (国王-
吨, R.I.: American Society for Engineering Education Northeast Section, 2016),
http://egr.uri.edu/wp-uploads/asee2016/73-1064-1-DR.pdf; and Michael T. Crim-
mins and Brooke Midkiff, “High Structure Active Learning Pedagogy for the
Teaching of Organic Chemistry: Assessing the Impact on Academic Outcomes,”
Journal of Chemical Education 94 (4) (2017): 429–438, http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs
.jchemed.6b00663.

7 Mercedes Lorenzo, Catherine H. Crouch, and Eric Mazur, “Reducing the Gender
Gap in the Physics Classroom,” American Journal of Physics 74 (2) (2006): 118–122,
https://doi.org/10.1119/1.2162549.

8 Winston A. 安德森, Utpal Banerjee, 凯瑟琳·L. Drennan, 等人。, “Changing the
Culture of Science Education at Research Intensive Universities,“ 科学 331 (6014)
(2011): 152–153, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1198280; Singer et al., Discipline-
Based Education Research; and Marilyne Stains, Jordan Harschman, Megan K. Barker,

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

e
d
你
d
A
e
d
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

1
4
8
4
2
9
1
8
3
1
3
5
7
d
A
e
d
_
A
_
0
1
7
5
9
p
d

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

哦
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

代达罗斯, 美国艺术学院学报 & SciencesAchieving Sustained Improvement in the Quality of Undergraduate STEM Education

等人。, “Anatomy of STEM Teaching in North American Universities,“ 科学 359
(6383) (2018): 1468–1470, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aap8892.

9 Charles Henderson and Melissa H. Dancy, “Increasing the Impact and Diffusion of
STEM Education Innovators,” white paper prepared for the Characterizing the Im-
pact and Diffusion of Engineering Education Innovations Forum, February 7–8,
2011 (华盛顿, 华盛顿特区: National Academy of Engineering, 2011), https://万维网
.nae.edu/File.aspx?id=36304.

10 Ann E. 奥斯汀, “Barriers to Change in Higher Education: Taking a Systems Ap-
proach to Transforming Undergraduate STEM Education,” white paper commis-
sioned by the Coalition for Reform of Undergraduate STEM Education (洗涤-
吨, 华盛顿特区: Association of American Colleges and Universities, 2014), http://万维网
.aacu.org/CRUSE.

11 Ann E. 奥斯汀, “Promoting Evidence-Based Change in Undergraduate Science Edu-
cation” (华盛顿, 华盛顿特区: National Academies National Research Council Board
on Science Education, 2011), http://sites.nationalacademies.org/cs/groups/dbass
esite/documents/webpage/dbasse_072578.pdf.

12 Anderson et al., “Changing the Culture of Science Education at Research Intensive
Universities”; and Andrea L. Beach, Charles Henderson, and Noah Finkelstein,
“Facilitating Change in Undergraduate STEM Education,” Change: The Magazine of
Higher Learning 44 (6) (2012): 52–59, https://doi.org/10.1080/00091383.2012.728955.
13 Nancy Kober, “Creating Broader Contexts that Support Research-Based Teaching
and Learning,” Reaching Students: What Research Says about Effective Instruction in Un-
dergraduate Science and Engineering (华盛顿, 华盛顿特区: The National Academies
按, 2015), https://www.nap.edu/read/18687/chapter/8#203; and Association
of American Universities, Progress toward Achieving Systemic Change: A Five-Year Sta-
tus Report on the AAU Undergraduate STEM Initiative (华盛顿, 华盛顿特区: Association of
American Universities, 2017). The AAU’s report documents the results of the AAU
STEM Initiative to date. The AAU is committed to expanding the initial effort in-
definitely by integrating continued support for undergraduate STEM education im-
provement into its ongoing portfolio of work.

14 Melanie M. 库珀, “Why Ask Why?” Journal of Chemical Education 92 (8) (2015):
1273–1279, https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.5b00203; and Michael J. Obsniuk,
Paul W. Irving, and Marcos D. Caballero, “A Case Study: Novel Group Interac-
tions through Introductory Computational Physics,” paper presented at the Phys-
ics Education Research Conference, July 29–30, 2015, College Park, Maryland,
https://doi.org/10.1119/perc.2015.pr.055.

15 James Fairweather, “Linking Evidence and Promising Practices in Science, Technol-
奥吉, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Undergraduate Education: A Status
Report for the National Academies National Research Council Board on Science
Education” (华盛顿, 华盛顿特区: National Academies National Research Council
Board on Science Education, 2008), http://www.nsf.gov/attachments/117803/
public/Xc–Linking_Evidence–Fairweather.pdf.

16 Commission on the Future of Undergraduate Education, The Future of Undergraduate
教育, The Future of America (剑桥, 大量的。: American Academy of Arts and
科学, 2017).

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

e
d
你
d
A
e
d
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

1
4
8
4
2
9
1
8
3
1
3
5
7
d
A
e
d
_
A
_
0
1
7
5
9
p
d

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

哦
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

148 (4) Fall 2019Mary Sue Coleman, Tobin L. 史密斯 & Emily R. 磨坊主

17 Aaron M. Pallas, Anna Neumann, and Corbin M. 坎贝尔, Policies and Practices to
Support Undergraduate Teaching Improvement (剑桥, 大量的。: American Academy
of Arts and Sciences, 2017), https://www.amacad.org/multimedia/pdfs/publica
tions/researchpapersmonographs/CFUE_Undergraduate-Teaching/CFUE_Under
graduate-Teaching.pdf.

18 Richard Edwards, “The Academic Department: How Does It Fit into the University

Reform Agenda?” Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning 31 (5) (1999): 17.

19 Adrianna Kezar, Sean Gehrke, and Susan L. Elrod, “Implicit Theories of Change as
a Barrier to Change on College Campuses: An Examination of STEM Reform,“ 这
Review of Higher Education 38 (4) (2015): 479–506.

20 John Tagg, “Why Does the Faculty Resist Change?” Change: The Magazine of Higher
学习 44 (1) (2012): 6–15.; and Rebecca L. Matz, Cori L. Fata-Hartley, Lynmarie
A. Posey, 等人。, “Evaluating the Extent of Large-Scale Transformation in Gateway
Science Courses,” Science Advances 4 (10) (2018), http://advances.sciencemag.org/
content/4/10/eaau0554.

21 Alan T. Seagren, 约翰·W. Creswell, 和丹尼尔·W. Wheeler, The Department Chair:
New Roles, Responsibilities and Challenges (华盛顿, 华盛顿特区: The George Washing-
ton University School of Education and Human Development, 1993), https://files
.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED363164.pdf.

22 奥斯汀, “Promoting Evidence-Based Change in Undergraduate Science Education.”
23 Jeffrey L. Buller, The Essential Department Chair: A Comprehensive Desk Reference, 2ND版.

(旧金山: 约翰·威利 & Sons, 2011).

24 Fairweather, “Linking Evidence and Promising Practices in Science, 技术,

Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Undergraduate Education.”

25 詹姆斯·B. Carroll and Mimi Wolverton, “Who Becomes a Chair?” New Directions for

Higher Education 126 (3) (2004): 3–10.

26 Carl Wieman, Improving How Universities Teach Science: Lessons from the Science Education
倡议 (剑桥, 大量的。: 哈佛大学出版社, 2017); and Seth D. 衬套,
Michael T. Stevens, Kimberly D. Tanner, and Kathy S. 威廉姆斯, “Evolving Roles
of Scientists as Change Agents in Science Education Over a Decade: SFES Roles be-
yond Discipline-Based Education Research,” Science Advances 5 (6) (2019), https://
doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aav6403.

27 Kimberly D. Tanner, “Structure Matters: Twenty-One Teaching Strategies to Pro-
mote Student Engagement and Cultivate Classroom Equity,” CBE–Life Sciences Educa-
的 12 (3) (2013): 322–331, http://www.lifescied.org/content/12/3/322.full.pdf+html.
28 Viji Sathy and Kelly A. Hogan, “Want to Reach All of Your Students? Here’s How
to Make Your Teaching More Inclusive,” The Chronicle of Higher Education, 七月 22,
2019, https://www.chronicle.com/interactives/20190719_inclusive_teaching.
29 Valerie Otero, “A Physics Department’s Role in Preparing Physics Teachers: 这
Colorado Learning Assistant Model,” American Journal of Physics 78 (1218) (2010),
https://aapt.scitation.org/doi/full/10.1119/1.3471291.

30 Regina F. 弗雷, Angela Fink, 迈克尔·J. Cahill, 等人。, “Peer-Led Team Learning in
General Chemistry I: Interactions with Identity, Academic Preparation, 和一个

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

e
d
你
d
A
e
d
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

1
4
8
4
2
9
1
8
3
1
3
5
7
d
A
e
d
_
A
_
0
1
7
5
9
p
d

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

哦
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

代达罗斯, 美国艺术学院学报 & SciencesAchieving Sustained Improvement in the Quality of Undergraduate STEM Education

Course-Based Intervention,” Journal of Chemical Education 95 (12) (2018): 2103–2113,
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b00375.

31 The University of Arizona, “Collaborative Learning Spaces,” https://academic

affairs.arizona.edu/collaborative-learning-spaces.

32 Daniel J. Bernstein, “Peer Review and Evaluation of the Intellectual Work of Teach-
英,” Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning 40 (2) (2010): 48–51, https://土井
.org/10.3200/CHNG.40.2.48-51; Daniel Bernstein and Mary Taylor Huber, “什么
Is Good Teaching? Raising the Bar through Scholarship Assessed,” presentation at
the International Society for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning 3rd Annu-
al Conference, 华盛顿, 华盛顿特区, 十一月 9, 2006; 查尔斯·E. Glassick, Mary
Taylor Huber, and Gene I. Maeroff, Scholarship Assessed: Evaluation of the Professoriate.
Special Report (旧金山: 乔西·巴斯, 1997); Pat Hutchings, Making Teaching
Community Property: A Menu for Peer Collaboration and Peer Review (英镑, Va.: Stylus,
1996); and Pat Hutchings, Mary Taylor Huber, and Anthony Ciccone, The Scholar-
ship of Teaching and Learning Reconsidered: Institutional Integration and Impact (San Fran-
cisco: 乔西·巴斯, 2011).

33 詹姆斯·S. Fairweather, “The Ultimate Faculty Evaluation: Promotion and Tenure
Decisions,” New Directions for Institutional Research 114 (2002): 97–108; and Mary Tay-
lor Huber, “Faculty Evaluation and the Development of Academic Careers,” New
Directions for Institutional Research 114 (2002): 73–84, https://doi.org/10.1002/ir.48.
34 Association of American Universities, “AAU Undergraduate STEM Education Initia-
主动的: Matrix of Summative Evaluation of Teaching Strategies” (华盛顿, 华盛顿特区:
Association of American Universities, 2018), https://www.aau.edu/sites/default/
files/AAU-Files/STEM-Education-Initiative/P&T-Matrix.pdf.

35 Michelle K. 史密斯, Francis H. 琼斯, Sarah L. 吉尔伯特, and Carl E. Wieman, “这
Classroom Observation Protocol for Undergraduate STEM (COPUS): A New In-
strument to Characterize University STEM Classroom Practices,” CBE–Life Sciences
教育 12 (4) (2013): 618–627; and Melinda T. Owens, Shannon B. Seidel, Mike
黄, 等人。, “Classroom Sound Can Be Used to Classify Teaching Practices in Col-
lege Science Courses,” 美国国家科学院院刊 114 (12) (2017):
3085, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1618693114.

36 Adrianna Kezar, Scaling Improvements in STEM Learning Environments: The Strategic Role
of a National Organization (华盛顿, 华盛顿特区: Association of American Universities,
2018).

37 Matthew Claudel, Emmanuel Massaro, Paolo Santi, 等人。, “An Exploration of Col-
laborative Scientific Production at MIT through Spatial Organization and Institu-
tional Affiliation,” PLOS One 12 (6) (2017).

38 American Association for the Advancement of Science, Vision and Change in Under-
graduate Biology Education: A Call to Action (华盛顿, 华盛顿特区: American Associa-
tion for the Advancement of Science, 2011), https://live-visionandchange.pan
theonsite.io/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/aaas-VISchange-web1113.pdf; 国家的
Science Foundation, Transforming Undergraduate Education in Engineering–Phase 1: Syn-
thesizing and Integrating Industry Perspectives, workshop report (Arlington, Va.: 国家的
Science Foundation and American Society for Engineering Education, 2013), https://
www.asee.org/TUEE_PhaseI_WorkshopReport.pdf; National Research Council, 这

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

e
d
你
d
A
e
d
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

1
4
8
4
2
9
1
8
3
1
3
5
7
d
A
e
d
_
A
_
0
1
7
5
9
p
d

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

哦
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

148 (4) Fall 2019Mary Sue Coleman, Tobin L. 史密斯 & Emily R. 磨坊主

Mathematical Sciences in 2025 (华盛顿, 华盛顿特区: The National Academies Press,
2013), https://www.nap.edu/catalog/15269/the-mathematical-sciences-in-2025; 和
Executive Office of the President, National Science and Technology Council, 康姆-
mittee on STEM Education, Federal Science, 技术, Engineering and Mathematics
(STEM) 教育: 5-Year Strategic Plan (华盛顿, 华盛顿特区: Executive Office of the
总统, 2013), https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/ostp/
Federal_STEM_Strategic_Plan.pdf.

39 凯瑟琳·L. Fry, 编辑。, Achieving Systemic Change: A Sourcebook for Advancing and Fund-
ing Undergraduate STEM Education (华盛顿, 华盛顿特区: Association of American
Colleges and Universities and the Coalition for Reform of Undergraduate STEM
教育, 2014), https://www.aacu.org/sites/default/files/files/publications/
E-PKALSourcebook.pdf; and Emily R. Miller and Tara King, 编辑。, Promoting Trans-
formation of Undergraduate STEM Education: Workshop Summary Report (华盛顿,
华盛顿特区: Association of American Universities, 2019), https://www.aau.edu/sites/
default/files/AAU-Files/STEM-Education-Initiative/Promoting-Transformation
-Report.pdf.

40 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, Barriers and Opportunities
for 2-Year and 4-Year STEM Degrees: Systemic Change to Support Students’ Diverse Pathways
(华盛顿, 华盛顿特区: The National Academies Press, 2016), https://www.nap.edu/
catalog/21739/barriers-and-opportunities-for-2-year-and-4-year-stem-degrees.

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

e
d
你
d
A
e
d
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

1
4
8
4
2
9
1
8
3
1
3
5
7
d
A
e
d
_
A
_
0
1
7
5
9
p
d

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

哦
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

代达罗斯, 美国艺术学院学报 & SciencesAchieving Sustained Improvement in the Quality of Undergraduate STEM Education
下载pdf