JOURNAL CRITIQUE: EXPLORING POSTSECONDARY STEM 2
Journal Critique: “Exploring STEM postsecondary instructors’ accounts of
instructional planning and revisions”
In their study “Exploring STEM postsecondary instructors’ accounts of instructional
planning and revisions,” Erdmann et. al (2020) detail their research into the discrepancy between
the educational reform movement for evidence-based instruction and the transmission model
commonly perpetuated in STEM courses. The authors posit that educational research
disproportionately focuses on evidence-based instructional practices (EBIP), and there is a
distinct lack of understanding about instructor mentality regarding their practice. The research
was conducted through 42 interviews with STEM educators at a postsecondary institution
(Erdmann et. al, 2020, p. 5). Their findings from their study revealed themes regarding the
disconnected view of EBIP and instructors’ mindsets. This paper will attempt to critically
examine the authors’ main points that instructors devalued student learning, and provide personal
practical applications that will focus on distinguishing familiar postsecondary practices from best
practices.
Summary
The researchers identified five main implications for their study: instructional planning is
focused on the instructor, formative assessments function as engagement, satisfaction teaching is
not reliant on student success, pedagogical discontent did not factor into instructional revision,
and professional development did not take into account the attitudes of instructors towards
teaching. Instructor-focused lectures were the main vehicle of instruction, and formative
assessments were greatly outnumbered by summative assessments. Formative assessment, when
applied, was used to ensure student engagement during instruction and was not generally used to
inform learning. When asked about satisfaction with their role, instructors showed a high
JOURNAL CRITIQUE: EXPLORING POSTSECONDARY STEM 3
consideration for personal feelings but student learning did not have an appreciable effect. Self-
reflection was also not emphasized in instructional planning, as many instructors were satisfied
with their current pedagogical skills. Professional development for STEM instructors should
change in response to these findings. The development provided to these instructors does not
accommodate their views on teaching and their instructional planning practices creating a
mismatch between what instructors value and the EBIP introduced to them (Erdmann et. al,
2020, pp. 13-14).
Analysis
The article’s main audience is the educational leadership of postsecondary institutions,
and secondarily other researchers in the field of instructional planning. The authors’ main points
were communicated well as their article was well-organized and had a coherent line of
reasoning. The research conducted was extensive and covered a wide range of themes relevant to
the discourse of their topic. The article was effective in that substantial data was collected and
analyzed to form their conclusion. Their claims strongly correlated with the data presented,
resulting in a convincing argument backed by robust evidence. Their identified implications
support their suggestions for advancing pedagogy in STEM courses, and show a clear
inconsistency between professional development practices and common mindsets regarding
instructional planning.
Personal Reflection
Through my personal experience, the findings from this article were expected. As a new
secondary Chemistry teacher, I have had two postsecondary experiences, each highly disparate
from the other. The common practices described by the article reflected my time as an
undergraduate biochemistry student. Professors routinely lectured large amounts of material, and
JOURNAL CRITIQUE: EXPLORING POSTSECONDARY STEM 4
students were assessed on their ability to recall the information. Instructors very rarely made
accommodations to students. This was the environment where I learned how high-level STEM
courses operated. In contrast, the EBIPs taught in my education program show that those
practices I was accustomed to were decidedly not the best way to learn. This dissonance was
jarring. I have found myself relying more on what I learned from my exposure to postsecondary
instructors than I would like. This article was helpful in acknowledging the disconnect and had
put into words the key differences I noticed in philosophy and practice. I hope to use this article
to help identify areas of my pedagogy rooted in past experience and make the effort to update my
practice with EBIPs. Unlike the rigidity I learned from my STEM background, Orlich et. al
(2018) suggest that teachers should be flexible and willing to take advantage of learning
opportunities (Section 4-9). “Practice these things, immerse yourself in them, so that all may see
your progress” (English Standard Version Bible, 2001, Timothy 4:15). The Biblical worldview
affirms that all people have value, and I believe the student-focused approach honors that idea. A
good deal of “deprogramming” needs to be done, but this article has helped me find a place to
start.
Conclusion
This paper attempted to critically analyze the assertions of the article in question, and
provide a personal reflection on the implications of their findings. The article shed light on the
discrepancy between postsecondary instructors and their lack of implementation of EBIPs
through a study based on interviews with faculty at a postsecondary institution. Their findings
align with personal experiences, that instructors tended to deliver instructor-focused instruction
and did not factor heavily for student success in their satisfaction regarding their instruction. The
article presented strong reasoning and supportive evidence for their findings and made a
JOURNAL CRITIQUE: EXPLORING POSTSECONDARY STEM 5
convincing argument for the underlying reasons regarding instructor mentality as to why
educational reform has been slow to influence STEM courses. Personal reflection determined
that recognizing the misalignment of STEM instruction and EBIPs was a critical step forward in
unlearning traditional teaching and advancing pedagogy. The study shows that STEM instructors
have different needs not being met when implementing educational reform, and it gives decision-
makers a clearer understanding of how to reach STEM instructors to improve their pedagogy and
provide better, more productive learning experiences.
JOURNAL CRITIQUE: EXPLORING POSTSECONDARY STEM 6
Reference
English Standard Version Bible. (2001). ESV Online. https://esv.literalword.com/
Erdmann, R., Miller, K., & Stains, M. (2020). Exploring STEM postsecondary instructors’
accounts of instructional planning and revisions. International Journal of STEM
Education, 7, 1-17.
Orlich, D., Harder, J., Trevisan, M., Brown, A., & Miller, D.(2018). Teaching strategies: a guide
to effective instruction. Cengage Learning.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
