You are here:

SPARCT: A STEM Professional Academy to Reinvigorate the Culture of Teaching ARTICLE

, , , , ,

Journal of STEM Education Volume 19, Number 1, ISSN 1557-5284 Publisher: Laboratory for Innovative Technology in Engineering Education (LITEE)


We examined three years of data from the STEM Professional Academy to Reinvigorate the Culture of Teaching (SPARCT) program. SPARCT consists of a year-long professional development opportunity in evidence-based teaching practices for STEM faculty teaching introductory STEM courses at XXX. The expected outcomes for the program include: (1) improving evidence-based practices targeting the introductory STEM classroom, (2) developing professional peer-observation strategies for the STEM classroom, (3) enhancing scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL) by SPARCT faculty, (4) developing long-term Faculty Learning Communities (FLCs) in STEM instruction and (5) enhancing student learning in introductory STEM courses as a result of this faculty development. Here we briefly describe the features of SPARCT and discuss our findings as aligned with the outcomes over three cohorts of SPARCT program participants (2014-2016). By engaging at least 25% of XXX's STEM faculty over the three years, SPARCT is creating a community of STEM scholars, reinvigorating interdisciplinary connections, developing learning threads, and increasing the community\u2019s potential to transform the teaching culture of the university.


Frost, L., Goodson, L., Greene, J., Huffman, T., Kunberger, T. & Johnson, B. (2018). SPARCT: A STEM Professional Academy to Reinvigorate the Culture of Teaching. Journal of STEM Education, 19(1),. Laboratory for Innovative Technology in Engineering Education (LITEE). Retrieved September 21, 2018 from .


View References & Citations Map


  1. Adams, P. (2009). The role of scholarship of teaching in faculty development: Exploring an inquiry-based model. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 3(1) Retrieved from,R.D.(2002).Reformingscience teaching: what research says about inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(1), 1-12.
  2. Bain, K. (2004). What the best college teachers do. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  3. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
  4. Boyer, D. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Princeton, N.J.: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
  5. Brown, P., Roedigger, H. & McDaniel, M. (2014). Make it stick: The science of successful learning. Harvard University Press. Cambridge, MA.
  6. Bruning, R.H., Schraw, G.J. & Ronning, R.R (1995). Cognitive psychology and instruction (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
  7. Corbin, J. & Strauss, A. (2015). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (4th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
  8. Creswell, J. (2013). Qualitative inquiry& Research design: Choosing among five approaches (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. Eber t-May, D., Der ting, T.L., Hodder, J., Momsen, J.L.,
  9. Long, T.M., Jardeleza, S.E. (2011). What we say is not what we do: Effective evaluation of faculty professional development programs. Bioscience, 61(7), 550-558.
  10. Fairweather, J. (2008). Linking evidence and promising practices in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) undergraduate education: A
  11. Fink, L.D. (2003). Integrated course design. IDEA Paper #42. Retrieved from Porta ls/0/Up loads/Documents/ IDEA%20Papers/ IDEA%20Papers/Idea_Paper_42.pdf.
  12. Gopalan, C., Fox, D.J., Gaebelein, C.J. (2013). Effect of an individual readiness assurance test on a team readiness assurance test in the team-based learning of physiology. Advanced Physiology Education, 37(1), 61-64. .
  13. Guskey, T.R. (2002). Professional development and teacher change. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 8(3), 381-391.
  14. Henderson, C., Beach, A., Finkelstein, N. (2011). Facilitating change in undergraduate STEM instructional practices: An analytic review of the literature. J. Res. Sci. Teach., 48, 952–984.
  15. Henson, R.K. (2001). Teacher self-efficacy: Substantive implications and measurement dilemmas. Invited
  16. Meyer, A.O., Mon, M.J., & Hibbard, S.T. (2011). The Lunar Phases Project: A mental model-based observational project for undergraduate nonscience major. Astronomy Education Review, 10, 010203.
  17. Mulnix, A.B. (2016). STEM faculty as learners in pedagogical reform and the role of research articles as professional development opportunities. CBE Life Sciences Education, 15(4). .
  18. Simons, E.A. (2008). A multi-institutional assessment of the use of POGIL in organic chemistry. In R.S. Moog & J.N. Spencer (Eds.), Process oriented guided inquiry learning (pp. 226-239). Retrieved
  19. Tschannen-Moran, M. & Hoy, A.W. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68, 202-248.
  20. Walter, E.M., Henderson, C.R., Beach, A.L., and Williams, C.T. (2016). Introducing the Postsecondary Instructional Practices Survey (PIPS): A concise, interdisciplinary, and easy-to-score survey. CBE Life Sciences Education, 15(4), 1-11. .
  21. Weimer, M. (2013). Learner centered teaching: Five key changes to practice. Jossey-Bass. San Francisco, CA.
  22. Weimer, M. (2014). Seven characteristics of good learners. Faculty Focus. Retrieved from ticles/teaching-professor-blog/ seven-characteristics-good-learners/?campaign=F F140122ar ticle#sthash.LEDFfZ6W.dpuf.
  23. Wilson-Doenges, G., Troisi, J., Bartsch, R. (2016). Exemplars of the gold standard in SoTL for psychology. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology, 2(1), 1-12.
  24. Yin, R.K. (2009). Case study research: Design and method (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  25. Zimmerman, J., & Bain, K. (2009). Understanding great teaching. AAC & U Peer Review, 9-12.
  26. Olson, S., Riordan, D.G. (2012). Engage to excel: Producing one million additional college graduates with degrees in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, Office of the President. Retrieved from
  27. Perry, R.P., & Smart, J.C. (2007). Introduction to the scholarship of teaching and learning in higher education: An evidence-based perspective. In R.P. Perry
  28. Springer.POGIL. (2017). Implementing POGIL [website]. Retrieved from
  29. Pressley, M., Harris, K.R., & Marks, M.B. (1992). But good strategy instructors are constructivists! Educational Psychology Review, 4, 3-31.
  30. Prince, M.J., & Felder, R.M. (2006). Inductive teaching and learning methods: Definitions, comparisons, and research bases. Journal of Engineering Education, 95(2), 123-138.
  31. Reeve, E.M. (2015). STEM thinking. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 75(4), 8-16.
  32. Richlin, L., & Cox, M.D. (2004). Developing scholarly teaching and the scholarship of teaching and learning through faculty learning communities. In M. Cox& L. Richlin (Eds.), Building faculty learning communities, (pp. 127–136). New Directions for
  33. Saroyan, A. & Amundsen C. (2004). Rethinking teaching in higher education: From a course design workshop to a faculty development framework. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing. Dr. Laura Frost is professor of chemistry and serves as director of the

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact