Print PageEfforts to improve science education include university science departments hiring Science Faculty with Education Specialties (SFES), scientists who adopt specialized roles in science education within their discipline. While these positions have existed for decades and may be growing more common, few reports have investigated the SFES approach to improving science education. The California State University (CSU) system, the largest university in the United States, serving more than 400,000 students on 23 campuses, has been making an effort to hire faculty members with training as a scientist and as a specialist in science education. A team of tenure-track CSU SFES investigated factors leading to more or less successful positions by surveying faculty in the system.
The survey instrument was designed to collect information about SFES demographics, position structure, and what SFES are doing in their positions. In addition, the instrument collected attitudinal information relevant to SFES perceptions of job expectations relative to non-SFES peers, issues of professional satisfaction, pathways to SFES positions, support and access to resources, and other information that is primarily of a descriptive nature (e.g., hire date, nature of formal training). Approximately 100 faculty anonymously completed the survey, and we compared responses of Biology SFES and non-Biology SFES.
Results/Conclusions
Data characterized SFES perceptions of expectations and realities of teaching, research, and service, and how that compared to other faculty in their departments. CSU SFES were engaged in three arenas including K–12 science education, undergraduate science education, and discipline-based science education research. As such, CSU SFES appeared to be well-positioned to have an impact on science education from within science departments. However, there seemed to be a lack of clarity and agreement about the purpose of these SFES positions. In addition, formal training in science education among CSU SFES was limited. Many Biology SFES responses were similar to those of SFES responding from other science departments, yet there were differences. For example, Biology SFES had different perceptions of service demands than other SFES responding. Over half of the Biology SFES responding had been hired specifically as SFES, and over two-thirds of Biology SFES respondents were female. Although over 75% of CSU SFES were fulfilled by their activities, almost 40% of CSU SFES across disciplines reported seriously considering leaving their positions. A national study of SFES is underway, and we hope to promote the SFES community and strengthen the conversation among stakeholders about the purposes and impact of SFES positions.
