4.2 Article

Breaking Down Silos Working Meeting: An Approach to Fostering Cross-Disciplinary STEM-DBER Collaborations through Working Meetings

期刊

CBE-LIFE SCIENCES EDUCATION
卷 18, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

AMER SOC CELL BIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1187/cbe.19-03-0064

关键词

-

资金

  1. NSF's Improving Undergraduate STEM (IUSE) program [1830897, 1830860]
  2. Direct For Education and Human Resources
  3. Division Of Undergraduate Education [1830897] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  4. Direct For Education and Human Resources
  5. Division Of Undergraduate Education [1830860] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

There has been a recent push for greater collaboration across the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields in discipline-based education research (DBER). The DBER fields are unique in that they require a deep understanding of both disciplinary content and educational research. DBER scholars are generally trained and hold professional positions in discipline-specific departments. The professional societies with which DBER scholars are most closely aligned are also often discipline specific. This frequently results in DBER researchers working in silos. At the same time, there are many cross-cutting issues across DBER research in higher education, and DBER researchers across disciplines can benefit greatly from cross-disciplinary collaborations. This report describes the Breaking Down Silos working meeting, which was a short, focused meeting intentionally designed to foster such collaborations. The focus of Breaking Down Silos was institutional transformation in STEM education, but we describe the ways the overall meeting design and structure could be a useful model for fostering cross-disciplinary collaborations around other research priorities of the DBER community. We describe our approach to meeting recruitment, premeeting work, and inclusive meeting design. We also highlight early outcomes from our perspective and the perspectives of the meeting participants.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据