Erratum to The classroom observation protocol for undergraduate STEM (COPUS): A new instrument to characterize STEM classroom practices: (CBE Life Sci. Educ. (2013), 12, (618-627)doi:10.1187/cbe.13-08-0154);The classroom observation protocol for undergraduate stem (COPUS): A new instrument to characterize university STEM classroom practices

CBE Life Sciences Education

Volumn 12, Issue 4, 2013, Pages 618-627

  Smith, Michelle K ^a   Jones, Francis H M ^b   Gilbert, Sarah L ^b   Wieman, Carl E ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MAINE   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EDUCATION; ENGINEERING; HUMAN; MATHEMATICS; REPRODUCIBILITY; SCIENCE; STUDENT; TECHNOLOGY; UNIVERSITY;

ENGINEERING; HUMANS; MATHEMATICS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SCIENCE; STUDENTS; TECHNOLOGY; UNIVERSITIES;

EID: 84889039381     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19317913     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1187/cbe.13-08-0154     Document Type: Erratum

References (24)

1. American Association for the Advancement of Science (2010). Vision and Change: A Call to Action, Washington, DC.
2. Blanchard MR, Southerland SA, Osborne JW, Sampson VD, Annetta LA, Granger EM (2010). Is inquiry possible in light of accountability? A quantitative comparison of the relative effectiveness of guided inquiry and verification laboratory instruction. Sci Educ 94, 577-616.
3. Bloom B, Engelhart MD, Furst EJ, Hill WH, Krathwohl DR (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals, Handbook I: Cognitive Domain, New York: David McKay.
4. Classroom Observation Project (2011). Classroom Observation Project: Understanding and Improving Our Teaching Using the Reformed Teaching Observation Protocol (RTOP). http://serc.carleton.edu/NAGTWorkshops/certop/about.html (accessed 7 August 2013).
5. CWSEI Teaching Practices Survey (2013). http://www.cwsei.ubc.ca/resources/TeachPracticeSurvey.htm (accessed 29 October 2013).
6. Ebert-May D, Derting TL, Hodder J, Momsen JL, Long TM, Jardeleza SE (2011). What we say is not what we do: effective evaluation of faculty professional development programs. BioSci 61, 550-558.
7. 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.
8. Hora MT, Oleson A, Ferrare JJ (2013). Teaching Dimensions Observation Protocol (TDOP) User's Manual, Madison: Wisconsin Center for Education Research, University of Wisconsin Madison. http://tdop.wceruw.org/Document/TDOP-Users-Guide.pdf (accessed 7 August 2013).
9. Jaccard P (1901). Étude comparative de la distribution florale dans une portion des Alpes et des Jura. Bull de la Société Vaudoise des Sci Nat 37, 547-579.
10. Knight JK, Wood WB (2005). Teaching more by lecturing less. Cell Biol Educ 4, 298-310.
11. Landis JR, Koch GG (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33, 159-174.
12. Lemons PP, Lemons JD (2012). Questions for assessing higher-order cognitive skills: it's not just Bloom's. CBE Life Sci Educ 12, 47-58.
13. Mazur E (1997). Peer Instruction, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
14. Michael J (2006). Where's the evidence that active learning works? Adv Physiol Educ 30, 159-167.
15. Millis B (1992). Conducting effective peer classroom observations. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1249&context=podimproveacad (accessed 28 October 2013).
16. President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (2012). Report to the President: Engage to Excel: Producing One Million Additional College Graduates with Degrees in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics, Washington, DC: Executive Office of the President. www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/pcast-engage-to-excel-v11.pdf (accessed 7 August 2013).
17. Prince M (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. J Eng Educ 93, 223-231.
18. Sawada D, Piburn MD, Judson E, Turley J, Falconer K, Benford R, Bloom I (2002). Measuring reform practices in science and mathematics classrooms: the Reformed Teaching Observation Protocol. Sch Sci Math 102, 245-253.
19. Singer SR, Nielsen NR, Schweingruber HA (2012). Discipline-Based Education Research: Understanding and Improving Learning in Undergraduate Science and Engineering, Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
20. Smith MK, Wood WB, Adams WK, Wieman C, Knight JK, Guild N, Su TT (2009). Why peer discussion improves student performance on in-class concept questions. Science 323, 122-124.
21. Smith MK, Wood WB, Krauter K, Knight JK (2011). Combining peer discussion with instructor explanation increases student learning from in-class concept questions. CBE Life Sci Educ 10, 55-63.
22. Weiss IR, Pasley JD, Smith PS, Banilower ER, Heck DJ (2003). Looking Inside the Classroom: A Study of K-12 Mathematics and Science Education in the United States, Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research.
23. West EA, Paul CA, Webb D, Potter WH (2013). Variation of instructor student interactions in an introductory interactive physics course. Phys Rev ST Phys Educ Res 9, 010109.
24. Wieman C, Perkins K, Gilbert S (2010). Transforming science education at large research universities: a case study in progress. Change 42, 7-14.