Erratum: The Teaching Practices Inventory: A New Tool for Characterizing College and University Teaching in Mathematics and Science (CBE Life Sci. Educ. (2014) 13, 552-569; 10.1187/cbe.14-02-0023);The teaching practices inventory: A new tool for characterizing college and university teaching in mathematics and science

CBE Life Sciences Education

Volumn 13, Issue 3, 2014, Pages 552-569

  Wieman, Carl ^a   Gilbert, Sarah ^b  

^a STANFORD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CURRICULUM; EDUCATION; MATHEMATICS; REPRODUCIBILITY; RESEARCH; SCIENCE; UNIVERSITY;

CURRICULUM; MATHEMATICS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RESEARCH; SCIENCE; UNIVERSITIES;

EID: 84907351591     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19317913     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1187/cbe.14-02-0023-corr     Document Type: Erratum

References (53)

1. Abd-El-Khalick F, Lederman N (2000). Improving science teachers' conceptions of nature of science: a critical review of the literature. Int J Sci Educ 22, 665-701.
2. Adams WK, Jordan CN, Dietz RD, Semak MR (2014). Reducing the gender gap in college physics. Paper presented at the American Association of Physics Teachers 2014 Winter Meeting, held 4-7 January 2014, in Orlando, FL.
3. Ambrose S, Bridges M, DiPietro M, Lovett M, Norman M (2010). How Learning Works: Seven Research-Based Principles for Smart Teaching, San Francisco, CA: Wiley.
4. Anderson-Hsieh J, Koehler K (1988). The effect of foreign accent and speaking rate on native speaker comprehension. Lang Learn 38, 561-613.
5. Association of American Universities (AAU) (2011). Undergraduate STEM Education Initiative. www.aau.edu/policy/ article.aspx?id=12588 (accessed 3 February 2014).
6. Atkinson R, Derry S, Renkl K, Wortham D (2000). Learning from examples: instructional principles fromthe worked examples research. Rev Educ Res 70, 181-214.
7. Berk R (2005). Survey of 12 strategies to measure teaching effectiveness. Int J Teach Learn Higher Educ 17, 48-62.
8. Black P, Wiliam D (1998).Assessment and classroom learning. Assess Educ Princ Pol Pract 5, 7-74.
9. Bransford J, Brown A, Cocking R, Donovan SM, Pellegrino J (2000). How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School, expanded ed., Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
10. Carl Wieman Science Education Initiative (2013). Classroom Observation Protocol for Undergraduate STEM (COPUS). www.cwsei.ubc.ca/resources/COPUS.htm (accessed 5 February 2014).
11. Centra J (1973). Effectiveness of student feedback in modifying college instruction. J Educ Psychol 65, 395-401.
12. Cheng K, Thacker B, Cardenas R, Crouch C (2004). Using an online homework system enhances students' learning of physics concepts in an introductory physics course. Am J Phys 72, 1447-1453.
13. Cohen P (1980). Effectiveness of student-rating feedback for improving college instruction: a meta-analysis of findings. Res High Educ 13, 321-341.
14. Coletta VP (2013). Reducing the FCI gender gap. In: Proceedings of 2013 Physics Education Research Conference, College Park, MD: American Association of Physics Teachers, 101-104.
15. Cooper H, Robinson J, Patall E (2006). Does homework improve academic achievement? A synthesis of research 1987-2003.Rev Educ Res 76, 1-62.
16. Crouch CH, Fagen AP, Callan JP, Mazur E (2004). Classroom demonstrations: learning tools or entertainment? Am J Phys 72, 835-838.
17. Derting TL, Ebert-May D (2010). Learner-centered inquiry in undergraduate biology: positive relationships with long-term student achievement. CBE Life Sci Educ 9, 462-472.
18. Diamond M (2004). The usefulness of structured mid-term feedback as a catalyst for change in higher education classes. Active Learn Higher Educ 5, 217-231.
19. Ericsson AK (2006). The influence of experience and deliberate practice on the development of superior expert performance. In: The Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance, ed. AK Ericsson, N Charness, PJ Feltovich, and RR Hoffman, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 683-703.
20. Freeman S, Eddy SL, McDonough M, Smith MK, Wenderoth MP, Okoroafor N, Jordt H (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 111, 8410-8415.
21. Froyd J (2008). White Paper on Promising Practices in Undergraduate STEM Education, Commissioned Papers, Washington, DC: Board on Science Education, National Academy of Sciences. http://sites.nationalacademies.org/dbasse/bose/dbasse_080106#.UdHoPPmsim4 (accessed 5 February 2014).
22. Gibbs G, Simpson C (2005). Conditions underwhich assessment supports students' learning. Learn Teach Higher Educ 1, 3-31.
23. Hake RR (1998). Interactive-engagement versus traditionalmethods: a six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. Am J Phys 66, 64-74.
24. Hattie J, Timperley H (2007). The power of feedback. Rev Educ Res 77, 81-112.
25. Hestenes D (1992). Force Concepts Inventory. Phys Teach 30, 141-158.
26. Hinofotis F, Bailey K (1981). American undergraduates' reactions to the communication skills of foreign teaching assistants. In:OnTESOL'80-Building Bridges: Research and Practice in Teaching English, ed. JC Fisher, M Clark, and J Schachter, Washington, DC: TESOL, 120-133.
27. Hoellwarth C, Moelter MJ (2011). The implications of a robust curriculum in introductory mechanics. Am J Phys 79, 540-545.
28. 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 3 February 2014).
29. Jacobs L, Friedman C (1988). Student achievement under foreign teaching associates compared with native teaching associates. J Higher Educ 59, 551-563.
30. Kiewra K (1985). Providing the instructor's notes: an effective addition to student note taking. Educ Psychol 20, 33-39.
31. Knight JK, Wood WB (2005). Teaching more by lecturing less. Cell Biol Educ 4, 298-310.
32. Kuh G (2008). High-Impact Educational Practices: What They Are, Who Has Access to Them, and Why They Matter, Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities.
33. National Research Council (NRC) (2006). America's Lab Report: Investigations in High School Science, Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
34. NRC (2012). Discipline-Based Education Research: Understanding and Improving Learning in Undergraduate Science and Engineering, Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
35. Novak G, Patterson E, Gavrin A, Christian W (1999). Just-In-Time Teaching: Blending Active Learning and Web Technology, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
36. Pascarella E, Terenzini P (2005). How College Affects Students: A Third Decade of Research, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
37. Pintrich P (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of studentmotivation in learning and teaching contexts. J Educ Psychol 95, 667-686.
38. Porter L, Lee CB, Simon B (2013). Halving fail rates using peer instruction: a study of four computer science courses. In: SIGCSE'13: Proceedings of the 44th ACM technical Symposium on ComputerScience Education, New York: Association for Computing Machinery, 177-182.
39. 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. www.whitehouse.gov/ sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/pcast-engage-to-excel-final_2 -25-12.pdf (accessed 3 February 2014).
40. PULSE (2013). PULSE Vision and Change Rubrics. www.pulsecommunity.org (accessed 3 February 2014).
41. Richards-Babb M, Drelick J, Henry Z, Robertson-Honecker J (2011). Online homework, help or hindrance? What students think and how they perform. J Coll Sci Teach 40, 81-93.
42. Roediger HL, III, Agarwal PK, Kang SHK, Marsh EJ (2010). Benefits of testing memory: best practices and boundary conditions. In: New Frontiers in Applied Memory, Brighton, UK: Psychology Press, 13-49.
43. Sadler P, Sonnert G, Coyle H, Cook-Smith N, Miller J (2013). The influence of teachers' knowledge on student learning in middle school physical science classrooms. Am Educ Res J 50, 1020-1049.
44. 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.
45. Seymour E (2005). Partners in Innovation: Teaching Assistants in College Science Courses, Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
46. Smith MK, Jones FH, Gilbert SL, Wieman CE (2013). The Classroom Observation Protocol for Undergraduate STEM (COPUS): a new instrument to characterize university STEM classroom practices. CBE Life Sci Educ 12, 618-627.
47. Smith MK, Wood WB, Knight JK (2008).The GeneticsConcept Assessment: a new concept inventory for gauging student understanding of genetics. CBE Life Sci Educ 7, 422-430.
48. Sokoloff D, Thornton R (1997). Using interactive lecture demonstrations to create an active learning environment. Phys Teach 35, 340-347.
49. Sokoloff D, Thornton R (2004). Interactive Lecture Demonstrations, Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
50. Walberg HJ, Paschal RA, Weinstein T (1985). Homework's powerful effects on learning. Educ Leadership 42, 76-79.
51. Wieman C (2012). Applying new research to improve science education. Issues in Science and Technology Fall 2012, 25-31.
52. Wieman C, Perkins K, Gilbert S (2010). Transforming science education at large research universities: a case study in progress. Change 42, 7-14.
53. Williams J (1992). Planning, discourse marking, and the comprehensibility of international teaching assistants. TESOL Q 26, 693-711.