The importance of context: an exploration of factors influencing the adoption of student-centered teaching among chemistry, biology, and physics faculty

International Journal of STEM Education

Volumn 2, Issue 1, 2015, Pages

  Lund, Travis J ^a   Stains, Marilyne ^b  

^a OREGON INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA LINCOLN   (United States)

Author keywords

Beliefs about teaching; Biology; Chemistry; Contextual factors; Diffusion of innovation; Evidence based instructional practices; Physics; Research intensive institution; Student centered teaching

Indexed keywords

EID: 84971289862     PISSN: None     EISSN: 21967822     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/s40594-015-0026-8     Document Type: Article

References (83)

1. American Association of Universities (2011). Undergraduate STEM education initiative. https://www.aau.edu/policy/article.aspx?id=12588. Accessed 12/30 2014
2. Anderson, W, Banerjee, U, Drennan, C, Elgin, S, Epstein, I, Handelsman, J, et al. (2011). Changing the culture of science education at research universities. Science, 331, 152
3. Austin, A. (2011). Promoting evidence-based change in undergraduate science education. A white paper commissioned by the National Academies National Research Council Board on Science Education. http://sites.nationalacademies.org/cs/groups/dbassesite/documents/webpage/dbasse_072578.pdf. Accessed 07/30/2015
4. Baker, LA, Chakraverty, D, Columbus, L, Feig, AL, Jenks, WJ, Pilarz, M, Stains, M, Waterman, R and Wesemann, JL. (2014). Cottrell Scholars Collaborative New Faculty Workshop: Professional Development for New Chemistry Faculty, Journal of Chemical Education, 91(11), 1874-1881 DOI:10.1021/ed500547n
5. Borrego, M, Froyd, JE, & Hall, TS. (2010). Diffusion of engineering education innovations: a survey of awareness and adoption rates in US engineering departments. Journal of Engineering Education, 99(3), 185–207
6. Borrego, M, Cutler, S, Froyd, J, Prince, M, & Henderson, C. Faculty use of research based instructional strategies. In AAEE Conference, Fremantle, Western Australia, 2011
7. Boyer Commission on Educating Undergraduates in the Research University. (1998). Reinventing undergraduate education: a blueprint for America’s research universities (In Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching (Ed.)). CA: Menlo Park
8. Brownell, SE, & Tanner, KD. (2012). Barriers to faculty pedagogical change: lack of training, time, incentives, and … tensions with professional identity? CBE-Life Sciences Education, 11(4), 339–346
9. Burke, K, Greenbowe, TJ, & Gelder, JI. (2004). The multi-initiative dissemination project workshops: Who attends them and how effective are they? Journal of Chemical Education, 81(6), 897
10. Childs, PE. (2009). Improving chemical education: turning research into effective practice. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 10(3), 189–203
11. Council, NR. (1999). Transforming undergraduate education in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology. Washington, DC: National Academy Press
12. Council, NR. (2003). Evaluating and improving undergraduate teaching in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press
13. Council, NR. (2011). Promising practices in undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education: summary of two workshops. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press
14. D’Eon, M, Sadownik, L, Harrison, A, & Nation, J. (2008). Using self-assessments to detect workshop success: Do they work? American Journal of Evaluation, 29(1), 92–98
15. Dancy, MH, & Henderson, C. (2007). Framework for articulating instructional practices and conceptions. Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research, 3(1), 010103
16. Doyle, W, & Rosemartin, D. (2012). The ecology of curriculum enactment. In Interpersonal Relationships in Education (pp. 137-147). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers
17. Eberlein, T, Kampmeier, J, Minderhout, V, Moog, RS, Platt, T, Varma-Nelson P, et al. (2008). Pedagogies of engagement in science: a comparison of PBL, POGIL, and PLTL. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 36(4), 262–273. doi:10.1002/bmb.20204
18. 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. Bioscience, 61(7), 550–558. doi:10.1525/bio.2011.61.7.9
19. Executive Office of the President of the United States (2012). Presidential commitments in support of PCAST recommendations on science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education. https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/pcast-related_initiatives_fact_sheet.pdf. Accessed 07/30/2015
20. Feldman, A. (2000). Decision making in the practical domain: a model of practical conceptual change. Science Education, 84(5), 606–623
21. Fixsen, DL, Naoom, SF, Blase, KA, Friedman, RM, & Wallace, F. (2005). Implementation research: a synthesis of the literature. Tampa, FL: University of south Florida, Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute, The National Implementation Research Network
22. Froyd, J. (2011). Propagation and realization of educational innovations in the system of undergraduate STEM education. A White Paper commissioned for the National Academy of Engineering Forum “Characterizing the Impact and Diffusion of Engineering Education Innovations”. https://www.nae.edu/File.aspx?id=36824. Accessed 07/30/2015
23. Gess-Newsome, J, Southerland, SA, Johnston, A, & Woodbury, S. (2003). Educational reform, personal practical theories, and dissatisfaction: the anatomy of change in college science teaching. American Educational Research Journal, 40, 731–767
24. Ghaith, G, & Yaghi, H. (1997). Relationships among experience, teacher efficacy, and attitudes toward the implementation of instructional innovation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 13(4), 451–458
25. Gordon, C, & Debus, R. (2002). Developing deep learning approaches and personal teaching efficacy within a preservice teacher education context. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72(4), 483–511
26. Graham, ID, Logan, J, Harrison, MB, Straus, SE, Tetroe, J, Caswell, W, et al. (2006). Lost in knowledge translation: time for a map? Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions, 26(1), 13–24. doi:10.1002/Chp.47
27. Guskey, TR. (1988). Teacher efficacy, self-concept, and attitudes toward the implementation of instructional innovation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 4(1), 63–69
28. Handelsman, J, Ebert-May, D, Beichner, R, Bruns, P, Chang, A, DeHaan, R, et al. (2004). Scientific teaching. Science, 304(5670), 521–522
29. Handelsman, J, Miller, S, & Pfund, C. (2006). Scientific teaching. USA: W.H. Freeman & Company, in collaboration with Roberts & Company Publishers
30. Henderson, C. (2008). Promoting instructional change in new faculty: an evaluation of the physics and astronomy new faculty workshop. American Journal of Physics, 76, 179
31. Henderson, C, & Dancy, MH. (2007). Barriers to the use of research-based instructional strategies: the influence of both individual and situational characteristics. Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research, 3(2), 020102
32. Henderson, C., & Dancy, M. H. (2009). Impact of physics education research on the teaching of introductory quantitative physics in the United States. Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research, 5(2), doi:10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.5.020107
33. Henderson, C., & Dancy, M. H. (2011). Increasing the Impact and Diffusion of STEM Education Innovations. A White Paper commissioned for the National Academy of Engineering Forum “Characterizing the Impact and Diffusion of Engineering Education Innovations”. https://www.nae.edu/File.aspx?id=36304. Accessed 07/30/2015
34. Henderson, C, Beach, A, & Finkelstein, N. (2011). Facilitating change in undergraduate STEM instructional practices: an analytic review of the literature. Journal of research in science teaching, 48(8), 952–984
35. Henderson, C, Cole, R, Froyd, J, & Khatri, R. (2012a). Five claims about effective propogation: A white paper prepared for January 30–31, 2012 meetings with NSF-TUES Program Directors. http://homepages.wmich.edu/~chenders/Publications/2012WhitePaperFiveClaims.pdf. Accessed 07/30/2015
36. Henderson, C, Dancy, MH, & Niewiadomska-Bugaj, M. (2012b). Use of research-based instructional strategies in introductory physics: where do faculty leave the innovation-decision process? Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research, 8(2), 020104
37. Hora, MT. (2012a). Organizational factors and instructional decision-making: a cognitive perspective. The Review of Higher Education, 35(2), 207–235
38. Hora, M. T. (2012b). A Situative Analysis of the Relationship between Faculty Beliefs and Teaching Practice: Implications for Instructional Improvement at the Postsecondary Level. (Vol. Wisconsin Center for Education Research Working Paper No. 2012–10)
39. Hora, MT, & Anderson, C. (2012). Perceived norms for interactive teaching and their relationship to instructional decision-making: a mixed methods study. Higher Education, 64(4), 573–592
40. Janssen, FJJM, Westbroek, HB, Doyle, W, & Van Driel, JH. (2013). How to make innovations practical. Teachers College Record, 115(7), 1–43
41. Kane, R, Sandretto, S, & Heath, C. (2002). Telling half the story: a critical review of research on the teaching beliefs and practices of university academics. Review of Educational Research, 72(2), 177–228
42. Kember, D, & Kwan, KP. (2000). Lecturers’ approaches to teaching and their relationship to conceptions of good teaching. Instructional Science, 28(5), 469–490
43. Kezar, AJ. (2001). Understanding and facilitating organizational change in the 21st century: recent research and conceptualizations (ASHE-ERIC higher education report (Vol. 28, no 4)). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
44. Lindblom Ylänne, S, Trigwell, K, Nevgi, A, & Ashwin, P. (2006). How approaches to teaching are affected by discipline and teaching context. Studies in Higher Education, 31(03), 285–298
45. Lomas, J. (1993). Diffusion, dissemination, and implementation: Who should do what? Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 703(1), 226–237. doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.1993.tb26351.x
46. Lund, TJ, Pilarz, M, Velasco, JB, Chakraverty, D, Rosploch, K, Undersander, M, et al. (2015) The Best of Both Worlds: Building on the COPUS and RTOP Observation Protocols to Easily and Reliably Measure Various Levels of Reformed Instructional Practices, CBE Life Sciences Education, 14(2), ar18 DOI:10.1187/cbe.14-10-0168
47. Macdonald, RH, Manduca, CA, Mogk, DW, & Tewksbury, BJ. (2005). Teaching methods in undergraduate geoscience courses: results of the 2004 on the cutting edge survey of US faculty. Journal of Geoscience Education, 53(3), 237
48. Macoubrie, J, & Harrison, C. (2013). Human services research dissemination: what works? In U. S. D. o. H. a. H. Services. Washington, D.C: Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families
49. Murray, K, & Macdonald, R. (1997). The disjunction between lecturers’ conceptions of teaching and their claimed educational practice. Higher Education, 33(3), 331–349
50. National Center for Case Study Teaching in Science Case Studies in Science. http://sciencecases.lib.buffalo.edu/cs/. Accessed 03/12 2015
51. National Research Council. (2012). Discipline-based education research: understanding and improving learning in undergraduate science and engineering. (Vol. 2012). Washington, D.C: The National Academies Press
52. National Science Foundation (1996). Shaping the future: New expectations for undergraduate education in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology. In N. S. F. D. f. E. a. H. Resources (Ed.). Arlington, VA
53. Norton, L, Richardson, T, Hartley, J, Newstead, S, & Mayes, J. (2005). Teachers’ beliefs and intentions concerning teaching in higher education. Higher Education, 50(4), 537–571
54. Peace, GE, Lewis, EL, Burke, K, & Greenbowe, TJ. (2002). The multi-initiative dissemination project: active-learning strategies for college chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 79(6), 699
55. Pfund, C, Miller, S, Brenner, K, Bruns, P, Chang, A, Ebert-May, D, et al. (2009). Summer institute to improve university science teaching. Science, 324(5926), 470
56. Postareff, L, Lindblom-Ylänne, S, & Nevgi, A. (2007). The effect of pedagogical training on teaching in higher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(5), 557–571
57. Postareff, L, Lindblom-Ylänne, S, & Nevgi, A. (2008). A follow-up study of the effect of pedagogical training on teaching in higher education. Higher Education, 56(1), 29–43
58. President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (2012). Engage to excel: Producing one million additional college graduates with degrees in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. In Executive Office of the President (Ed.)
59. Project Kaleidoscope. (2002). Report on reports: recommendations for action in support of undergraduate science, technology, engineering and mathematics. Washington, D.C.: Project Kaleidoscope
60. Project Kaleidoscope. (2006). Report on reports II: transforming America’s scientific and technological infrastructure: recommendations for urgent action. Washington, D.C.: Project Kaleidoscope
61. Prosser, M, & Trigwell, K. (1997). Relations between perceptions of the teaching environment and approaches to teaching. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 67(1), 25–35
62. Rogers, EM. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York: Free Press
63. Rothman, FG, & Narum, JL. (1999). Then, now, & in the next decade: a commentary on strengthening undergraduate science, mathematics, engineering and technology education. Washington, D.C.: Project Kaleidoscope
64. Schuster, JH, & Finkelstein, MJ. (2006). The american faculty: the restructuring of academic work and careers. USA: Johns Hopkins University Press
65. Seymour, E., DeWelde, K., & Fry, C. (2011). Determining progress in improving undergraduate STEM education: The reformers’ tale. A White Paper commissioned for the National Academy of Engineering Forum, “Characterizing the Impact and Diffusion of Engineering Education Innovations”. https://www.nae.edu/File.aspx?id=36664. Accessed 07/30/2015
66. Singer, ER. (1996). Espoused teaching paradigms of college faculty. Research in Higher Education, 37(6), 659–679
67. Stains, M, Pilarz, M., and Chakraverty, D. (2015) Short and Long-Term Impacts of the Cottrell Scholars Collaborative New Faculty Workshop, Journal of Chemical Education, ASAP DOI:10.1021/acs.jchemed.5b00324
68. Talanquer, V. (2014). DBER and STEM education reform: are we up to the challenge? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(6), 809–819
69. The Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education™. http://carnegieclassifications.iu.edu/. Accessed 03/08 2015
70. Tobin, K, & Dawson, G. (1992). Constraints to curriculum reform: teachers and the myths of schooling. Educational Technology Research and Development, 40(1), 81–92
71. Trigwell, K, & Prosser, M. (1996a). Changing approaches to teaching: a relational perspective. Studies in Higher Education, 21(3), 275–284
72. Trigwell, K, & Prosser, M. (1996b). Congruence between intention and strategy in university science teachers’ approaches to teaching. Higher Education, 32(1), 77–87
73. Trigwell, K, & Prosser, M. (2004). Development and use of the approaches to teaching inventory. Educational Psychology Review, 16(4), 409–424
74. Trigwell, K, Prosser, M, & Taylor, P. (1994). Qualitative differences in approaches to teaching first year university science. Higher Education, 27(1), 75–84
75. Trigwell, K, Prosser, M, & Ginns, P. (2005). Phenomenographic pedagogy and a revised approaches to teaching inventory. Higher Education Research & Development, 24(4), 349–360
76. Turpen, C, & Finkelstein, ND. (2009). Not all interactive engagement is the same: variations in physics professors’ implementation of peer instruction. Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research, 5(2), 020101
77. Turpen, C, & Finkelstein, ND. (2010). The construction of different classroom norms during peer instruction: students perceive differences. Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research, 6(2), 020123
78. Van Driel, JH. (2014). Professional learning of science teachers. Topics and Trends in Current Science Education; Contributions from Science Education Research, 1, 139–157
79. Van Driel, JH, Beijaard, D, & Verloop, N. (2001). Professional development and reform in science education: the role of teachers’ practical knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(2), 137–158
80. Verloop, N, Van Driel, JH, & Meijer, P. (2001). Teacher knowledge and the knowledge base of teaching. International Journal of Educational Research, 35(5), 441–461
81. Vickrey, T, Rosploch, K., Rahmanian, R., Pilarz, M. and Stains, M.* (2015) Research-based implementation of Peer Instruction: A literature review, CBE Life Sciences Education, 14(1) DOI:10.1187/cbe.14-11-0198
82. Walczyk, JJ, & Ramsey, LL. (2003). Use of learner-centered instruction in college science and mathematics classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(6), 566–584
83. Walczyk, JJ, Ramsey, LL, & Zha, P. (2007). Obstacles to instructional innovation according to college science and mathematics faculty. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(1), 85–106