PORTAAL: A classroom observation tool assessing evidence-based teaching practices for active learning in large science, technology, engineering, and mathematics classes

CBE Life Sciences Education

Volumn 14, Issue 2, 2015, Pages

  Eddy, Sarah L ^a   Converse, Mercedes ^a   Wenderoth, Mary Pat ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EDUCATION; ENGINEERING; HUMAN; LOGIC; MATHEMATICS; PROBLEM BASED LEARNING; PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT; REPRODUCIBILITY; SCIENCE; STUDENT; TEACHING; TECHNOLOGY; UNIVERSITY;

ENGINEERING; HUMANS; LOGIC; MATHEMATICS; PROBLEM-BASED LEARNING; PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SCIENCE; STUDENTS; TEACHING; TECHNOLOGY; UNIVERSITIES;

EID: 84981738040     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19317913     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1187/cbe-14-06-0095     Document Type: Article

References (81)

1. Aggarwal P, O’Brien CL (2008). Social loafing on group projects: structural antecedents and effect on student satisfaction. J Market Educ 30, 255–264.
2. American Association for the Advancement of Science (2013). Describing and Measuring Undergraduate STEM Teaching Practices, Washington, DC.
3. Aronson J, Fried CB, Good C (2002). Reducing the effects of stereotype threat on African American college students by shaping theories of intelligence. J Exp Soc Psychol 38, 113–125.
4. Bell BS, Kozlowski SWJ (2008). Active learning: effects of core training design elements on self-regulatory processes, learning and adaptability. J Appl Psychol 93, 296–316.
5. Borrego M, Cutler S, Prince M, Henderson C, Froyd JE (2013). Fidelity of implementation of research-based instructional strategies in engineering science courses. J Eng Educ 102, 394–425.
6. Bouwma-Gearhard J (2012). Science faculty improving teaching practice: identifying needs and finding meaningful professional development. Int J Teach Learn High Educ 24, 180–188.
7. Brooks BJ, Koretsky MD (2011). The influence of group discussion on students’ responses and confidence during peer instruction. J Chem Educ 88, 1477–1484.
8. Brownell SE, Tanner KD (2012). Barriers to faculty pedagogical change: lack of training, time, incentives, and … tensions with professional identity? CBE Life Sci Educ 11, 339–346.
9. Butler A, Godbole N, Marsh E (2013). Explanation feedback is better than corrective feedback for promoting transfer of learning. J Educ Psychol 105, 290–298.
10. Bybee RW, Taylor HA, Gardner A, Van Scotter P, Carlson-Powell J, Westbrook A, Landes N (2006). The BSCS 5E Instructional Model: Origins and Effectiveness, Colorado Springs, CO: Biological Sciences Curriculum Study.
11. Chidambaram L, Tung LL (2005). Is out of sight, out of mind? An empirical study of social loafing in technology-supported groups. Info Sys Res 16, 149–168.
12. Cicchetti DV (1994). Guidelines, criteria, and rules of thumb for evaluating normed and standardized assessment instruments in psychology. Psych Assess 6, 284–290.
13. Cole CC (1982). Improving Instruction: Issues and Alternatives for Higher Education, AAHE-ERIC Higher Education Report no. 4, Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education.
14. Crowe A, Dirks C, Wenderoth MP (2008). Biology in Bloom: implementing Bloom’s taxonomy to enhance student learning in biology. CBE Life Sci Educ 7, 368–381.
15. Dallimore EJ, Hertenstein JH, Platt MB (2010). Class participation in accounting courses: factors that affect student comfort and learning. Issues Acct Educ 25, 613–629.
16. Dallimore EJ, Hertenstein JH, Platt MB (2013). Impact of cold-calling on student voluntary participation. J Manage Educ 37, 305–341.
17. deWinstanley PA, Bjork RA (2002). Successful lecturing: presenting information in ways that engage effective processing. New Dir Teach Learn 89, 19–31.
18. Dunlosky J, Rawson KA, Marsh EJ, Nathan MJ, Willingham DT (2013). Improving students’ learning with effective learning techniques: promising directions from cognitive and educational psychology. Psychol Sci Public Interest 14, 4–58.
19. Eddy SL, Brownell SE, Wenderoth MP (2014). Gender gaps in achievement and participation across multiple introductory biology classrooms. CBE Life Sci Educ 13, 478–492.
20. Eddy SL, Hogan K (2014). Getting under the hood: how and for whom does increased course structure work? CBE Life Sci Educ 13, 453–468.
21. Eichinger D, Anderson CW, Pakincsar AS, David YM (1991). An illustration of the role of content knowledge, scientific argument and social norm in collaborative problem solving. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, in Chicago, IL.
22. Elliot ES, Dweck CS (1988). Goal: an approach to motivation and achievement. J Pers Soc Psychol 54, 5–12.
23. Ellis K (2000). Perceived teacher confirmation: the development and validation of an instrument and two studies of the relationship to cognitive and affective learning. Hum Commun Res 26, 264–291.
24. Ellis K (2004). The impact of perceived teacher confirmation on receiver apprehension, motivation and learning. Commun Educ 53, 1–20.
25. Epstein ML, Lazarus AD, Calvano TB, Matthews KA, Hendel RA, Epstein BB, Brosvic GM (2002). Immediate feedback assessment technique promotes learning and corrects inaccurate first responses. Psychol Rec 52, 187–201.
26. Ericsson KA, Krampe RT, Tesch-Romer C (1993). The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychol Rev 100, 363–406.
27. Fraser JM, Tinman AL, Miller K, Dowd JE, Tucker L, Mazur E (2014). Teaching and physics education research: bridging the gap. Rep Prog Phys 77, 1–17.
28. Freeman S, Eddy SL, McDonough M, Smith MK, Okoroafor N, Jordt H, Wenderoth MP (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering and mathematics. Pro Natl Acad Sci USA 111, 8410–8415.
29. Freeman S, Haak D, Wenderoth MP (2011). Increased course structure improves performance in introductory biology. CBE Life Sci Educ 10, 175–186.
30. Freeman S, O’Conner E, Parks JW, Cunningham M, Hurley D, Haak D, Dirks C, Wenderoth MP (2007). Prescribed active learning increases performance in introductory biology. CBE Life Sci Educ 6, 132–139.
31. Fritschner LM (2000). Inside the undergraduate college classroom: faculty and students differ on the meaning of student participation. J High Educ 71, 342–362.
32. Gadgil S, Nokes-Malach TJ (2012). Overcoming collaborative inhibition through error correction: a classroom experiment. Appl Cogn Psychol 26, 410–420.
33. Good C, Rattan A, Dweck CS (2012). Why do women opt out? Sense of belonging and women’s representation in mathematics. J Pers Soc Psychol 10, 700–717.
34. Goodboy AK, Myers SA (2008). The effect of teacher confirmation on student communication and learning outcomes. Commun Educ 57, 153–179.
35. Hake RR (1998). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: a six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. Am J Phys 66, 64–74.
36. Henderson C, Dancy MH (2009). Impact of physics education research on the teaching of introductory quantitative physics in the United States. Phys Educ Res 5, 1–9.
37. Hoekstra A, Mollborn S (2011). How clicker use facilitates existing pedagogical practices in higher education: data from interdisciplinary research on student response systems. Learn Media Technol 2011, 1–18.
38. James MC (2006). The effect of grading incentive on student discourse in peer instruction. Am J Phys 74, 689–691.
39. James MC, Willoughby S (2011). Listening to student conversations during clicker questions: what you have not heard might surprise you! Am J Phys 79, 123–132.
40. Jensen JL, McDaniel MA, Woodard SM, Kummer TA (2014). Teaching to the test … or testing to teach: requiring higher order thinking skills encourages greater conceptual understanding. Educ Psychol Rev 2014, 1–23.
41. Kane TJ, Cantrell S (2013). Ensuring Fair and Reliable Measures of Effective Teaching: Culminating Findings from the MET Project’s Three-Year Study www.metproject.org/downloads/MET_Ensuring_Fair_and_Reliable_Measures_Practitioner_Brief.pdf (accessed 1 January 2015).
42. Kidwell RE, Bennett N (1993). Employee propensity to withhold effort: a conceptual model to intersect three avenues of research. Acad Manage Rev 18, 429–456.
43. Knight JK, Wise SB, Southard KM (2013). Understanding clicker discussions: student reasoning and the impact of instructional cues. CBE Life Sci Educ 12, 645–654.
44. Kreber C, Cranton PA (2000). Fragmentation versus integration of faculty work. To Improve the Academy 18, 217–230.
45. Kuhn D, Shaw V, Felton M (1997). Effect of dyadic interaction on argumentive reasoning. Cogn Instr 15, 287–315.
46. Kulhavy RW (1977). Feedback in written instruction. Rev Educ Res 47, 211–232.
47. Lee VS (2000). The influence of disciplinary differences on consultations with faculty. To Improve the Academy 18, 278–290.
48. Len PM (2006–2007). Different reward structures to motivate student interaction with electronic response systems in astronomy. Astron Educ Rev 5, 5–15.
49. McDaniel MA, Friedman A, Bourne LE Jr (1978). Re-membering the levels of information in words. Mem Cognition 6, 156–164.
50. McGraw KO, Wong SP (1996). Forming inferences about some intraclass correlation coefficients. Psychol Methods 1, 30–46.
51. Menekse M, Stump GS, Krause S, Chi MTH (2013). Differentiated overt learning activities for effective instruction in engineering classrooms. J Eng Educ 102, 346–374.
52. Momsen JL, Long TM, Wyse SA, Ebert-May D (2010). Just the facts? Introductory undergraduate biology courses focus on low-level cognitive skills. CBE Life Sci Educ 9, 435–440.
53. Morgan MK, Clarke RM, Weidmann M, Laidlaw J, Law A (2007). How assessment drives learning in neurosurgical higher training. J Clin Neurosci 14, 249–354.
54. Morris CD, Bransord JD, Franks JJ (1977). Levels of processing versus transfer appropriate processing. J Verbal Learn Verbal Behav 16, 519–533.
55. Mueller CM, Dweck CS (1998). Praise for intelligence can undermine children’s motivation and performance. J Pers Soc Psychol 75, 33–52.
56. National Science Foundation (2013). Widening Implementation and Demonstration of Evidence-Based Reforms (WIDER), NSF 13–552 Program Solicitation. www.nsf.gov/pubs/2013/nsf13552/nsf13552.htm (accessed 1 January 2015).
57. Nicol DJ, Boyle JT (2003). Peer instruction versus class-wide discussion in large classes: a comparison of two interaction methods in the wired class. Stud High Educ 28, 457–473.
58. Nielsen KJ, Hansen-Nygard G, Stav JB (2012). Investigating peer instruction: how the initial voting session affects students’ experiences of group discussion. ISRN Educ 2012, 1–8.
59. O’Donnell CL (2008). Defining, conceptualizing, and measuring fidelity of implementation and its relationship to outcomes in K–12 curriculum intervention research. Rev Educ Res 78, 33–84.
60. Okada T, Simon HA (1997). Collaborative discovery in a scientific domain. Cogn Sci 21, 109–146.
61. Perez KE, Strauss EA, Downey N, Galbraith A, Jeanne R, Cooper S (2010). Does displaying the class results affect student discussion during peer instruction? CBE Life Sci Educ 9, 133–140.
62. President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (2012). Engage to Excel: Producing One Million Additional College Graduate with Degrees in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics, Washington, DC: U.S. Government Office of Science and Technology.
63. Preszler RW, Dawe A, Shuster CB, Shuster M (2007). Assessment of the effects of student response systems on student learning and attitudes over a broad range of biology courses. CBE Life Sci Educ 6, 29–41.
64. Renkl A (2002). Learning from worked-out examples: instructional explanations supplement self-explanations. Learn Instr 12, 149–176.
65. Sampson V, Clark D (2009). The impact of collaboration on the outcomes of scientific argumentation. Sci Educ 93, 448–484.
66. Scherr R, Hammer D (2009). Student behavior and epistemological framing: examples from collaborative active-learning activities in physics. Cognition Instruct 27, 147–174.
67. Schworm S, Renkl (2006). Computer-supported example-based learning: when instructional explanations reduce self-explanations. Comput Educ 46, 426–445.
68. 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.
69. Thomas AK, McDaniel MA (2007). Metacomprehension for educationally relevant materials: dramatic effects of encoding-retrieval interactions. Psychon Bull Rev 14, 212–218.
70. Trowbridge MH, Carson H (1932). An experimental study of Thorndike’s theory of learning. J Gen Psychol 7, 245–258.
71. Turpen C, Finkelstein ND (2009). Not all interactive engagement is the same: variations in physics professors’ implementation of peer instruction. Phys Rev Spec Top Phys Educ Res 5, 1–18.
72. Turpen C, Finkelstein ND (2010). The construction of different classroom norms during peer instruction: students perceive differences. Phys Rev Spec Top Phys Educ Res 6, 1–22.
73. Webb NM, Franke ML, Ing M, Chan A, De T, Feund D, Battey D (2008). The role of teacher instructional practices in student collaboration. Contemp Educ Psychol 33, 360–381.
74. Webb NM, Nemer KM, Ing M (2009). Small-group reflections: parallels between teacher discourse and student behavior in peer-directed groups. J Learn Sci 15, 63–119.
75. Weimer M (1990). Improving College Teaching: Strategies for Developing Instructional Effectiveness, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
76. Willoughby SD, Gustafson E (2009). Technology talks: clickers and grading incentive in the large lecture hall. Am J Phys 77, 180–183.
77. Willoughby T, Wood E, McDermott C, McLaren J (2000). Enhancing learning through strategy instruction and group interaction: is active generation of elaborations critical? Appl Cogn Psychol 14, 19–30.
78. Wood E, Willoughby T, Kaspar V, Idle T (1994). Enhancing adolescents’ recall of factual content: the impact of provided versus self-generated elaborations. Albta J Educ Res 40, 57–65.
79. Wood E, Willoughby T, McDermott C, Motz M, Kaspar V, Ducharme MJ (1999). Developmental differences in study behavior. J Educ Psychol 91, 527–536.
80. Wood E, Willoughby T, Reilley S, Elliott S, DuCharme M (1995). Evaluating students’ acquisition of factual material when studying independently or with a partner. Br J Educ Psychol 65, 237–247.
81. Wormald BW, Choeman S, Somasunderam A, Penn M (2009). Assessment drive learning: an unavoidable truth? Anat Sci Educ 2, 199–204.