Introducing the postsecondary instructional practices survey (PIPS): A concise, interdisciplinary, and easy-to-score survey

CBE Life Sciences Education

Volumn 15, Issue 4, 2016, Pages

  Walter, Emily M ^a   Henderson, Charles R ^b   Beach, Andrea L ^b   Williams, Cody T ^b  

^a CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b WESTERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DEMOGRAPHY; EDUCATIONAL MODEL; FACTOR ANALYSIS; FEMALE; HUMAN; INTERDISCIPLINARY EDUCATION; MALE; QUESTIONNAIRE; REPRODUCIBILITY; SAMPLE SIZE; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA; TEACHING;

DEMOGRAPHY; FACTOR ANALYSIS, STATISTICAL; FEMALE; HUMANS; INTERDISCIPLINARY STUDIES; MALE; MODELS, EDUCATIONAL; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SAMPLE SIZE; SURVEYS AND QUESTIONNAIRES; TEACHING;

EID: 84994791010     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19317913     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1187/cbe.15-09-0193     Document Type: Article

References (55)

1. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) (2011). Vision and Change in Undergraduate Biology Education: A Call to Action, Washington, DC.
2. AAAS (2013). Measuring STEM Teaching Practices: A Report from a National Meeting on the Measurement of Undergraduate Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Teaching, Washington, DC.
3. Anastasi A, Urbina S (1997). Psychological Testing, 7th ed., Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
4. Angelo TA, Cross KP (1993). Classroom Assessment Techniques: A Handbook for College Teachers, 2nd ed., San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
5. Bass BM, Cascio WF, O’Connor EJ (1974). Magnitude estimations of expressions of frequency and amount. J Appl Psychol 59, 313–320.
6. Bishop GF (1987). Experiments with the middle response alternative in survey questions. Public Opinion Quarterly 51, 220–232.
7. Bollen KA (1989). Structural Equation Models with Latent Variables, New York: Sage.
8. Borrego M, Cutler S, Prince M, Henderson C, Froyd J (2013). Fidelity of implementation of research-based instructional strategies (RBIS) in engineering science courses. J Eng Educ 102, 394–425.
9. Brawner CE, Felder RM, Allen R, Brent R (2002). A survey of faculty teaching practices and involvement in faculty development activities. J Eng Educ 91, 393–396.
10. Byrne BM (2013). Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming, 2nd ed., New York: Routledge.
11. Carnevale AP, Smith D, Melton M (2011). STEM, Washington, DC: Center on Education and the Workforce, Georgetown University.
12. Center for Post-secondary Research at Indiana University (2012). Faculty Survey of Student Engagement (FSSE). http://fsse.iub.edu/pdf/2012/FSSE12_TS.pdf (accessed 15 November 2013).
13. Chi MT, Wylie R (2014). The ICAP framework: linking cognitive engagement to active learning outcomes. Educ Psychol 49, 219–243.
14. Clark L, Watson D (1995). Constructing validity: basic issues in objective scale development. Psychol Assess 7, 309.
15. Coons SJ, Rao S, Keininger DL, Hays RD (2000). A comparative review of generic quality-of-life instruments. Pharmacoeconomics 17, 13–35.
16. Costello AB, Osborne JW (2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: four recommendations for getting the most from your factor analysis. Pract Assess Res Eval 10(7). http://pareonline.net/pdf/v10n7.pdf (accessed 4 April 2015).
17. Dancy M, Henderson C (2007). Barriers to the use of research-based instructional strategies: the influence of both individual and situational characteristics. Phys Rev Spec Top Phys Educ Res 3, 020102.
18. Dancy M, Henderson C (2010). Pedagogical practices and instructional change of physics faculty. Am J Phys 78, 1056–1063.
19. DeLamater JD, Myers DJ, Collett JL (2014). Social Psychology, 8th ed., Boulder, CO: Westview.
20. Ebert-May D, Dertling 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, 550–558.
21. Ferguson GA (1954). The concept of parsimony in factor analysis. Psychometrika 19, 281–290.
22. Hativa N (2000). Becoming a better teacher: a case of changing the pedagogical knowledge and beliefs of law professors. Instr Sci 28, 491–523.
23. Haynes SN, Richard DCS, Kubany ES (1995). Content validity in psychological assessment: a functional approach to concepts and methods. Psychol Assess 7, 238–247.
24. Henderson C, Beach AL, Finkelstein N (2011). Facilitating change in undergraduate STEM instructional practices: an analytic review of the literature. J Res Sci Teach 48, 952–984.
25. Henderson C, Dancy M, Niewiadomska-Bugaj M (2012). Use of research-based instructional strategies in introductory physics: where do faculty leave the innovation-decision process? Phys Rev Spec Top Phys Educ Res 8, 020104.
26. Hora MT, Oleson A, Ferrare JJ (2012). Teaching Dimensions Observation Protocol (TDOP) User’s Manual, Madison: Wisconsin Center for Education Research, University of Wisconsin–Madison.
27. Hu L, Bentler PM (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Modeling 6, 1−55.
28. Hu LT, Bentler PM (1995). Evaluating model fit. In: Modeling: Concepts, Issues, and Applications, ed. RH Hoyle, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 76–99.
29. Hurtado S, Eagan K, Pryor JH, Whang H, Tran S (2011). Undergraduate Teaching Faculty: The 2010–11 HERI Faculty Survey, Los Angeles, CA: Higher Education Research Institute.
30. Iverson HL (2011). Undergraduate physics course innovations and their impact on student learning. PhD Dissertation, Boulder: University of Colorado.
31. Johns R (2005). One size doesn’t fit all: selecting response scales for attitude items. J Elections Public Opinion & Parties 15, 237–264.
32. Kuh GD, Laird TFN, Umbach PD (2004). Aligning faculty activities and student behavior: realizing the promised of greater expectations. Liberal Educ 90, 24.
33. MacCallum RC, Browne MW, Sugawara HM (1996). Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychol Methods 1, 130–149.
34. 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 U.S. faculty. J Geosci Educ 53, 237–252.
35. Marbach-Ad G, Schaefer-Zimmer KL, Orgler M, Benson S, Thompson KV (2012). Surveying research university faculty, graduate students and undergraduates: skills and practices important for science majors. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association (AERA), 13–17 April 2012, Vancouver, Canada.
36. Meltzer DE, Thornton RK (2012). Resource letter ALIP–1: active-learning instruction in physics. Am J Phys 80, 478.
37. National Center for Education Statistics (2004). National Study of Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF), Washington, DC. http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/nsopf (accessed 15 November 2013).
38. National Research Council (2000). How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School, Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
39. Osborne JW (2015). What is rotating in exploratory factor analysis? Pract Assess Res Eval 20(2), 2–7.
40. Pascarella ET, Terenzini PT (1991). How College Affects Students, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
41. Pascarella ET, Terenzini PT (2005). How College Affects Students, vol. 2, A Third Decade of Research, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
42. Piburn M, Sawada D, Falconer K, Turley J, Benford R, Bloom I (2000). Reformed Teaching Observation Protocol (RTOP), Tempe: Arizona Collaborative for Excellence in the Preparation of Teachers.
43. Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Podsakoff NP (2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annu Rev Psychol 63, 539–569.
44. 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, Washington, DC: U.S. Government Office of Science and Technology.
45. Rutherford FJ, Ahlgren A (1990). Science for All Americans, New York: Oxford University Press.
46. Smith MK, Vinson EL, Smith JA, Lewin JD, Stetzer KR (2014). A campus-wide study of STEM courses: new perspectives on teaching practices and perceptions. CBE Life Sci Educ 13, 624–635.
47. Steiger JH (2000). Point estimation, hypothesis testing and interval estimation using the RMSEA: some comments and a reply to Hayduk and Glaser. Struct Equ Modeling 7, 149–162.
48. Thompson B, Daniel LG (1996). Factor analytic evidence for the construct validity of scores: a historical overview and some guidelines. Educ Psychol Meas 56, 197–208.
49. Trigwell K, Prosser M (2004). Development and use of the Approaches to Teaching Inventory. Educ Psychol Rev 16, 409–424.
50. Walczyk JJ, Ramsey LL (2003). Use of learner-centered instruction in college science and mathematics classrooms. J Res Sci Teach 40, 566–584.
51. Walter EM, Beach AL, Henderson C, Williams CT (2015). Measuring postsecondary teaching practices and departmental climate: the development of two new surveys. In: Transforming Institutions: Undergraduate STEM in the 21st Century, ed. GC Weaver, WD Burgess, AL Childress, and L Slakey, Purdue, IN: Purdue University Press.
52. Walter EM, Williams CT, Henderson C, Beach AL, Grunert M (2016, April). Comparing self-report and observational data: an investigation of faculty instructional practices. Paper presented at the annual conference for the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Baltimore, MD.
53. Wieman CE, Gilbert S (2014). The Teaching Practices Inventory: a new tool for characterizing college and university teaching in mathematics and science. CBE Life Sci Educ 13, 552–569.
54. Williams CT, Walter EM, Henderson C, Beach A (2015). Describing undergraduate STEM teaching practices: a comparison of instructor self-report instruments. Int J STEM Educ 2, 18.
55. Zieffler A, Park J, Garfield J, delMas R, Bjornsdottir A (2012). The Statistics Teaching Inventory: a survey on statistics teaching classroom practices and beliefs. J Stat Educ 20, 1–29.