Stirring the pot: Supporting and challenging general education science, technology, engineering, and mathematics faculty to change teaching and assessment practice

Journal of General Education

Volumn 65, Issue 2, 2016, Pages 85-109

  Stieha, Vicki ^a   Shadle, Susan E ^a   Paterson, Sharon ^a  

^a BOISE STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Evidence based instructional practices; Faculty development; Learning outcomes assessment; Stem education; Student success; Teaching observation

Indexed keywords

EID: 85014779657     PISSN: 00213667     EISSN: 15272060     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.5325/jgeneeduc.65.2.0085     Document Type: Article

References (67)

1. Andrews, T. C., & Lemons, P. P. (2015). It's personal: Biology instructors prioritize personal evidence over empirical evidence in teaching decisions. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 14(1). doi:10.1187/cbe.14-05-0084.
2. Angelo, T. A., & Cross, K. P. (1993). Classroom assessment techniques: A handbook for college teachers (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
3. Association of American Colleges and Universities. (2014). Liberal Education and America's Promise. Retrieved from https://www.aacu.org/leap/.
4. Banta, T. W., & Blaich, C. (2011). Closing the assessment loop. Change, 43(1), 22-27.
5. Banta, T. W., Jones, E. A., & Black, K. E. (2010). Designing effective assessment: Principles and profiles of good practice. San Francisco: John Wiley and Sons.
6. Berrett, D. (2012, October 25). Lectures still dominate science and math teaching, sometimes hampering student success. Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from https://crpde.ou.edu/ sites/crpde.ou.edu/files/STEM%20Teaching.pdf.
7. Biggs, J. B., & Teng, C. (2011). Teaching for quality learning at university: What the student does (4th ed.). Philadelphia: McGraw-Hill.
8. Blaich, C., & Wise, K. (2015, January 22). Knowing about vs. knowing how. Center of Inquiry. Retrieved from http://www.liberalarts.wabash.edu/practitioners-corner/2015/1/22/knowing-about-vs-knowing-how.html.
9. Brownell, S. E., & Tanner, K. D. (2015). Barriers to faculty pedagogical change: Lack of training, time, incentives, and… tensions with professional identity? CBE—Life Sciences Education, 11(4), 339-46. doi:10.1187/cbe.12-09-0163.
10. Budd, D. A., VanderHoevenKraft, K. J., McConnell, D. A., & Vislova, T. (2013). Characterizing teaching in introductory geology courses: Measuring classroom practices. Journal of Geoscience Education, 61(4), 461-75.
11. Carmel, J. H., Jessa, Y., & Yezierski, E. J. (2015). Targeting the development of content knowledge and scientific reasoning: Reforming college-level chemistry for nonscience majors. Journal of Chemical Education, 92(1), 46-51. doi:10.1021/ed500207t.
12. Centra, J. A. (1994). Reflective faculty evaluation: Enhancing teaching and determining faculty effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
13. Chang, T.-S., Lin, H.-H., & Song, M.-M. (2011). University faculty members' perceptions of their teaching efficacy. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 48(1), 49-60.
14. Chen, X., & Soldner, M. (2013). STEM attrition: College students' paths into and out of STEM fields (NCES 2014-001). Washington, D.C.: National Center for Educational Statistics. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2014/2014001rev.pdf.
15. Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (2009). Inquiry as stance: Practitioner research for the next generation. New York: Teachers College Press.
16. Daly, A. J. (2010). Mapping the terrain: Social network theory and educational change. In A. J. Daly (Ed.), Social network theory and educational change (pp. 1-16). Cambridge: Harvard Educational Press.
17. Donnelly, R. (2007). Perceived impact of peer observation of teaching in higher education. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 19(2), 117-29.
18. Dubrow, G. (2004). Collegiality and culture: General education curriculum reform at Western Protestant University. Journal of General Education, 53(2), 107-34.
19. Eastwood, J., Sadler, T., Sherwood, R., & Schlegel, W. (2013). Students' participation in an interdisciplinary, socioscientific issues based undergraduate human biology major and their understanding of scientific inquiry. Research in Science Education, 43(3), 1051-78. doi:10.1007/ s11165-012-9298-x.
20. Eddy, S. L., Coverse, M., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2015). 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, 74(4). doi:10.1187/cbe.14-06-0095.
21. Fink, D. (2003). Creating significant learning experiences. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
22. Fox, M. A., & Hackerman, N. (Eds.). (2003). Evaluating and improving undergraduate teaching in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences.
23. Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111(23), 8410-15. doi:10.1073/pnas.1319030111.
24. Galbraith, C. S., & Merrill, G. B. (2012). Predicting student achievement in university-level business and economics classes: Peer observation of classroom instruction and student ratings of teaching effectiveness. College Teaching, 60(2), 48-55.
25. Gasiewski, J. A., Eagan, M. K., Garcia, G. A., Hurtado, S., & Chang, M. J. (2012). From gatekeeping to engagement: A multicontextual, mixed method study of student academic engagement in introductory STEM courses. Research in Higher Education, 53, 229-61. doi:10.1007/ s11162-011-9247-y.
26. Gess-Newsome, J., Southerland, S. A., 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(3), 731-67.
27. Graff, G. (2010). Why assessment? Pedagogy, 10(1), 153-65.
28. Grassian, D. (2013). Constructive ambiguities: The inspiring, deflating, transformative, and limited possibilities for assessment in higher education. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 24(2), 155-73.
29. Hake, R. R. (1998). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 66(1), 64-74.
30. 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), 952-84.
31. Heywood, J. (2000). Assessment in higher education: Student learning, teaching, programmes, and institutions. London: Jessica Kingsley.
32. Kazempour, M., Amirshokoohi, A., & Harwood, W. (2012). Exploring students' perceptions of science and inquiry in a reform-based undergraduate biology course. Journal of College Science Teaching, 42(2), 38-43.
33. Kezar, A. (2014). Higher education change and social networks: A review of research. Journal of Higher Education, 85(1), 91-125.
34. Kogan, M., & Laursen, S. L. (2014). Assessing long-term effects of inquiry-based learning: A case study from college mathematics. Innovative Higher Education, 39(3), 183-99. doi:10.1007/ s10755-013-9269-9.
35. Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., Buckley, J. A., Bridges, B. K., & Hayek, J. C. (2006). What matters to student success: A review of the literature. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/npec/pdf/kuh_team_report.pdf.
36. Love, B., Hodge, A., Grandgenett, N., & Swift, A. W. (2014). Student learning and perceptions in a flipped linear algebra course. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 45(3), 317-24. doi:10.1080/0020739X.2013.822582.
37. Lund, T. J., & Stains, M. (2015). 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, 2(13). doi:10.1186/s40594-015-0026-8.
38. Marshall, J., Horton, R., & White, C. (2009). EQUIPping teachers. Science Teacher, 76(4), 46-53.
39. Marshall, J., Smart, J., Lotter, C., & Sirbu, C. (2011). Comparative analysis of two inquiry observational protocols: Striving to better understand the quality of teacher-facilitated inquiry-based instruction. School Science and Mathematics, 111(6), 306-15. doi:10.1111/j.1949-8594.2011.00091.x.
40. Martinez, J. F., Borko, H., Stecher, B., Luskin, R., & Klower, M. (2012). Measuring classroom assessment practice using instructional artifacts: A validation study of the QAS Notebook. Educational Assessment, 17(2-3), 107-31.
41. Maxwell, J. (1996). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach.Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
42. Mohrman, S. A., Tenkasi, R. V., & Mohrman, A. M., Jr. (2003). The role of networks in fundamental organizational change: A grounded analysis. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 39(3), 301-23.
43. Murphy, K. L., Picione, J., & Holme, T. A. (2010). Data-driven implementation and adaptation of new teaching methodologies. Journal of College Science Teaching, 40(2), 80-86.
44. Olakanmi, E. O., & Doyoyo, M. (2014). Using structured examples and prompting reflective questions to correct misconceptions about thermodynamic concepts. European Journal of Engineering Education, 39(2), 157-87. doi:10.1080/03043797.2013.833177.
45. Olson, S., & Riordan, D. G. (2012). Engage to excel: Producing one million additional college graduates with degrees in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Report to the president. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED541511.
46. Pakala, K., & Bose, D. (2015). Use of mobile learning strategies and devices for e-portfolio content creation in engineering thermodynamics and fluid mechanics classes: Student perceptions. Paper presented at the 2015 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exposition, Seattle. Retrieved from https://peer.asee.org/24978.
47. Paterson McGuire, S., & Stieha, V. (2015). Teaching observations and faculty development to integrate evidence-based practices and assessment of student learning outcomes. Paper presented at the Lilly Conference on Evidence-Based Teaching and Learning, Newport Beach.
48. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
49. Paulsen, M. B., & Pesea, B. A. (1992). A practical guide to zero-based curriculum review. Innovative Higher Education, 16(3), 211-21.
50. Piburn, M., & Sawada, D. (2000). Reformed Teaching Observation Protocol (RTOP) reference manual (ACEPT Technical Report No. IN00-3). Tempe. Retrieved from http://www.public.asu.edu/~anton1/AssessArticles/Assessments/Biology%20Assessments/RTOP%20Reference%20 Manual.pdf.
51. Puncochar, J., & Klett, M. (2013). A model for outcomes assessment of undergraduate science knowledge and inquiry processes. Research and Practice in Assessment, 8, 42-54.
52. Pusecker, K. L., Torres, M. R., Crawford, I., Levia, D., Lehman, D., & Copic, G. (2011). Increasing the validity of outcomes assessment. Peer Review, 13/14(4/1), 27-30.
53. Quardokus, K., & Henderson, C. (2014, 1 April). Using department-level social networks to inform instructional change initiatives. Paper presented at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching Annual Conference, Pittsburgh.
54. Romeo, P., & Posey, F. (2013). Assessment: Can it lead to a better course design? Journal of College Science Teaching, 43(1), 30-35.
55. Rowe, M. P., Gillespie, B. M., Harris, K. R., Koether, S. D., Shannon, L.-J. Y., & Rose, L. A. (2015). Redesigning a general education science course to promote critical thinking. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 14(3). doi:10.1187/cbe.15-02-0032.
56. Rutz, C., Condon, W., Iverson, E. R., Manduca, C. A., & Willett, G. (2012). Faculty professional development and student learning: What is the relationship? Change, 44(3), 40-47. doi:10.1080/00 091383.2012.672915.
57. Ryan, M. (2009). Making visible the coding process: Using qualitative data software in a post-structural study. Issues in Educational Research, 19(2), 142-61.
58. Sawada, D., Piburn, M. D., Judson, E., Turley, J., Falconer, K., Benford, R., & Bloom, I. (2002). Measuring reform practices in science and mathematics classrooms: The Reformed Teaching Observation Protocol. School Science and Mathematics, 102(6), 245-53.
59. Sellheim, D., & Weddle, M. (2015). Using a collaborative course reflection process to enhance faculty curriculum development. College Teaching, 63, 52-61.
60. Seymour, E., & Hewitt, N. M. (1997). Talking about leaving: Why undergraduates leave the sciences. Boulder: Westview.
61. Smith, M. K., Jones, F. H. M., Gilbert, S. L., & Wieman, C. E. (2013). The Classroom Observation Protocol for Undergraduate STEM (C0PUS): A new instrument to characterize university STEM classroom practices. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 12(4), 618-27.
62. Stieha, V., & Paterson McGuire, S. (2013). Documenting pedagogy and learning in stem general education.Paper presented at the Association of American Colleges and Universities, Portland, Ore.
63. Tagg, J. (2003). The learning paradigm college. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
64. Tappan, M. B. (2001). Interpretive psychology: Stories, circles, and understanding lived experience. In D. L. Tolman & M. Brydon-Miller (Eds.), From subjects to subjectivities: A handbook of interpretive and participatory methods (pp. 45-56). New York: New York University Press.
65. Watkins, J., & Mazur, E. (2013). Retaining students in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) majors. Journal of College Science Teaching, 42(5), 36-41.
66. Webber, K. L. (2012). The use of learner-centered assessment in US colleges and universities. Research in Higher Education, 53, 201-28.
67. Wiggens, G. P. (1993). Assessing student performance: Exploring the purpose and limits of testing. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.