A vision and change reform of introductory biology shifts faculty perceptions and use of active learning

CBE Life Sciences Education

Volumn 16, Issue 4, 2017, Pages

  Auerbach, Anna Jo ^a   Schussler, Elisabeth ^b  

^a University of Georgia ^*  (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIOLOGY; CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY; EDUCATION; HUMAN; PERCEPTION; PROBLEM BASED LEARNING; UNIVERSITY;

BIOLOGY; CULTURE; FACULTY; HUMANS; PERCEPTION; PROBLEM-BASED LEARNING;

EID: 85035054634     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19317913     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1187/cbe.16-08-0258     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. American Association for the Advancement of Science (2011). Vision and change in undergraduate biology education: A call to action. Final report. Washington, DC.
2. Andrews, T. M., Leonard, M. J., Colgrove, C. A., & Kalinowski, S. T. (2011). Active learning not associated with student learning in a random sample of college biology courses. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 10, 394–405.
3. Armbruster, P., Patel, M., Johnson, E., & Weiss, M. (2009). Active learning and student-centered pedagogy improves student attitudes and performances in introductory biology. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 8, 203-213.
4. Auerbach, A. J., & Schussler, E. E. (2016). Instructor use of group active learning in an introductory biology sequence. Journal of College Science Teaching, 45, 67–74.
5. Auerbach, A. J., & Schussler, E. E. (2017). Curriculum alignment with Vision and Change improves student scientific literacy. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 16(2), ar29.
6. Collins, J. W. III., & O’Brien, N. P. (Eds.). (2003). The Greenwood dictionary of education. Westport, CT: Greenwood.
7. Couch, B. A., Brown, T. L., Schelpat, T. J., Graham, M. J., & Knight, J. K. (2015). Scientific teaching: Defining a taxonomy of observable practices. CBE— Life Sciences Education, 14, ar9.
8. Dancy, M., & Henderson, C. (2010). Pedagogical practices and instructional change of physics faculty. American Journal of Physics, 78, 1056–1063.
9. Ebert-May, D., Derting, T. L., Hodder, J., Momsen, J. L., Long, T. M., & Jardeleza, S. E. (2011). What we say is not what we do: Effective evaluation of faculty professional development programs. Bioscience, 61, 550–558.
10. Eddy, S. L., Converse, 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, 14, ar23.
11. Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Oloroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 111, 8410–8415.
12. Freeman, S., O’Conner, E. O., Parks, J. W., Cunningham, M., Hurley, D., Haak, D., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2007). Prescribed active learning increases performance in introductory biology. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 6, 132–139.
13. 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). doi:10.3102/00028312040003731
14. Gormally, C., Evans, M., & Brickman, P. (2014). Feedback about teaching in higher ed: Neglected opportunities to promote change. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 13, 187–199.
15. Henderson, C., & Darcy, M. H. (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, 020102.
16. IBM Corporation. (2011). IBM statistics for windows, Version 22.0. Armonk, NY.
17. Kember, D. (1997). A reconceptualization of the research into university academics’ conceptions of teaching. Learn Instagram, 7(3), 255–275.
18. Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 254–284.
19. Kvale, S., & Brinkmann, S. (2009). Interviews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
20. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
21. Michael, J. (2006). Where’s the evidence that active learning works? Advances in Physiology Education, 30, 159–167.
22. Middlemis Maher, J., Markey, J. C., & Ebert-May, D. (2013). The other half of the story: Effect size analysis in quantitative research. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 12, 345–351.
23. National Research Council. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
24. Obenland, C. A., Munson, A. H., & Hutchinson, J. S. (2012). Silent students’ participation in a large active learning science classroom. Journal of College Science Teaching, 42(2), 90–98.
25. Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62, 307–332.
26. 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.
27. Saldaña, J. (2013). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
28. Sawada, D., Piburn, M. D., Judson, E., Turley, J., Falconer, K., Benford, R., & Bloom, I. (2002). Measuring reform practices in science and mathematics class-rooms: The Reformed Teaching Observation Protocol. School Science and Mathematics, 102, 245–253.
29. Seymour, E., & Hewitt, N. M. (1997). Talking about leaving: Why undergraduates leave the sciences. Boulder, CO: Westview.
30. Smith, M. K., Jones, F. H. M., Gilbert, S., & Wieman, C. E. (2013). The Classroom Observation Protocol for Undergraduate STEM (COPUS): A new instrument to characterize university STEM classroom practices. CBE— Life Sciences Education, 12, 618–627.
31. Smith, M. K., Vinson, E. L., Smith, J. A., Lewin, J. D., & Stetzer, M. R. (2014). A campus-wide study of STEM courses: New perspectives on teaching practices and perceptions. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 13, 624–635.
32. Smith, M. K., Wood, W. B., Adams, W. K., Wieman, C., Knight, J. K., Guild, N., & Su, T. T. (2009). Why peer discussion improves student performance on in-class concept questions. Science, 323, 122–124.
33. Smith, M. K., Wood, W. B., Krauter, K., & Knight, J. K. (2011). Combining peer discussion with instructor explanation increases student learning from in-class concept questions. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 10, 55–63.
34. Sunal, D. W., Hodges, J., Sunal, C. S., Whitaker, K. W., Freeman, M., Edwards, L., Odell, M. (2001). Teaching science in higher education: Faculty professional development and barriers to change. School Science and Mathematics, 101, 246–257.
35. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics, (4th ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
36. Turpen, C., & Finkelstein, N. D. (2009). Not all interactive engagement is the same: Variations in physics’ professors implementation of peer instruction. Physical Review Special Topics–Physics Education Research, 5, 1–18.
37. Turpen, C., & Finkelstein, N. D. (2010). The construction of different classroom norms during peer instruction: Students perceive differences. Physical Review Special Topics–Physics Education Research, 6, 1–22.
38. Weimer, M. (2002). Learner-centered teaching: Five key changes to practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
39. Westfall, P. H., & Henning, K. S. S. (2013). Understanding advanced statistical methods. Boca Raton, FL: CRC.
40. Wieman, C. (2014). Large-scale comparison of teaching methods sends clear message. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(13), 8319–8320.
41. Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (1998). Understanding by design. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.