Environmental influences and individual characteristics that affect learner-centered teaching practices.

Research-based teaching practices can improve student learning outcomes in a variety of complex educational environments. The implementation of learner-centered teaching practices in STEM can both benefit from or be constrained by different factors related to individual instructors and the teaching environment. Additionally, we know little of how the instructional climate varies across institutions and how this climate affects teaching practices. Our study sought to examine the relative importance of environmental influences and individual characteristics on learner-centered teaching practices across institutions. We also assessed differences in our study population and departmental climate for 35 US higher education institutions across the country. We found that self-efficacy in teaching and professional development exert a strong influence on faculty teaching practices in biology. While departmental climate did not emerge as a significant predictor of teaching practices, there was consistently low support for teaching, and institution size was negatively correlated with leadership and evaluation of effective teaching. We also found that intensive professional development programs, such as the Faculty Institutes for Reforming Science Teaching IV program, may prepare instructors to teach learner-centered courses in different collegial teaching climates. Our results suggest that through cultivating self-efficacy and participating in iterative professional development, instructors can implement effective teaching practices in a variety of institutional environments.

Early-career faculty practice learner-centered teaching up to 9 years after postdoctoral professional development.

The goal of STEM professional development for teaching is that participants continue to practice what they learn in the long term. However, we do not know if the outcomes are achieved and ultimately persist. We tracked postdoctoral participants from the Faculty Institutes for Reforming Science Teaching (FIRST) IV program into their current positions as early-career biology faculty. We assessed their teaching approaches, practices, and student perceptions of the learning environment over 6 to 9 years after finishing the program. Simultaneously, we evaluated paired faculty in the same departments. We found that professional development outcomes persisted over time and across a career transition. FIRST IV faculty maintained their learner-centered practices and were more learner-centered than their peers. Last, we found that teaching approaches were correlated with teaching practices in all faculty participants. These results provide evidence for the success of the FIRST IV program and the long-term persistence of professional development outcomes.

A Problem-Sorting Task Detects Changes in Undergraduate Biological Expertise over a Single Semester.

Calls for undergraduate biology reform share similar goals: to produce people who can organize, use, connect, and communicate about biological knowledge. Achieving these goals requires students to gain disciplinary expertise. Experts organize, access, and apply disciplinary knowledge differently than novices, and expertise is measurable. By asking introductory biology students to sort biological problems, we investigated whether they changed how they organized and linked biological ideas over one semester of introductory biology. We administered the Biology Card Sorting Task to 751 students enrolled in their first or second introductory biology course focusing on either cellular-molecular or organismal-population topics, under structured or unstructured sorting conditions. Students used a combination of superficial, deep, and yet-uncharacterized ways of organizing and connecting biological knowledge. In some cases, this translated to more expert-like ways of organizing knowledge over a single semester, best predicted by whether students were enrolled in their first or second semester of biology and by the sorting condition completed. In addition to illuminating differences between novices and experts, our results show that card sorting is a robust way of detecting changes in novices' biological expertise-even in heterogeneous populations of novice biology students over the time span of a single semester.

Assessing faculty professional development in STEM higher education: Sustainability of outcomes.

We tested the effectiveness of Faculty Institutes for Reforming Science Teaching IV (FIRST), a professional development program for postdoctoral scholars, by conducting a study of program alumni. Faculty professional development programs are critical components of efforts to improve teaching and learning in the STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) disciplines, but reliable evidence of the sustained impacts of these programs is lacking. We used a paired design in which we matched a FIRST alumnus employed in a tenure-track position with a non-FIRST faculty member at the same institution. The members of a pair taught courses that were of similar size and level. To determine whether teaching practices of FIRST participants were more learner-centered than those of non-FIRST faculty, we compared faculty perceptions of their teaching strategies, perceptions of environmental factors that influence teaching, and actual teaching practice. Non-FIRST and FIRST faculty reported similar perceptions of their teaching strategies and teaching environment. FIRST faculty reported using active learning and interactive engagement in lecture sessions more frequently compared with non-FIRST faculty. Ratings from external reviewers also documented that FIRST faculty taught class sessions that were learner-centered, contrasting with the teacher-centered class sessions of most non-FIRST faculty. Despite marked differences in teaching practice, FIRST and non-FIRST participants used assessments that targeted lower-level cognitive skills. Our study demonstrated the effectiveness of the FIRST program and the empirical utility of comparison groups, where groups are well matched and controlled for contextual variables (for example, departments), for evaluating the effectiveness of professional development for subsequent teaching practices.

The other half of the story: effect size analysis in quantitative research.

Statistical significance testing is the cornerstone of quantitative research, but studies that fail to report measures of effect size are potentially missing a robust part of the analysis. We provide a rationale for why effect size measures should be included in quantitative discipline-based education research. Examples from both biological and educational research demonstrate the utility of effect size for evaluating practical significance. We also provide details about some effect size indices that are paired with common statistical significance tests used in educational research and offer general suggestions for interpreting effect size measures. Finally, we discuss some inherent limitations of effect size measures and provide further recommendations about reporting confidence intervals.