ArticleScience advances2017
Improving undergraduate STEM education: The efficacy of discipline-based professional development.
Article in Science advances, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
20 citing papers in PubMed.
- Crafting a Biology Course for Nonmajors: Personas Help Delineate Faculty Decision Making.CBE life sciences education · 2025Article
- Measuring STEM Instructors' Learning of and Growth in Inclusive Teaching: Development and Evaluation of the STEM Faculty Inclusive Teaching Survey (FITS).CBE life sciences education · 2025Article
- Structuring Materials to Support Student Learning: Analysis of Instructional Materials from a Professional Development Workshop.Journal of chemical education · 2024Article
- Article
- Postsecondary Faculty Attitudes and Beliefs about Writing-Based Pedagogies in the STEM Classroom.CBE life sciences education · 2022Article
- Student Thinking in the Professional Development of College Biology Instructors: An Analysis through the Lens of Sociocultural Theory.CBE life sciences education · 2022Article
- We Can't Fail Again: Arguments for Professional Development in the Wake of COVID-19.Journal of microbiology & biology education · 2022Article
- Article
- The Conceptualization of Quantitative Reasoning among Introductory Biology Faculty.Journal of microbiology & biology education · 2021Article
- Look Who's Talking: Teaching and Discourse Practices across Discipline, Position, Experience, and Class Size in STEM College Classrooms.Bioscience · 2021Article
- The Taxonomy of Opportunities to Learn (TxOTL): a tool for understanding the learning potential and substance of interactions in faculty (online) learning community meetings.International journal of STEM education · 2021Article
- Environmental influences and individual characteristics that affect learner-centered teaching practices.PloS one · 2021Article
- A revolution in biochemistry and molecular biology education informed by basic research to meet the demands of 21st century career paths.The Journal of biological chemistry · 2020Article
- Early-career faculty practice learner-centered teaching up to 9 years after postdoctoral professional development.Science advances · 2020Article
- Facilitating Long-Term Mentoring To Effectively Implement Active Learning Instruction: Formation of the Promoting Active Learning and Mentoring (PALM) Network.Journal of microbiology & biology education · 2020Article
- Through the Eyes of Faculty: Using Personas as a Tool for Learner-Centered Professional Development.CBE life sciences education · 2019Article
- Publishing activities improves undergraduate biology education.FEMS microbiology letters · 2018Article
- Assessing the STEM landscape: the current instructional climate survey and the evidence-based instructional practices adoption scale.International journal of STEM education · 2017Article
- A research-based inter-institutional collaboration to diversify the biomedical workforce: ReBUILDetroit.BMC proceedings · 2017Article
- Educational commitment and social networking:The power of informal networks.Physical review. Physics education researchArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We sought to determine whether instructional practices used by undergraduate faculty in the geosciences have shifted from traditional teacher-centered lecture toward student-engaged teaching practices and to evaluate whether the national professional development program On the Cutting Edge (hereinafter Cutting Edge) has been a contributing factor in this change. We surveyed geoscience faculty across the United States in 2004, 2009, and 2012 and asked about teaching practices as well as levels of engagement in education research, scientific research, and professional development related to teaching. We tested these self-reported survey results with direct observations of teaching using the Reformed Teaching Observation Protocol, and we conducted interviews to understand what aspects of Cutting Edge have supported change. Survey data show that teaching strategies involving active learning have become more common, that these practices are concentrated in faculty who invest in learning about teaching, and that faculty investment in learning about teaching has increased. Regression analysis shows that, after controlling for other key influences, faculty who have participated in Cutting Edge programs and who regularly use resources on the Cutting Edge website are statistically more likely to use active learning teaching strategies. Cutting Edge participants also report that learning about teaching, the availability of teaching resources, and interactions with peers have supported changes in their teaching practice. Our data suggest that even one-time participation in a workshop with peers can lead to improved teaching by supporting a combination of affective and cognitive learning outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.