Comparing student, instructor, classroom and institutional data to evaluate a seven-year department-wide science education initiative

References

• Benton, S. 2015. “Student Ratings of Instruction in Lower-level Postsecondary STEM Classes.” In Searching for Better Approaches; Effective Evaluation of Teaching and Learning in STEM, 59–71. Research Corporation for Science Advancement. http://rescorp.org/gdresources/publications/effectivebook.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Caulkins, J., F. Jones, and A. Jolley. 2015. “UBC EOAS Graduation Exit Survey, April 2015.” UBC Faculty Research and Publications, Open Collections. Accessed April 12, 2017. http://hdl.handle.net/2429/59814.
   Google Scholar
• Chasteen, S. V., K. K. Perkins, P. D. Beale, S. J. Pollock, and C. E. Wieman. 2011. “A Thoughtful Approach to Instruction: Course Transformation for the Rest of Us.” Journal of College Science Teaching 40 (4): 70–76.
   Google Scholar
• Chasteen, S. V., K. K. Perkins, W. J. Code, and C. E. Wieman. 2016. “The Science Education Initiative: An Experiment in Scaling up Education Improvements at a Research University.” In Transforming Institutions: Undergraduate STEM Education for the 21st Century, edited by Gabriela C. Weaver, Wilella D. Burgess, Amy L. Childress, and Linda Slakey. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press. http://www.thepress.purdue.edu/titles/format/9781557537249.
   Google Scholar
• Ellis, J., M. L. Kelton, and C. Rasmussen. 2014. “Student Perceptions of Pedagogy and Associated Persistence in Calculus.” ZDM Mathematics Education 46 (4): 661–673. doi:10.1007/s11858-014-0577-z.
   Google Scholar
• Elrod, S., and A. Kezar. 2015. “Increasing Student Success in STEM.” Peer Review 17 (2). Association of American Colleges & Universities, Accessed April 2 2017. https://www.aacu.org/peerreview/2015/spring/elrod-kezar.
   Google Scholar
• Fairweather, J., J. Tarpani, and K. Paulson. 2016. “The Role of Data in Promoting Institutional Commitement to Undergarduate STEM Reform: The AAU STEM Initiative Experience.” In Transforming Institutions: Undergraduate STEM Education for the 21st Century, 429–38. West Lafayette, Indiana: Purdue University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fry, C. 2014. Achieving Systemic Change: A Sourcebook for Advancing and Funding Undergraduate STEM Education. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities.
   Google Scholar
• Huber, M. T., and P. Hutchings. 2014. “The Carl Wieman Science Education Initiative in the Department of Earth, Ocean, and Atmospheric Science, University of British Columbia.” Unpublished benchmark case study, Bay View Alliance.
   Google Scholar
• Jones, F. 2014. “Students’ Learning Experiences Survey.” UBC Faculty Research and Publications, Open Collections. Accessed April 11, 2017. http://hdl.handle.net/2429/58046.
   Google Scholar
• Jones, F. 2017. “Impact Assessment of a Department-wide Science Education Initiative Using Students’ Perceptions of Teaching and Learning Experiences.” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 42 (5): 772–787. doi:10.1080/02602938.2016.1188057.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kober, N., ed. 2015. Reaching Students: What Research Says About Effective Instruction in Undergraduate Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. National Academies Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lund, T. J., M. Pilarz, J. B. Velasco, D. Chakraverty, K. Rosploch, M. Undersander, and M. Stains. 2015. “The Best of Both Worlds: Building on the COPUS and RTOP Observation Protocols to Easily and Reliably Measure Various Levels of Reformed Instructional Practice.” CBE Life Sciences Education 14 (2): 1–12. doi:10.1187/cbe.14-10-0168.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marsh, H. W. 2007. “Students’ Evaluations of University Teaching: Dimensionality, Reliability, Validity, Potential Biases and Usefulness.” In The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education: An Evidence-based Perspective, edited by Raymond Perry and John Smart, 319–383. New York: Springer
   Google Scholar
• McCormick, A. C., R. M. Gonyea, and J. Kinzie. 2013. “Refreshing Engagement: NSSE at 13.” Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning 45 (3): 6–15. doi:10.1080/00091383.2013.786985.
   Google Scholar
• McCrickerd, J. 2012. “Understanding and Reducing Faculty Reluctance to Improve Teaching.” College Teaching 60 (2): 56–64. doi:10.1080/87567555.2011.633287.
   Google Scholar
• Molinaro, M. 2015. “Ch. 10. Enhancing Teaching and Learning: Potential and Reality.” In Searching for Better Approaches; Effective Evaluation of Teaching and Learning in STEM, 73–79. Research Corporation for Science Advancement. http://www.chem.wayne.edu/feiggroup/publications/2015_eetl-book_miller.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Seymour, E., D. J. Wiese, A. Hunter, and S. M. Daffinrud. 2000. “Creating a Better Mousetrap: On-line Student Assessment of Their Learning Gains.” In National Meeting of the American Chemical Society. https://aacu-secure.nisgroup.com/resources/sciencehealth/documents/Mousetrap.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Shelton, R. N., and H. R. Rawlings III. 2015. Searching for Better Approaches; Effective Evaluation of Teaching and Learning in STEM. Tucson, AZ: Research Corporation for Science Advancement. http://rescorp.org/gdresources/publications/effectivebook.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Smith, M. K., F. H. M. Jones, S. L. Gilbert, and C. E. Wieman. 2013. “The Classroom Observation Protocol for Undergraduate STEM (COPUS): A New Instrument to Characterize University STEM Classroom Practices.” Cell Biology Education 12 (4): 618–627. doi:10.1187/cbe.13-08-0154.
   Google Scholar
• Sonnert, G., P. M. Sadler, S. M. Sadler, and D. M. Bressoud. 2015. “The Impact of Instructor Pedagogy on College Calculus Students’ Attitude toward Mathematics.” International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology 46 (3): 370–387. doi:10.1080/0020739X.2014.979898.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sullivan, D. F., and C. G. Schneider. 2015. The VALUE Breakthrough: Getting the Assessment of Student Learning in College Right. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges & Universities.
   Google Scholar
• Weaver, G., W. Burgess, A. Childress, and L. Slakey. 2015. Transforming Institutions: Undergraduate STEM Education for the 21st Century. West Lafayette, Indiana: Purdue University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wieman, C. 2015. “A Better Way to Evaluate Undergraduate Teaching.” Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning 47 (1): 6–15. doi:10.1080/00091383.2015.996077.
   Google Scholar
• Wieman, C. 2017. Improving How Universities Teach Science: Lessons from the Science Education Initiative. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wieman, C., L. Deslauriers, and B. Gilley. 2013. “Use of Research-Based Instructional Strategies: How to Avoid Faculty Quitting.” Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research 9 : 023102.1–023102.5. doi:10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.9.023102.
   Google Scholar
• Wieman, C., and S. Gilbert. 2014. “The Teaching Practices Inventory: A New Tool for Characterizing College and University Teaching in Mathematics and Science.” Cell Biology Education 13 (3): 552–569. doi:10.1187/cbe.14-02-0023.
   Google Scholar
• Wieman, C., K. Perkins, and S. Gilbert. 2010. “Transforming Science Education at Large Research Universities: A Case Study in Progress.” Change Magazine, March/April. http://www.changemag.org/Archives/Back%20Issues/March-April%202010/transforming-science-full.html.
   Google Scholar
• Williams, C. T., E. M. Walter, C. Henderson, and A. L. Beach. 2015. “Describing Undergraduate STEM Teaching Practices: A Comparison of Instructor Self-report Instruments.” International Journal of STEM Education 2 (1). doi:10.1186/s40594-015-0031-y.
   Google Scholar
• Winer, L. R., L. di Genova, A. Costopoulos, and K. Cardoso. 2017. “Addressing Common Concerns about Online Student Ratings of Instruction: A Research-informed Approach.” Canadian Journal of Higher Education 46 (4): 115–131.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zumrawi, A. A., S. P. Bates, and M. Schroeder. 2014. “What Response Rates Are Needed to Make Reliable Inferences from Student Evaluations of Teaching?” Educational Research and Evaluation 20 (7–8): 557–563. doi:10.1080/13803611.2014.997915.
   Google Scholar