Developing and Implementing a Campus-Wide Professional Development Program: Successes and Challenges

References

• Bonwell, C. C., & Eison, J. A. (1991). Active learning: Creating excitement in the classroom. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 1. Washington DC: The George Washington University, School of Education and Human Development. ( ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED340272)
   Google Scholar
• Cox, M. D. (1999). Peer consultation and faculty learning communities. In New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 1999, 39–49. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
   Google Scholar
• Cox, M. D. (2016). Four positions of leadership in planning, implementing, and sustaining faculty learning community programs. In J. L. Bernstein & B. A. Flinders (Eds.), New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2016(148), 85–96. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
   Google Scholar
• Dooner, A. M., Mandzuk, D., & Clifton, R. A. (2008). Stages of collaboration and the realities of professional learning communities. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 564–574.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ebert-May, D., Derting, T. L., Henkel, T. P., Middlemis Maher, J., Momsen, J. L., Arnold, B., & Passmore, H. A. (2015). Breaking the cycle: Future faculty begin teaching with learnercentered strategies after professional development. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 14(2), ar22.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Feldhaus, C. R., Bunu-Ncube, L. G., Mzumara, H. R., Watt, J. X., Hundley, S. P., Marrs, K. A., & Gavrin, A. D. (2015). Using mini-grants to create sustained faculty buy-in for studentcentered pedagogy and assessment in STEM foundation courses. Assessment Update, 27(2), 3–14.
   Google Scholar
• Froyd, J. E. (2007). Evidence for the efficacy of student-active learning pedagogies. Washington, DC: Project Kaleidoscope. Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/f26d/33ffe30afd280dd73aa4d9b564612000f4ed.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Hayward, C. N., Kogan, M., & Laursen, S. L. (2016). Facilitating instructor adoption of inquiry-based learning in college mathematics. International Journal of Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education, 2(1), 59–82.
   Google Scholar
• Hora, M. T., Oleson, A., & Ferrare, J. J. (2013). Teaching dimensions observation protocol (TDOP) user’s manual. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Center for Education Research, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
   Google Scholar
• Kuh, G. D. (2008). Unmasking the effects of student engagement on first-year college grades and persistence. The Journal of Higher Education, 79, 540–563.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lund, T. J., Pilarz, M., Velasco, J. B., Chakraverty, D., Rosploch, K., Undersander, M., & Stains, M. (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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Research Council. (2003). BIO2010: Transforming undergraduate education for future research biologists. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Retrieved from Retrieved from https://www.nap.edu/read/10497/chapter/1
   Google Scholar
• National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE). (2014, December 12). Retrieved from http://www.nsse.iub.edu
   Google Scholar
• Ortquist-Ahrens, L., & Torosyan, R. (2009). The role of the facilitator in faculty learning communities: Paving the way for growth, productivity, and collegiality. Learning Communities Journal, 1, 1–34.
   Google Scholar
• Park, I. (2005). Teacher commitment and its effects on student achievement in American high schools. Educational Research and Evaluation, 11, 461–485.
   Google Scholar
• 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, 245–253.
   Google Scholar
• Smith, M. K., Jones, F. H., Gilbert, S. L., & 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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stoll, L., Bolam, R., McMahon, A., Wallace, M., & Thomas, S. (2006). Professional learning communities: A review of the literature. Journal of Educational Change, 7, 221–258.
   Google Scholar
• Vescio, V, Ross, D., & Adams, A. (2008). A review of research on the impact of professional learning communities on teaching practice and student learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 80–91.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wieman, C., & Gilbert, S. (2014). The teaching practices inventory: A new tool for characterizing college and university teaching in mathematics and science. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 13, 552–569.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wolff, M., Wagner, M. J., Poznanski, S., Schiller, J., & Santen, S. (2015). Not another boring lecture: Engaging learners with active learning techniques. The Journal of Emergency Medicine, 48, 85–93.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar