Instructor Talk—noncontent language used by instructors in classrooms—is a recently defined and promising variable for better understanding classroom dynamics. Having previously characterized the Instructor Talk framework within the context of a single course, we present here our results surrounding the applicability of the Instructor Talk framework to noncontent language used by instructors in novel course contexts. We analyzed Instructor Talk in eight additional biology courses in their entirety and in 61 biology courses using an emergent sampling strategy. We observed widespread use of Instructor Talk with variation in the amount and category type used. The vast majority of Instructor Talk could be characterized using the originally published Instructor Talk framework, suggesting the robustness of this framework. Additionally, a new form of Instructor Talk—Negatively Phrased Instructor Talk, language that may discourage students or distract from the learning process—was detected in these novel course contexts. Finally, the emergent sampling strategy described here may allow investigation of Instructor Talk in even larger numbers of courses across institutions and disciplines. Given its widespread use, potential influence on students in learning environments, and ability to be sampled, Instructor Talk may be a key variable to consider in future research on teaching and learning in higher education.

Active-learning pedagogies have been repeatedly demonstrated to produce superior learning gains with large effect sizes compared with lecture-based pedagogies. Shifting large numbers of college science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) faculty to include any active learning in their teaching may retain and more effectively educate far more students than having a few faculty completely transform their teaching, but the extent to which STEM faculty are changing their teaching methods is unclear. Here, we describe the development and application of the machine-learning-derived algorithm Decibel Analysis for Research in Teaching (DART), which can analyze thousands of hours of STEM course audio recordings quickly, with minimal costs, and without need for human observers. DART analyzes the volume and variance of classroom recordings to predict the quantity of time spent on single voice (e.g., lecture), multiple voice (e.g., pair discussion), and no voice (e.g., clicker question thinking) activities. Applying DART to 1,486 recordings of class sessions from 67 courses, a total of 1,720 h of audio, revealed varied patterns of lecture (single voice) and nonlecture activity (multiple and no voice) use. We also found that there was significantly more use of multiple and no voice strategies in courses for STEM majors compared with courses for non-STEM majors, indicating that DART can be used to compare teaching strategies in different types of courses. Therefore, DART has the potential to systematically inventory the presence of active learning with ∼90% accuracy across thousands of courses in diverse settings with minimal effort.active learning | evidence-based teaching | science education | lecture | assessment C urrent college STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) teaching in the United States continues to be lecture-based and is relatively ineffective in promoting learning (1, 2). Undergraduate instructors continue to struggle to engage, effectively teach, and retain postsecondary students, both generally and particularly among women and students of color (3, 4). Federal analyses suggest that a 10% increase in retention of undergraduate STEM students could address anticipated STEM workforce shortfalls (5). Replacing the standard lecture format with more active teaching strategies has been shown to increase

National efforts to improve equitable teaching practices have led to an increase in research on the barriers to student participation and performance, as well as solutions for overcoming these barriers. This report summarizes the conclusions of a meeting exploring our understanding of how these practices differ among institutions and geographic locations.

Ecology class is a faculty favorite for several reasons. For those of us with backgrounds in conservation biology, biodiversity, and evolution, teaching ecology is like spending time with a dear friend. We get to revisit the ideas and concepts that made us passionate about biology in the first place and our excitement is vivid, tangible, and uncontainable. Our love for the subject bubbles over when we lecture, when we explain a laboratory procedure, or when we get behind the wheel of our 15-passenger vans full of eager students. Ecology class requires us to take ourselves a little less seriously. We kneel in the dirt, sweat while climbing the trail, and get mud under our fingernails while showing our students the interconnected beauty of the world. Ecology class is a great equalizer. Each person in the room, student and faculty alike, breathes the same air and is exposed to the same environmental factors, reminding us that we are all in this together. Our differences are less notable when we are crouching by the same stream or posing for a selfie together in front of a waterfall. Ecology class welcomes innovation and ambiguity. Students create novel experiments knowing that they are in control of the research and interpretation. The benefits of fieldbased ecology experiences have been presented elsewhere (Beck &

The COVID-19 pandemic has forced the transition of many traditional face-to-face classes into an online format with little time to prepare best practice guidelines. In this article we share ways to adapt a group field activity into an individual lab assignment that can be completed during shelter-in-place restrictions. We address the tactics, difficulties, successes, and ideas for future applications while staying mindful of the ways in which this pandemic has highlighted the inequities of the classroom.