Background: Research at the secondary and postsecondary levels has clearly demonstrated the critical role that individual and contextual characteristics play in instructors' decision to adopt educational innovations. Although recent research has shed light on factors influencing the teaching practices of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) faculty, it is still not well understood how unique departmental environments impact faculty adoption of evidence-based instructional practices (EBIPs) within the context of a single institution. In this study, we sought to characterize the communication channels utilized by STEM faculty, as well as the contextual and individual factors that influence the teaching practices of STEM faculty at the departmental level. Accordingly, we collected survey and observational data from the chemistry, biology, and physics faculty at a single large research-intensive university in the USA. We then compared the influencing factors experienced by faculty in these different departments to their instructional practices. Results: Analyses of the survey data reveal disciplinary differences in the factors influencing adoption of EBIPs. In particular, the physics faculty (n = 15) had primarily student-centered views about teaching and experienced the most positive contextual factors toward adoption of EBIPs. At the other end of the spectrum, the chemistry faculty (n = 20) had primarily teacher-centered views and experienced contextual factors that hindered the adoption of student-centered practices. Biology faculty (n = 25) fell between these two groups. Classroom observational data reflected these differences: The physics classrooms were significantly more student-centered than the chemistry classrooms. Conclusions: This study demonstrates that disciplinary differences exist in the contextual factors teaching conceptions that STEM faculty experience and hold, even among faculty within the same institution. Moreover, it shows that these differences are associated to the level of adoption of student-centered teaching practices. This work has thus identified the critical need to carefully characterize STEM faculty's departmental environment and conceptions about teaching before engaging in instructional reform efforts, and to adapt reform activities to account for these factors. The results of this study also caution the overgeneralization of findings from a study focused on one type of STEM faculty in one environment to all STEM faculty in any environment.

The authors performed a cluster analysis using observational data from 269 class periods and including 73 science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) faculty from 28 research universities. They used eight of the 25 Classroom Observation Protocol in Undergraduate STEM codes to produce 10 clusters of instructional styles across a range of Reformed Teaching Observation Protocol scores. A description of the clusters and their distribution across various STEM courses are provided.

The design of assessment tools is critical to accurately evaluate students' understanding of chemistry. Although extensive research has been conducted on various aspects of assessment tool design, few studies in chemistry have focused on the impact of the order in which questions are presented to students on the measurement of students' understanding and students' performance. This potential impact has been labeled the question order effect in other literature and may be considered as a threat to the construct validity of the assessment tool. The set of studies described in this article tested whether question order effects were present within a concept inventory on acid-based chemistry. In particular, we tested whether the order of two conceptually isomorphic questions, one pictorial and one verbal, affected students' performance on the concept inventory. Two different versions of the inventory were developed and collected from students enrolled in the second semester of first-year university chemistry courses (general chemistry;N= 774) at two different institutions and to students enrolled in the first semester of organic chemistry (N= 163) at one of the two institutions. Students were further divided in two groups based on their self-reported level of effort in answering the concept inventory. Interviews were also conducted with a total of 19 students at various stages of the studies. Analyses of differences in students' responses to the two versions of the inventory revealed no question order effect in all settings. Implications for instructors and researchers are provided.