Evaluating the impact of malleable factors on percent time lecturing in gateway chemistry, mathematics, and physics courses

Abstract

Background Active learning used in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) courses has been shown to improve student outcomes. Nevertheless, traditional lecture-orientated approaches endure in these courses. The implementation of teaching practices is a result of many interrelated factors including disciplinary norms, classroom context, and beliefs about learning. Although factors influencing uptake of active learning are known, no study to date has had the statistical power to empirically test the relative association of these factors with active learning when considered collectively. Prior studies have been limited to a single or small number of evaluated factors; in addition, such studies did not capture the nested nature of institutional contexts. We present the results of a multi-institution, large-scale (N = 2382 instructors; N = 1405 departments; N = 749 institutions) survey-based study in the United States to evaluate 17 malleable factors (i.e., influenceable and changeable) that are associated with the amount of time an instructor spends lecturing, a proxy for implementation of active learning strategies, in introductory postsecondary chemistry, mathematics, and physics courses. Results Regression analyses, using multilevel modeling to account for the nested nature of the data, indicate several evaluated contextual factors, personal factors, and teacher thinking factors were significantly associated with percent of class time lecturing when controlling for other factors used in this study. Quantitative results corroborate prior research in indicating that large class sizes are associated with increased percent time lecturing. Other contextual factors (e.g., classroom setup for small group work) and personal contexts (e.g., participation in scholarship of teaching and learning activities) are associated with a decrease in percent time lecturing. Conclusions Given the malleable nature of the factors, we offer tangible implications for instructors and administrators to influence the adoption of more active learning strategies in introductory STEM courses.

Assessment Tools in Context: Results from a National Survey of Postsecondary Chemistry Faculty

“…The “Personal Context” node incorporates experiences including trainings, professional development activities, and funding received for personal projects. Evidence supports these as strong influencers on the instructional innovation process. ,, …”

“…Participation of the faculty member in workshops is included because such participation has been shown to influence instruction. ,− Faculty members were asked to report if they had participated in workshops designed to inform them about instructional reform while they were a graduate student, while they were a postdoctoral researcher, while they were a faculty member, or not. This item did not specify the length of time the faculty members were engaged in workshops or if they attended education focused conferences; however, such conferences often include workshops on teaching that are attended by faculty members; for example, the Biennial Conference on Chemical Education has workshops within its program.…”

“…Evidence supports these as strong influencers on the instructional innovation process. 5,6,45 The "Cultural Context" node reflects those situational factors outside of a faculty member's control that impact enacted practices. Exploring relationships with cultural context (including the context of the course) is essential to understanding the integration of reform in classrooms.…”

“…The “Enacted Practices” node is the central focus of the model. We explore enacted assessment practices in the same way enacted instructional practice has been studied in the past. ,,, Innovations are typically developed and evaluated by “enthusiastic faculty”, making it difficult to determine implementation of the innovations “in the wild” . One method to develop a contextual understanding of the use of evidence-based practices is through observation; , studies using such methods have resulted in profiles of instructional practices in STEM disciplines, including chemistry .…”

“…While the development of assessment tools and strategies is a widespread area of chemistry education research, the use of these assessments has received less attention in the scholarly literature than evidence-based instructional practices. − This is problematic because assessments are the vehicle through which instructors gather evidence to support claims of learning and through which students interpret the pertinent information gleaned from their coursework, so there is a need for increased understanding of the practices around research-based assessment. , This understanding has been described as the “scholarship of assessment” . Studies conducted on the implementation of evidence-based instructional practices have explored context and effectiveness; − we argue that similar studies regarding research-based assessment tools can provide key information to the developers and disseminators of innovative assessments. , Through analysis of data from a survey of United States postsecondary chemistry faculty members, we offer the first comprehensive look at the state of assessment in undergraduate chemistry courses including the contexts in which research-based assessment tools have been distributed.…”