Introducing the Postsecondary Instructional Practices Survey (PIPS): A Concise, Interdisciplinary, and Easy-to-Score Survey

Walter, Emily M.; Henderson, Charles; Beach, Andrea; Williams, Cody

doi:10.1187/cbe.15-09-0193

Cited by 43 publications

(59 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We also expected that faculty who use writing in their classes will have at the very least thought about it more than their counterparts who do not use writing in their classes. Finally, given the relationship between instructional practices and academic rank, we expected that rank could give rise to conceptual differences (Walter, Henderson, Beach, & Williams, ). Table shows the representation of faculty by discipline and rank.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Writing in the STEM classroom: Faculty conceptions of writing and its role in the undergraduate classroom

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Writing is widely recognized as fundamental to the construction and communication of scientific knowledge. Building on this relationship between writing and knowledge construction, writing‐to‐learn (WTL) activities have shown to be effective in many science classrooms, but have not been widely implemented at the postsecondary level. To address the lack of implementation, we investigated potential adopters of this pedagogy. Potential adopters, postsecondary faculty, are unique given the key role writing plays in their professional practice as researchers. Because of this unique feature and the fact that an instructor's theoretical orientation toward a construct impacts their instruction of that construct, an investigation of postsecondary faculty's conceptions of writing instruction is necessary to understand the way writing is being used in the postsecondary classroom. To this end, 33 STEM faculty across multiple disciplines and positions were interviewed about writing and its role in their classes. A phenomenographic analysis resulted in four faculty “types” consisting of unique combinations of concept and practice, organized according to compatibility with WTL. Profiles were built that describe unique conceptions, desired outcomes, and challenges for each type. These profiles provide an understanding of the relationship between faculty's conceptions and instructional practices regarding writing and lay the groundwork for understanding how writing is used in the postsecondary classroom.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Writing in the STEM classroom: Faculty conceptions of writing and its role in the undergraduate classroom

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The Postsecondary Instructional Practices Survey (PIPS) (Walter, Henderson, Beach, & Williams, 2016) is an instrument intended to span all disciplines that were found to focus most heavily on instructional practices (Williams et al, 2015).…”

Section: Instructional Practicesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…PIPS is a validated, externally reviewed instrument composed of 24 instructional practice-related items (Walter et al, 2016). Validation studies at a broad range of institutions and departments support a breakdown of items into either 2-or 5-factor models.…”

Section: Instructional Practicesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Validation studies at a broad range of institutions and departments support a breakdown of items into either 2-or 5-factor models. Authors suggest that the 5-factor solution is most appropriate when more details on the instructional practices of a participant are valuable (Walter et al, 2016). These factors are as follows: Student-Student Interactions, Content Delivery, Student-Content Engagement, Formative Assessment, and Summative Assessment.…”

Section: Instructional Practicesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These factors are as follows: Student-Student Interactions, Content Delivery, Student-Content Engagement, Formative Assessment, and Summative Assessment. Within the original study, the PIPS was used to understand correlations between teaching practices and class size, instructor gender, and years of teaching experience (Walter et al, 2016). Though authors acknowledge that some of their constructs are intended to reflect how engaging the practices of the instructor are (see Student-Content Engagement of the 5-factor model), PIPS has yet to be used in conjunction with measures of student cognitive engagement.…”

Section: Instructional Practicesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Correlations between modes of student cognitive engagement and instructional practices in undergraduate STEM courses

Barlow

Brown

2020

IJ STEM Ed

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Within STEM education, research on instructional practices has focused on ways to increase student engagement and thereby reap the associated benefits of increased learning, persistence, and academic success. These meaningful-learning goals have been tied most specifically to cognitive engagement, a construct that is often difficult for instructors to assess on their own. While it has been shown that certain instructional practices are tied to higher cognitive engagement in students, tools to measure instructional practices and student engagement have remained largely isolated in their development and use. Results: This research uses previously developed instruments to simultaneously assess modes of cognitive engagement in students (Student Course Cognitive Engagement Instrument [SCCEI]) and instructional practices (Postsecondary Instructional Practices Survey [PIPS]) within a course. A sample of 19 STEM courses was recruited to participate in this study, with instructors and students each self-reporting data. Results from the instructor and students in each course were scored, and ANOVA and partial correlation analysis were conducted on the sample. ANOVA indicated the significance of and classroom structure on student engagement. From the correlation analysis, a significant relationship was found between four student-reported modes of cognitive engagement and instructor-reported teaching practices. Conclusions: With an understanding of student engagement response to classroom structure, instructors may consider their teaching environment when implementing instructional practices. Moreover, Interactivity with Peers, the deepest mode of cognitive engagement suggested by previous research, was correlated with instructional practices in our study, suggesting that instructors may be able to shape their students' learning by encouraging collaboration in the classroom. We also found that assessment played a role in students' cognitive engagement; this indicates that instructors may wish to thoughtfully consider their methods of assessment to facilitate modes of cognitive engagement associated with deeper learning of course material. By understanding factor correlations, the PIPS and SCCEI can be used in tandem to understand impacts of instructional practices on student cognitive engagement within a course. We conclude that there is a need for ongoing research to study the interplay of instructional practices and student cognitive engagement as instruments are developed to measure such phenomena.

show abstract

Navigating the Barriers to Adoption and Sustained Use of Active Learning

Walter

Senn

Munoz

2020

Active Learning in College Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introducing the Postsecondary Instructional Practices Survey (PIPS): A Concise, Interdisciplinary, and Easy-to-Score Survey

Cited by 43 publications

References 35 publications

Writing in the STEM classroom: Faculty conceptions of writing and its role in the undergraduate classroom

Writing in the STEM classroom: Faculty conceptions of writing and its role in the undergraduate classroom

Correlations between modes of student cognitive engagement and instructional practices in undergraduate STEM courses

Navigating the Barriers to Adoption and Sustained Use of Active Learning

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About