You are here:

Article #2011
ARTICLE

Journal of STEM Education Volume 17, Number 3, ISSN 1557-5284 Publisher: Laboratory for Innovative Technology in Engineering Education (LITEE)

Full Text

Abstract

Pages 55-63

Citation

Raju, P. (2016). Article #2011. Journal of STEM Education, 17(3),. Laboratory for Innovative Technology in Engineering Education (LITEE). Retrieved June 18, 2019 from .

© 2016 Laboratory for Innovative Technology in Engineering Education (LITEE)

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Andrews, T.M., Leonard, M.J., Colgrove, C.A., & Kalinowski, S.T. (2011). Active Learning Not Associated with Student Learning in a Random Sample of College Biology Courses. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 10(4), 394-405.
  2. Brownell, S.E., & Tanner, K.D. (2012). Barriers to Faculty Pedagogical Change: Lack of Training, Time, Incentives, and… Tensions with Professional Identity? CBE-Life Sciences Education, 11(4), 339-346.
  3. D’Avanzo, C. (2013). Post–Vision and Change: Do We Know How to Change? CBE-Life Sciences Education, 12(3), 373-382.
  4. Ebert-May, D., Derting, T.L., Hodder, J., Momsen, J.L., Long, T.M., & Jardeleza, S.E. (2011). What We Say Is Not What We Do: Effective Evaluation of Faculty Professional Development Programs. BioScience, 61(7), 550-558.
  5. Eddy, S.L., & Hogan, K.A. (2014). Getting Under the Hood: How and for Whom Does Increasing Course Structure Work? CBE-Life Sciences Education, 13(3), 453-468.
  6. Freeman, S., Eddy, S.L., McDonough, M., Smith, M.K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M.P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(23), 8410-8415.
  7. Freeman, S., Haak, D., & Wenderoth, M.P. (2011). Increased Course Structure Improves Performance in Introductory Biology. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 10(2), 175-186.
  8. Handelsman, J., Miller, S., & Pfund, C. (2007). Scientific Teaching: Macmillan.
  9. Henderson, C., Beach, A., & Finkelstein, N. (2011). Facilitating change in undergraduate STEM instructional practices: An analytic review of the literature. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(8), 952-984.
  10. Henderson, C., Dancy, M., & Niewiadomska-Bugaj, M. (2012). Use of research-based instructional strategies in introductory physics: Where do faculty leave the innovationdecision process? Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research, 8(2), 020104.
  11. Henderson, C., & Dancy, M.H. (2007). Barriers to the use of research-based instructional strategies: The influence of both individual and situational characteristics. Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research, 3(2), 020102.
  12. Henderson, C., & Dancy, M.H. (2008). Physics faculty and educational researchers: Divergent expectations as barriers to the diffusion of innovations. American Journal of Physics, 76(1), 79-91. Doi: doi: Kober, N., & Council, N.R. (2015). Reaching Students: What Research Says About Effective Instruction in Undergraduate Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
  13. Konietschke, F., Placzek, M., Schaarschmidt, F., & Hothorn, L.A. (2014). Nparcomp: An R Software Package for Nonparametric Multiple Comparisons and Simultaneous Confidence Intervals. Journal of Statistical Software, 61(10), 1-17.
  14. Macdonald, R.H., Manduca, C.A., Mogk, D.W., & Tewksbury, B.J. (2005). Teaching methods in undergraduate geoscience courses: Results of the 2004 On the Cutting Edge survey of US faculty. Journal of Geoscience Education, 53(3), 237.
  15. Machemer, P.L., & Crawford, P. (2007). Student perceptions of active learning in a large cross-disciplinary classroom. Active Learning in Higher Education, 8(1), 9-30.
  16. Michael, J. (2007). Faculty Perceptions About Barriers to Active Learning. College Teaching, 55(2), 42-47.
  17. Miller, C.J., & Metz, M.J. (2014). A comparison of professionallevel faculty and student perceptions of active learning: its current use, effectiveness, and barriers. [Journal Article]. Advances in Physiology Education, 38(3), 246-252.
  18. NACE. (2014). Jobs Outlook 2014: National Association of Colleges and Employers.
  19. Silverthorn, D.U., Thorn, P.M., & Svinicki, M.D. (2006). It’s difficult to change the way we teach: lessons from the Integrative Themes in Physiology curriculum module project. [Journal Article]. Advances in Physiology Education, 30(4), 204-214.
  20. Smith, C.V., & Cardaciotto, L. (2012). Is active learning like broccoli? Student perceptions of active learning in large lecture classes. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 11(1), 53-61.
  21. 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. CBELife Sciences Education, 13(4), 624-635.
  22. Team, R.D.C. (2013). R: a language and environment for statistical computing (Version 3.0.1). Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved from http://www.R-project.org
  23. Wood, W.B. (2009). Innovations in Teaching Undergraduate Biology and Why We Need Them. Annual Review of Cell and Developmental Biology, 25(1), 93-112. Doi: . Patrick is a Postdoctoral Researcher in the Department of Biological Sciences at Louisiana State University. She has active research projects in mammalian ecology, biogeography, assessment of course-based undergraduate research, and graduate teaching assistant professional development. Dr. Patrick is a 2013-2014 National Academies Education Fellow in the Life Sciences and a 2015-2016 National Academies Education Mentor in the Life Sciences.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.

Suggest Corrections to References

Cited By

View References & Citations Map

These links are based on references which have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake, please contact info@learntechlib.org.

Links