Lund and Stains International Journal of STEM Education (2015) 2:13

DOI 10.1186/s40594-015-0026-8

RESEARCH Open Access

The importance of context: an exploration

of factors influencing the adoption of
student-centered teaching among
chemistry, biology, and physics faculty
Travis J Lund1 and Marilyne Stains2*

Abstract
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 facultys 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.
Keywords: Student-centered teaching; Evidence-based instructional practices; Physics; Chemistry; Biology; Diffusion
of innovation; Beliefs about teaching; Contextual factors; Research-intensive institution

* Correspondence: [email protected]
2
Department of Chemistry, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, 649a Hamilton
Hall, 68588 Lincoln, NE, USA
Full list of author information is available at the end of the article

2015 Lund and Stains. Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution
4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution,
and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source,
provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
Lund and Stains International Journal of STEM Education (2015) 2:13 Page 2 of 21

Background
Calls to refor instructional practices in science technol
og engineering and atheatics STEM courses at the
undergraduate le el ha e ultiplied o er the last decade in
the SA Bo er Coission on Educating ndergraduates
in the Research ni ersit 1998 ational Research Council
1999 2003 2011 2012 ational Science Foundation 1996
resident

Conceptual framework
Instructional decisions
Several models have been developed to describe the
decision-making process that faculty employ when decid-
ing whether they will adopt an instructional innovation.
Lund and Stains International Journal of STEM Education (2015) 2:13 Page 3 of 21

Table 1 Awareness and implementation of evidence-based instructional practices among STEM faculty
Physicsa Engineeringb Geosciencesc
Population surveyed Faculty at various institution Department chairs at various Faculty at various institution types
types institution types
Sample size (response rate) 722 (36 %) 197 (12 %) 2,207 (39 %)
Number of EBIPs surveyed 24 7 Interactive teaching
Awareness of at least one EBIP 87 % 82 % 50 % incorporate some interactive teaching
activities
Implementation of at least 48 % 47 %
one EBIP
a
(Henderson and Dancy 2009); b. (Borrego et al. 2010); c. (Macdonald et al. 2005)

One model used in a national study on the awareness

and adoption of EBIPs among physics faculty (Henderson
et al. 2012b) is Rogers

un-
aware of a particular EI. In the next stage, faculty have
been made aware of the instructional innovation, and per-
haps know some very basic information about it. At the in-
terested stage, faculty are learning more about the
innovation, forming an opinion about it, and making a de-
cision as to whether they want to implement it. In the
adopted stage, faculty are testing out the innovation and
eventually adopt it for long-t erm use. Figure 1 also high-
lights the factors considered in this study that are influen-
cing these stages.

Factors influencing instructional decisions

Although there may be other factors influencing faculty
decision-making, we focused on the following three main
categories communication channels, contextual influ-
ences, and individual influences in this study. elow, we
only highlight the research associated with these factors.

Communication channels ogers identifies two

different t pes of communiicoant channels ie wa s b
which information about an innovation is transmitted to
the targeted population such as mass media and interper-
sonal communication ass media in our stud includes
peer-reviewed ournals and conferences Interpersonal com-
munication includes worshops and discussions with col-
leagues broadl defined eg colleagues within one
Lund and Stains International Journal of STEM Education (2015) 2:13 Page 4 of 21

Fig. 1 Stages and factors influencing the instructional innovation-decision process

have peer-reviewed journals targeting faculty within the dis-

ciplines, as well as education research symposia at national
scientific meetings. However, some DBER fields have longer
tradition in the dissemination of EBIPs through interper-
sonal channels at the national level; moreover, goals of
these dissemination initiative s differ by discipline. In par-
ticular, the PER community has been running a workshop
about EBIPs for new physics faculty since 1996 (Henderson
2008). This workshop has reached about 25 % of all new
physics faculty each year (Henderson 2008). One recent Contextual influences arriers to instructional change in
study indicates that attendance to this workshop was one academia have been studied extensivel over the past de-
of the significant variables related to awareness of EBIPs cades Anderson et al Austin rownell and
(Henderson et al. 2012b). The goal of this workshop is to anner Childs ro d ess-ewsome
introduce physics faculty to several, specific EBIPs. BER has et al enderson et al enderson and Danc
implemented the following two national programs since ora a ational esearch Council
2004: the FIRST series, and the National Academies Sum- e mour et al rigwell and Prosser b alc
mer Institutes (Ebert-May et al. 2011; Handelsman et al. et al In this stud we focus on departmental influ-
2004). These programs seek to raise biology faculty ences and characteristics of thleearning environment since
the research has identified tehse factors as prominent bar-
riers to instructional change ess-ewsome et al
enderson and Danc ora a ora and Ander-
son Departmental infl uences include perceived
norms toward student-centered teaching within the depart-
ment and felt pressure around promotion and tenure pol-
icies ess-ewsome et al enderson and Danc
ora and Anderson Prosser and rigwell
e mour et al he charact eristics of the learning en-
vironment include class si e and la out level of student
preparation and content coverage enderson and Danc
ora and Anderson Prosser and rigwell

Individual influences Practical theories are complex

conceptual and belief networs that constrain facult

Lund and Stains International Journal of STEM Education (2015) 2:13 Page 5 of 21

instructional methods and their role in teaching specific single public university in the idwest. he university is
content (Gess-Newsome et al. 2 003). All instructors, inde- categori ed by the Carnegie oundation as a high under-
pendent of their level of experience, enter the classroom graduate, large four-year, primarily residential, very high
with personal practical theories, which have been developed research activity institution he Carnegie Classification
through diverse avenues including their experiences as stu- of Institutions of igher Education
dents, reflections on their own or others

Research questions
he conceptual framework described above informed
the development of the following research questions in-
vestigated in this study:

1. To what extent do disciplinary differences exist in

the (a) awareness and (b) adoption of evidence- Data collected
based instructional practices among biology, chemis- Survey data was collected via the online survey software
try, and physics faculty? ualtrics . he research questions informed the design
2. To what extent do disciplinary differences exist in of the survey. Some questions were adapted from online
factors influencing biology, chemistry, and physics surveys used in other research studies of SE faculty
facultys awareness and adoption of evidence-based Borrego et al. 2011 Borrego et al. 2010 enderson and
instructional practices? Dancy 2009 ora and Anderson 2012 acdonald et al.
2005 alc yk and Ramsey 2003. Others were created
e hypothesi ed that we will observe differences on
these uestions among the three departments examined
Table 2 Number of faculty surveyed and observed; percentages
in this study since the communication channels represent the proportion of tenure-track or lecturer within the
employed to disseminate s differ by disciplines. sample considered
oreover, the three departments are functioning inde- Discipline Type of faculty Department total Surveyed Observed
pendently of each other and we thus expect differences
Biology Tenure-track 41 (91 %) 24 (96 %) 16 (94 %)
among the faculty in perceived pedagogical norms and
Lecturer 4 (9 %) 1 (4 %) 1 (6 %)
promotion and tenure pressures, which we hypothesi e
would lead to a different level of awareness and adoption Chemistry Tenure-track 24 (86 %) 16 (80 %) 7 (64 %)
according to our conceptual framewor. Lecturer 4 (14 %) 4 (20 %) 4 (36 %)
Physics Tenure-track 27 (96 %) 14 (93 %) 5 (100 %)
Methods Lecturer 1 (4 %) 1 (7 %) 0 (0 %)
Participants
Total Tenure-track 92 (91 %) 54 (90 %) 28 (85 %)
Our aim in this study is to describe faculty from the
Lecturer 9 (9 %) 6 (10 %) 5 (15 %)
departments of chemistry, biology, and physics at a
Lund and Stains International Journal of STEM Education (2015) 2:13 Page 6 of 21

by the research team. Interviews were conducted with Data analysis

nine faculty in order to ensure that the questions and e first eamined our participants
options were appropriately understood by potential par-
ticipants. As a result of these interviews, refinements to
several questions and associated options were made.
The survey was separated into the five following sections:
1) participant background, 2) awareness and adoption of
EBIPs, 3) communication channels, 4) attitudes and beliefs
toward student-centered teaching, and 5) contextual fac-
tors. The first section enabled us to collect relevant back- F(,5) .5, p .5, research F(,5) 1.1,
ground data about the participants, including the p .1, and service F(,5) ., p .5 respon-
distribution of their faculty a ppointment (teaching/re- sibilities. In addition, a one-way ANOVA shows no signifi-
search/service), their teaching load, the number of years cant differences between departments for the number of
since their first faculty appointment, and their prior experi- courses taught by the faculty F(,5) .5, p .1,
ence with teaching workshops. The second section of the indicating similar requirement across the departments on
survey addressed our first research question by characteriz- time commitment related to teaching (Table ). Experi-
ing the participants ence in teaching was also investigated through a one-way
ANOVA. No differences were observed between the three
groups of faculty who have, on average, been faculty mem-
bers for 15 years F(,5) .5, p .. Although a
lower percentage of chemists report having attended
teaching workshops than biologists or physicists (Table ),
a chi-square analysis shows no statistically significant dif-
ferences between groups for teaching workshop attend-
ance p .5. Finally, a chi-square analysis
shows no statistically significant differences between groups
for the type of institution they attended as an undergradu-
ate student, with roughly thre e quarters having attended a
hD-granting research institution p .,
rather than an institution granting only a M.S., .S., or .A.
in the faculty

p .1), class size ( p .), and classroom
physical layout (p .1) existed between the three
Lund and Stains International Journal of STEM Education (2015) 2:13 Page 7 of 21

Table 3 Faculty background data

Duty Biology Chemistry Physics Total
M SD M SD M SD M SD
Average percent of Teaching 38.7 17.7 46.3 27.1 43.9 26.8 42.6 23.4
appointment
Research 47.0 17.1 40.5 23.0 37.1 21.4 42.3 20.4
Service 14.3 14.7 11.6 12.1 11.4 14.6 12.7 13.7
Average number Courses faculty are expected to teach 1.0 0.2 1.5 0.8 1.3 0.7 1.3 0.6
Years since first faculty appointment 14 10 15 12 16 12 15 11
Percent of faculty Attended teaching workshop(s) 68.0 N/A 45.0 N/A 80.0 N/A 60.7 N/A
Attended a PhD-granting research institution as an undergraduate 78.3 N/A 73.7 N/A 78.6 N/A 76.8 N/A
student

disciplines. We will take these differences into consid- and the factors influencing teaching aong facult fro
eration when discussing the results of the analysis of the departents of biolog cheistr and ph sics at
classroom instructional practices. one researchintensi e institution. e ill present
The analysis of the classroom observations is described results addressing each research uestion in turn.
in depth in a previous paper (Lund et al. 2015). In brief,
RTOP scores were assigned for each lecture recorded, Disciplinary differences in the awareness and adoption of
representing the level of EBIPs among biology, chemistry, and physics faculty
Awareness of EBIPs
irst, we sought to establish the level of awareness of
EBIPs among the chemistry, biology, and physics faculty
participating in the study. In the online survey, faculty
were presented with a list of seventeen of the most com-
mon EBIPs, including a brief description of each EBIP
lecture (with slides or at the board), transitional e.g., peer instruction, ust-in-time teaching, case studies,
lecture (primarily consisting of lecturing, but with a small process oriented guided inquiry learning see Additional
percentage of time spent on student-student interactions), file 1 for complete list. he maority of this list was
Socratic (with slides or at the board), limited peer instruc- adapted from prior surveys Borrego et al. 2010 enderson
tion (with slides or at board peer instruction is an instruc- and Dancy 2009 acdonald et al. 2005. aculty indicated
tional strategy that has students answer conceptual their orientation to each EBIP by selecting one of the
questions individually, vote, further discuss the question following statements: 1 I have never heard of it, () I have
with peers, and then revote (Vickrey 15), extensive peer heard the name but dont know much else, () I am familiar
instruction, student-centered peer instruction, and group but have not used it, () I am familiar and plan to imple-
work. These ten instructional strategies can be catego- ment it, (5) In the past, I have used all or part of it, but I
rized into four general instructional styles as follows am no longer using it, or () I currently use all or part of it.
lecturing, Socratic instruction, peer instruction, and col- e defined
laborative learning.

Results
n this stud e are interested in characteri ing the le el
of EB a areness the t pes of instructional practices

Table 4 Learning environment characteristics of observed classes by discipline

Discipline Course level Class size Classroom physical layout
Freshman/ sophomore Upper undergraduate Graduate Small (125) Medium Large (>100) Fixed seats Moveable desks Tables
(26100)
Biology 75 % 25 % 0% 9% 30 % 61 % 84 % 16 % 0%
Chemistry 76 % 0% 24 % 28 % 21 % 52 % 76 % 0% 24 %
Physics 55 % 27 % 18 % 64 % 0% 36 % 36 % 0% 64 %
Lund and Stains International Journal of STEM Education (2015) 2:13 Page 8 of 21

differences between groups [ F(,5) ., p .1. Table 5 Percent of faculty aware of the indicated EBIPs. Results are
Fig. b provides the percentage of faculty who were displayed as the percent of faculty selecting statement 3 (I am
aware of or more EIs. Although the curves have familiar) or higher. EBIPs familiar to two thirds or more of the
similar shapes, it is notable that every physics faculty faculty are bolded; EBIPs familiar to less than half of the faculty are
surveyed professed awareness of at least six EIs, while italicized
only and of the chemistry and biology faculty EBIPs All Biology Chemistry Physics
did so. Clickers 96.6 92.0 100.0 100.0
e were also interested in determining which specific Collaborative learning 88.1 88.0 89.5 86.7
EIs faculty were most and least aware of. Table 5 lists Animations 86.4 84.0 89.5 86.7
the percentage of faculty reporting awareness of each of Peer instruction 81.4 76.0 73.7 100.0
the seventeen EIs, ranked by the overall average
Formative assessment 79.7 84.0 89.5 60.0
awareness. Clickers, collaborative learning, and anima-
Case studies 78.0 84.0 68.4 80.0
tions were among the most well-known EIs in every
department. The physicists surveyed were universally Computer simulations 72.9 60.0 84.2 80.0
aware of clickers and peer instruction, strategies that are Just-in-time teaching 69.5 72.0 52.6 86.7
frequently coupled interestingly, chemists were univer- Think-pair-share 62.7 60.0 68.4 60.0
sally aware of clickers, but were far less aware of peer in- Concept inventories 62.7 44.0 68.4 86.7
struction ( ). The institution at which this study
Cooperative learning 61.0 76.0 52.6 46.7
took place had adopted clickers and installed the sys-
Problem-based learning 59.3 72.0 57.9 40.0
tem in most classrooms a couple of years before this
study took place this may explain the high level of Interactive demonstrations 55.9 32.0 63.2 86.7
awareness of clickers by the faculty in this study. POGIL 49.2 44.0 52.6 53.3
A large proportion of faculty from at least two dif- SCALE-UP 44.1 52.0 36.8 40.0
ferent departments were relatively well aware of Concept maps 39.0 48.0 31.6 33.3
formative assessment (chemists and biologists), case 27.1 32.0 26.3 20.0
SALG
studies (biologists and physicists), and computer simu-
lations (chemists and physicists). hysicists were unique
in their strong awareness of ust-in-time teach- ing, EI. In this stage, they seek out information about the
concept inventories, and interactive demonstra- tions. innovation and develop a more informed opinion about
iologists were unique in their relatively high it. Although this step is not the focus of our research
awareness of cooperative learning and problem-based questions, it is an important transitional step on the way
learning. SA, concept maps, and SCAE- were to adoption of an EI. In our survey, a response of
among the least well-known EIs across all three statement (I am familiar and plan to implement it)
departments. In addition, less than half of the biolo- gists represents a faculty who is interested in a particular
were aware of OI, interactive demonstra- EI, and has even decided to implement it in their
tions, and concept inventories. ess than half of the classroom, but has not yet done so.
physicists were aware of problem-based learning and The mean number of EIs that faculty were inter-
cooperative learning. ested in is presented in Table . For the sake of this ana-
lysis, in addition to those who selected statement , we
Interest in EIs also included those who selected statements 5 ( In the
As described in our theoretical framework, after a fac- past, I have used all or part of it, but I am no longer
ulty becomes aware of an EI, they may or may not using it) and (I currently use all or part of it), since by
proceed to a stage in which they are interested in that definition, these users must have passed through a stage

a) b)

Fig. 2 Number of EBIPs faculty are aware of. a Average and standard deviation. b Percentage of faculty who are aware of X or more EBIPs
Lund and Stains International Journal of STEM Education (2015) 2:13 Page 9 of 21

of interest in which they learned more about the EBIP. Table lists the percentage of faculty reporting current
On average, faculty professed interest in approximately 6 usage of each of the seventeen EIs, ranked by the overall
of the 17 EBIPs, a drop from the eleven that they re- average EI adoption. Clickers were the most highly
ported awareness of. Although we are beginning to see adopted EIs across all three d epartments, consistent with
differences between the departments, with chemists its status as the EI that faculty are most aware of. Again,
expressing interest in approximately five EIPBs while despite the popularity of clickers, the level of adoption of
physicists express interest in approximately seven, a one- peer instruction varied acros s the departments, ranging
way ANOVA shows no significant differences be- tween from only 5 among chemists to a remarkable
groups [ F(,5) 1., p .1. among physicists. Adoption of animations, formative as-
sessment, collaborative learning, and case studies varied
Adoption of EIs widely between departments (Table ). hysicists were
e next explored the self-reported level of adoption of unique in their prevalent adoption of concept inventories,
EIs among chemistry, biolog y, and physics faculty. Only ust-in-time teaching, interactive demonstrations, think-
faculty who selected statement ( I currently use all or part pair-share, and computer simulations. SA was one of
of it) for a given EI were considered a current user of the least-used EIs across all departments. In addition,
that particular EI. The mean number of EIs that fac- biologists reported very low levels of adoption (1 ) of
ulty reported using is presented in Fig. a. On average, concept inventories and interactive demonstrations, while
physicists reported using more EIs (5. .) than biolo- few physicists reported adoption of problem-based learn-
gists (. .), who themselves reported using more EIs ing, OI, and concept maps. Remarkably, 11 of the 1
than chemists (1. .). A elch F test (which we se- EIs exhibited very poor (1 ) adoption rates for the
lected instead of a one-way ANOVA due to a violation in chemistry faculty (Table ).
the assumption of the homogeneity of variances) shows a imitations to self-reported descriptions of instruc-
significant difference between groups in reported EI tional practices are widely recognized (DEon et al.
usage F(,1.5) ., p . with a large effect size Ebert-May et al. 11 ane et al. ). e thus col-
( lected observational data in addition to our survey to
provide more accurate insight into the level of EI
p .). Therefore, despite being aware of adoption in the classroom. First, the level of EI adop-
a similar number of EIs, chemists reported implement- tion was measured indirectly using the RTO, since
ing significantly fewer of these practices than physicists. i- many EIs are comparable to the reformed instruc-
ologists tional practices assessed by this observation protocol.
Table provides the means and standard deviations of
RTO scores across the three departments. A one-way
one EI is somewhat similar ANOVA shows no significant difference between groups
across departments (5, , and for chemistry, biology, on RTO scores F(,1) ., p .. e also
and physics, respectively), the reported EI adoption rates conducted a cluster analysis, which classified the video
in the different departments qui ckly diverge. Thirty, fifty- recordings into ten COS teaching profiles based on
two, and eighty-seven percent o f chemists, biologists, and observed classroom behaviors. This process of video
physicists, respectively, reported current usage of at least analysis and statistical clustering is described in detail in
three EIs, while 5, , and 5 , of chemists, biologists, a previous paper (und et al. 15).
and physicists, respectively, reported current usage of at Table demonstrates that although the RTO scores
least five EIs. The usage trends do not reconverge until are similar across the three groups, there are important
approximately 11 EIs less than 1 of faculty in any de- differences between departments when it comes to
partment report using 11 or more EIs. which instructional practices are being enacted in the
As in the previous section inve stigating EI awareness, classroom. The maority of the chemistry classroom ob-
we were interested in determining which specific EIs servations ( ) felt into the lecturing instructional
were the most and least adopted across the departments. style, while the physics classroom observations were split
between lecturing and peer instruction (5 each). iol-
Table 6 Number of EBIPs faculty are interested in ogy classroom observations were split across all four in-
Type of faculty M SD structional styles, including collaborative learning (11 ).
All 6.3 3.5 None of the physics or chemistry classroom observations
Biology 5.3 3.0 felt into this particular instructional style. In order to
Chemistry 6.4 3.8 evaluate whether these disciplinary differences in the level
of student interaction were significant, we compared the
Physics 7.4 3.3
frequency of lecture-based instruction (i.e., lecturing and
Lund and Stains International Journal of STEM Education (2015) 2:13 Page 10 of 21

a) b)

Fig. 3 Number of EBIPs faculty are using. a Average and standard deviation. b Percentage of faculty who are using X or more EBIPs

Socratic instruction) and the frequency of instruction that the student-centered instructional styles ( peer instruction
integrates student interactions (i.e., peer instruction and and collaborative learning) found in each of these teaching
collaborative learning) among the three disciplines. A chi- conditions (see und et al. 15), Fig. b
square analysis demonstrated a significant relationship be-
tween the type of instruction and the discipline, N
) ., p .,

lecturing and Socratic instruction) would be

approximately 5 in the bio logy and chemistry depart-
ments, and approximately in the physics department
(due primarily to the higher percentage of small classes
with tables). Notably, the rate of instructor-centered
teaching observed in the bi ology department (
lecturing/Socratic instruction) matches our prediction.
owever, the observed rate in chemistry (5 ) is per-
lecturing and Socratic instruction) to centage points higher than our prediction, and the observed
rate in physics (5 ) is 1 percentage points lower than
Table 7 Percent of faculty reporting current use of the our prediction. This suggests that the different distributions
indicated EBIP. Results are displayed as the percent of faculty of COS profiles observed in Table are not only due to
reporting current use. Percentages above one third are bolded; the differences in teaching contexts, but due to other fac-
percentages below 10 % are italicized tors as well. These potential factors will be discussed below.
EBIPs All Biology Chemistry Physics
Clickers 45.8 36.0 47.4 60.0 Disciplinary differences in factors influencing biology,
Peer Instruction 37.3 32.0 5.3 86.7 chemistry, and physics facultys awareness and adoption
Animations 33.9 36.0 21.1 46.7 of evidence-based instructional practices
Communication channels
Formative Assessment 30.5 16.0 42.1 40.0
Research on the diffusion of innovation has clearly dem-
Collaborative Learning 28.8 36.0 5.3 46.7
onstrated that the communication channels utili ed by
Case Studies 23.7 36.0 5.3 26.7
adopters influence their level of awareness and adoption
Concept Inventories 20.3 4.0 21.1 46.7 of EBIPs Rogers 2003. A portion of our survey asked
Just-in-Time Teaching 18.6 20.0 0.0 40.0 faculty to indicate the etent to which they relied on
Interactive Demonstrations 18.6 0.0 15.8 53.3 various communication channels e.g., academic our-
Think-Pair-Share 16.9 12.0 10.5 33.3 nals, fellow faculty members, etc. for advice about
Computer Simulations 15.3 12.0 5.3 33.3
Table 8 Averaged RTOP scores of classroom observations by
SCALE-UP 11.9 20.0 0.0 13.3 discipline
Problem-Based Learning 10.2 16.0 5.3 6.7 Type of faculty M SD Number of observations
Cooperative Learning 10.2 16.0 0.0 13.3 All 34.5 10.2 84
POGIL 8.5 16.0 0.0 6.7 Biology 34.9 11.0 44
Concept Maps 6.8 16.0 0.0 0.0 Chemistry 34.0 9.1 29
SALG 1.7 0.0 0.0 6.7 Physics 34.4 10.6 11
Lund and Stains International Journal of STEM Education (2015) 2:13 Page 11 of 21

Table 9 Distribution of lectures across the COPUS profiles by discipline

COPUS profile Percentage of class periods
Biology Chemistry Physics
Lecturing Lecture (with slides) 46 % 14 % 0%
Lecture (at the board) 5% 10 % 36 %
Transitional lecture 2% 45 % 9%
Total 53 % 69 % 45 %
Socratic instruction Socratic (at the board) 2% 7% 9%
Socratic (with slides) 7% 10 % 0%
Total 9% 17 % 9%
Peer instruction Limited peer instruction (with slides) 14 % 0% 9%
Limited peer instruction (at the board) 9% 10 % 27 %
Extensive peer instruction 5% 3% 9%
Total 28 % 13 % 45 %
Collaborative learning Student-centered peer instruction 9% 0% 0%
Group work 2% 0% 0%
Total 11 % 0% 0%

teaching. Participants indicated how frequently they

utilized these resources using the following Likert scale:
(0) Not Applicable, (1) Never/Rarely, () Sometimes, ()
Often, () Always. In addition, our survey asked faculty
how often they attended a number of professional
conferences that have some focus on teaching. artici-
pants indicated their conference attendance using the
following rating scale (1) I have never heard of it/I have
heard the name but I have never attended, () I have
attended it once or twice in the past, () I attend this
conference regularly, () I attend every conference offer-
ing. Table displays the percentage of faculty who se- Journal of
lected options or ( Often/Regularly and Always/Every, College Science Teaching are notably not used by faculty,
respectively ) on these scales. despite their explicit goals of targeting this population.
ecturers (or professors of practice) and The educational conferences were among the least-
utilized of the communication channels presented in
Table 1. No faculty reported () I attend every confer-
ence offering, and only faculty out of (. )
reported () I attend this conference regularly. These
choices are very analogous to () Always and () Often, the
choices provided for utilization of the other communication
channels, and thus are the most appropriate responses for
direct comparison of conference attendance rates with the
other communication channels. owever, there clearly are
far greater time and resource barriers to attending a confer-
ence than reading a ournal article or communicating with
a fellow faculty member. Accordingly, we were interested in
considering what percentage of faculty had reported at least
the rating of () I have attended it once or twice in the past
for each conference. These results are presented in Table 11.
Clearly, education talks at national conferences are one of
the most utilized of the conferences, with roughly half of all
faculty reporting attendance at one or more of these talks.
Lund and Stains International Journal of STEM Education (2015) 2:13 Page 12 of 21

Table 10 Percentage of faculty reporting often or always utilizing the following communication channels. Percentages above one
quarter are bolded; percentages below 10 % are italicized
Communication channel All Biology Chemistry Physics
Educators Lecturer/professor of practice in department 35 40 40 20
Faculty in department conducting bench research 33 32 25 47
Faculty in department conducting science education research 22 17 25 21
Science colleague outside department, but at institution 10 16 10 0
Faculty conducting bench research at other institutions 8 8 10 7
Department chair 7 4 0 20
Faculty conducting science ed. research at other institutions 6 0 6 14
Colleagues in the institutions College of Education 4 5 0 7
A K-12 teacher 0 0 0 0
Educational publications Educational texts or websites 28 48 25 0
Science education journals 12 16 15 0
Education section in Science 10 20 5 0
Other pedagogical journals 3 4 5 0
The Journal of College Science Teaching 2 0 5 0
Educational conferences Education talks at national scientific meetings 5 9 5 0
Science education conferences 2 0 5 0
National Science Teachers Association meetings 2 0 5 0
Other education-oriented conferences 2 0 0 7

Chemists are unique in their participation in Science Edu- expectation for active student involvement in class, a mere
cation Conferences (e.g., Biennial Conference on Chemical quarter of chemists reported an expectation that non-lec-
Education, Gordon Research Conferences in Education), ture techniques or a variety of techniques would be imple-
with roughly a third having attended such a conference. mented in class.
As indicated in the conceptual framework, the depart-
Contextual influences mental context can influence (positively or negatively)
Our theoretical framework hig hlights the importance of the faculty
context in which faculty are working in faculty

Not Applicable, (1) Not at all, () A little, () Somewhat, to

() Very/Extremely. Table 1 lists the results as a percentage
of faculty selecting () or (). The maority of the faculty felt that
Departmental influences Among the external factors they have flexibility in how they teach their course
that can influence facult (more than of faculty in every department) and that
the priority placed by their department on research and the
priority placed by their department on teaching influences
their own teaching (over of the faculty in each depart-
somewhat, quite a bit, or a great deal) in their department. ment). Time constraints due to research commitments were
Interestingly, a maority of the physicists reported each of more influential than administrative or service commit-
the three expectations to be present in their department, ments within most departments, although chemists re-
whereas less than half of the chemists and biologists did so. ported them to be equally influential. Departmental
Furthermore, although half of the chemists reported an promotion or tenure pressures were reported as influential

Table 11 Percentage of faculty reporting attendance at one or more meeting of the indicated conference
Type of educational conference All Biology Chemistry Physics
Education talks at national scientific meetings 48 43 47 57
Science education conferences 18 9 32 14
Other education-oriented conferences 16 13 0 43
Lund and Stains International Journal of STEM Education (2015) 2:13 Page 13 of 21

Table 12 Percentage of faculty who identified the following to cover all necessary content was reported as influential
departmental expectations as true. Percentages above two by nearly half of chemists, but by only a third of physi-
thirds are bolded; percentages below 50 % are italicized cists and a quarter of biologists. Interestingly, although
Departmental expectations All Biology Chemistry Physics one of the least influential items for chemists and biolo-
Departmental colleagues expect you 55 48 50 73 gists was working with a required textbook or syllabus
will have students be actively involved planned by others, physicists were as likely ( ) to cite
in class
this influence as they were physical classroom space, TA
Departmental colleagues expect you 43 40 25 73
will use techniques other than lecturing
availability, or their own textbook selection.
alf of chemists and two thirds of physicists reported
Departmental colleagues expect you 43 44 20 73
will use a variety of teaching methods being influenced by student preparation, as opposed to
only a third of biologists. owever, very few faculty
reported that teaching evaluations by students influenced
their selection of teaching methods.
by roughly half of the chemists and physicists and by two
thirds of the biologists. Interestingly, less than half of the Individual influences
faculty in each department reported that their departmen- Our conceptual framework highlights the importance of
tal reward system influences their teaching. individual factors on faculty-teaching practices. These
factors primarily relate to faculty past experiences in the
classroom (both as a student and a teacher), as well as
Characteristics of the learning environment ignifi- cant their attitudes and beliefs about teaching.
variations between depam rtents exist with respect to the
influence of the learning environment on facu lt Pedagogical experiences As previousl mentioned
ph sicists were more liel to have attended pedagogical
class size dictates teaching methods ranged professional development programs than the biologists
from three quarters of physicists to a striking 1 of biol- and chemists able Interestingl a strong maorit
ogists. The physical classroom space was reported as influ- of ph sicists reported that nowledge of instruc-
ential for only of physicists, but for nearly of tional methods influenced their teaching while onl a
chemists and biologists. These faculty perceptions about third of chemists or biologists did so oreover the
the influence of class size and classroom appear consistent maorit of biologists reported basing their teach-
with the actual class sizes and classrooms found across the ing on their own best teachers, although only half of
departments. It is perhaps unsurprising that the biologists chemists and a fifth of physicists did so.
are particularly concerned with class size and classroom e were interested in further exploring the relation-
space since, as described in Table , the biologists we sur- ships between the teaching methods faculty had person-
veyed and observed were significantly more likely to be re- ally experienced as a student and their current teaching
sponsible for teaching large classes (1 students) in fixed- practices. e thus asked faculty to identify which thir-
seating lecture halls. hysicists, on the other hand, were teen of the seventeen EIs they experienced when they
significantly more likely to teach small classes (5 students) were a student (Additional file 1). On average, faculty
in classrooms with tables. had experienced only one or two of the thirteen EIs
TA availability and textbook selection were each cited during their entire undergraduate career (Fig. a). It was
as influential by over of chemists, but by only 5 very rare for faculty to have experienced more than four
The ability of the EIs as an undergraduate, and no single faculty

Table 13 Percentage of faculty who identified the following departmental characteristics as influencing their teaching. Percentages
above two thirds are bolded; percentages below 50 % are italicized
Departmental influences All Biology Chemistry Physics
Your department allows you considerable flexibility in the way you teach the course 93 96 90 93
The priority placed on research by your department influences your teaching 83 80 95 73
The priority placed on teaching by your department influences your teaching 80 88 75 73
Time constraints due to research commitments influence your teaching 75 92 60 67
Your departments promotion or tenure pressures influence your teaching 58 68 55 47
Time constraints due to administrative or service commitments influence your teaching 53 52 60 47
The departments reward system influences your teaching 40 40 40 40
Lund and Stains International Journal of STEM Education (2015) 2:13 Page 14 of 21

Table 14 Percentage of faculty who identified the following pedagogical aspects as influences on their teaching. Percentages
above two thirds are bolded; percentages below one third are italicized
Pedagogical Influences All Biology Chemistry Physics
The size of the class dictates the teaching methods you select 90 100 90 73
The physical space of the classroom influences the teaching methods you select 75 84 90 40
The availability of teaching assistants influences the teaching methods you select 58 60 70 40
The textbook that you will choose will dictate the teaching methods you select 57 52 75 40
The level of student preparation influences the teaching methods you select 48 36 50 67
The ability to cover all necessary content influences the teaching methods you select 33 24 45 33
Required textbooks or syllabus planned by others dictate the teaching methods you select 28 24 25 40
Teaching evaluations based on students ratings influence the teaching methods you select 17 16 20 13

reported having experienced more than six (Fig. 4b). In in our survey, the Approaches to Teaching Inventory (ATI
fact, roughly half of the faculty in each department had Trigwell and rosser Trigwell et al. 5). The
experienced none of the EIs at any time as a student, items in this instrument are designed to measure two
and no single EI had been experienced by all, or even embedded construct variables, the conceptual change/
most, of the faculty (see Table 15). student-focused (CCSF) approach to teaching, and the
Among the faculty who had experienced EIs as a stu- information transmission/teacher-focused (ITTF) ap-
dent, we also quantified how likely they were to be cur- proach to teaching. This survey has been demonstrated
rently using some of those EIs. Although there are very to be a measure of teachers
wide variations among faculty within each department, the
physicists we surveyed implemented significantly more
EIs that they experienced as students than did the chem- 1 (rarely or never true) to 5 (almost always or always
ists (Table 1) F(,1.5) .5, p .1, true). Table 1 provides the means and standard devia-
tions for each construct. A one-way ANOVA shows a
Attitudes and beliefs toward student-centered teaching significant difference with medium effect size between
e first explored facult the groups on the CCSF and ITTF constructs F(,5)
.5, p ., F(,5) ., p .1,

Agree or Strongly Agree with the indicated

statement. A strong maority of faculty in all departments
reported an interest in implementing non-lecture strategies.
Chemists were somewhat more likely to believe that teach-
ing with new instructional methods will limit content cover-
age (consistent with their views on covering content in
Table 1), and much more likely to believe that group work Discussion
is more appropriate in recitation. The conceptual frae ork used in this stud Fig. 1
Faculty beliefs about student-centered teaching were also led us to h pothesi e that disciplinar differences be
measured through a validated instrument that was included t een biolog cheistr and ph sics facult ould

a) b)

Fig. 4 Number of EBIPs faculty experienced as students. a Average and standard deviation. b Percentage of faculty who experienced X or more
EBIPs when they were students
Lund and Stains International Journal of STEM Education (2015) 2:13 Page 15 of 21

Table 15 Percent of surveyed faculty who had experienced the Table 17 Attitudes toward student-centered teaching. Percent
indicated EBIP selecting agree or strongly agree. percentages above two thirds
EBIP All Biology Chemistry Physics are bolded; percentages below 50 % are italicized
None 52 % 56 % 40 % 60 % All Biology Chemistry Physics
Case studies 27 % 36 % 25 % 13 % I am interested in implementing 90 92 80 100
other strategies than lecturing in my
Collaborative 22 % 24 % 15 % 27 % class
Interactive demonstrations 20 % 20 % 25 % 13 % Teaching with new instructional 58 60 60 53
Computer simulations 15 % 8% 25 % 13 % methods takes more preparation time
than lecturing
Animations 15 % 12 % 25 % 7%
Teaching with new instructional 57 48 70 53
Problem-based learning 12 % 12 % 10 % 13 % methods limits how much content
can be covered
Cooperative 12 % 8% 15 % 13 %
Group work is more appropriate in 42 24 70 33
Peer instruction 10 % 4% 15 % 13 % the recitation part of the course than
Think-pair-share 5% 4% 10 % 0% in lecture
SCALE-UP 2% 4% 0% 0%

interactive demonstrations, Just-in-Time Teaching, and

exist in their level of knowledge and adoption of roblem-ased earning). Although the three groups of
EBIPs, as well as in the factors influencing their in- faculty are aware of the same types of EIs, the EIs that
structional practices. The results described above sup- interest them and that they have adopted are not as similar
port these hypotheses. Our findings, which are only two EIs interested all three types of faculty (clickers and
summarized below, are organized by research ques- formative assessment) and four interested two types of
tions and framed within the conceptual framework. faculty (collaborative learning, computer simulations, con-
cept inventories, interactive dem onstrations) similarly, only
Disciplinary differences in the awareness and adoption of clickers were adopted by all th ree types of faculty, while an-
EBIPs among biology, chemistry, and physics faculty imations and collaborative learning were only adopted by
he analyses of the level of awareness and adoption of biologists and physicists.
EBIPs among biology, chemistyr, and physics faculty at one Although several factors that influence the different
research-intensive university in the SA show variations rates of EI awareness and adoption among the three
between disciplines in faculty departments are discussed in the next section, these fac-
tors do not directly explain the departmental interest in
the different types of EIs described in the previous
M 1.5 to M 11.5 EIs Fig. ), the paragraph. These departmental differences in the specific
physics faculty have adopted three times more EIs than EIs that faculty are interested in and implement may
chemistry faculty have (a statistically significant difference), reflect the sorts of EI characteristics that faculty in
and twice as many as biology faculty (Fig. ). Classroom ob- different disciplines prefer. Indeed, Rogers identified the
servations confirmed that physics and biology faculty are following four characteristics of an innovation that a future
more frequently employing student-centered instructional adopter considers at the persuasion stage (Rogers )
practices than chemistry faculty (Table ). Interestingly, relative advantage (the extent to which the innovation is
eight of the most popular EIs are common to all three perceived as better than curre nt practices), compatibly with
disciplines (animations, case studies, clickers, collaborative current instructional practices and norms, complexity (the
learning, computer simulations, formative assessment, peer extent to which the innovation is perceived as difficult to
instruction, and think-pair-share) and four more EIs are understand and use), trialability (the extent to which the
popular among two of the disciplines (concept inventories,

Table 16 Average percentage of EBIPs each faculty is using, of Table 18 Results of the approaches to teaching inventory by
the total EBIPs they personally experienced discipline
Discipline M SD Number of faculty Scale All Biology Chemistry Physics

All 32 % 39 % 29 M SD M SD M SD M SD

Biology 36 % 37 % 11 Conceptual change/student- 3.5 0.6 3.4 0.6 3.3 0.6 3.8 0.6
focused
Chemistry 10 % 19 % 12
Information transmission/ 3.4 0.5 3.3 0.5 3.7 0.4 3.3 0.5
Physics 69 % 43 % 6 teacher-focused
Lund and Stains International Journal of STEM Education (2015) 2:13 Page 16 of 21

facing teaching problems. his is consistent with the im-

innovation is perceived as being testable in a small setting),
and observability (the extent to which outcomes of the im-portance of interpersonal channels that Rogers high-
lights in his model Rogers 2003. he influence of
plementation of the innovation will be seen by other faculty
and members of the community). It was beyond the scope communication channels can also be seen in the type of
of this study to identify the sp ecific characteristics ofEBIPs that the faculty know about, are interested in, and
EBIPs that faculty in each of these three disciplines use. or eample, the use of case studies was one of the
value, but these results indicate that it should be inves-most popular EBIPs and one of the four most used
tigated in future studies. EBIPs for biologists. his EBIP has been widely dissemi-
nated within the biology discipline, in particular with the
Disciplinary differences in factors influencing biology, ational Center for Case Study eaching in Science
chemistry, and physics facultys awareness and adoption ational Center for Case Study eaching in Science.
of EBIPs Similarly, Peer Instruction, interactive demonstrations,
he results described above indicate that the faculty in and ust-in-time teaching are popular among physicists
the three departments we studied eperience a wide enderson and Dancy 2009. hese EBIPs are targeted
spectrum of influences toward instructional innovation at the ew aculty orkshop for Physics and Astron-
that ranged from supportive to impeding, which we omy faculty, which is attended by a quarter of new phys-
summari e in igs. 5, 6, and 7. irst, in terms of commu- ics faculty in the country each year enderson 2008.
nication channels, biologists and chemists use mass Secondly, although biologists report a balance of sup-
media e.g., ournals, websites as well as colleagues portive and impeding influences toward student-centered
when seeking solutions to teaching problems, while teaching, chemists report primarily impeding contetual
physicists primarily rely on their colleagues able 9. influences and physicists report primarily supportive con-
One similarity among all three departments is the reli- tetual influences. or eample, the chemists perceive that
ance on colleagues within their own department when there are weak norms toward student-centered teaching

Fig. 5 EBIP awareness/adoption rates and factors affecting the instructional practices of biology faculty
Lund and Stains International Journal of STEM Education (2015) 2:13 Page 17 of 21

Fig. 6 EBIP awareness/adoption rates and factors affecting the instructional practices of chemistry faculty

within their department and feel some constraints on their participated in teaching workshops and had student-
time due to research expectations; they also feel that centered beliefs and attitudes. The biologists ranked be-
certain elements of the learning environment (class size, tween chemists and physicists, with a mix of student- and
layout and availability of teaching assistants) constrain teacher-centered beliefs and attitudes. Faculty in the three
their teaching. On the contrary, physicists perceive strong departments thus hold different individual characteristics
norms toward student-centered teaching within their which, according to our conceptual framework, should
department, although they also feel similar constraints on result in departmental differences in the level of adoption
their time due to research expectations; they identify class of student-centered instructional practices.
size as being influential on their teaching, along with the These important differences in contextual and individ-
level of student preparation, which indicates a focus on ual influences that we observed in the three disciplines
students rather than infrastructure. Clearly, faculty within suggest that we should be cautious when generalizing
these three departments are experiencing different con- from studies exploring faculty instructional practices
textual influences on their teaching, despite the fact that and decision-making about teaching; studies of faculty in
the departments are all on the same campus, managed by one particular STEM discipline within one particular
the same college. Our conceptual framework would indi- type of institution may not generalize well to all STEM
cate that the contextual influences experienced by the faculty at all institutions.
physicists are more conducive of them choosing to adopt
student-centered teaching practices compared to those ex- Relationships between awareness/adoption rates and
perienced by chemistry faculty. factors influencing instructional practices
Thirdly, the same trends are observed for individual in- Our conceptual framework indicates that communica-
fluences: chemists have had limited experiences and train- tion channels and both contetual and individual influ-
ing with EBIPs, and have teacher-centered beliefs and ences will impact the instructional innovation-decision
attitudes; in contrast, the majority of the physicists had process ig. 1. Our findings support this framework.
Lund and Stains International Journal of STEM Education (2015) 2:13 Page 18 of 21

Fig. 7 EBIP awareness/adoption rates and factors affecting the instructional practices of physics faculty

Indeed, our data demonstrate that faculty who experi- reflected in their adoption of an average of of the 11
ence contextual and individual influences supportive of EIs they are aware of, a rate triple that of the chem-
student-centered instructional practices are significantly ists. This self-reported adoption data is again confirmed
more likely to be interested in and adopting EBIPs than by classroom observations, which resulted in a striking
faculty who experience impeding contextual and individ- increase in student-centered COS profiles ( peer in-
ual influences For example, the chemists in this study struction, 5 ) . The contextual and individual influ-
primarily experienced contextual and individual influ- ences experienced by the biologists were intermediate
ences that can impede adoption of EBIPs, including between the chemists and physicists, as were their self-
weak departmental norms and negative attitudes and reported EI adoption rates and their distribution of
beliefs regarding student-centered teaching; interestingly, COS profiles.
chemists had the lowest adoption rate with an adoption Readers may recall that statistically significant differ-
average of just 2 of the 11 EBIPs they are aware of. This ences were observed in the learning environments across
self-reported adoption data is confirmed by classroom the three departments (Table ) which, according to
observations (Table 8), which produced overwhelmingly prior work (und et al. 15), would be expected to pro-
instructor-centered distribution of COPUS profiles ( lec- duce differences in the distribution of COS profiles
turing, , and Socratic instruction, 1 ) at the (Table ). Our calculations (Additional file ) resulted in
expense of student-centered COS profiles ( peer in- a predicted rate of instructor-centered instructional
struction, 1 ). In sharp contrast, physicists in this styles ( lecturing and Socratic instruction) that matched
study primarily experienced contextual and individual the observed rate among biologists in this study. ow-
influences that can support adoption of EIs, including ever, the observed rate of instructor-centered instruc-
strong departmental norms and positive attitudes and tional styles among chemists was higher than
beliefs regarding student-centered teaching this is predicted, and the observed rate among physicists was
Lund and Stains International Journal of STEM Education (2015) 2:13 Page 19 of 21

19 % lower than predicted. This difference is consistent are particularl striking since the rates of EB a are
with the imbalance of supporting and impeding influ- ness are er siilar aong the three departents. The
ences summarized in Figs. 5, , and . selfreported EB adoption data as confired b ob
These observations and findings further confirm the ser ational data hich resulted in a er instructor
need to take into account the characteristics of the tar- focused distribution of COS teaching profiles aong
geted population in order for instructional reforms to be cheists hile the distribution in ph sics included sig
effective. The disciplinary differences observed in this nificantl ore studentfocused COS profiles. Biolo
study among faculty within the same institution call for gists fall bet een the ph sicists and the cheists in
more extensive investigations of characteristics of faculty ters of conte tual and indi idual influences self
within each STEM discipline and across various types of reported EB adoption rates and the obser ed distribu
institutions. This baseline data is critical to design and tion of COS teaching profiles. This stud highlights
implements instructional reforms that are adequately that iportant departental and disciplinar differences
tailored to the needs of these various populations. can e ist e en across facult ithin the sae institution.
Clearl STEM facult cannot and should not be treated
Limitations identicall hen an instructional refor is initiated at
irst, this study was conducted at one research-intensive one institution. Moreo er findings fro this stud cau
institution within the SA and should be replicated at tion against the o ergenerali ation of the results of
similar institutions within and outside the SA. Second, studies e ploring the teaching practices and thought
the number of faculty who volunteered to be videotaped processes of facult ithin one STEM field to all
in the physics department was significantly lower than STEM facult .
in the biology and chemistry department, which limits Finall a areness rates in all three departents ere
the generali ability of the results to other faculty mem-uite high hich is consistent ith findings in other
bers within this department. inally, data measuring studies. Refor efforts should thus be focused not ust
faculty awareness of EBIPs was collected through self- on ad ertising that certain EBs e ist but also on rais
report. Although a short description was provided for ing the interest le els and adoption rates.
each EBIP, it is possible that faculty misinterpreted the
EBIP and indicated knowing about it or using it when Additional files
this may not be the case. his issue was probed during
the interviews undertaken to validate the online survey Additional file 1: Online Survey. This file contains all the questions
adustments to the descriptions were made accordingly, that were included in the online survey that was used to collect the data
presented in the paper.
and certain EBIPs were eliminated due to high probability
Additional file 2: Learning Environments and Predicted
of misunderstanding by the faculty e.g.w, riting and shar- ing Instructional Practices. This file contains an explanation of the
learning goals with students). owever, we suspect that instructional practices that would be predicted from the learning
there may still be some confusion regarding the nature of environments in which the video recordings were taken.
certain EIs, despite our best effort to eliminate it.
Abbreviations
ATI: approaches to teaching Inventory; BER: biology education research;
Conclusions CCSF: conceptual change/student-focused approach to teaching;
CER: chemical education research; COPUS: classroom observation protocol
n this stud e e plored and copared the a areness for undergraduate STEM; DBER: discipline-based education research;
and adoption rates of EBs as ell as factors influen EBIP: evidence-based instructional practice; ITTF: information transmission/
cing instructional decisions across facult fro the fol teacher-focused approach to teaching; PER: physics education research;
lo ing three STEM disciplines: biolog cheistr andRTOP: reformed teaching observation protocol; STEM: science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics.
ph sics. Facult ithin one researchintensi e institution
in the SA ere sur e ed and their classroo practices Competing interests
ere anal ed. Results deonstrate that ph sicistsThaetauthors declare that they have no competing interests.
that institution are ore likel to e perience conte tual
and indi idual influences in support of studentcentereAduthors contributions
teaching hile cheists ere ore likel to e perience MS conceived and designed the study. TL and MS managed the collection of
surveys and video recordings, analyzed and interpreted the data, and drafted
ipeding conte tual and indi idual influences to artd he manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
studentcentered teaching. These ariations in the t pe
of influences are consistent ith the ariations in tAhceknowledgements
selfreported le el of adoption of EBs ith ph sicistsWe would like to thanks all members of the Stains research group who
assisted with the collection of video recordings. This work was supported by
adopting the largest nuber of EBs and cheists the National Science Foundation, grant #1256003, and start-up funding from
adopting the least. These trends in EB adoption rates the Department of Chemistry at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln.