View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Understanding the Use of Student-Centered Teaching Methods in Undergraduate Chemistry Courses

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Understanding the Use of Student-Centered Teaching Methods in Undergraduate Chemistry Courses
Language: English
Authors: Yoder, Ryan J. (ORCID 0000-0002-1204-6650), Bobbitt-Zeher, Donna, Sawicki, Vanessa
Source: Research in Science Education. Oct 2021 51(2):845-863.
Availability: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 19
Publication Date: 2021
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: Student Centered Learning, Teaching Methods, Undergraduate Study, College Science, Chemistry, Undergraduate Students, Teacher Attitudes, Intention, Program Implementation, Institutional Characteristics, Predictor Variables, Faculty Development
DOI: 10.1007/s11165-019-9820-5
ISSN: 0157-244X
Abstract: A growing body of research suggests that student-centered teaching methods are associated with positive learning outcomes for undergraduate students. Yet, the extent of their use and factors leading to their adoption in fields, such as chemistry, continue to be under-explored. Utilizing survey data collected during 2015, we begin to fill this gap, first by considering the degree to which faculty and instructors use and plan to use various student-centered teaching methods in their undergraduate chemistry courses. Then, we examine three potential factors that may help us understand variation in (1) use of and (2) intentions to implement student-centered methods: attitudes toward teaching methods; teaching approaches; and institutional characteristics. Importantly, our findings suggest attitudes and individual teaching approaches are significant predictors of the use and intention to implement student-centered methods in the classroom. Perhaps surprisingly, several institutional factors examined (such as class size, percentage of time spent teaching, and type of institution) play no significant role. Given the positive student outcomes associated with various student-centered methods reported in literature, these findings suggest potential avenues for faculty and instructors' professional development toward further implementation of these methods.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2021
Accession Number: EJ1315499
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwHPPtMe7tY5fXDNtAXvajonAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDFyP_Pesnb4bRyoI9QIBEICBmxyoivDDpiIgQaesahI8XbWvzSRvfsBKssUB0jS3Ek0WKCn8fwDW_ZC2hBW6iHdcjMdvgM4ZvqHXv_drERfHtJbOo8Ra0iX6FOxoDX_crBspBHmZVySn98HNi6vTmEagqUlMTguBhjVB20KVdVaREe56c_X462XKDquYnQlD42WBLaIa68OUp2cFvOWFKVZGklrEDwb6I0aBiwRk
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0153079615;g7202oct.21;2021Oct20.09:10;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0153079615-1">Understanding the Use of Student-Centered Teaching Methods in Undergraduate Chemistry Courses </title> <p>A growing body of research suggests that student-centered teaching methods are associated with positive learning outcomes for undergraduate students. Yet, the extent of their use and factors leading to their adoption in fields, such as chemistry, continue to be under-explored. Utilizing survey data collected during 2015, we begin to fill this gap, first by considering the degree to which faculty and instructors use and plan to use various student-centered teaching methods in their undergraduate chemistry courses. Then, we examine three potential factors that may help us understand variation in (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref1">1</reflink>) use of and (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref2">2</reflink>) intentions to implement student-centered methods: attitudes toward teaching methods; teaching approaches; and institutional characteristics. Importantly, our findings suggest attitudes and individual teaching approaches are significant predictors of the use and intention to implement student-centered methods in the classroom. Perhaps surprisingly, several institutional factors examined (such as class size, percentage of time spent teaching, and type of institution) play no significant role. Given the positive student outcomes associated with various student-centered methods reported in literature, these findings suggest potential avenues for faculty and instructors' professional development toward further implementation of these methods.</p> <p>Keywords: Student-centered approaches; Teaching methods; Undergraduate teaching; Science education; Attitudes; Chemistry</p> <hd id="AN0153079615-2">Introduction</hd> <p>A growing area of education research has focused on the emergence of student-centered teaching methods, especially in chemistry. Student-centered teaching methods are not been universally defined by any pne resource, but can refer, in part, to methods where "students are given opportunities to make choices about their own learning and contribute to the design of learning experiences" ("Student-Centered Learning" [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref3">36</reflink>]). They have also been described as methods that "hold students responsible for their learning" (Felder and Brent [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref4">10</reflink>], p. 43). In general, such student-centered methods seek to provide alternatives to learning via the model of traditional lecture and allow students to be more active participants in their own education. Much research has shown that such student-centered methods lead to more desirable student outcomes. In fact, Freeman et al. ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref5">11</reflink>]) showed that active learning, one of the broadest, often employed student-centered methods, was responsible for a six-percentage point increase in average exam scores and a decreased failure rate within a broad selection of STEM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics) courses. Freeman's meta-study considered the results from more than 200 studies comparing like courses and sections within STEM fields that either did or did not employ active learning. The field of chemistry has seen the use of methods outside of traditional lecture, each with research that seemingly reports a positive effect on classroom experience and learning outcomes for students in certain, specific instances.</p> <p>Methods that focus attention on the involvement of students in the learning process, beyond the traditional lecture, have generally been considered to be student-centered. One such method is Process Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning or POGIL (Farrell et al. [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref6">9</reflink>]), where students are assigned set roles within a group to solve constructs through learning process skills. Think-Pair-Share (Lyman Jr. [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref7">23</reflink>]) allows students to work in pairs to solve problems before sharing results with their peers. Clickers (Duncan [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref8">8</reflink>]; Vital [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref9">41</reflink>]) allow for interactive feedback from the classroom through question and response. Cooperative Learning (Basili and Sanford [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref10">5</reflink>]; Paulson [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref11">28</reflink>]), Inquiry-Based Learning (Spencer [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref12">34</reflink>]; Briggs et al. [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref13">6</reflink>]), and Problem-Based Learning (Albanese and Mitchell [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref14">2</reflink>]; Jansson et al. [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref15">18</reflink>]), although more general student-centered methods than those previously mentioned, have also been suggested as being student-centered alternatives to traditional lecture. Many of these student-centered methods have each seen success reported in student outcomes with their implementation within chemistry. For instance, POGIL implementation led to an increase in student proficiency on the standardized ACS Organic Chemistry Exam (Hein [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref16">14</reflink>]) when compared with previous implementation of traditional lecture. A study of flipped classrooms (Lage et al. [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref17">20</reflink>])—which have become increasingly prevalent—noted a 56% decrease in DFW% (Ds, Fs, withdrawals) when compared with a control group of traditional lecture (Ryan and Reid [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref18">31</reflink>]).</p> <p>So, what are some reasons suggested for faculty members persisting with traditional lecture when there are now many student-centered alternatives? Previous studies within broader fields have shown faculty were generally satisfied with traditional lecture (Handelsman et al. [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref19">12</reflink>]). Other studies have shown university faculty tend to replicate the teaching modes they experienced as students (Lom [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref20">21</reflink>]). Lastly, some reports seem to indicate a lack of awareness by faculty of these alternatives to traditional lecture (Seymour [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref21">32</reflink>]). However, further work has begun within related disciplines to more deeply understand these and other barriers that may be preventing faculty from employing these proven teaching methods that seem to be preferable to, or could enhance, traditional lecture methods. Within the field of physics education, Henderson and Dancy ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref22">15</reflink>]) have been leading the way in attempting to understand the barriers faculty must overcome to implement research-based instructional strategies (RBIS), which includes numerous student-centered methods. Henderson and Dancy ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref23">16</reflink>]) find the vast majority of faculty report they are familiar with, and almost half currently use, at least one RBIS. Henderson et al. ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref24">17</reflink>]) explored individual-level characteristics (e.g. gender) and institutional factors (e.g. class size and institutional type) in their analysis of knowledge about and use of RBIS among physics faculty. Their analysis suggests that institutional factors matter less than expected, and these authors (p. 12) speculate that beliefs about teaching, that were unmeasured in their study, may matter for understanding knowledge about and use of RBIS.</p> <p>This past work suggests that contemporary classrooms may be incorporating a variety of student-centered methods; however, no study systematically considers the current state of method use within undergraduate chemistry. Some work (e.g. Henderson and Dancy [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref25">16</reflink>]) suggests faculty interest in implementing new methodologies may be changing as well, but interest in student-centered methods specifically has not been systematically studied. And, most importantly, extant research does not identify the factors that do predict student-centered methods usage in chemistry. Thus, in this study, we build on the past literature and pose the following research questions:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Research Question 1. To what extent are chemistry instructors <emph>currently adopting</emph> student-centered methods, given the evidentiary benefit to adopting student-centered methods?</item> <p></p> <item> Research Question 2. To what extent do chemistry faculty <emph>intend to adopt</emph> these student-centered methods in the future?</item> <p></p> <item> Research Question 3. Most importantly, what antecedent factors at the individual, interactional, and institutional level currently lead chemistry faculty to adopt, or intend to adopt, student-centered teaching methods? Our analysis focuses on factors affecting faculty at the attitudinal, behavioral, and organizational level. This article focuses on how these variables predict the number of unique student-centered methods faculty self-report they are using and intend to use, regardless of their frequency of adoption.</item> </ulist> <p>Addressing these questions is especially important, as previous evidence suggests learning outcomes can be improved through the use of multiple student-centered methods (Lorenzo et al. [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref26">22</reflink>]; Pollock and Finkelstein [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref27">29</reflink>]). While our focus will be on chemistry instruction in the USA, we note the universal nature of the research questions posed. With globalization and technological advances, options for teaching methods (including student-centered ones) have expanded. And the overarching factors we test to predict usage of student-centered methods—attitudes, approaches to teaching, and organizational constraints—exist across societies. By first examining such universal constructs as attitudes and approaches, along with certain specific institutional factors, this study seeks to examine the current and future adoption of student-centered teaching methods within chemistry. If the universal constructs are influential, educators can focus on influencing attitudes and/or approaches toward the implementation of student-centered methods. If more local factors at the institutional level are determinative, then the advancement of student-centered methods may need to be addressed differently at individual institutions of higher education.</p> <hd id="AN0153079615-3">Understanding Student-Centered Teaching Method Selection</hd> <p>To begin to analyze the factors that shape the selection of student-centered methods, we consider three sets of specific, potential influences on method choice: attitudes toward teaching methodologies, approaches to teaching, and institutional factors. In this interdisciplinary approach, drawing upon the expertise of a chemist, sociologist, and social psychologist, we seek to examine these three areas that have not as yet been explored systematically in such an application. First, instructors' <emph>attitudes toward teaching methods</emph> should influence intentions to adopt those methods. An attitude is the extent to which an individual (dis)likes a particular attitude object (e.g., student-centered teaching methods). Attitudes have been hailed as an indispensable construct (Allport [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref28">3</reflink>]) because of their utility in behavior prediction (Ajzen and Fishbein [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref29">1</reflink>]). To the extent that attitudes are more favorable toward a teaching method, instructors should be more likely to enact these strategies in the classroom. In the current research, we separately measure attitudes toward student-centered teaching and instructor-centered teaching. Positive attitudes toward student-centered teaching would be most clearly related to student-centered methods, while positive instructor-centered teaching attitudes would be most closely associated with traditional lecture. These attitudinal measures were designed to assess a global summary evaluation of student- or instructor-centered teaching rather than specific beliefs about classroom strategies. That is, we asked about feelings toward student-centered and instructor-centered methods in general. We expect that increased positivity toward student-centered methods may increase the likelihood of using student-centered teaching, whereas increased positivity regarding instructor-centered methods may decrease the likelihood of employing student-centered methods.</p> <p>One's specific behavioral <emph>approach to instruction</emph> also may contribute to one's methodological decisions in the classroom. Unlike global attitudes toward teaching which focus on feelings toward teaching methods, approaches to teaching concern strategies faculty employ in teaching and the intentions behind those strategies (Trigwell and Prosser [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref30">40</reflink>], p. 413). Such intentions may vary from transmission of subject content, which would be an instructor-centered approach, to intention to foster conceptual change in the student, which is considered a student-centered approach (Trigwell and Prosser [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref31">40</reflink>], p. 413). These two approaches are conceptualized as extremes, but not polar opposites, as well as contextually dependent rather than fixed in an individual. Findings suggest that student-centered approaches are positively associated with faculty satisfaction and interest in teaching a subject and students' own approach to learning (Trigwell [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref32">38</reflink>]).</p> <p>To measure approaches to teaching, international education researchers Trigwell and Prosser developed the Approaches to Teaching Inventory (ATI), a 16-question standardized questionnaire that can be used to produce separate index scores for student-centered and instructor-centered approaches. Some examples from the survey include "I design my teaching in this subject with the assumption that most of the students have very little useful knowledge of the topics to be covered" and "In teaching sessions for this subject, I use difficult or undefined examples to provoke debate." These approaches to teaching do not mandate specific teaching methods. For instance, those "examples to provoke debate" could be delivered through various methods such as lecture, peer instruction, or clickers. However, it seems logical that one's orientation toward the classroom and the intentions underpinning that orientation would shape how one chooses to teach in specific classroom contexts, with more student-centered approaches translating into use of more student-centered methods and more instructor-centered approaches translating into use of fewer student-centered methods. The ATI has been used to study teaching approaches at universities in the past, such as a study on student-focused approaches to teaching at the University of Antwerp (Stes et al. [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref33">35</reflink>]).</p> <p>Finally, a third set of factors that may influence teaching methods relates to <emph>institutional expectations and environment</emph>. Institutional pressures and available resources may shape one's perceptions of what methods are feasible to implement in a particular setting. Some such pressures may be universal while others may be more specific to countries, regions, and educational systems. For example, in the USA, such pressures may relate to the percentage of time faculty are expected to expend on research, teaching and service responsibilities; the nature of their employment in a tenure/tenure-track position or non-tenure-granting position; and expectations related to serving the student population, which vary by campus type (e.g., public/private; two-year/four-year; liberal arts). While there are assumptions that specific institutional contexts should be more welcoming of student-centered methods, such as liberal arts colleges and private institutions in the case of the USA, it is challenging to find more than anecdotal evidence that this is indeed the case (Reder [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref34">30</reflink>]). Given similar structural thinking, instructors may feel constrained to use more traditional lecture techniques with larger class sizes. Yet, some research suggests no significant relationship between institutional setting or class size and knowledge and/or use of more innovative classroom practices (Henderson et al. [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref35">17</reflink>]). Given that it is possible that the effects of a variable may be suppressed by other factors, previous findings of no institutional effects should not dissuade us from empirically testing their possible influence within our sample. Indeed, it is important to consider institutional factors, as the identification of specific structural features that impede or enhance efforts to integrate student-centered methods would be an important step. This knowledge could be used to assist institutional efforts aimed at faculty development as well as inform individual faculty who are considering course development.</p> <p>Understanding the precursors that promote instructors' decisions about employing student-centered methods is important for several reasons. Identifying obstacles, particularly ones that institutions and faculty can reasonably address, is a vital first step in reducing barriers to the use of such methods within chemistry. If individual-level factors like attitudes and approaches seem to drive method selection, professional development efforts for graduate students through later career faculty can enhance positive views of student-centered methods. Similarly, the ATI questionnaire can be used as a diagnostic so that faculty can be made more aware of their inherent approaches to their teaching. If institutional forces shape teaching methods use, organizational decision-makers can address change, whereas individual faculty can possess increased awareness of the settings best suited for their individual preferences. Understanding the current state of methodological practices in chemistry and adding to the appreciation of how they come to be is the significant next step we take in this article to contribute to the evolution of how chemistry is taught at the undergraduate level.</p> <hd id="AN0153079615-4">Methods</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0153079615-5">Study Design and Participants</hd> <p>To capture the desired data, we conducted a survey of faculty and instructors teaching undergraduate general, organic, and biochemistry (GOB), general chemistry, and organic chemistry courses in the state of Ohio in the USA, during Autumn 2015. We chose Ohio because the breadth and institutional diversity within the state should correspond to that found throughout the nation. Ranging from two-year or less schools to research-intensive universities, Ohio is home to 56 institutions of higher education offering some form of chemistry program or major and many more that offer individual courses in chemistry (National Center for Education Statistics [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref36">25</reflink>]). We began with a list of all undergraduate GOB, general chemistry, and organic chemistry courses being taught at any institution of higher education in Ohio during Autumn 2015, which we compiled from public course listings. The principle investigator contacted the faculty or instructor listed for each course via email to recruit participants. Of the 643 potential respondents contacted, 181 consented to be in the study. The survey instrument was self-administered on-line via Qualtrics, a standard web-based survey administration tool.</p> <p>As for the survey content, the questionnaire began by asking the participant to identify and then focus on a particular class that they had recently taught. That course, then, would be the object of attention for later questions. Such questions asked participants about their implementation of and interest in a variety of teaching methods including conventional lecture and student-centered methods discussed above. Instructors were also asked to provide information about the expectations placed on them by their institution, through self-reporting the percentage of time they are expected to spend on teaching, research, and service. Participants also selected the institutional characteristics of their educational environment from a list of traits based on the standard Carnegie classification system, used extensively in the USA to categorize institutions of higher education: e.g. public, private, two-year, four-year or more, liberal arts (The Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref37">37</reflink>]). Throughout we used a self-reporting approach similar to that used by Henderson and colleagues and standard in the social sciences. Furthermore, we included Trigwell and Prosser's 16-question ATI, which has been validated for measuring student-centered and instructor-centered approaches to teaching (Trigwell and Prosser [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref38">39</reflink>]). Finally, we included one 5-point semantic differential scale designed to measure attitude favorability toward student-centered and instructor-centered methods of instruction (Osgood et al. [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref39">27</reflink>]). The full survey is available upon request.</p> <hd id="AN0153079615-6">Variables</hd> <p>The two dependent variables used in the analysis concern teaching methods usage. For these measures, we rely on responses to two series of questions that probed participants on specific methods to construct measures of <emph>number of student-centered methods used</emph> in past class sessions and <emph>number of student-centered methods intended to implement</emph> in future class sessions. For past use, the original question asked respondents, "Please indicate which, if any, teaching strategies you have previously employed during past class sessions" and then listed conventional lecture along with a group of methods our study has categorized as student-centered: flipped classroom, just-in-time teaching, inquiry-based learning, problem-based learning, cooperative learning, peer instruction, clickers, think-pair-share, active learning, and POGIL. The terms were not defined (a point to which we return in the section, "Limitations"). We considered each of these methods to be student-centered because of the primacy given to student participation and students' ownership of learning associated with each. Each positive response was equally weighted and summed, resulting in a 10-point scale, with values ranging from 0 for zero student-centered methods used to 10 for use of all 10 student-centered methods. Intentions to implement were guaged similarly, with the original question being, "Please indicate which, if any, teaching strategies you intend to implement during future class sessions." The same answer choices were listed. For each series, we created an index of student-centered methods, where each of the following methods was included and weighted equally (as 1): flipped classroom, just-in-time teaching, inquiry-based learning, problem-based learning, cooperative learning, peer instruction, clickers, think-pair-share, active learning, and POGIL. Again, positive values range from 0 to 10. The indexes pass conventional tests for normality and demonstrate acceptable levels of reliability (Cronbach's alpha of 0.69 for use and 0.71 for intent). Together they allow for examination of the number of student-centered methods used and intended to implement within our study.</p> <p>As for the independent variables, we incorporate measures of attitudes toward student-centered and instructor-centered teaching. To capture <emph>attitudes toward student-centered teaching</emph>, we use a continuous measure. In the survey we prompted, "student-centered teaching is ..." and respondents chose very bad (coded 1); bad (coded 2); neutral (coded 3); good (coded 4); and very good (coded 5). This measure, then, represents a five-point semantic differential scale designed to measure attitude favorability toward student-centered methods of instruction (Osgood et al. [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref40">27</reflink>]). We replicated this measure for <emph>attitudes toward instructor-centered teaching</emph>, substituting "instructor-centered" for "student-centered" in the question wording.</p> <p>To measure approaches to teaching, we used the 16 items Trigwell and Prosser developed to construct the <emph>student-centered and instructor-centered ATI scores</emph> from the Approaches to Teaching Inventory. Each item is on a five-point scale of frequency, with 1 representing "only rarely" and 5 indicating "almost always." Eight items are used to construct the student-centered ATI score. Such student-centered items include, "I feel that the assessment in this subject should be an opportunity for students to reveal their changed conceptual understanding of the subject" and "I set aside some teaching time so that the students can discuss, among themselves, the difficulties that they encounter studying this subject." The eight items are averaged, resulting in a final student-centered ATI score capturing student-centered approach to teaching which could range from 1 to 5. An additional eight items, scaled identically, capture instructor-centered approach. Examples of instructor-centered items, which prioritize transmission of information, are "In this subject I concentrate on covering the information that might be available from a good textbook" and "I feel that I should know the answers to any questions that students may put to me during this subject". The eight items are indexed as described above to create the instructor-centered ATI score measuring instructor-centered approach to teaching. Trigwell and Prosser's [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref41">40</reflink>] study details the validity and reliability of the instrument, reporting Cronbach's alphas of 0.75 (student-centered) and 0.73 (instructor-centered) (p. 416). With our data, the Cronbach's alphas are 0.77 (student-center) and 0.65 (instructor-centered), respectively. Moreover, the ATI has been used with our target population: one of the early subject groups as the ATI was being developed was a group of first-year university physics and chemistry instructors (Trigwell and Prosser [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref42">39</reflink>]).</p> <p>Our last set of independent variables concern institutional expectations and features. For <emph>percentage of time the faculty member is expected to spend on teaching</emph>, we began with a question asking respondents the percentage of their total work time that they are expected to expend in teaching, research and service. The survey delivery software required the three answers to total to 100%. Here we use the reported value for teaching, which could vary from 0 to 100. For the supplemental analysis, we use the values associated with research and service to measure the variables for percentage of time expected to spend on research and service. We also asked if the faculty member's position is <emph>tenured or tenure-track</emph> (coded 1) versus another type of position (coded 0) on a dummy variable for position type. Furthermore, we presented respondents with a series of descriptors of college or university settings and asked them to identify all those that described the institution in which they taught. These descriptors were based on the Carnegie classification system (The Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref43">37</reflink>]). From these descriptors, we created a series of binary dummy variables. <emph>Private college or university</emph> is coded 1 for a private college or university and zero for not a private college or university. Four-year or more year college or university is coded 1 for four-year or more college or university and 0 for not a four-year or more college or university. Similarly, liberal arts is a binary dummy variable for teaching at a liberal arts college (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref44">1</reflink>) or not (0). Finally, to capture <emph>class size</emph>, we asked respondents to report the number of students in the class identified as the course they will use as the basis for their answers on the survey. We used the natural log of this response in analysis.</p> <hd id="AN0153079615-7">Analytic Strategy</hd> <p>We take a quantitative approach to the analysis in order to systematically describe the state of student-centered methods usage and test our specific hypotheses concerning the factors, which may shape the implementation of student-centered methods. Following convention, we begin by presenting key descriptive statistics to situate the analysis. To address teaching methods usage, we overview the patterns on specific methods for (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref45">1</reflink>) use in past class sessions (Research Question 1) and (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref46">2</reflink>) intention to implement in future class sessions (Research Question 2). The series captures numerous innovative student-centered methods, which we will explore through simple means comparison represented visually in Fig. 1. We also include traditional lecture in this section as a point of comparison. Next, we turn to regression analysis predicting our constructed indexes of student-centered methods usage and intention to implement (Research Question 3). These indexes serve as the key independent variables for multiple regression analyses allowing an examination of the predictors of past use and intentions to use student-centered methods. Regression analysis is the appropriate analytic technique for our research question, as it allows us to consider the effects of more than one independent variable simultaneously on a given dependent variable.</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 1 Percentage of respondents that have used and intend to implement traditional lecture and student-centered teaching methods</p> <p>More specifically, we use Ordinary Least Squares regression to test a series of models. In Tables 2, 3, 4 and 6, 7, 8, we test separately the effects of attitudes, approaches to teaching measured as ATI scores, and institutional characteristics on number of student-centered methods used and number of student-centered methods intended to implement in a series of separate models. Each of these models pinpoint the isolated effects of the factors tested. Finally, we present findings from final models that combine the aforementioned influences into comprehensive models (Tables 5, 9). These final models allow us to see a more complete picture of how processes operate, as attitudes, teaching approaches, and institutional contexts are considered simultaneously rather than in isolation. Throughout, we consider effect size and direction, statistical significance, and model fit. While missing data is minimal (as indicated by sample sizes on individual measures reported in Table 1), we handle what is missing through listwise deletion. The general regression equation is represented as</p> <p>1 <ephtml> <math display="block" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mi>Y</mi><mo>=</mo><mi>a</mi><mo>+</mo><msub><mi>b</mi><mn>1</mn></msub><msub><mi>X</mi><mn>1</mn></msub><mo>+</mo><msub><mi>b</mi><mn>2</mn></msub><msub><mi>X</mi><mn>2</mn></msub><mo>+</mo><mo>...</mo><mo>+</mo><msub><mi>b</mi><mi>p</mi></msub><msub><mi>X</mi><mi>p</mi></msub></math> </ephtml></p> <p>Graph</p> <p>where <emph>Y</emph> is the dependent variable (either number of student-centered teaching methods used or number of student-centered teaching methods intended to implement); <emph>a</emph> is the y-intercept; <emph>b</emph> is the unstandardized regression coefficient or slope corresponding to each independent variable; <emph>X</emph> is each independent variable tested; and <emph>p</emph>—the total number of independent variables—is 10 in comprehensive models.</p> <p>Table 1 Descriptive statistics for sample respondents</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th><p>Variable</p></th><th><p><italic>N</italic></p></th><th><p>Mean</p></th><th><p>Standard deviation</p></th><th><p>Minimum</p></th><th><p>Maximum</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><p>Number of student-centered teaching methods used</p></td><td><p>162</p></td><td><p>4.12</p></td><td><p>2.35</p></td><td><p>0</p></td><td><p>10</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Number of student-centered teaching methods intended to implement</p></td><td><p>160</p></td><td><p>4.24</p></td><td><p>2.47</p></td><td><p>0</p></td><td><p>10</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Attitude toward student-centered teaching</p></td><td><p>161</p></td><td><p>3.96</p></td><td><p>0.79</p></td><td><p>2</p></td><td><p>5</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Attitude toward instructor-centered teaching</p></td><td><p>161</p></td><td><p>3.17</p></td><td><p>0.84</p></td><td><p>1</p></td><td><p>5</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Student-centered approaches to teaching (ATI) score</p></td><td><p>159</p></td><td><p>3.39</p></td><td><p>0.59</p></td><td><p>1.75</p></td><td><p>4.88</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Instructor-centered approaches to teaching (ATI) score</p></td><td><p>160</p></td><td><p>3.32</p></td><td><p>0.50</p></td><td><p>2.13</p></td><td><p>4.88</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Percentage of time expected to spend on teaching</p></td><td><p>165</p></td><td><p>70.09</p></td><td><p>24.44</p></td><td><p>0</p></td><td><p>100</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Tenured or tenure-track position<sup>a</sup></p></td><td><p>157</p></td><td><p>0.69</p></td><td /><td><p>0</p></td><td><p>1</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Private college/university<sup>a</sup></p></td><td><p>161</p></td><td><p>0.43</p></td><td /><td><p>0</p></td><td><p>1</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Four-year or more college/university<sup>a</sup></p></td><td><p>161</p></td><td><p>0.50</p></td><td /><td><p>0</p></td><td><p>1</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Liberal arts college<sup>a</sup></p></td><td><p>161</p></td><td><p>0.37</p></td><td /><td><p>0</p></td><td><p>1</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Class size</p></td><td><p>163</p></td><td><p>66.46</p></td><td><p>156.92</p></td><td><p>4</p></td><td><p>1800</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Class size (natural log) (for analysis)</p></td><td><p>162</p></td><td><p>3.51</p></td><td><p>0.93</p></td><td><p>1.39</p></td><td><p>6.21</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p> <sups>a</sups>Given these are nominal level measures, means represent the proportion of the sample with the reported characteristic. Standard deviations are unreported per convention</p> <hd id="AN0153079615-8">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0153079615-9">Descriptive Statistics</hd> <p>Table 1 presents descriptive statistics of the survey participants. Participants' ATI scores are remarkably similar to one another (mean for student-centered ATI score = 3.39; mean for instructor-centered ATI score = 3.32). However, consistent with past research (Trigwell and Prosser [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref47">40</reflink>]), these scores are not significantly correlated (r = − 0.117; <emph>p</emph> = 0.142; full correlation table is presented in the supplemental information). On average, participants expect to spend about 70% of their time on teaching although standard deviation values suggest great variation in institutional expectations. Two-thirds of the participants report holding a tenured or tenure-track position. There is substantial institutional diversity: 43% are at a private institution; 50% at a four-year or more institution; and 37% at a liberal arts institution. (Because these settings are not mutually exclusive, categories do not add to 100%.) The average class has 66 students; however, class sizes range from 4 students to 1800. Because of skew, we remove the extreme outlier (1800)—making the largest class size in the analysis 500 students—and use the transformed class size variable (natural log) in regression analyses. Finally, participants express, on average, slightly more positive attitudes toward student-centered teaching methods (mean = 3.96), compared with attitudes toward instructor-centered teaching methods (mean = 3.17).</p> <hd id="AN0153079615-10">Classroom Practices</hd> <p>Table 1 also shows that chemistry faculty and instructors have used, on average, four different student-centered teaching methods. There is moderate diversity in usage (SD = 2.35), with the full range of possibilities covered (i.e., 0 to 10 methods used). The pattern is quite similar for number of student-centered teaching methods intended to implement (mean = 4.24; range = 0–10; SD = 2.47).</p> <p>To better consider the current state of classroom method practice, we turn to Fig. 1. Here we graph percentages of participants who report using (dark gray) and intending to use (light gray) specific classroom methods. All but six faculty and instructors report using traditional lecture in the past, making it by far the most popular pedagogical method. A majority of faculty and instructors also have employed several student-centered methods, in particular problem-based learning (76%), inquiry-based learning (60%), and active learning (58%) techniques. Between a quarter and a half have incorporated cooperative learning (50%), peer instruction (42%), flipped classroom (31%), clickers (30%), and think-pair-share (28%). Fewer have used POGIL (20%) and just-in-time teaching (17%). Turning our attention to methods faculty and instructors intend to implement in future courses, the magnitude and rank of the individual methods look fairly similar to the patterns in past usage. The most striking difference is the drop in interest in using conventional lecture (83% intend to use whereas 96% have used). For the student-centered methods, flipped classroom and think-pair-share show the largest gains in interest in future use relative to past use (i.e., seven point differential for flipped classroom; five point for think-pair-share). All other disparities between past use and intent to incorporate in future are in the zero to three-percentage point range.</p> <hd id="AN0153079615-11">Regression Analysis</hd> <p>The aforementioned patterns suggest traditional lecture is a key feature of almost all undergraduate chemistry courses. With only six respondents having not used lecture, there is too little variation to meaningfully analyze lecture usage statistically. However, the patterns in the student-centered methods used and intended to use are ripe for statistical analysis. In Tables 2, 3, 4, 5, we present findings from alternative regression models predicting the number of student-centered teaching methods used in past class sessions. In the first model, shown in Table 2, both attitudes toward student-centered and instructor-centered methods matter. The more positive one's attitude toward student-centered teaching, the more student-centered methods one has incorporated in the past (b = 0.967; <emph>p</emph> = 0.000). As one's attitude toward instructor-centered teaching becomes more positive, the number of student-centered methods used decreases (b = − 0.485; <emph>p</emph> = 0.027). Of the two, student-centered teaching attitudes are the stronger predictor of methods use (comparison of standardized coefficients: beta 0.327 versus beta − 0.174). While student-centered teaching attitudes matter more, both types of attitudes are important predictors of student-centered method use, yielding better model fit with the inclusion of both (F = 17.293; drops in R<sups>2</sups> of 0.083 and 0.021 when excluded from the model).</p> <p>Table 2 Regression model predicting number of student-centered methods used from attitudes</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th /><th><p>b</p></th><th><p>beta</p></th><th><p>S.E.</p></th><th><p>t</p></th><th><p>part</p></th><th><p>Adj. R<sup>2</sup> if omitted</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><p>Attitude toward student-centered teaching</p></td><td char="." align="left"><p>0.967</p></td><td><p>0.327</p></td><td><p>0.231</p></td><td><p>4.194***</p></td><td><p>0.303</p></td><td char="." align="left"><p>0.087</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Attitude toward instructor-centered teaching</p></td><td char="." align="left"><p>− 0.485</p></td><td><p>− 0.174</p></td><td><p>0.218</p></td><td><p>− 2.225**</p></td><td><p>− 0.161</p></td><td char="." align="left"><p>0.149</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Adjusted R<sup>2</sup></p></td><td colspan="5"><p>0.170</p></td><td /></tr><tr><td><p>F</p></td><td colspan="5"><p>17.293***</p></td><td /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>*<emph>p</emph> < 0.05; **<emph>p</emph> < 0.01; ***<emph>p</emph> < 0.001</p> <p>Table 3 Regression model predicting number of student-centered methods used from ATI scores</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th /><th><p>b</p></th><th><p>beta</p></th><th><p>S.E.</p></th><th><p>t</p></th><th><p>part</p></th><th><p>Adj. R<sup>2</sup> if omitted</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><p>Student-centered ATI score</p></td><td char="." align="left"><p>1.447</p></td><td><p>0.361</p></td><td><p>0.282</p></td><td><p>5.141***</p></td><td><p>0.359</p></td><td char="." align="left"><p>0.108</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Instructor-centered ATI score</p></td><td char="." align="left"><p>− 1.413</p></td><td><p>− 0.301</p></td><td><p>0.330</p></td><td><p>− 4.282***</p></td><td><p>− 0.299</p></td><td char="." align="left"><p>0.150</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Adjusted R<sup>2</sup></p></td><td colspan="5"><p>0.237</p></td><td /></tr><tr><td><p>F</p></td><td colspan="5"><p>25.317***</p></td><td /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***<emph>p</emph> < 0.001</p> <p>Table 4 Regression model predicting number of student-centered methods used from institutional factors</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th /><th><p>b</p></th><th><p>beta</p></th><th><p>S.E.</p></th><th><p>t</p></th><th><p>part</p></th><th><p>Adj. R<sup>2</sup> if omitted</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><p>Percentage of time expected to spend on teaching</p></td><td><p>0.003</p></td><td><p>0.025</p></td><td><p>0.010</p></td><td><p>0.284</p></td><td><p>0.023</p></td><td><p>0.034</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Tenured or tenure-track position</p></td><td><p>0.504</p></td><td><p>0.097</p></td><td><p>0.497</p></td><td><p>1.014</p></td><td><p>0.081</p></td><td><p>0.031</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Private college/university</p></td><td><p>0.976</p></td><td><p>0.205</p></td><td><p>0.585</p></td><td><p>1.669</p></td><td><p>0.134</p></td><td><p>0.016</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Four-year or more college/university</p></td><td><p>− 0.101</p></td><td><p>− 0.021</p></td><td><p>0.501</p></td><td><p>− 0.202</p></td><td><p>− 0.016</p></td><td><p>0.035</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Liberal arts college</p></td><td><p>0.117</p></td><td><p>0.024</p></td><td><p>0.648</p></td><td><p>0.180</p></td><td><p>0.014</p></td><td><p>0.035</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Class size (natural log)</p></td><td><p>0.078</p></td><td><p>0.030</p></td><td><p>0.222</p></td><td><p>0.350</p></td><td><p>0.028</p></td><td><p>0.035</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Adjusted R<sup>2</sup></p></td><td colspan="5"><p>0.028</p></td><td /></tr><tr><td><p>F</p></td><td colspan="5"><p>1.731</p></td><td /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>*<emph>p</emph> < 0.05; **<emph>p</emph> < 0.01; ***<emph>p</emph> < 0.001</p> <p>Table 5 regression model predicting number of student-centered methods used from attitudes, ATI scores, and institutional factors</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th /><th><p>b</p></th><th><p>beta</p></th><th><p>S.E.</p></th><th><p>t</p></th><th><p>part</p></th><th><p>Adj. R<sup>2</sup> if omitted</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><p>Attitude toward student-centered teaching</p></td><td><p>0.770</p></td><td><p>0.262</p></td><td><p>0.225</p></td><td><p>3.428**</p></td><td><p>0.231</p></td><td><p>0.292</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Attitude toward instructor-centered teaching</p></td><td><p>− 0.234</p></td><td><p>− 0.083</p></td><td><p>0.213</p></td><td><p>− 1.097</p></td><td><p>− 0.074</p></td><td><p>0.330</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Student-centered ATI score</p></td><td><p>1.161</p></td><td><p>0.284</p></td><td><p>0.300</p></td><td><p>3.865***</p></td><td><p>0.261</p></td><td><p>0.263</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Instructor-centered ATI score</p></td><td><p>− 1.043</p></td><td><p>− 0.225</p></td><td><p>0.354</p></td><td><p>− 2.947**</p></td><td><p>− 0.199</p></td><td><p>0.294</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Percentage of time expected to spend on teaching</p></td><td><p>− 0.002</p></td><td><p>− 0.023</p></td><td><p>0.008</p></td><td><p>− 0.302</p></td><td><p>− 0.020</p></td><td><p>0.336</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Tenured or tenure-track position</p></td><td><p>0.722</p></td><td><p>0.139</p></td><td><p>0.419</p></td><td><p>− 1.723</p></td><td><p>0.116</p></td><td><p>0.321</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Private college/university</p></td><td><p>0.668</p></td><td><p>0.140</p></td><td><p>0.507</p></td><td><p>− 1.318</p></td><td><p>0.089</p></td><td><p>0.328</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Four-year or more college/university</p></td><td><p>− 0.328</p></td><td><p>− 0.069</p></td><td><p>0.425</p></td><td><p>0.771</p></td><td><p>− 0.052</p></td><td><p>0.333</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Liberal arts college</p></td><td><p>0.102</p></td><td><p>0.021</p></td><td><p>0.547</p></td><td><p>0.186</p></td><td><p>0.013</p></td><td><p>0.336</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Class size (natural log)</p></td><td><p>0.084</p></td><td><p>0.033</p></td><td><p>0.186</p></td><td><p>0.451</p></td><td><p>0.030</p></td><td><p>0.325</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Adjusted R<sup>2</sup></p></td><td colspan="5"><p>0.331</p></td><td /></tr><tr><td><p>F</p></td><td colspan="5"><p>8.289***</p></td><td /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>*<emph>p</emph> < 0.05; **<emph>p</emph> < 0.01; ***<emph>p</emph> < 0.001</p> <p>The second model tested (Table 3) shows both student-centered and instructor-centered ATI scores significantly affect number of methods used (b = 1.45; <emph>p</emph> = 0.000 for student-centered ATI; b = − 1.41; <emph>p</emph> = 0.000 for instructor-centered ATI). For each additional point on the student-centered ATI a faculty scores, the number of student-centered methods used increases, on average, by 1.45. However, higher scores on the instructor-centered ATI has the opposite effect, lowering the number of student-centered methods used, on average by 1.41 for each additional point scored on the instructor-centered ATI. Of the two scores, the magnitude of the standardized coefficients (betas) shows that the stronger predictor of methods used is the student-centered ATI score. Both scores are important for model fit (F = 25.317; R<sups>2</sups> of 0.237 would be 0.108 and 0.150, respectively, if student-centered and instructor-centered ATIs were removed from the model).</p> <p>The next model considers the independent effects of institutional factors. As shown in Table 4, this test reveals that no institutional factors—institutional expectations, position, setting, or class size—have a statistically significant effect. Unlike the previous two models, including institutional predictors does not significantly improve model fit over the intercept-only model (F = 1.731, n.s.). Indeed, as the last column suggests, removing most institutional variables from the model would improve model fit marginally, with the exception of private schools: removing private schooling would decrease the explained variance in student-centered methods use by almost half (R<sups>2</sups> from 0.028 to 0.016).</p> <p>Table 5 presents the results from a model combining all the hypothesized causal factors to predict student-centered methods use. Net of the other independent variables, student-centered and instructor-centered ATI scores and attitudes toward student-centered teaching are statistically significant. Instructor-centered teaching attitudes now fail to reach levels of statistical significance. Comparison of the standardized coefficients suggests student-centered ATI score (beta = 0.284) is the strongest predictor, followed closely by attitudes toward student-centered teaching (beta = 0.262) and instructor-centered ATI score (beta = − 0.225). With an adjusted R<sups>2</sups> of 0.331, this model provides the best model fit of all those tested, explaining one third of the variation in number of methods used. Looking at how R<sups>2</sups> would change if each individual variable is omitted, we see further evidence that attitudes toward student-centered teaching and both student-centered and instructor-centered ATI scores are driving the model fit.</p> <p>In Tables 6, 7, 8, 9, we consider these same models, now predicting intentions to implement student-centered teaching methods in future classes. Both attitudes toward student-centered teaching and instructor-centered teaching (Table 6) are significant and in opposite directions. The more positive the attitude toward student-centered teaching, the more student-centered methods one intends to implement (b = 0.918; <emph>p</emph> = 0.000); the more positive the attitude toward instructor-centered teaching, the fewer student-centered methods one intends to implement (b = − 0.485; <emph>p</emph> = 0.040). Of the two attitudes, the student-centered ones are stronger predictors of how many student-centered methods one intends to implement (beta = 0.295 versus beta = − 0.166) and both types of attitudes contribute to the variation explained (R<sups>2</sups> would drop from 0.140 to 0.075 if student-centered attitudes were omitted, 0.122 if instructor-centered attitudes omitted).</p> <p>Table 6 Regression model predicting number of student-centered methods intended to implement from attitudes</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th /><th><p>b</p></th><th><p>beta</p></th><th><p>S.E.</p></th><th><p>t</p></th><th><p>part</p></th><th><p>R<sup>2</sup> if omitted</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><p>Attitude toward student-centered teaching</p></td><td char="." align="left"><p>0.918</p></td><td><p>0.295</p></td><td><p>0.249</p></td><td><p>3.692***</p></td><td><p>0.273</p></td><td char="." align="left"><p>0.075</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Attitude toward instructor-centered teaching</p></td><td char="." align="left"><p>− 0.485</p></td><td><p>− 0.166</p></td><td><p>0.234</p></td><td><p>− 2.076*</p></td><td><p>− 0.154</p></td><td char="." align="left"><p>0.122</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Adjusted R<sup>2</sup></p></td><td colspan="5"><p>0.140</p></td><td /></tr><tr><td><p>F</p></td><td colspan="5"><p>13.785***</p></td><td /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>*<emph>p</emph> < 0.05; **<emph>p</emph> < 0.01; ***<emph>p</emph> < 0.001</p> <p>Table 7 Regression model predicting number of student-centered methods intended to implement from ATI scores</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th /><th><p>b</p></th><th><p>beta</p></th><th><p>S.E.</p></th><th><p>t</p></th><th><p>part</p></th><th><p>R<sup>2</sup> if omitted</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><p>Student-centered ATI score</p></td><td char="." align="left"><p>0.997</p></td><td><p>0.239</p></td><td><p>0.309</p></td><td><p>3.227**</p></td><td><p>0.238</p></td><td char="." align="left"><p>0.102</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Instructor-centered ATI score</p></td><td char="." align="left"><p>− 1.482</p></td><td><p>− 0.307</p></td><td><p>0.358</p></td><td><p>− 4.138***</p></td><td><p>− 0.305</p></td><td char="." align="left"><p>0.069</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Adjusted R<sup>2</sup></p></td><td colspan="5"><p>0.158</p></td><td /></tr><tr><td><p>F</p></td><td colspan="5"><p>15.561***</p></td><td /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>*<emph>p</emph> < 0.05; **<emph>p</emph> < 0.01; ***<emph>p</emph> < 0.001</p> <p>Table 8 Regression model predicting number of student-centered methods intended to implement from institutional factors</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th /><th><p>b</p></th><th><p>beta</p></th><th><p>S.E.</p></th><th><p>t</p></th><th><p>part</p></th><th><p>R<sup>2</sup> if omitted</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><p>Percentage of time expected to spend on teaching</p></td><td><p>0.009</p></td><td><p>0.081</p></td><td><p>0.010</p></td><td><p>0.903</p></td><td><p>0.073</p></td><td><p>0.026</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Tenured or tenure-track position</p></td><td><p>0.302</p></td><td><p>0.056</p></td><td><p>0.518</p></td><td><p>0.583</p></td><td><p>0.047</p></td><td><p>0.028</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Private college/university</p></td><td><p>0.289</p></td><td><p>0.059</p></td><td><p>0.619</p></td><td><p>0.467</p></td><td><p>0.038</p></td><td><p>0.030</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Four-year or more college/university</p></td><td><p>0.071</p></td><td><p>0.014</p></td><td><p>0.521</p></td><td><p>0.136</p></td><td><p>0.011</p></td><td><p>0.032</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Liberal arts college</p></td><td><p>0.831</p></td><td><p>0.165</p></td><td><p>0.679</p></td><td><p>1.223</p></td><td><p>0.099</p></td><td><p>0.022</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Class size (natural log)</p></td><td><p>0.293</p></td><td><p>0.111</p></td><td><p>0.232</p></td><td><p>1.261</p></td><td><p>0.102</p></td><td><p>0.027</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Adjusted R<sup>2</sup></p></td><td colspan="5"><p>0.025</p></td><td /></tr><tr><td><p>F</p></td><td colspan="5"><p>1.641</p></td><td /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>*<emph>p</emph> < 0.05; **<emph>p</emph> < 0.01; ***<emph>p</emph> < 0.001</p> <p>Table 9 Regression model predicting number of student-centered methods intended to implement from attitudes, ATI scores and institutional factors</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th /><th><p>b</p></th><th><p>beta</p></th><th><p>S.E.</p></th><th><p>t</p></th><th><p>part</p></th><th><p>Adj. R<sup>2</sup> if omitted</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><p>Attitude toward student-centered teaching</p></td><td><p>0.685</p></td><td><p>0.224</p></td><td><p>0.253</p></td><td><p>2.706**</p></td><td><p>0.199</p></td><td><p>0.188</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Attitude toward instructor-centered teaching</p></td><td><p>− 0.269</p></td><td><p>− 0.093</p></td><td><p>0.239</p></td><td><p>− 1.124</p></td><td><p>− 0.083</p></td><td><p>0.215</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Student-centered ATI score</p></td><td><p>0.634</p></td><td><p>0.149</p></td><td><p>0.339</p></td><td><p>1.871</p></td><td><p>0.138</p></td><td><p>0.203</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Instructor-centered ATI score</p></td><td><p>− 1.174</p></td><td><p>− 0.246</p></td><td><p>0.397</p></td><td><p>− 2.955**</p></td><td><p>− 0.217</p></td><td><p>0.173</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Percentage of time expected to spend on teaching</p></td><td><p>0.006</p></td><td><p>0.052</p></td><td><p>0.009</p></td><td><p>0.642</p></td><td><p>0.047</p></td><td><p>0.220</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Tenured or tenure-track position</p></td><td><p>0.347</p></td><td><p>0.064</p></td><td><p>0.472</p></td><td><p>0.735</p></td><td><p>0.054</p></td><td><p>0.212</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Private college/university</p></td><td><p>− 0.106</p></td><td><p>− 0.022</p></td><td><p>0.581</p></td><td><p>− 0.183</p></td><td><p>− 0.013</p></td><td><p>0.222</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Four-year or more college/university</p></td><td><p>− 0.141</p></td><td><p>− 0.029</p></td><td><p>0.478</p></td><td><p>− 0.295</p></td><td><p>− 0.022</p></td><td><p>0.222</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Liberal arts college</p></td><td><p>0.836</p></td><td><p>0.166</p></td><td><p>0.623</p></td><td><p>1.344</p></td><td><p>0.099</p></td><td><p>0.212</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Class size (natural log)</p></td><td><p>0.261</p></td><td><p>0.099</p></td><td><p>0.210</p></td><td><p>1.240</p></td><td><p>0.091</p></td><td><p>0.217</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Adjusted R<sup>2</sup></p></td><td colspan="5"><p>0.217</p></td><td /></tr><tr><td><p>F</p></td><td colspan="5"><p>5.015***</p></td><td /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>*<emph>p</emph> < 0.05; **<emph>p</emph> < 0.01; ***<emph>p</emph> < 0.001</p> <p>Similarly, both student-centered and instructor-centered ATI score (Table 7) are significant predictors of intentions. Student-centered ATI scores have a significant positive effect (b = 0.997; <emph>p</emph> = 0.002), while instructor-centered ATI scores have a significant negative effect (b = − 1.482; <emph>p</emph> = 0.000). Instructor-centered ATI scores are the stronger of the two predictors (beta = − 0.307 versus beta = 0.239). Both types of scores, and especially instructor-centered ones, contribute to the variation in intentions that is explained by ATI scores (R<sups>2</sups> if omitted of 0.102 and 0.069).</p> <p>Once again, none of the institutional factors have any significant effects (Table 8). And the institutional model does not provide a significant improvement over an intercept-only model (F = 1.641, n.s.). The model explains very little variation in intentions (adjusted R<sups>2</sups> = 0.025) and removing any individual institutional variable would not change the value much.</p> <p>In the comprehensive model (Table 9), once all the independent variables are taken into consideration simultaneously, only instructor-centered ATI score and attitude toward student-centered teaching are significant predictors of number of student-centered methods intended to implement. Net of the other predictors, instructor-centered ATI score has a significant negative effect (b = − 1.174; <emph>p</emph> = 0.004), while attitudes toward student-centered teaching have a positive effect (b = 0.685; <emph>p</emph> = 0.008). The ATI score is the stronger of the two significant predictors (beta = − 0.246 versus beta = 0.224). Of the models, the comprehensive one has the best model fit, explaining about a fifth of the variation in number of student-centered teaching methods faculty intend to implement (adjusted R<sups>2</sups> = 0.217). Removing attitude toward student-centered teaching or instructor-centered ATI would decrease the explained variance, suggesting these measures are driving this model. Moreover, we tested research and service expectations as alternative institutional measures (Supplemental Information). Overall, those models support the analysis shown here based on teaching expectations.</p> <hd id="AN0153079615-12">Limitations</hd> <p>In a study of this nature, one must always be concerned with potential issues of selectivity: the participants in the study may differ from the population to which one wishes to generalize in meaningful ways. For example, our sample is exclusively from Ohio and the response rate is less than ideal (0.28). We attempted to minimize selection bias by following standard survey techniques to increase participation, such as sending reminder emails to encourage participation. We can find no published data on the characteristics of the population of interest for this specific study (chemistry faculty across all institutions nationwide) with which we can directly compare our sample. Nationally, in the USA in 2013 75% of all faculty work at four-year institutions (compared with 50% of this sample) and 63% of faculty hold positions in public institutions (as compared to 57% of this sample) (Snyder et al. [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref48">33</reflink>], p. 537). Faculty in this sample expect to spend about 70% of their time on teaching. Equivalent national averages are 58% for full-time and 88% for part-time faculty and instructional staff (Snyder et al. [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref49">33</reflink>], pp. 539–542). Given that chemistry faculty likely vary from all faculty nationwide in significant ways—for example, undergraduate enrollments in physical sciences are much higher at four-year schools than two-year institutions (Snyder et al. [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref50">33</reflink>], p. 492), likely necessitating greater numbers of faculty—these sample demographics seem reasonable. Ideally, future work will replicate this study with nationally and internationally representative samples of faculty and be expanded beyond chemists to consider faculty across disciplines.</p> <p>Based on our findings, we encourage future work that is cross-national. Such work could provide leverage on the context-specific factors that encourage or dissuade student-centered method use. For example, organizational features specific to one society may have a meaningful effect that we could not find in this study. Future work could also benefit from including consideration of use of instructor-centered methods outside of traditional lecture, alongside student-centered methods. Future work should also consider additional potential explanatory variables that might further explain pedagogical choice. Qualitative work may be particularly beneficial in identifying such factors. We limit the present study to specific sets of attitudinal, behavioral and institutional factors given their theoretical importance and value in past educational and social science research, recognizing there exist other factors that are possible influences. Our goal was to examine our conceptual model, which was conceived as an interdisciplinary approach between a chemist, sociologist, and social psychologist. We did test several individual-level factors, namely gender and number of years of teaching experience. Neither gender nor teacher experience showed a significant effect on use or intentions to use student-centered teaching methods, nor did they substantially alter the relationships reported in the findings. Moreover, given the importance of attitudes in this study, we would encourage future researchers to delve deeper into additional attitudinal dimensions and consider more complex interactions between individuals and their environments.</p> <p>Finally, while the use of self-reported data is well accepted in such studies, a follow-up investigation involving interviews and classroom observation would add further context to the analysis presented in this work, as previous research has shown actual classroom behavior can be inconsistent with the strategies themselves (Dancy and Henderson [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref51">7</reflink>]). Observation would confirm whether the student-centered methods were being carried out faithfully by faculty members. It is possible that study participants' understanding of the instructional methods are incorrect or misguided. (Henderson et al. [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref52">17</reflink>], p. 10) suggest such a possibility. In supplemental analysis, we removed the methods that seemed most open to misinterpretation (problem-based learning, inquiry-based learning, and cooperative learning). While doing so obviously reduced the number of methods used and intended to use, the predictive analyses held, adding further support to the conclusions we draw below.</p> <hd id="AN0153079615-13">Discussion</hd> <p>To make a unique contribution to the literature, we sought to describe current and intended use of student-centered teaching methods in chemistry. Further, we explored patterns in that adoption and intention to use by testing three potential sets of influences on methodological choice that have not been well-studied, especially in the field of chemistry. Existing research indicates both interest in promoting more student-centered teaching methods and persistence of lecture methods (e.g. Lom [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref53">21</reflink>]). Our findings show that, although almost all faculty respondents have used traditional lecture, a majority have also employed more than one student-centered teaching method. The average faculty reports using four student-centered methods in addition to lecture. The most commonly used student-centered methods are the most general (problem-based learning; inquiry-based learning) while the least often used are more structured (Just-In-Time, POGIL). Relative to past use, interest in incorporating lecture in future classes is lower. These patterns suggest that faculty are open to new student-centered methods and are implementing them, a finding similar to that of previous work in other disciplines closely related to chemistry (Dancy and Henderson [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref54">7</reflink>]). Yet, the levels of interest do not replace the strong levels of interest in traditional lecture. Method use, then, is not an "either/or", but an "in addition to," suggesting that faculty, evaluators, and institutional agents will need to consider the conceptual as well as the practical aspects of maintaining the contemporary classroom as pedagogically flexible. This flexibility appears to be an important take away, given faculty are maintaining a high rate of usage of traditional lecture. This is despite research suggesting student-centered teaching methods may yield positive effects on student outcomes (e.g., Freeman et al. [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref55">11</reflink>]), while traditional lecture has not been shown to promote a deeper approach to learning among students (Nichols and Miller [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref56">26</reflink>]). The question remains as to how the integration of student-centered methods with instructor-centered methods may affect student outcomes.</p> <p>As for understanding variation in student-centered teaching methods, several points are clear within our study. Global attitudes toward student-centered teaching are significant predictors of student-centered methods use and interest in incorporating such methods in future classes. Instructor-centered attitudes matter in some of the models but their effects appear to be accounted for by the other independent variables in the comprehensive models. It is not surprising that attitudes and behaviors concerning student-centered teaching methods would be more positively associated than instructor-centered attitudes and student-centered behaviors. These attitudinal variables are successful predictors, likely because they capture an instructor's global evaluative summary on different teaching approaches and in turn influence adoption of specific teaching strategies.</p> <p>Our findings also suggest that specific approaches to teaching matter. Instructor-centered ATI score is a significant, negative predictor in all models, surfacing as the strongest predictor tested of intentions. Moreover, student-centered ATI score is the strongest predictor of methods used, and fails to reach significance in only one model and then only by a small margin. Generally, approaches to instruction perform as expected and exert an effect independent of attitudes. This suggests that whatever effect these summary attitudes may have in shaping classroom behaviors, particular approaches have an independent effect beyond those attitudes (and vice versa). This should be taken into consideration in the professional development of chemistry faculty. Administration of the ATI would, at the very least, give faculty and university leadership a quantitative metric to evaluate inherent approaches to teaching. The survey would allow faculty and administrators to set a baseline value for the approaches faculty currently employ in the classroom, thus providing a gauge to tell how much room for growth. The salience of ATI scores also suggests the need for further research on how to encourage faculty to adopt student-centered approaches.</p> <p>However, one area where the ATI may need to be updated in the future is its ability to capture the integration of technology into various approaches to teaching. The chemical education literature is becoming more populated with articles describing how technology is impacting teaching methods in the discipline. While the ATI mentions textbooks as a learning tool, it has not been updated to probe technology like tablets (Morsch and Lewis [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref57">24</reflink>]), smartphones (Bandyopadhyay and Rathod [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref58">4</reflink>]), and social media (Korich [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref59">19</reflink>]). Also, it is unclear how these technologies fit with the key concepts in Trigwell and Prosser's instrument of conceptual change and the transmission of information. While our findings suggest that the ATI could be worthy of greater implementation, our own analysis suggests it is also important that future researchers using the instrument consider if it operates with reliability with different samples and populations.</p> <p>Perhaps most surprising, in relation to our other set of potential explanations, we find no evidence in our study that institutional factors directly affect the outcomes tested, recognizing that some factors examined in this study are native to undergraduate education in the USA and may not be found in other higher educational environments internationally. This is consistent with the findings of Henderson et al. ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref60">17</reflink>]). Despite popular discourse about different learning environments, our findings suggest no difference in past use or intentions about student-centered methods across a variety of institutional contexts. This holds with or without controls for attitudes and approaches to teaching in the analyses. While the role of class size is often thought of as a barrier to the use of student-centered methods (Henderson and Dancy [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref61">15</reflink>]; Walczyk and Ramsey [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref62">42</reflink>]), our results show no effect. This suggests that faculty may not see student-centered methods as limited to small classes and may be open to integrating such methods in diverse classroom settings. Our finding that type of faculty position has no impact on the implementation of student-centered methods agrees with previous work within other fields (Henderson et al. [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref63">17</reflink>]). As tenure-track faculty appear to be as open to student-centered methods as non-tenure track faculty, it appears that the varying expectations placed on graduate-student instructors, associated faculty (lecturers), and tenure-track faculty do not lead to different levels of use for using methods that more actively engage students in their learning. Organizational expectations on the amount of time spent on teaching (or research and service) were not found to be a significant factor in the adoption of these methods, supporting previous studies (Hattie and Marsh [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref64">13</reflink>]). Finally, the particular educational environment was interestingly not found to be a predictor or barrier in student-centered methodological usage. For administrators and others interested in promoting more active learning strategies, this should be welcome news. Despite popular assumptions, those in charge of faculty development do not need to tailor methodology strategies to any particular higher educational structure. Rather, our findings suggest to inspire greater use of teaching methods that encourage student engagement, we should focus on developing strategies that foster positive attitudes toward student-centered teaching and encourage approaches to teaching that promote conceptual change and lessen reliance on those that focus on information transmission.</p> <hd id="AN0153079615-14">Conclusion</hd> <p>Given the reported positive student outcomes associated with specific examples of the use of student-centered methods, there is seemingly incentive for faculty to integrate them into their classes. Our findings suggest that most factors measured in our study directly under institutional control matter little for methods usage. However, this study suggests an important challenge for those responsible for the professional development of educators, specifically within chemistry: find ways to nurture the individual attitudes and approaches associated with the use of more student-centered teaching methods. Our study found that ultimately fostering universal traits like positive attitudes and approaches toward student-centered teaching appear to be necessary first steps into encouraging that behavior and closing the gap between theory and practice. Still, our study also shows traditional lecture continues to be the most popular teaching method employed by chemists. Even as faculty are open to moving toward incorporating multiple student-centered methods, it seems that adoption would most likely take place in addition to the continuing presence of traditional lecture. A transition period within chemical education is perhaps necessary before the majority of chemistry faculty entertain the thought of abandoning traditional lecture for other methods.</p> <hd id="AN0153079615-15">Acknowledgments</hd> <p>The study herein was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at The Ohio State University. We thank Mickey Rogers for assisting in data collection as well as all of the participants for volunteering their time in completing our survey.</p> <hd id="AN0153079615-16">Supporting Information</hd> <p>Correlation Table, Alternative Regression Models Predicting Number of Student-Centered Methods Used; Alternative Regression Models Predicting Number of Student-Centered Methods Intended to Implement</p> <hd id="AN0153079615-17">Funding Information</hd> <p>Funding for this project was provided through the College of Arts & Sciences at The Ohio State University in Columbus.</p> <hd id="AN0153079615-18">Compliance with Ethical Standards</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0153079615-19">Conflict of Interest</hd> <p>The authors declare that they have no competing financial interest.</p> <hd id="AN0153079615-20">Publisher's Note</hd> <p>Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.</p> <ref id="AN0153079615-21"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref1" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Ajzen I, Fishbein M. Attitudinal and normative variables as predictors of specific behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1973; 27: 41-57. 10.1037/h0034440</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref2" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Albanese MA, Mitchell S. Problem-based learning—a review of literature on its outcomes and implementation issues. Academic Medicine. 1993; 68: 52-81. 10.1097/00001888-199301000-00012</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref28" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Allport GWMurchison C. Attitudes. Handbook of social psychology. 1935: Worcester, MA; Clark University Press</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref58" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Bandyopadhyay S, Rathod BB. The sound and feel of titrations: a smartphone aid for color-blind and visually impaired students. Journal of Chemical Education. 2017; 94: 946-949. 10.1021/acs.jchemed.7b00027</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref10" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Basili JC, Sanford PJ. Conceptual change strategies and cooperative group work in chemistry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 1991; 28: 293-304. 10.1002/tea.3660280403</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref13" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Briggs M, Long G, Owens K. Qualitative assessment of inquiry-based teaching methods. Journal of Chemical Education. 2011; 88: 1034-1040. 10.1021/ed100496t</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref51" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Dancy M, Henderson C. Pedagogical practices and instructional change of physics faculty. American Journal of Physics. 2010; 78: 1056-1063. 10.1119/1.3446763</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref8" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Duncan D. Clickers in the classroom: how to enhance science teaching using classroom response systems. 2005: San Francisco, CA; Pearson/Addison Wesley</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref6" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Farrell JJ, Moog RS, Spencer JN. A guided-inquiry general chemistry course. Journal of Chemical Education. 1999; 75: 570-573. 10.1021/ed076p570</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Felder RM, Brent R. Navigating the bumpy road to student-centered instruction. College Teaching. 1996; 44; 2: 43-47. 10.1080/87567555.1996.9933425</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Freeman S, Eddy SL, McDonough M, Smith MK, Okoroafor N, Jordt H, Wenderoth MP. Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2014; 111; 23: 8410-8415. 10.1073/pnas.1319030111</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Handelsman J, Ebert-May D, Beichner R, Bruns P, Chang A, DeHaan R, Gentile J, Lauffer S, Stewart J, Tilghman SM, Wood WB. Scientific teaching. Science. 2004; 304: 521-522. 10.1126/science.1096022</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hattie J, Marsh HW. The relationship between research and teaching—a meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research. 1996; 66: 507-542. 10.3102/00346543066004507</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hein SM. Positive impacts using POGIL in organic chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education. 2012; 89: 860-864. 10.1021/ed100217v</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Henderson C, Dancy MH. Barriers to the use of research-based instructional strategies: the influence of both individual and situational characteristics. Physical Review Special Topics–Physics Education Research. 2007; 3; 020102: 1-14</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Henderson C, Dancy MH. Impact of physics education research on the teaching of introductory quantitative physics in the United States. Physical Review Special Topics–Physics Education Research. 2009; 5; 020107: 1-9</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Henderson C, Dancy MH, Niewiadomska-Bugaj M. Use of research-based instructional strategies in introductory physics: where do faculty leave the innovation-decision process?. Physical Review Special Topics–Physics Education Research. 2012; 8; 020104: 1-15</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jansson S, Soderstrom H, Andersson PL, Nording ML. Implementation of problem-based learning in environmental chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education. 2015; 92: 2080-2086. 10.1021/ed500970y</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Korich AL. Harnessing a mobile social media app to reinforce course content. Journal of Chemical Education. 2016; 93: 1134-1136. 10.1021/acs.jchemed.5b00915</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lage MJ, Platt GJ, Treglia M. Inverting the classroom: a gateway to creating an inclusive learning environment. Journal of Economic Education. 2000; 31: 30-43. 10.1080/00220480009596759</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lom B. Classroom activities: simple strategies to incorporate student-centered activities within undergraduate science lectures. The Journal of Undergraduate Neuroscience Education. 2012; 11: A64-A71</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lorenzo M, Crouch CH, Mazur E. Reducing the gender gap in the physics classroom. American Journal of Physics. 2006; 74: 118-122. 10.1119/1.2162549</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lyman FT Jr. The development of tools. Maryland A.T.E. Journal. 1981; 1: 20-21</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Morsch LA, Lewis M. Engaging organic chemistry students using ChemDraw for iPad. Journal of Chemical Education. 2015; 92: 1402-1405. 10.1021/acs.jchemed.5b00054</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Center for Education Statistics. (2016). College Navigator. <ulink href="http://nces.ed.gov/collegenavigator/">http://nces.ed.gov/collegenavigator/</ulink>. Accessed 16 June 2016.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nichols J, Miller R. Cooperative learning and student motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology. 1994; 19: 167-178. 10.1006/ceps.1994.1015</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Osgood CE, Suci GC, Tannenbaum PM. The measurement of meaning. 1957: Urbana, IL; University of Illinois Press</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Paulson DR. Active learning and cooperative learning in the organic chemistry lecture class. Journal of Chemical Education. 1999; 76: 1136-1140. 10.1021/ed076p1136</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pollock SJ, Finkelstein ND. Sustaining educational reforms in introductory physics. Physical Review Special Topics–Physics Education Research. 2008; 4; 010110: 1-8</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reder M. Does your college really support teaching and learning? peerReview, 9, 9–13. 2007</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ryan MD, Reid SA. Impact of the flipped classroom on student performance and retention: a parallel controlled study in general chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education. 2016; 93: 13-23. 10.1021/acs.jchemed.5b00717</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Seymour E. Tracking the process of change in US undergraduate education in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology. Science Education. 2001; 86: 79-105. 10.1002/sce.1044</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Snyder TD, de Brey C, Dillow SA. Digest of Education Statistics 2014 (NCES 2016–006). 2016: Washington, DC; National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Spencer J. New directions in teaching chemistry: a philosophical and pedagogical basis. Journal of Chemical Education. 1999; 76: 566-569. 10.1021/ed076p566</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stes A, Gijbels D, Van Petegem P. Student-focused approaches to teaching in relation to context and teacher characteristics. Higher Education. 2008; 55: 255-267. 10.1007/s10734-007-9053-9</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Student-Centered Learning. (2014). Retrieved from <ulink href="http://edglossary.org/student-centered-learning/">http://edglossary.org/student-centered-learning/</ulink>. Accessed 10 Dec 2017.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> The Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education. (2016). Indiana University School of Education. <ulink href="http://carnegieclassifications.iu.edu/index.php">http://carnegieclassifications.iu.edu/index.php</ulink>. Accessed 16 June 2016.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Trigwell K. Approaches to teaching design subjects: a quantitative analysis. Art, Design, & Communication in Higher Education. 2002; 1: 69-80. 10.1386/adch.1.2.69</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Trigwell K, Prosser M. Congruence between intention and strategy in university science teachers' approaches to teaching. Higher Education. 1996; 32: 77-87. 10.1007/BF00139219</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Trigwell K, Prosser M. Development and use of the approaches to teaching inventory. Educational Psychology Review. 2004; 16: 409-424. 10.1007/s10648-004-0007-9</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vital F. Creating a positive learning environment with the use of clickers in a high school chemistry classroom. Journal of Chemical Education. 2012; 89: 470-473. 10.1021/ed101160x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Walczyk JJ, Ramsey LL. Use of learner-centered instruction in college science and mathematics classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 2003; 40: 566-584. 10.1002/tea.10098</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Ryan J. Yoder; Donna Bobbitt-Zeher and Vanessa Sawicki</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref62"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref64"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1315499
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Understanding the Use of Student-Centered Teaching Methods in Undergraduate Chemistry Courses
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Yoder%2C+Ryan+J%2E%22">Yoder, Ryan J.</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1204-6650">0000-0002-1204-6650</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Bobbitt-Zeher%2C+Donna%22">Bobbitt-Zeher, Donna</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Sawicki%2C+Vanessa%22">Sawicki, Vanessa</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Research+in+Science+Education%22"><i>Research in Science Education</i></searchLink>. Oct 2021 51(2):845-863.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 19
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2021
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Centered+Learning%22">Student Centered Learning</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teaching+Methods%22">Teaching Methods</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Undergraduate+Study%22">Undergraduate Study</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22College+Science%22">College Science</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Chemistry%22">Chemistry</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Undergraduate+Students%22">Undergraduate Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Attitudes%22">Teacher Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Intention%22">Intention</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Program+Implementation%22">Program Implementation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Institutional+Characteristics%22">Institutional Characteristics</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Predictor+Variables%22">Predictor Variables</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Faculty+Development%22">Faculty Development</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1007/s11165-019-9820-5
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0157-244X
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: A growing body of research suggests that student-centered teaching methods are associated with positive learning outcomes for undergraduate students. Yet, the extent of their use and factors leading to their adoption in fields, such as chemistry, continue to be under-explored. Utilizing survey data collected during 2015, we begin to fill this gap, first by considering the degree to which faculty and instructors use and plan to use various student-centered teaching methods in their undergraduate chemistry courses. Then, we examine three potential factors that may help us understand variation in (1) use of and (2) intentions to implement student-centered methods: attitudes toward teaching methods; teaching approaches; and institutional characteristics. Importantly, our findings suggest attitudes and individual teaching approaches are significant predictors of the use and intention to implement student-centered methods in the classroom. Perhaps surprisingly, several institutional factors examined (such as class size, percentage of time spent teaching, and type of institution) play no significant role. Given the positive student outcomes associated with various student-centered methods reported in literature, these findings suggest potential avenues for faculty and instructors' professional development toward further implementation of these methods.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2021
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1315499
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1315499
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1007/s11165-019-9820-5
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 19
        StartPage: 845
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Student Centered Learning
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teaching Methods
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Undergraduate Study
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: College Science
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Chemistry
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Undergraduate Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Intention
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Program Implementation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Institutional Characteristics
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Predictor Variables
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Faculty Development
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Understanding the Use of Student-Centered Teaching Methods in Undergraduate Chemistry Courses
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Yoder, Ryan J.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Bobbitt-Zeher, Donna
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Sawicki, Vanessa
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 10
              Type: published
              Y: 2021
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0157-244X
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 51
            – Type: issue
              Value: 2
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Research in Science Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1