View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Cumulative Cross Course Exposure to Evidence-Based Teaching Is Related to Increases in STEM Student Buy-In and Intent to Persist

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Cumulative Cross Course Exposure to Evidence-Based Teaching Is Related to Increases in STEM Student Buy-In and Intent to Persist
Language: English
Authors: Reeves, Philip M. (ORCID 0000-0003-2684-604X), Cavanagh, Andrew J., Bauer, Melanie, Wang, Cong, Graham, Mark J.
Source: College Teaching. 2023 71(1):66-74.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 9
Publication Date: 2023
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: Evidence Based Practice, College Instruction, Teaching Methods, STEM Education, Academic Persistence, Academic Achievement, College Students, Outcomes of Education, Learning Strategies, Questionnaires, Teacher Student Relationship, Trust (Psychology)
Assessment and Survey Identifiers: Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire
DOI: 10.1080/87567555.2021.1991261
ISSN: 8756-7555
1930-8299
Abstract: A growing body of evidence had demonstrated that increased student exposure and commitment to evidence-based teaching (EBT) leads to improved academic performance, greater persistence, and higher buy-in to instructional methods. Despite the increasing number of teaching development opportunities available to STEM instructors, which often encourage the use of EBT, implementation is still highly variable across instructors. The frequency with which students are exposed to EBT across multiple courses in a department or university has not been studied in relation to students' success in a given course or their ultimate persistence in STEM. This study shows that there is a cumulative benefit of exposure to EBT across multiple courses. Students who are frequently exposed to EBT also find these practices to be more valuable and report a higher intention to persist in STEM. If students demonstrate higher commitment after multiple EBT exposures, this may increase the likelihood that faculty will incorporate these teaching practices into their courses. The findings are useful for instructors, faculty, department chairs, and administrators who are attempting to support a more unified, evidence-based approach to teaching in their department or institution.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2023
Accession Number: EJ1376850
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwG88TKQSYx42tzFcpt-QzAnAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDA2pSGsIKQ4y5zC1NwIBEICBmwe4ZniUMA9rQiuuSNxYCzADFz4kiWStQrdhc2Uz76LN2_4LhVCUC6bowvOGB7xqfQKE5TT9T4ov2qrFLGKNEg1qTVTDw4cWiJwQbzomnnl5m_1mvQPH7C8uiypEZ8q_BWiY76lwpbeN-TlmATTjMx4EbeuZSb6nZkFlqVYV4q53w99d9Rr5yiPp_-kdnxSVTmx_6WwzUzl_VQFX
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0161545389;cte01jan.23;2023Jan31.00:58;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0161545389-1">Cumulative Cross Course Exposure to Evidence-Based Teaching is Related to Increases in STEM Student Buy-in and Intent to Persist </title> <p>A growing body of evidence had demonstrated that increased student exposure and commitment to evidence-based teaching (EBT) leads to improved academic performance, greater persistence, and higher buy-in to instructional methods. Despite the increasing number of teaching development opportunities available to STEM instructors, which often encourage the use of EBT, implementation is still highly variable across instructors. The frequency with which students are exposed to EBT across multiple courses in a department or university has not been studied in relation to students' success in a given course or their ultimate persistence in STEM. This study shows that there is a cumulative benefit of exposure to EBT across multiple courses. Students who are frequently exposed to EBT also find these practices to be more valuable and report a higher intention to persist in STEM. If students demonstrate higher commitment after multiple EBT exposures, this may increase the likelihood that faculty will incorporate these teaching practices into their courses. The findings are useful for instructors, faculty, department chairs, and administrators who are attempting to support a more unified, evidence-based approach to teaching in their department or institution.</p> <p>Keywords: Buy-in; curriculum; higher education; learning outcomes</p> <hd id="AN0161545389-2">Introduction</hd> <p>The frequency with which students are exposed to evidence-based teaching (EBT) across multiple courses in a department or university has not been studied in relation to student performance or persistence in STEM. Furthermore, there is not much known about how students' buy-in to instructional techniques is influenced when encountered in multiple courses. A majority of studies that investigate instructional techniques either focus on the impact of an intervention within a particular course (e.g. how incorporating clickers improved student engagement; Addison, Wright, and Milner [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref1">1</reflink>]) or contrasts the impact of two different instructional methods (e.g. whether students learn more from lecture-based instruction or in a flipped classroom; Karabulut-Ilgu, Jaramillo Cherrez, and Jahren [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref2">27</reflink>]; Robinson et al. [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref3">37</reflink>]). The lack of focus on the cumulative effect of utilizing EBT practices may be an artifact of the culture of academic freedom that exists at (research focused) institutions of higher education. High levels of faculty independence may make it difficult to institute, endorse, or evaluate a department- or institution-wide teaching philosophy (see Murray [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref4">32</reflink>]).</p> <p>Despite the increasing number of faculty development opportunities available to STEM faculty, which often encourage the use of EBT (see Hill et al. [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref5">24</reflink>]), EBT implementation is still highly variable across courses and instructors (Fairweather and Paulson [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref6">16</reflink>]; Lazerson, Wagner, and Shumanis [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref7">29</reflink>]; Stains et al. [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref8">39</reflink>]). Khanova and colleagues ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref9">28</reflink>]) analyzed qualitative data from 10 flipped classrooms, which were all flipped at the same time in response to an institutional initiative. The authors found variability in how instructors implemented the flipped classroom and gathered feedback to help improve each specific course. More interestingly, the authors found an unintended consequence related to cumulative effect of flipping all the courses at the same time. In each course, the workload increased, which individually was not problematic for students, but when all the courses were flipped simultaneously, the combined effect created an unmanageable workload for students.</p> <p>In another example, Braxton and colleagues ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref10">3</reflink>]) examined the relationship between the prevalence of active learning at an institution with two variables: students' perception of the institutional commitment to their well-being; and students' overall social integration on campus. The authors hypothesized that increasing student interactions during coursework would help students connect with each other and the institution as a whole. The authors surveyed 408 students from eight colleges and universities and found that the prevalence of active learning was positively related to students' perception that the institution was committed to improving their welfare, but not related to students' level of social integration on campus. While both of these studies examined the prevalence of EBT at an institution, neither examined student buy-in, performance, or persistence. As a result, little is known about the cumulative impact of utilizing EBT.</p> <hd id="AN0161545389-3">Potential benefits of consistent utilization of EBT</hd> <p>Prior research has found that in individual courses EBT leads to higher buy-in to instructional methods, improved academic performance, and greater student intent to persist. Each of these outcomes is desirable in STEM fields.</p> <hd id="AN0161545389-4">Buy-in</hd> <p>Prior research indicates that students who "buy in" to the instructional methods used by an instructor experience more positive short-term and long-term outcomes (Brazeal, Brown, and Couch [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref11">4</reflink>]; Carballo, Cotán, and Spinola-Elias [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref12">6</reflink>]; Wang et al. [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref13">41</reflink>]). The process of increasing college student commitment, or buy-in, has often been approached and defined informally by faculty and departments. A more standard definition in the college STEM education literature is emerging that may allow faculty to more directly measure buy-in and determine how buy-in evolves as students progress through the curriculum. The E.P.I.C. framework of student buy-in consists of: a) Exposure to a teaching practice; b) Persuasion that the practice is beneficial to their learning c) Identification that the practice will benefit their learning and, d) Commitment (i.e., desire) to engage in this way of learning (Cavanagh et al. [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref14">8</reflink>]). Preliminary work on measuring buy-in with this framework has found that students with stronger buy-in had higher levels of course engagement and academic performance, as measured by grades (Cavanagh et al. [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref15">8</reflink>]). In a follow up analysis, trust in their instructor and students' growth mindset were both significantly related to buy-in as well (Cavanagh et al. [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref16">9</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0161545389-5">Persistence</hd> <p>According to the theoretical framework of STEM learning and retention, psychological outcomes (e.g. increased motivation or self-efficacy), and perceived career options reinforce each other (Graham et al. [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref17">19</reflink>]). Historically, students have reported leaving STEM majors because the traditional (i.e. lecture-based) pedagogical methods left them feeling isolated and like they did not belong (Seymour and Hewitt [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref18">38</reflink>]). However, utilizing active learning and other EBT provides authentic and engaging learning experiences that increase the likelihood of students staying in a science major (Auchincloss et al. [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref19">2</reflink>]; Corwin, Graham, and Dolan [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref20">11</reflink>]; Hanauer et al. [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref21">21</reflink>]). While unstudied, it stands to reason that the more EBT that students are exposed to at an institution, the more likely they will intend to persist.</p> <hd id="AN0161545389-6">The current research</hd> <p>The cumulative impact of using certain instructional methods has been understudied and could have important consequences for student outcomes. The present study addresses the following research question: How does the prevalence of EBT at an institution impact buy-in, performance, and intent to persist in STEM? The study contributes to the existing literature on STEM education in several ways. First, a large student sample was collected from multiple science courses and institutions. This is notable because most studies that focus on EBT only collect small student samples within a single course (e.g., Addison, Wright, and Milner [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref22">1</reflink>]; Cavanagh et al. [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref23">8</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref24">9</reflink>]; Robinson et al. [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref25">37</reflink>]). The results from this study provide a wider view into teaching practices used in STEM courses. Second, this study looks at the cumulative benefit of exposure to EBT in multiple courses. The results may be useful for instructors, faculty, department chairs, and administrators who are attempting to support a more unified approach to teaching in their department or institution.</p> <hd id="AN0161545389-7">Materials and methods</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0161545389-8">Context</hd> <p>The participants for the current study are the students from a sample of faculty members trained at the Summer Institutes for Scientific Teaching. The Summer Institutes (hereafter, SI) is a national science faculty development program which has been in existence since 2004. Over 1,700 college science faculty and instructors from over 350 institutions have participated in this 4 to 5 day intensive training. Attendees learn how to utilize evidence-based teaching practices, such as active learning, inclusive teaching, and formative assessment (Handelsman, Miller, and Pfund [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref26">22</reflink>]; Pfund et al. [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref27">34</reflink>]). The SI focuses on these three EBT practices because research on their utilization has consistently found positive effects on student outcomes such as grades and persistence in STEM, especially if students buy in to their implementation (Cauley and McMillan [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref28">7</reflink>]; Cizek [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref29">10</reflink>]; De Grandi et al. [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref30">13</reflink>]; Freeman et al. [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref31">18</reflink>]; Okpodu and Maclin [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref32">33</reflink>]). Starting in 2020, the SI is now officially named the National Institutes on Scientific Teaching (see <ulink href="http://www.nisthub.org">www.nisthub.org</ulink>).</p> <hd id="AN0161545389-9">Participants</hd> <p>Data was gathered from the students of 50 SI-trained instructors at 45 different institutions of higher education during spring 2017. The current study's survey items were part of a larger ongoing study at that time. There were 3,142 students who responded to the survey (64.2% response rate). This project was granted exempt status from the Yale University IRB Human Subjects Committee, as it examined standard educational practices. IRBs at other participating institutions were also engaged to follow their institutional human subjects research guidelines.</p> <hd id="AN0161545389-10">Measures</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0161545389-11">Performance</hd> <p>Students' final course grade was used as the performance outcome. Grades were provided by each instructor, then normalized to a 4.0 scale score in the following manner: A+/A = 4.0, A- = 3.7, B+ = 3.4, B = 3.0, B- = 2.7, C+ = 2.4, C = 2.0, C- = 1.7, D+ = 1.4, D = 1.0, D- = 0.7, F/W = 0.0.</p> <hd id="AN0161545389-12">Science persistence</hd> <p>Students' intention to persist in science was assessed using three Likert scale items (Hanauer, Graham, and Hatfull [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref33">20</reflink>]). The five-point scale ranged from 0 "Strongly Disagree" to 4 "Strongly Agree" with higher scores indicating greater intent to persist in science. Internal reliability of the science persistence variable was acceptable in this study (α =.74). The summed score of the three items was divided by the number of items during analysis to enhance interpretability.</p> <hd id="AN0161545389-13">Prevalence</hd> <p>Students' were asked to indicate if 28 specific EBT practices were utilized in the target course taught by SI-trained faculty members (coded as "this"), in another course that they had taken or were enrolled in (coded as "other"), or neither the target course nor other courses (coded as "none"). If each teaching practice occurred both in the target course and another course, they were recoded as both.</p> <hd id="AN0161545389-14">Buy-in</hd> <p>Using the E.P.I.C. framework (Cavanagh et al. [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref34">9</reflink>]), students indicated ("Yes" or "No") whether each of the 28 EBT practices that they were exposed to was beneficial (Persuasion), whether they liked each practice (Identification), and whether they would like to engage in each practice in future courses (Commitment). A summative buy-in score was calculated by adding the number of affirmative responses toward the Persuasion, Identification, and Commitment items. Scores for the student sample ranged from 0 to 84. The 28 EBT practices were demonstrated good reliability (P, α =.92; I, α =.90; C, α =.93). The questions focused on activities related to active learning, inclusive teaching, and formative assessment.</p> <hd id="AN0161545389-15">Growth mindset</hd> <p>Students' level of growth mindset was assessed using 3 Likert-scale items (Dweck, Chiu, and Hong [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref35">14</reflink>]). The six-point scale ranged from 1 ("Strongly Disagree") to 6 ("Strongly Agree") with higher scores indicating a greater degree of growth mindset. The measure showed satisfactory reliability (α =.93).</p> <hd id="AN0161545389-16">Trust</hd> <p>Students' levels of trust in their instructor were assessed using 9 Likert-scale items (Cavanagh et al. [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref36">9</reflink>]). The five-point scale ranged 1 "Strongly Disagree" to 5 "Strongly Agree" with higher scores indicating a greater degree of trust. The measure showed satisfactory reliability (α =.73).</p> <hd id="AN0161545389-17">Engagement</hd> <p>Students' rated their engagement in self-regulated learning behaviors on a series of 29 learning behaviors measured via a subset of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ; Pintrich et al. [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref37">35</reflink>]). The seven-point Likert scaling ranged from 1 "Not at all true of me" to 7 "Very true of me" with higher scores indicating more substantial engagement. Five MSLQ subscales were included: Elaboration (6 items; α =.75); Organization (4 items; α =.60); Critical Thinking (5 items; α =.54); Metacognitive Self-Regulation (12 items; α =.71); and Time and Study Environment Management (8 items; α =.67). All subscales showed satisfactory reliability.</p> <hd id="AN0161545389-18">Analysis</hd> <p>Survey data (n = 3,142) was gathered from students of the Summer Institutes on Scientific Teaching (SI) trained instructors at 45 different institutions of higher education. From the raw survey data, a two-step cluster analysis, with log-likelihood distance measures and Schwharz's Bayesian Clustering Criterion (BIC) was conducted to group students based on their level of perceived exposure to scientific teaching practices at their institution. The summed value from each of the four prevalence subscales was entered as a continuous variable. These values indicate the number of EBT practices that each student was exposed to in each environmental category (no exposure, only occurred in other classes, only occurred in the target class, or occurred in both the target class and other classes). The model identified four clusters with a good fit. The four clusters distinguished students into groups that correspond to the environment in which they received the most EBT: labeled as receiving it most "in the target/this course," "in another/other course," "in both courses," or "in no courses/none". Descriptive statistics of each of the cluster groups is included in Table 1.</p> <p>Table 1. Exposure of evidence-based teaching by cluster of exposure.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td /><td>N</td><td>Min</td><td>Max</td><td>Mean</td><td>SD</td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Both</td><td char=".">1352</td><td char=".">14</td><td char=".">28</td><td char=".">21.43</td><td char=".">3.50</td></tr><tr><td>This</td><td char=".">824</td><td char=".">12</td><td char=".">28</td><td char=".">22.17</td><td char=".">4.14</td></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td char=".">799</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">19</td><td char=".">11.84</td><td char=".">3.19</td></tr><tr><td>None</td><td char=".">357</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">23</td><td char=".">12.23</td><td char=".">4.34</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Univariate generalized linear modeling (GLM) was used to examine mean differences between the clusters while controlling for other related variables like trust, engagement, and growth mindset. A unique model was conducted for each of the following dependent variables: buy-in, performance, and intent to persist in STEM. The control variables were included because prior research has indicated their strong relationship to each of the dependent variables (e.g., Cavanagh et al. [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref38">8</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref39">9</reflink>]). It is important to note that trust and engagement scales defined behavior within the context of the specific classroom that was surveyed (i.e., relationship with the instructor), so they were not expected to differ based on the departmental or institutional teaching practices (Figure 1 and Table 2).</p> <p>Graph: Figure 1. Outcomes by cluster of exposure.</p> <p>Table 2. Outcomes by cluster of exposure.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td /><td>Buy-in</td><td>Performance</td><td>Persistence</td></tr><tr><td /><td>N</td><td>Mean</td><td>SD</td><td>N</td><td>Mean</td><td>SD</td><td>N</td><td>Mean</td><td>SD</td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>None</td><td char=".">270</td><td char=".">20.93</td><td char=".">11.94</td><td char=".">348</td><td char=".">2.95</td><td char=".">0.88</td><td char=".">359</td><td char=".">2.8</td><td char=".">0.87</td></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td char=".">651</td><td char=".">23.46</td><td char=".">10.05</td><td char=".">784</td><td char=".">2.88</td><td char=".">0.96</td><td char=".">811</td><td char=".">2.99</td><td char=".">0.74</td></tr><tr><td>This</td><td char=".">550</td><td char=".">36.45</td><td char=".">17.18</td><td char=".">772</td><td char=".">3.12</td><td char=".">0.88</td><td char=".">815</td><td char=".">3.05</td><td char=".">0.84</td></tr><tr><td>Both</td><td char=".">1221</td><td char=".">45.77</td><td char=".">16.39</td><td char=".">1289</td><td char=".">3.15</td><td char=".">0.87</td><td char=".">1344</td><td char=".">3.15</td><td char=".">0.79</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0161545389-19">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0161545389-20">Buy-in</hd> <p>Students who were exposed to scientific teaching in both the current course and other courses had significantly higher buy-in scores compared to students in the alternative conditions (none, this, other). Students who were exposed to scientific teaching only in the current course also had significantly higher buy-in scores compared to students who were only exposed in other courses or had no exposure. There were no significant differences on buy-in scores between students who only encountered these teaching practices in other courses and students who never encountered these teaching practices.</p> <p>We found these results by conducting the following statistical analyses. When controlling for co-variates (trust: f(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref40">1</reflink>, 2685) = 156.66, p <.001, Cohen's d = 0.48; engagement f(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref41">1</reflink>, 2685) = 76.85, p <.001, Cohen's d = 0.34; and growth mindset: f(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref42">1</reflink>, 2685) = 36.89, p <.001, Cohen's d = 0.24), the GLM model (f(<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref43">3</reflink>, 2685) = 306.06, p <.001, Cohen's d = 1.17, R2 =.39) and the follow up one-way ANOVA with Welch's F (Levene's f(<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref44">3</reflink>, 2688) = 84.63, p<.001; Welch's f(<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref45">3</reflink>, 987.079) = 532.89, p <.001), we found statistically significant mean differences on buy-in score based on level of exposure to scientific teaching practices. Bonferroni Post Hoc Pairwise Comparisons were conducted to determine which pairs of conditions differed significantly from each other.</p> <hd id="AN0161545389-21">Performance</hd> <p>Students who encountered scientific teaching practices in both types of courses had significantly higher performance when compared to students in two of the three alternative conditions (other and none). Similarly, those who encountered scientific teaching practices only in the current class had significantly higher performance scores when compared to students in two of the three alternative conditions (other and none). However, there were no statistically significant differences when comparing students who were only exposed in the current class and those who received reinforcement in both types of courses.</p> <p>We found these results by conducting the following analyses. While controlling for co-variates (trust: f(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref46">1</reflink>, 3186) = 52.89, p <.001, Cohen's d = 0.26; engagement f(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref47">1</reflink>, 3188) = 11.11, p =.001, Cohen's d = 0.11; and growth mindset f(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref48">1</reflink>, 3322) = 7.91, p =.005, Cohen's d = 0.09), the GLM model (f(<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref49">3</reflink>, 3186) = 5.74, p =.001, Cohen's d =.14, R2 =.04) and the follow up one-way ANOVA with Welch's F (Levene's f(<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref50">3</reflink>, 3189) = 2.91, p =.033; Welch's f(<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref51">3</reflink>, 1243.78) = 17.01, p <.001) found statistically significant mean differences based on level of exposure to scientific teaching practices. Bonferroni Post Hoc Pairwise Comparisons were conducted to determine which pairs of clusters differed significantly from each other.</p> <hd id="AN0161545389-22">Persistence</hd> <p>Students who were exposed to scientific teaching in both the current course and other courses had significantly higher persistence scores compared to students in two of the three alternative conditions (none and this). Students who were exposed to scientific teaching only in the current course had significantly higher persistence scores compared to students who only encountered those teaching practices in other courses. Students who were exposed to scientific teaching only in other courses had significantly higher persistence scores compared to students who did not encounter the teaching practices in any course.</p> <p>We found these results by conducting the following analyses. While controlling for co-variates, (trust: f(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref52">1</reflink>, 3322) = 101.78, p <.001, Cohen's d = 0.35; engagement f(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref53">1</reflink>, 3322) = 190.22, p <.001, Cohen's d = 0.48; and growth mindset: f(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref54">1</reflink>, 3322) = 7.26, p =.007, Cohen's d = 0.09), the GLM model (f(<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref55">3</reflink>, 3322) = 7.17, p <.001, Cohen's d = 0.16, R2 =.12) and the follow-up one-way ANOVA using Welch's F (Levene's f(<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref56">3</reflink>, 3325) = 4.86, p =.002; Welch's f(<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref57">3</reflink>, 1268.88) = 19.73, p <.001), we found statistically significant mean differences in persistence scores between groups based on level of exposure to scientific teaching practices. Bonferroni Post Hoc Pairwise Comparisons were conducted to determine which pairs of clusters differed significantly from each other.</p> <hd id="AN0161545389-23">Discussion</hd> <p>The results indicated that there is a cumulative effect for buy-in and persistence: students who engaged in EBT in both the target course and other courses (the largest EBT exposure category assessed in the current study) displayed higher scores on each of these student outcome measures when compared to students in all the other levels of EBT exposure. Results generally indicate that increasing exposure to EBT across multiple courses could lead to improved student outcomes. Given the strong research evidence supporting the use of EBT within individual courses (Cauley and McMillan [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref58">7</reflink>]; Cizek [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref59">10</reflink>]; Estrada et al. [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref60">15</reflink>]; Freeman et al. [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref61">18</reflink>]; Lopatto [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref62">30</reflink>]; Okpodu and Maclin [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref63">33</reflink>]; Vos and de Graaff [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref64">40</reflink>]), these results may be expected. This study does provide insight into the positive impact of including EBT in multiple courses, and this finding may provide department chairs or faculty developers with additional leverage when advocating for a more widespread implementation of EBT practices.</p> <p>The impact of cumulative exposure to EBT on student buy-in is a particularly interesting result. Previous research has found buy-in to be a significant predictor of engagement, student performance, and persistence (Cavanagh et al. [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref65">8</reflink>]). Despite these benefits, faculty may hesitate to implement EBT due to the perception that students may prefer lectures or other forms of passive learning (Herreid and Schiller [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref66">23</reflink>]; Michael [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref67">31</reflink>]). This finding suggests that students who are frequently exposed to EBT also find it to be more valuable, which may reduce some faculty apprehension about incorporating it into their courses. Furthermore, the utilization of more EBT across multiple courses could potentially create a recursive feedback loop where utilization leads to buy-in, which increases engagement, and makes EBT seem easier to implement. In order to test the existence of this feedback loop, additional research would need to be conducted to examine exactly how faculty and students' attitudes toward EBT change as they become more prevalent in their department and institution.</p> <p>The results also reveal that students who were only exposed to EBT in the target course – where the instructor had attended the Summer Institutes on Scientific Teaching – had more positive performance and buy-in outcomes when compared to students who were only exposed to EBT in other courses. This suggests that the training provided in the SI pedagogical training program had a particularly positive impact on the effectiveness of EBT implementation in the SI-trained faculty members' courses, and provides some evidence that high-quality faculty development initiatives are beneficial to both faculty and students. Therefore, faculty should be encouraged to participate in similar established, comprehensive training programs to improve their teaching and effectively implement EBT into their courses. There was still a small benefit for students whose instructors incorporated EBT but who were not trained in the SI, as students who were only exposed to EBT in other courses reported higher persistence when compared to students who were not exposed to EBT in any course. Future research should examine how participation in established faculty development initiatives by multiple faculty from the same department affects student outcomes and institutional teaching culture.</p> <p>Unexpectedly, the study found no cumulative effect of experiencing EBT on academic performance. Course grade was used as an indicator of academic performance in this study, but may be a weak indicator because many components including knowledge, effort, attendance, and participation were likely not all represented (or represented to varying extents) in course grades across the studied courses (Cross and Frary [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref68">12</reflink>]; Randall and Engelhard [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref69">36</reflink>]; Willingham, Pollack, and Lewis [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref70">42</reflink>]). Across multiple instructors the weight attributed to each of these components typically differs and institutions often have different grading norms (i.e. grade inflation; see Jewell, McPherson, and Tieslau [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref71">26</reflink>]). Furthermore, classes that incorporate more active learning activities also apply different weights to various graded assignments (i.e. graded homework, lab, participation, and presentation make up a larger portion of the final grade; Faust and Paulson [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref72">17</reflink>]). A more objective measure such as a concept inventory or standardized assessment would be a better indicator of knowledge gains. Still, we expected that the familiarity associated with more exposure to EBT across multiple courses would have made students more comfortable, engaged, and perform better than students who had less exposure. Subsequent research should attempt to measure the number of courses that use EBT, the frequency of EBT use within each course, and the specific EBT practices being used in order to further understand how EBT impacts performance, as measured by an objective and/or multi-faceted assessment.</p> <hd id="AN0161545389-24">Limitations and conclusion</hd> <p>The study has several limitations. All variables, except for performance, were self-reported by students. Established scales were used, but it is possible that responses did not represent actual behavior or attitudes. Second, students reported whether or not they were exposed to various teaching practices in different settings, but they may not have been able to accurately identify or recall all instances that these teaching practices were implemented. Monitoring of these classrooms conducted by a trained observer would be needed to identify the accuracy of student data. Third, the study does not fully investigate the frequency that each teaching practice occurred within a course or the number of courses in which each teaching practice occurred in a department or institution. Examining frequency within and across courses may allow for more complete assessment of the impact of cumulative EBT exposure on student outcomes. Fourth, the data collection instruments did not require participants to indicate if their exposure in other classes was concurrent with the target class; therefore, the exposure could have predated the target class. A look at all of a student's classes within a given semester may be a better representation of the state of EBT at a department or institution, and likely allow for more accurate student recall of their other classes.</p> <p>Due to the nature of the data that was collected, the results cannot provide guidelines that indicate the most beneficial amount of exposure to EBT or the ideal level of exposure during any given semester. Given the challenges associated with effectively implementing some EBT practices (Brownell and Tanner [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref73">5</reflink>]; Herreid and Schiller [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref74">23</reflink>]; Hora [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref75">25</reflink>]; Michael [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref76">31</reflink>]), determining a minimum threshold of exposure and possibly the level of exposure that produces diminishing returns would be helpful when coordinating efforts across courses. Nevertheless, the current study provides initial evidence that exposure to EBT practices across multiple courses can produce cumulative benefits.</p> <hd id="AN0161545389-25">Disclosure statement</hd> <p>No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.</p> <hd id="AN0161545389-26">Availability of data and materials</hd> <p>The datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are not publicly available due to consent and confidentiality arrangements but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.</p> <hd id="AN0161545389-27">List of abbreviations:</hd> <p></p> <p>• BIC</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Schwharz's Bayesian Clustering Criterion</item> <p></p> </ulist> <p>• EBT</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Evidence-based teaching</item> <p></p> </ulist> <p>• E.P.I.C</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Exposure-Persuasion-Identification-Commitment framework (Cavanagh, et al. [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref77">8</reflink>])</item> <p></p> </ulist> <p>• GLM</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Univariate generalized linear modeling</item> <p></p> </ulist> <p>• MSLQ</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (Pintrich et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref78">34</reflink>])</item> <p></p> </ulist> <p>• SI</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Summer Institutes on Scientific Teaching (see http://www.summerinstitutes.org)</item> </ulist> <ref id="AN0161545389-28"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref1" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Addison, S., A. Wright, and R. Milner. 2009. " Using Clickers to Improve Student Engagement and Performance in an Introductory Biochemistry Class." Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education 37 (2): 84 – 91. doi: 10.1002/bmb.20264.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref19" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Auchincloss, L. C., S. L. Laursen, J. Branchaw, K. Eagan, M. Graham, D. I. Hanauer, G. Lawrie, C. M. McLinn, N. Pelaez, S. Rowland, et al. 2014. " Assessment of Course-Based Undergraduate Research Experiences: A Meeting Report." CBE Life Sciences Education 13 (1): 29 – 40. doi: 10.1187/cbe.14-01-0004.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref10" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Braxton, J. M., W. A. Jones, A. S. Hirschy, and H. V. Hartley Iii. 2008. " The Role of Active Learning in College Student Persistence." New Directions for Teaching and Learning 2008 (115): 71 – 83. doi: 10.1002/tl.326.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref11" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Brazeal, K. R., T. L. Brown, and B. A. Couch. 2016. " Characterizing Student Perceptions of and Buy-in toward Common Formative Assessment Techniques." CBE—Life Sciences Education 15 (4): ar73. doi: 10.1187/cbe.16-03-0133.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref73" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Brownell, S. E., K. D. Tanner. 2012. " Barriers to Faculty Pedagogical Change: Lack of Training, Time, Incentives, and ... Tensions with Professional Identity? " CBE—Life Sciences Education 11 (4): 339 – 46. doi: 10.1187/cbe.12-09-0163.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref12" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Carballo, R., A. Cotán, and Y. Spinola-Elias. 2021. " An Inclusive Pedagogy in Arts and Humanities University Classrooms: What Faculty Members Do." Arts and Humanities in Higher Education 20 (1):21–41. doi: 10.1177/1474022219884281.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref28" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Cauley, K. M., and J. H. McMillan. 2010. " Formative Assessment Techniques to Support Student Motivation and Achievement." The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas 83 (1): 1 – 6. doi: 10.1080/00098650903267784.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref14" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Cavanagh, A. J., O. R. Aragón, X. Chen, B. A. Couch, M. F. Durham, A. Bobrownicki, D. I. Hanauer, and M. J. Graham. 2016. " Student Buy-in to Active Learning in a College Science Course." CBE—Life Sciences Education 15 (4): ar76. doi: 10.1187/cbe.16-07-0212.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref16" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Cavanagh, A. J., X. Chen, M. Bathgate, J. Frederick, D. I. Hanauer, and M. J. Graham. 2018. " Trust, Growth Mindset, and Student Commitment to Active Learning in a College Science Course." CBE—Life Sciences Education 17 (1): ar10. doi: 10.1187/cbe.17-06-0107.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cizek, G. J., 2010. " An Introduction to Formative Assessment: History, Characteristics, and Challenges." In Handbook of Formative Assessment, edited by H. Andrade, and G. J. Cizek, 15 – 29. New York, NY: Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Corwin, L. A., M. J. Graham, and E. L. Dolan. 2015. " Modeling Course-Based Undergraduate Research Experiences: An Agenda for Future Research and Evaluation." CBE Life Sciences Education 14 (1): es1.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cross, L. H., and R. B. Frary. 1999. " Hodgepodge Grading: Endorsed by Students and Teachers Alike." Applied Measurement in Education 12 (1): 53 – 72. doi: 10.1207/s15324818ame1201_4.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> De Grandi, C., Z. B. Smithline, P. M. Reeves, L. G. Goetz, N. Barbour, E. Hairston, ... S. G. J. Mochrie. 2021. " STEM Climate Survey Developed through Student–Faculty Collaboration." Teaching in Higher Education 26 (1): 65 – 80. doi: 10.1080/13562517.2019.1636219.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dweck, C. S., C. Chiu, and Y. Hong. 1995. " Implicit Theories: elaboration and Extension of the Model." Psychological Inquiry 6 (4): 322 – 33. doi: 10.1207/s15327965pli0604_12.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Estrada, M., M. Burnett, A. G. Campbell, P. B. Campbell, W. F. Denetclaw, C. G. Gutiérrez, S. Hurtado, G. H. John, J. Matsui, R. McGee, et al. 2016. " Improving Underrepresented Minority Student Persistence in STEM." CBE—Life Sciences Education 15 (3): es5. doi: 10.1187/cbe.16-01-0038.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fairweather, J. S., and K. Paulson. 2008. " The Evolution of Scientific Fields in American Universities: Disciplinary Differences, Institutional Isomorphism." In Cultural Perspectives in Higher Education, edited by J. Valimaa and O. Yijoki, 197 – 212. Dordrecht : Springer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Faust, J. L., and D. R. Paulson. 1998. " Active Learning in the College Classroom." Journal on Excellence in College Teaching 9 (2): 3 – 24.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Freeman, S., S. L. Eddy, M. McDonough, M. K. Smith, N. Okoroafor, H. Jordt, and M. P. Wenderoth. 2014. " Active Learning Increases Student Performance in Science, Engineering, and Mathematics." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111 (23): 8410 – 5. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1319030111.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Graham, M. J., J. Frederick, A. Byars-Winston, A. B. Hunter, and J. Handelsman. 2013. " Increasing Persistence of College Students in STEM." Science (New York, NY) 341 (6153) : 1455 – 6.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hanauer, D. I., M. J. Graham, and G. F. Hatfull. 2016. " A Measure of College Student Persistence in the Sciences (PITS)." CBE—Life Sciences Education 15 (4): ar54. doi: 10.1187/cbe.15-09-0185.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hanauer, D. I., D. Jacobs-Sera, M. L. Pedulla, S. G. Cresawn, R. W. Hendrix, and G. F. Hatfull. 2006. "Inquiry Learning. Teaching Scientific Inquiry." Science (New York, NY) 314 (5807): 1880 – 1. doi: 10.1126/science.1136796.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Handelsman, J., S. Miller, and C. Pfund. 2007. Scientific Teaching. New York : W.H. Freeman.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Herreid, C. F., and N. A. Schiller. 2013. " Case Studies and the Flipped Classroom." Journal of College Science Teaching 42 (5): 62 – 6.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hill, L. B., J. N. Savoy, A. E. Austin, and B. Bantawa. 2019. " The Impact of Multi-Institutional STEM Reform Networks on Member Institutions: A Case Study of CIRTL." Innovative Higher Education 44 (3): 187 – 202. doi: 10.1007/s10755-019-9461-7.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hora, M. T. 2012. " Organizational Factors and Instructional Decision-Making: A Cognitive Perspective." The Review of Higher Education 35 (2): 207 – 35. doi: 10.1353/rhe.2012.0001.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jewell, R. T., M. A. McPherson, and M. A. Tieslau. 2013. " Whose Fault is It? Assigning Blame for Grade Inflation in Higher Education." Applied Economics 45 (9): 1185 – 200. doi: 10.1080/00036846.2011.621884.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Karabulut-Ilgu, A., N. Jaramillo Cherrez, and C. T. Jahren. 2018. " A Systematic Review of Research on the Flipped Learning Method in Engineering Education." British Journal of Educational Technology 49 (3): 398 – 411. doi: 10.1111/bjet.12548.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Khanova, J., M. T. Roth, J. E. Rodgers, and J. E. McLaughlin. 2015. " Student Experiences across Multiple Flipped Courses in a Single Curriculum." Medical Education 49 (10): 1038 – 48. doi: 10.1111/medu.12807.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lazerson, M., U. Wagner, and N. Shumanis. 2000. " What Makes a Revolution? Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 1980-2000." Change 32 (3): 13 – 9.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lopatto, D. 2007. " Undergraduate Research Experiences Support Science Career Decisions and Active Learning." CBE Life Sciences Education 6 (4): 297 – 306. doi: 10.1187/cbe.07-06-0039.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Michael, J. 2007. " Faculty Perceptions about Barriers to Active Learning." College Teaching 55 (2): 42 – 7. doi: 10.3200/CTCH.55.2.42-47.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Murray, J. P. 1995. " The Teaching Portfolio: A Tool for Department Chairpersons to Create a Climate of Teaching Excellence." Innovative Higher Education 19 (3): 163 – 75. doi: 10.1007/BF01191217.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Okpodu, C. M., and A. P. Maclin. 2016. " Assessing the Effects of STEM Enrichment Programs on HBCU Students." In Advancing Educational Outcomes in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics at Historically Black Colleges and Universities, edited by L. A. Flowers, L. A. Flowers, and J. L. Moore III, 51 – 62. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pfund, C., S. Miller, K. Brenner, P. Bruns, A. Chang, D. Ebert-May, A. P. Fagen, J. Gentile, S. Gossens, I. M. Khan, et al. 2009. " Summer Institute to Improve University Science Teaching." Science (New York, NY) 324 (5926): 470 – 1.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pintrich, P. R., D. A. Smith, T. Garcia, and W. J. McKeachie. 1993. " Reliability and Predictive Validity of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ)." Educational and Psychological Measurement 53 (3): 801 – 13. [Database] doi: 10.1177/0013164493053003024.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Randall, J., and G. Engelhard. 2010. " Examining the Grading Practices of Teachers." Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (7): 1372 – 80. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2010.03.008.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Robinson, F. J., P. M. Reeves, H. L. Caines, and C. De Grandi. 2020. " Using Open-Source Videos to Flip a First-Year College Physics Class." Journal of Science Education and Technology 29 (2): 283 – 93. doi: 10.1007/s10956-020-09814-y.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Seymour, E., and N. M. Hewitt. 1997. Talking about Leaving, 134. Boulder, CO : Westview Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stains, M., J. Harshman, M. K. Barker, S. V. Chasteen, R. Cole, S. E. DeChenne-Peters, M. K. Eagan, J. M. Esson, J. K. Knight, F. A. Laski, et al. 2018. " Anatomy of STEM Teaching in North American Universities." Science (New York, NY) 359 (6383): 1468 – 70.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vos, H., and E. de Graaff. 2004. " Developing Metacognition: A Basis for Active Learning." European Journal of Engineering Education 29 (4): 543 – 8. doi: 10.1080/03043790410001716257.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wang, C., A. J. Cavanagh, M. Bauer, P. M. Reeves, J. C. Gill, X. Chen, D. I. Hanauer, and M. J. Graham. 2021. " A Framework of College Student Buy-in to Evidence-Based Teaching Practices in STEM: The Roles of Trust and Growth Mindset." CBE Life Sciences Education 20 (4): ar54.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Willingham, W. W., J. M. Pollack, and C. Lewis. 2002. " Grades and Test Scores: Accounting for Observed Differences." Journal of Educational Measurement 39 (1): 1 – 37. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3984.2002.tb01133.x.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Philip M. Reeves; Andrew J. Cavanagh; Melanie Bauer; Cong Wang and Mark J. Graham</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref62"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref64"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref68"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref69"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref70"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref72"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref75"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1376850
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Cumulative Cross Course Exposure to Evidence-Based Teaching Is Related to Increases in STEM Student Buy-In and Intent to Persist
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Reeves%2C+Philip+M%2E%22">Reeves, Philip M.</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2684-604X">0000-0003-2684-604X</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Cavanagh%2C+Andrew+J%2E%22">Cavanagh, Andrew J.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Bauer%2C+Melanie%22">Bauer, Melanie</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Wang%2C+Cong%22">Wang, Cong</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Graham%2C+Mark+J%2E%22">Graham, Mark J.</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22College+Teaching%22"><i>College Teaching</i></searchLink>. 2023 71(1):66-74.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 9
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2023
– 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="%22Evidence+Based+Practice%22">Evidence Based Practice</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22College+Instruction%22">College Instruction</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teaching+Methods%22">Teaching Methods</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22STEM+Education%22">STEM Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Academic+Persistence%22">Academic Persistence</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Academic+Achievement%22">Academic Achievement</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22College+Students%22">College Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Outcomes+of+Education%22">Outcomes of Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Learning+Strategies%22">Learning Strategies</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Questionnaires%22">Questionnaires</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Student+Relationship%22">Teacher Student Relationship</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Trust+%28Psychology%29%22">Trust (Psychology)</searchLink>
– Name: SubjectThesaurus
  Label: Assessment and Survey Identifiers
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SU" term="%22Motivated+Strategies+for+Learning+Questionnaire%22">Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/87567555.2021.1991261
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 8756-7555<br />1930-8299
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: A growing body of evidence had demonstrated that increased student exposure and commitment to evidence-based teaching (EBT) leads to improved academic performance, greater persistence, and higher buy-in to instructional methods. Despite the increasing number of teaching development opportunities available to STEM instructors, which often encourage the use of EBT, implementation is still highly variable across instructors. The frequency with which students are exposed to EBT across multiple courses in a department or university has not been studied in relation to students' success in a given course or their ultimate persistence in STEM. This study shows that there is a cumulative benefit of exposure to EBT across multiple courses. Students who are frequently exposed to EBT also find these practices to be more valuable and report a higher intention to persist in STEM. If students demonstrate higher commitment after multiple EBT exposures, this may increase the likelihood that faculty will incorporate these teaching practices into their courses. The findings are useful for instructors, faculty, department chairs, and administrators who are attempting to support a more unified, evidence-based approach to teaching in their department or institution.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2023
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1376850
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1376850
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/87567555.2021.1991261
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 9
        StartPage: 66
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Evidence Based Practice
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: College Instruction
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teaching Methods
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: STEM Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Academic Persistence
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Academic Achievement
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: College Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Outcomes of Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Learning Strategies
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Questionnaires
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Student Relationship
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Trust (Psychology)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Cumulative Cross Course Exposure to Evidence-Based Teaching Is Related to Increases in STEM Student Buy-In and Intent to Persist
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Reeves, Philip M.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Cavanagh, Andrew J.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Bauer, Melanie
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Wang, Cong
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Graham, Mark J.
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2023
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 8756-7555
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1930-8299
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 71
            – Type: issue
              Value: 1
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: College Teaching
              Type: main
ResultId 1