Use of a Professional Development Course to Promote Student-Centered Teaching in Large STEM Courses
Saved in:
| Title: | Use of a Professional Development Course to Promote Student-Centered Teaching in Large STEM Courses |
|---|---|
| Language: | English |
| Authors: | Wesley Shumar, Jason Silverman, Alison E. Moyer, Meredith Casino, Brett Condon, Donna Murasko, Daniel King (ORCID |
| Source: | College Teaching. 2025 73(3):145-159. |
| 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: | 15 |
| Publication Date: | 2025 |
| Document Type: | Journal Articles Reports - Research |
| Education Level: | Higher Education Postsecondary Education |
| Descriptors: | STEM Education, Large Group Instruction, Faculty Development, Student Centered Learning, College Faculty, Science Instruction, Teaching Methods, Private Colleges, Urban Universities, Research Universities, Teacher Attitudes, Lecture Method, Undergraduate Study |
| Geographic Terms: | Pennsylvania (Philadelphia) |
| DOI: | 10.1080/87567555.2023.2246618 |
| ISSN: | 8756-7555 1930-8299 |
| Abstract: | Undergraduate courses in science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) disciplines are predominantly taught via traditional lecture, despite evidence that student-centered instruction is more effective at supporting student learning. To improve STEM instruction, we developed a professional development course promoting use of student-centered pedagogies in large STEM classes. Through semi-structured interviews analyzed by modified grounded theory approach, we found that all participants communicated changes in their thinking and practice post-course. A majority were focused on student-centered pedagogies, while a few remained focused on traditional lecture-based teaching. Observed differences may be due to varied understanding about how people learn or receptivity to effective pedagogies. Outcomes suggest important considerations in STEM professional development. |
| Abstractor: | As Provided |
| Entry Date: | 2026 |
| Accession Number: | EJ1494136 |
| Database: | ERIC |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| FullText | Links: – Type: pdflink Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwHRLZoSF5-ipK6lcPMIs92wAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDKHeA6RYoJmQjq2lxAIBEICBm8jKWAjLSUkRmNrQcv62zdTCn2CWvPQ_Ittm-rt3JIOURu0dMbLPg8g90sQvBDnyzWP7QF4zUjQUYDeoICceEloEw9clTdMuhXs4Dckhq8w7H5YHWTdgwlA9unv24BMuww41jWR9yNALBUmC5xneUAFOtUOyjXILZs5H0jy7tU2EOK8zpDuXs7yldd7bw9ep4nvOILMRUSGOVnmH Text: Availability: 1 Value: <anid>AN0186283846;cte01jul.25;2025Jul02.03:23;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0186283846-1">Use of a Professional Development Course to Promote Student-Centered Teaching in Large STEM Courses </title> <p>Undergraduate courses in science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) disciplines are predominantly taught via traditional lecture, despite evidence that student-centered instruction is more effective at supporting student learning. To improve STEM instruction, we developed a professional development course promoting use of student-centered pedagogies in large STEM classes. Through semi-structured interviews analyzed by modified grounded theory approach, we found that all participants communicated changes in their thinking and practice post-course. A majority were focused on student-centered pedagogies, while a few remained focused on traditional lecture-based teaching. Observed differences may be due to varied understanding about how people learn or receptivity to effective pedagogies. Outcomes suggest important considerations in STEM professional development.</p> <p>Keywords: Faculty professional development; large classroom; STEM; student-centered learning; undergraduate</p> <hd id="AN0186283846-2">Introduction</hd> <p>Despite significant evidence that students learn more when actively engaged in the learning process, also known as student-centered instruction or active learning (Deslauriers et al. [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref1">16</reflink>]; Freeman et al. [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref2">20</reflink>]), teaching in undergraduate STEM disciplines continues to be primarily lecture oriented (Brownell and Tanner [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref3">8</reflink>]; National Research Council [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref4">42</reflink>]; Olson and Riordan [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref5">45</reflink>]). This is particularly true in large enrollment STEM courses, in part because faculty perceive that student-centered instruction is especially challenging in that environment (Ebert-May, Brewer, and Allred [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref6">17</reflink>]; Prosser and Trigwell [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref7">49</reflink>]; Swap and Walter [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref8">63</reflink>]). Other factors inhibiting broader implementation of student-centered instruction include faculty members' lack of experience, absence of models, and lack of support for this type of teaching (Addy and Blanchard [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref9">1</reflink>]; Austin [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref10">4</reflink>]; Felder and Brent [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref11">18</reflink>]; Gormally, Evans, and Brickman [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref12">23</reflink>]; Henderson and Dancy [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref13">26</reflink>]; Silverthorn [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref14">58</reflink>]; Wieman [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref15">73</reflink>]; Wieman, Perkins, and Gilbert [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref16">74</reflink>]). Professional development can support instructors in overcoming these barriers, and research is needed to better understand professional development approaches that effectively support implementation of active learning strategies in undergraduate STEM classrooms.</p> <p>The theoretical framework for this work brings together four research areas: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref17">1</reflink>) relative effectiveness of student-centered instruction and traditional, lecture-based instruction in promoting learning; (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref18">2</reflink>) barriers to implementing student-centered instruction in undergraduate STEM classrooms; (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref19">3</reflink>) effective approaches to promote faculty professional development in teaching; (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref20">4</reflink>) promoting change through diffusion of innovation (Rogers and Shoemaker [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref21">53</reflink>]). We seek to better understand whether a research-based professional development approach with a focus on Diffusion of Innovation theory, can facilitate use of student-centered pedagogies among STEM faculty.</p> <hd id="AN0186283846-3">Relative effectiveness of student-centered instruction in promoting learning</hd> <p>Traditional, lecture-based instruction is based primarily on the "conduit metaphor," where knowledge is viewed as something that can be transferred from one individual to another <emph>via</emph> clear explanation (Lakoff and Johnson [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref22">34</reflink>]; Reddy [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref23">50</reflink>]). This model assumes knowledge is an object that can be transferred. While simple information may be transferred that way (i.e., a person's name), with more complex knowledge, subtleties and connections present in speakers' thoughts and ideas are more difficult to transfer. Therefore, even thorough, well-organized lectures will fail if the expectation is that the receiver's resulting knowledge will mirror the sender's. While recent cognitive research has shown that student's ability to absorb knowledge is based on the structure of past knowledge and their social context, the emphasis is still on students <emph>receiving</emph> information, and not on the collaborative construction of meaning and knowledge.</p> <p>It is clear that the conduit metaphor is not how knowledge production occurs (National Research Council [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref24">41</reflink>]; Singer and Smith [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref25">59</reflink>]). Instead, knowledge is created through human activity (Piaget [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref26">47</reflink>]). People construct meaning dialogically and use metaphor to extend understanding (Lakoff and Johnson [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref27">34</reflink>]). In constructivism, words are not considered preexisting communicative objects. Instead, meaning is constructed in context along a metaphorical path, and individuals engage in ongoing construction (Auerbach and Andrews [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref28">3</reflink>]; Chi and Wylie [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref29">9</reflink>]; Piaget [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref30">48</reflink>]).</p> <p>Student-centered pedagogies are built on the foundation of constructivism, and are more effective at supporting student learning than traditional lecture (Freeman et al. [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref31">20</reflink>]; Kuh [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref32">33</reflink>]; Pascarella and Terenzini [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref33">46</reflink>]). Additionally, student-centered pedagogies support retention of a larger and more diverse STEM student population (Bok [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref34">6</reflink>]; Brownell and Tanner [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref35">8</reflink>]; Katkin [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref36">30</reflink>]; Olson and Riordan [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref37">45</reflink>]; Seymour and Hewitt [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref38">55</reflink>]; Wieman [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref39">73</reflink>]; Wieman, Perkins, and Gilbert [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref40">74</reflink>]). Thus, use of student-centered pedagogies must be broadened in undergraduate STEM classrooms (Austin [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref41">4</reflink>]; Bok [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref42">6</reflink>]; Wieman, Perkins, and Gilbert [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref43">74</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0186283846-4">Barriers to implementation of student-centered instruction</hd> <p>Two known barriers to change in undergraduate STEM teaching are that faculty are not usually trained in pedagogy nor incentivized to improve their teaching (Addy and Blanchard [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref44">1</reflink>]; Brownell and Tanner [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref45">8</reflink>]; Tanner and Allen [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref46">64</reflink>]; Van Horne and Murniati [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref47">69</reflink>]). These barriers can impede faculty in developing an "instructor identity" (Brownell and Tanner [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref48">8</reflink>]). Lecture-based instruction predominates, in part, because that is how instructors were taught (Halpern and Hakel [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref49">24</reflink>]; Lortie [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref50">37</reflink>]; Mazur [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref51">39</reflink>]; Oleson and Hora [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref52">43</reflink>]). Other barriers include the perception that student-centered instruction is challenging in large classroom environments (Swap and Walter [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref53">63</reflink>]), as well as lack of support, lack of time to innovate, and lack of models of effective teaching (Laursen et al. [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref54">35</reflink>]). Effective professional development approaches can be a mechanism to overcome these barriers (Brownell and Tanner [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref55">8</reflink>]; Foote et al. [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref56">19</reflink>]; Andrews and Lemons [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref57">2</reflink>]; National Research Council [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref58">42</reflink>]; Shadle, Marker, and Earl [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref59">57</reflink>]; Wieman [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref60">73</reflink>]; Wieman, Perkins, and Gilbert [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref61">74</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0186283846-5">Strategies for effective faculty professional development</hd> <p>There are known strategies for effective professional development intended to promote change in undergraduate STEM education. These experiences need to be longer-term, with opportunities for reflective practice and feedback (Andrews and Lemons [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref62">2</reflink>]; Gormally, Evans, and Brickman [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref63">23</reflink>]; Henderson, Beach, and Finkelstein [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref64">25</reflink>]). Communities of practice can support widespread adoption of pedagogies in both K-12 and higher education contexts (Kezar and Gehrke [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref65">32</reflink>]; Laursen et al. [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref66">35</reflink>]; Sirum, Madigan, and Klionsky [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref67">60</reflink>]; Tomkin et al. [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref68">66</reflink>]; Wenger [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref69">71</reflink>]). Team-based approaches promote more change than individual approaches, and communities involving faculty are most likely to sustain change (Olmstead, Beach, and Henderson [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref70">44</reflink>]). Development of a sense of community can support productive shifts in culture, improve student learning outcomes, and sustain positive change (D'Avanzo [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref71">14</reflink>]; D'Avanzo et al. [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref72">15</reflink>]; Marbach-Ad and McGinnis [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref73">38</reflink>]; Sirum, Madigan, and Klionsky [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref74">60</reflink>]; Wenger, McDermott, and Snyder [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref75">72</reflink>]). Communities that include a "change leader," with expertise in both a STEM discipline and effective pedagogy, can support instructors in altering their teaching, in combination with incentivization (Borrego and Henderson [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref76">7</reflink>]; Olson and Riordan [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref77">45</reflink>]; Wieman [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref78">73</reflink>]; Wieman, Perkins, and Gilbert [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref79">74</reflink>]). Importantly, incentives may be necessary to promote faculty participation in professional development, particularly to overcome challenging time constraints that many faculty experience (Brownell and Tanner [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref80">8</reflink>]; Stains et al. [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref81">61</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0186283846-6">Promoting change through diffusion of innovation</hd> <p>Despite what is known about effective teaching in STEM, relevant pedagogies have not yet been widely propagated. The Diffusion of Innovation theory (Rogers and Shoemaker [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref82">53</reflink>]) suggests a distribution of innovators with those eager to try an innovation on one side, and those skeptical of change on the other. To allow an innovation to "diffuse," people need to be aware of the need, understand how to implement, see evidence of effectiveness, and have models of success for that innovation. Individuals on the innovative side require less evidence to try the innovation, while individuals on the skeptical side need more evidence. Using this theory, we wanted to support instructors beginning to use student-centered practices, with the idea that promoting their implementation of these approaches would provide needed contextual evidence and additional models of success to allow others to implement student-centered instruction. This idea was also supported by previous work suggesting that faculty find evidence from within their own contexts most compelling (Austin [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref83">4</reflink>]; Wieman, Perkins, and Gilbert [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref84">74</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0186283846-7">Context for the study</hd> <p>Our study asked whether a professional development course could allow STEM faculty to progress in their understanding and use of student-centered pedagogies. To foster the greatest impact, we focused on instructors teaching large courses. The faculty development course: (a) was developed and facilitated by peer change leaders with expertise in student-centered pedagogies; (b) took place over ten weeks; (c) included opportunities for reflection and feedback; (d) focused on challenges in the large classroom environment; (e) encouraged participant interaction, and (f) provided examples from the local institution. Additionally, all participants in the course (henceforth course participants, or participants) were incentivized with one course release from teaching, which allowed them to meaningfully engage, reflect, and modify their teaching.</p> <p>The resulting course, "Promoting Student Learning in Large STEM Classrooms," highlighted student-centered pedagogies and provided training to encourage their adoption. The course was taught at Drexel University, a private, urban, comprehensive research university in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Two faculty members with prior experience incorporating student-centered pedagogies into large STEM courses led the course as peer instructors (henceforth course instructors). Course participants were selected from among Drexel STEM faculty. Selection considerations included: receptivity to student-centered teaching (evidenced by prior teaching approaches), representation of a diversity of disciplines and ranks of the professoriate, and whether these faculty were teaching at least 50 students in a course. This course was developed with support from Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI; see Acknowledgements), thus, some faculty referred to this as the "HHMI course." The course was associated with the Center for the Advancement of STEM Teaching and Learning Excellence (CASTLE) at Drexel. CASTLE activities were advertised to course participants to encourage ongoing community support and continued development of student-centered teaching.</p> <p>The course was created by faculty from the School of Education, College of Arts and Sciences, and College of Engineering with knowledge of the education literature and expertise incorporating student-centered pedagogies into large classroom environments. Course developers referred to student-centered pedagogies as "evidence-based teaching" because of substantive evidence that student-centered instruction is more effective in promoting learning than traditional lecture-based instruction (See Syllabus - Appendix A, supplementary material). The course emphasized engaging students in learning and the importance of gathering evidence of learning to use in planning for future instruction. Course learning goals included:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Learning about evidence-based teaching and specific evidence-based pedagogies.</item> <p></p> <item> Learning the vocabulary of evidence-based teaching and identify resources to learn more.</item> <p></p> <item> Planning an evidence-based implementation for a large introductory STEM course.</item> </ulist> <p>The course was structured to allow learning about teaching in conjunction with reflective practice and feedback (Henderson, Beach, and Finkelstein [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref85">25</reflink>]). Course participants were asked to reflect on who they are as teachers, what they knew about effective teaching, and strategies they wanted to learn more about. Participants read articles, made discussion board posts, discussed ideas in class, and observed teaching. The capstone experience involved developing plans to implement a student-centered pedagogy in a large introductory STEM course, with feedback from course instructors. These plans were implemented in subsequent terms with support from an experienced peer leader. The incentive of release time from a course was important because many faculty teaching large introductory courses at Drexel are non-tenure track, teaching faculty with substantive teaching loads, and thus this incentive allowed time for innovation.</p> <p>We explored whether course participation could allow STEM faculty to overcome barriers and change their attitudes and teaching practices. Through this work, we have come to understand the close link between classroom practices and how faculty think about learning. While the course had some emphasis on how people learn, our analysis underscores how important it is to focus on course participants' thinking about learning. For course participants to fully embrace more student-centered practices, they needed to change how they thought about learning and have support as they began to make pedagogical change. We were interested in whether the course was successful at directly and/or indirectly promoting pedagogical change. We were further interested in course participant's thought processes as they embraced student-centered practices, and whether the course changed their thinking. Here we describe patterns that emerged in our analysis of course participant interviews.</p> <hd id="AN0186283846-8">Materials and methods</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0186283846-9">Participants</hd> <p>Study participants were 11 Drexel faculty members (five male/six female) who participated in the described course. These participants had primary appointments in a STEM discipline (three each from biology and chemistry, two each from physics and engineering and one from mathematics). Most (91%) were full-time, non-tenure track, teaching faculty. Study participants came from two separate course cohorts. Five out of six course participants from cohort one and six out of ten from cohort two engaged in the study. Course goals and intended outcomes for both cohorts were the same, with slight differences in session timing between cohorts (more time was spent in course sessions per week for cohort two).</p> <hd id="AN0186283846-10">Data sources and collection</hd> <p>Data sources included two interviews, conducted after course completion. In many cases, interviews corresponded with implementation of instructional innovation plans developed during the course. Cohort one participants were interviewed 10 to 21 months after course completion. Four of five participants from cohort one completed the second interview four to seven months after the first. All six participants from cohort two were interviewed six to ten months after the course and completed a second interview five to eight months later. Each interview lasted between one-half to one hour and was conducted by the same researcher, for continuity.</p> <p>Interview protocols were developed to gather information about participants' instructional interests, goals and experiences, with emphasis placed on gathering data about participants' learning and implementation of student-centered pedagogies (See Appendix B, supplementary material). While we did not observe teaching, we did ask about participants' classroom practices in interviews. The first interview focused on instructional practices, teaching philosophy, and impediments to learning, assessment and support. The second interview focused on professional identity, colleague networks and course impact. Questions were semi-structured and open-ended to support a more conversational interview and extended responses. Interviews were recorded and professionally transcribed.</p> <hd id="AN0186283846-11">Analytical procedures</hd> <p>Raw transcripts were reviewed for correctness and completeness and anonymized by a research team member. Modified transcripts were uploaded into Dedoose software (https://<ulink href="http://www.dedoose.com/">www.dedoose.com/</ulink>). Analysis followed a modified grounded theory approach (Corbin and Strauss [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref86">11</reflink>]), including iterative cycles of interpretation and theory building. This analysis included a process of open coding and theory building. As transcripts were reviewed, codes were developed aligning with research interests and stated goals.</p> <p>Initial analysis took place by the data analysis team, consisting of four researchers. During this phase, first and second interviews were reviewed chronologically. Our modified grounded theory approach specifically meant entering data analysis with some preexisting ideas both about how people learn and the nature of professional development. The data analysis team developed conjectures, including themes, and identified significant episodes from the data. Conjectures were recorded and revisited, expanded and modified, as additional data were reviewed. Initial coding was conducted collectively with all four researchers. This allowed individual perspectives to contribute to theme identification, subsequent discussion and analysis. Annotation was used to capture the complexity of researchers' understanding of the data. Coding was revised as the process continued. This allowed development of collective understandings and ultimately consensus on themes and significant episodes. During this phase, the team brought related literature into analytic discussions to refine and support theory building.</p> <p>In the second phase of analysis, codes were combined as a higher level of understanding began to emerge. New theoretical insights were generated. Use of analytic memos and new literature to support these new insights continued. A focus on the relationship between course participants' ideas about learning, their thinking, and how that thinking related to their teaching practice, emerged from this analysis. The data analysis team then revisited the entire data corpus using the refined coding scheme. Second phase coding and analysis were begun by at least two researchers, and questions, issues and discrepancies were discussed at whole group meetings, resulting in modifications and annotations to the coding scheme. Following this process each interview was coded by at least one researcher, who was encouraged to bring questionable or unclear excerpts to the entire group for discussion. Throughout this process, the team discussed the individual coding process, reviewed literature to support emerging observations and conjectures, and continued collective interpretive theory-building.</p> <p>Larger themes emerged around the ways in which course participants thought about student-centered pedagogies, and how they incorporated these ideas into their practice. Further, there was evidence of the role of the community created by the course and related events at CASTLE, which hosted the course. A further result of data analysis was the realization of the importance of the community, discussed further below. This realization informed our data analysis.</p> <hd id="AN0186283846-12">Results</hd> <p>Analysis of course participant interviews provided insights into their perceptions regarding both instructional change and pedagogies discussed in the course. Based on responses, we found two course participants were more focused on traditional lecture-based instructional practice, and nine embraced student-centered pedagogies, at least to some extent. Course participants had different understandings of how students learn and levels of commitment to student-centered teaching. Some participants saw student-centered teaching primarily as a mechanism to keep classes interesting. We argue that this was, at least partially, because these course participants' conceptions of learning were consistent with the transmission model. Other participants' responses indicated a deeper understanding of the theoretical underpinnings of student-centered teaching.</p> <hd id="AN0186283846-13">Focus on student-centered instructional practices</hd> <p>Nine of eleven course participants described thinking about their instructional practices in ways consistent with use of student-centered pedagogies. Through the analysis, we noted how these participants described being affected by the course. Here we describe five themes that emerged in this analysis.</p> <hd id="AN0186283846-14">Reflection on practice</hd> <p>The first theme in participants' perceptions, reflection on practice, is exemplified by the following quote, where the participant describes how this course helped them move toward a more reflective stance.</p> <p>... just doing the course made me think about what I was doing and whether it was effective or not. ... it kind of made me take a step back and realize that there's all this literature, there's all these people that know stuff, and it kind of made me realize that (course instructor's name) really does know what (they are) talking about. (Course Participant 6)</p> <p>Course Participant 6 says, "...it kind of made me take a step back..." This is a spatial metaphor for moving to a position of reflection. The idea of stepping outside oneself and looking at the self is important for engaging students in a more dialogic, active learning, framework. The participant uses expertise as justification for reflective work they are starting to do. They discuss how one course instructor knows what they are talking about and is a good resource. The course participant also refers to having their eyes opened to a body of literature and others who "know stuff." This expertise allows them to reflect on their practice and 'think about what they are doing.'</p> <p>Additionally, a different course participant shows a deep level of reflection on student learning and its relationship to instructional practice.</p> <p>Yeah, it has. The biggest thing it's gotten me to do is critically evaluate what I am doing, and especially in terms of the questions I ask. Making sure that the questions formulated have a focus of where it needs to go, but yet can remain open ended to allow students. That was another one is that making sure that if a student provides an answer, not saying no, trying to reformulate to say okay I can see where you're going with this, I like this, how about looking at whatever. But when a student provides an answer, not shooting the answer down or giving the student the impression that they're wrong for voicing because we want student interaction. (Course Participant 5)</p> <p>Here we see that Course Participant 5 has understood several important points. They are reflecting and understand teaching to be a dialogic process. They describe how they have learned to reformulate their responses to be more open-ended. They realize that after you ask a student for an answer, if you close discussion by saying it is right or wrong, that limits learning. Part of active learning is soliciting student thinking so that learning can become more dynamic. Knowing what an answer means to a student, how they are thinking about that information, what insights they might glean, and how they might use that information again, allows for deeper understanding of how to engage students in learning. This course participant is shifting their thinking about what learning really is. Only by opening dialogue can you begin to see how students are making meaning out of what they are learning and how you might further respond to help move knowledge building forward. Further, as learning is in fact dialogic, the course participant learns things in this process, too (Teo [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref87">65</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0186283846-15">Legitimizing existing knowledge and beliefs</hd> <p>A second theme, legitimizing existing knowledge and beliefs, was exemplified by Course Participant 3, who was a bit surprised to learn they had knowledge that was valued in the university context.</p> <p>When I got here, ... I felt like I had to teach the way college professors teach. I felt like I needed to get it done right, make sure you talk about everything in depth and all of that. I still struggle with that. ... I'm a pretty good lecturer. I think that was okay in the beginning. Then I took the ... class and I was like oh, actually I feel confident enough to remember everything that I already really knew about this and realize that lecturing is not actually the goal and it's okay to speak out to my colleagues about that stuff and encourage them to do different things and all of that. I definitely didn't really know the expectations, but I also didn't have the confidence to really, let's completely redo this course. That's where I am now three years later. I'm in charge of how this course is gonna be structured and presumably then going to be taught forever after. (Course Participant 3)</p> <p>Course Participant 3 had experience with active learning from teaching at the secondary level. However, they had not previously felt legitimized in this pedagogical knowledge because they thought there was a "way of teaching" in college. The course made this participant realize that their previous training was valuable and could be shared with colleagues. This participant points out that the course validated their previous knowledge and led them to become a leader in their department. This participant experienced an identity shift from novice to expert and shares their knowledge about pedagogy with others in their department. Had they not participated in the course, this person may not have experienced this growth, and the resource that they are now may not have been realized.</p> <p>Course Participant 10 shares a similar notion, describing how the course added to their experience with student-centered teaching.</p> <p>Many of these things here were not new to me. However, I learned a lot about other things that I didn't know. For example, I never tried the think, share, pair technique. I never really heard about it until I joined the class. Then once (the faculty course instructors) explained to us what does it mean, and how does it work? ... It's like a study buddy, but it's not long-term study buddy. It's right there on the spot.' Sometimes I do apply that, as well, in my classes. (Course Participant 10)</p> <p>We see Course Participant 10's openness to new techniques and learning things from course instructors. The course instructors put participants in the student position in class and modeled how to get students more engaged. It would be interesting to understand whether this modeling allowed course participants to reflect on how they position their own students. We don't yet have data to allow us to address this question.</p> <hd id="AN0186283846-16">Overcoming obstacles</hd> <p>A third theme, overcoming obstacles, was exemplified by Course Participant 7, who shares their anxiety about doing something new in a large lecture class.</p> <p>...the HHMI course was focused on large lecture so I think about my large lecture class and what I've done. ... [T]he main thing that I did in the course that was different than the past was related to (POGIL – Process Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning – a pedagogical technique) in a sense that once a week every week for about half of a lecture I had students work in groups on a problem which I had never really [taught] ... I was a little hesitant at first to try to actually do problem solving in a large lecture like that. I'm very glad that I did it, it went really well. A lot of it was getting over the hurdle, thinking about how do you manage a problem solving in a class that was divided? (Course Participant 7)</p> <p>Change takes preparation time and comfort with being able to experiment. Current pressure toward "accountability" and efficiency in university teaching makes it difficult for instructors to try new pedagogies. Here we see that with the support of the course, this participant is willing to take a risk. It is exciting they "got over the hurdle" but more importantly, having some success here may help this participant use this approach again in a large class, or perhaps try another teaching strategy, as implementation success can increase interest in new pedagogies (Renninger and Hidi [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref88">51</reflink>]).</p> <p>In large STEM lectures, clickers (i.e., classroom response systems) are a common tool for helping instructors capture student understanding and use this information to refine instruction. Clicker use was discussed in the course. Course Participant 2 talks about how they are attempting to use clickers to gather evidence of student thinking.</p> <p>I am working on trying to get a better grasp of the individuals' understanding of the concepts through doing the clickers, because then I can see over the course of a class, over the class, an overview with one question whether they get it or don't get it. This term, I put clicker-style questions and I got them to answer them or to write down answers, but I didn't actually implement the clicker. ... [B]y me asking the question and engaging with them rather than it just through an object, I wanted to get them used to the idea that they could ask me questions in class, and I could ask them questions in class. (Course Participant 2)</p> <p>This excerpt indicates that the participant believes in the underlying goals of using clickers. However, it also demonstrates a reaction several course participants expressed during interviews: clickers are complicated and require time to learn how to use. In many departments clickers are a scarce resource and/or are used for activities like test taking. In this quote, we see that clickers have influenced Course Participant 2's thinking. Though the participant is not yet using clickers in the large class environment, they are using the pedagogical principles of clickers to understand student learning. This shows the participant is interested in the potential of clickers and may continue to explore clicker use in their teaching.</p> <hd id="AN0186283846-17">Supporting dialogic discourse</hd> <p>Course Participant 2's discussion of additional benefits of clickers is an example of the fourth identified theme, supporting dialogic discourse.</p> <p>I think the students get excited about doing things in slightly different ways, and having even just the clicker questions, having discussions about why they chose the different answers that they did, and the kind of participation, that they feel that I'm listening to them, and I am listening to them. I'm actually engaging with them during the class. ... It's nice to be able to make them feel that I'm not just standing and talking at them ... (Course Participant 2)</p> <p>Here the participant expresses another value of clickers; they change the instructor/student relationship. Course Participant 2 indicates it is not just that students are excited about doing things differently, but this type of pedagogy also makes the instructor/student interaction more dialogic. Here the clicker is an object used to spur dialogue, which is important for learning. Further, the participant arrives at the correct notion that if students feel listened to, this positively reinforces their identities as successful learners, and may stimulate further interest in the work (Renninger and Hidi [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref89">51</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0186283846-18">The importance of community to support faculty change and cultural change</hd> <p>Some course participants noted that their work in the course, and participating in associated CASTLE activities, served as a starting point for the development of a community devoted to improving undergraduate instruction. As Course Participant 3 noted:</p> <p>Luckily for me, it was pretty early on when I took the HHMI course and everything started to branch out. I found my people kind of thing. Before that, I do feel like especially if I was gonna be teaching the same course over and over again just lecture based, yeah I would've been bored to death. Now I'm doing a lot of different things and maybe I'm a little bit scatterbrained but I'm certainly ... I'm almost lucky. (Course Participant 3)</p> <p>This participant notes that the course allowed them to find a community that could serve as a resource as they sought to change their instruction. This participant attributes, at least partially, their successes in exploring student-centered pedagogies to this community of like-minded colleagues.</p> <p>Participants also recognized the importance of sustained engagement in professional development and community interaction. For example, Course Participant 5 noted:</p> <p>[the course] is ... I hope not a one off. I'm hoping that it's a continued revisit. When you teach a course, that doesn't mean you know how to do it two years later. Things change, students change, the methodologies change, the whole environment changes and we need to revisit. That's why I'm hoping things like HHMI or something of its equivalent or a follow up that we go through it again and say okay. Because as an educator I think it's important. (Course Participant 5)</p> <p>This participant is arguing that improving instruction is a process and there will always be new "methodologies" to learn. This participant expresses hope that the course is the start of continued engagement. The desire for sustained engagement is indicative of an alignment between this participant's perceived, and evolving, needs and broader goals for faculty development.</p> <p>Further, course participants noted the role of the course in developing networks, particularly with those from outside their home units. For example, Course Participant 7 noted that the course provided them with "new" colleagues they could engage with about pedagogical innovations.</p> <p>I think [taking the course] got me excited because going through that, I know that I'm not the only one, first thing. The ironic part is even though I know I'm not the only one ... I had already been doing things, in a sense I've been doing things in a vacuum because I was trying things and, besides [a colleague in my department], not really talking about it. That alone gets me excited about doing it because I know that if I try something that I could go to any of the people that I've talked to and it'd be a worthwhile discussion. (Course Participant 7)</p> <p>Here, the participant notes the potential value of relationships made, noting that prior to the course, they had been "doing things in a vacuum" without a set of colleagues to discuss pedagogical efforts with. This participant also acknowledged they had not reached out to these colleagues, noting:</p> <p>I still haven't really reached out much to those colleagues. Part of the problem for me why that hasn't happened is, ... [most] of the people in that course are not in [my home academic unit]... I know that just by the physical separation of that has impacted that there haven't been a lot of engineering that have gone through that. It's amazing how that can have a big impact on who you interact with. (Course Participant 7)</p> <p>Much like Course Participant 5, we see Course Participant 7's openness to continued engagement outside their home department. Taken together, these excerpts indicate that Course Participant 7 believes that connections made outside their home department could be a significant resource as they seek to innovate in teaching. Course Participant 10 makes a similar observation about the value of breaking down silos:</p> <p>Plus the opportunities that I met people from different departments, and we got to talk about issues with different types of students, different types of majors. You see that they are about the same type of issues, but still they have a specific flavor just because of the type of students that you deal with in those majors. Overall, I think it's a very useful thing for us. <emph>...</emph> I got excited more by the fact that I saw how many people around me are excited about the same stuff. ... once we got together, you get a sense of community, like, 'Hey, I have other people doing same thing as me and look, this person does something different, maybe I can use,'... (Course Participant 10)</p> <p>This participant makes the significant observation that, while there are differences between STEM majors, many challenges encountered and students taught are quite similar. This participant indicates their excitement for discovering and developing relationships with like-minded colleagues, and the potential for sharing ideas and resources through these cross-department networks. Further, they explicitly note the importance of community as a product of their course experience.</p> <p>These course participants' notions regarding importance of persistent engagement, community and networks are consistent with research in K-12 teacher development, specifically, the importance of teacher communities in supporting shifts in instructional practice (Cobb, Zhao, and Dean [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref90">10</reflink>]; Garet et al. [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref91">21</reflink>]). Further, communities can support instructors as they implement pedagogies within contexts that are not always supportive (Horn and Little [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref92">29</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0186283846-19">Focus on traditional lecture-based thinking and practice</hd> <p>Two participants expressed preference for traditional lecture-based pedagogies. These faculty mentioned conflict between their preferences and the strategies discussed in the course. Analysis revealed four broad themes, detailed in the following sections.</p> <hd id="AN0186283846-20">The importance of memorization and rote knowledge</hd> <p>The first theme that emerged was the importance of memorization and rote knowledge. Consider the following excerpts from Course Participant 1 as examples:</p> <p>[Y]ou can't Google everything. They expect people to know, and I think we are doing them a disservice, to some extent, by buying into this well, we don't need to teach them anything that they retain. They hate memorization. What is learning if it isn't remembering something? Why do I know where to go home at the end of the evening? Because I remember where I live. I don't have to ask and seek directions, or use my phone to tell me how to get from A to B. There is memorization, a lot of people don't think that's appropriate, but I think it's always going to be there. Use it or lose it ... I don't know the magic answer [for better teaching]. Obviously, there are new philosophies and whatever coming along all the time ... (Course Participant 1)</p> <p>Here, we see Course Participant 1 advocating for the necessity of memorization and rote knowledge and somewhat dismissing "new philosophies" in learning and teaching. They appear to be drawing a false dichotomy between outcomes of student-centered pedagogies and "retaining" information. Their response also provides insight into their underlying beliefs about learning, namely that learning is equivalent to remembering, despite that "a lot of people don't think that's appropriate." Course Participant 1 acknowledges a school of thinking that rote learning is insufficient but uses an example of driving directions to make the case for the importance of memorization. This example is used as (at least partial) justification for their stance on memorization and rote-learning. Of course, memorization has a place in learning, especially as students learn new concepts or practices. Anna Sfard, when talking about learning mathematics, suggests that students must pass through a phase of imitation referred to as a ritualized performance (Sfard [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref93">56</reflink>]). This phase allows students to become comfortable with new practices so they can move to actively thinking about when they should be used and why. For Sfard, learning is a meaning-constructing experience that might begin with rote practice, but only as a starting place. For Course Participant 1, memorization is both the starting and ending point to their thinking about what learning is.</p> <hd id="AN0186283846-21">The issue of student attitudes</hd> <p>A second way these course participants believed that student-centered instruction lacked efficacy rested on students. For example, Course Participant 1 noted the following with regards to flipped classrooms:</p> <p>... the student reaction to that is very polarized. They either love it, or they loathe it. It's roughly 50/50. ... Passing the onus of, well, you've got to watch the videos and do more of the work yourself onto them is less well-received. (Course Participant 1)</p> <p>In this excerpt, we see the participant noting they believe roughly half the students interpret flipped classrooms as asking them to do more work. Course Participant 9 expresses a similar sentiment:</p> <p>... Not having the wherewithal, commitment, intelligence, something, any one of those things, or a subset of those things to dig deeper and get yourself to understand. To do what you have to do to really get it. A lot of them just want to be spoon-fed. ... I'm just putting it out there as a hypothesis. Maybe we shouldn't be killing ourselves, and really focus on the kids that really need it and want it. (Course Participant 9)</p> <p>Similar to Course Participant 1, Course Participant 9 describes the reasons for lack of student success as student shortcomings. Further, this participant suggests that students are not willing to "do what [they] have to do to really get it." They appear to agree with Course Participant 1's notion that students prefer being "spoon-fed" information. While Course Participant 9 does soften their statements by saying they are a "hypothesis," this hypothesis contradicts research suggesting lack of student achievement in undergraduate STEM courses is related to quality of instruction and not just lack of student interest nor intrinsic motivation (Laursen et al. [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref94">35</reflink>]; Seymour and Hewitt [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref95">55</reflink>]; Toropova, Johansson, and Myrberg [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref96">67</reflink>]; Weinert, Schrader, and Helmke [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref97">70</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0186283846-22">Resistance to pedagogical support</hd> <p>Finally, Course Participant 9 did not appreciate being told how to teach. For example, they noted:</p> <p>I've been working on these things since I've been teaching. I've always tried to think of ways to engage students, and to get a formal rule has been like oh interesting, I guess I've been trying to do the right thing. ... Maybe not as perfectly, maybe not as formalized. ... But, I guess I'm a little bit of a person that doesn't like to do what they're told, so I like to do my own thing, and I like to be innovative, and I kind of find it a little insulting. (Course Participant 9)</p> <p>This participant notes they have always focused on student engagement in their teaching, acknowledging parallels between their practices and course goals. However, this participant was also annoyed, noting they felt that the course told them what to do, rather than supporting their personal perspectives on teaching.</p> <hd id="AN0186283846-23">A bridge to student-centered instruction</hd> <p>While it is clear these two course participants preferred a traditional, lecture-based approach, their responses also demonstrate thinking that could provide a bridge to student-centered instruction. Course Participant 9 notes "I've always tried to think of ways to engage students," indicating a belief in the importance of student engagement and highlighting their perception of the importance of the active role of the learner. This contrasts the idea that lecture is purely a conduit to knowledge transfer.</p> <p>Course Participant 1 expressed a similar sentiment, describing student-centered pedagogies as part of a "performance" metaphor for teaching. For example:</p> <p>I think without [the course] I wouldn't have the think, pair, share that I initiated. It breaks it up. ... I think you're going to have to capture their interest. You have to garner their interest. I think in a big lecture group, you have to engage them, which I think (think -pair-share) does. You also have to, you as a person, have to be larger than life. If you're boring, you are dooming yourself. You have to be to an extent, you are not just presenting the information, you are performing a role in front of them. You have to reach the people in the back row, you have to engage them. You have to be larger than life. There's lots of waving of hands around, and whatever. (Course Participant 1)</p> <p>Here we see the participant is aware of techniques like think-pair-share, but describes them as a performance metaphor, where the instructor is on stage and not "being boring." They also note the instructor's role is "presenting information" and "performing a role." Further they describe the role of "think-pair-share" is to "break up" the class, noting that students are not able to pay attention for any sizeable chunk of time. Think-pair-share, Course Participant 1 believes, maintains student attention by breaking up instruction into more manageable chunks.</p> <p>By contrast, we see this participant recognizing that teaching can include important elements beyond lecture. Specifically, references to "garner their interest" and "engage them" are indicative of this participant seeing students as people and the importance of connecting with their interests and supporting their overall perception of course material's relevance (Gehlbach, Brinkworth, and Wang [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref98">22</reflink>]). Scaffolding student interest is important for learning and requires instructors to pay attention to student actions to find evidence of interest (Renninger and Hidi [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref99">51</reflink>]). While this participant's comment indicates some awareness of the need for student interest and engagement, it also indicates a belief that students are passive learners and recipients of information. They suggest that for that mode of instruction to work, the instructor must not be boring.</p> <p>Course Participant 9 expressed a similar sentiment. For example, with regards to their implementation of "clicker questions," they noted:</p> <p>But the main reason I've decided that I really do not like them is because when I used them for lecture participation, I found the kids came to class, which you'd think is a good thing, right. But then they're being disruptive. I completely enjoyed having the data right there, and I really thought it was very helpful to, when I used clickers, to actually be able to adjust based on understanding, or whiz by based on understanding. (Course Participant 9)</p> <p>Similar to Course Participant 1, this participant liked the idea of increasing student engagement, but subsequently noted that increasing the number of students attending class was disruptive. This participant felt that some students came to class only for participation points, and that it was disruptive to have those students attend.</p> <p>What is interesting is that while both course participants are implementing student-centered pedagogies, they are using these approaches in ways that still rely on the conduit metaphor for learning. Clicker questions and/or think-pair-share activities are being used to check attendance and/or the extent to which desired communication was effective or distorted. Instead, student-centered pedagogies use these techniques as a catalyst for generative discussion that allows students to affirm, question and revise prior understandings based on discourse between their classmates and instructor. We argue that these course participants operated with a partial understanding of student-centered pedagogies. Both hint at some awareness of the importance of student engagement, which is both inconsistent with traditional, lecture-style instruction and acknowledges beliefs consistent with aspects of student-centered instruction. It is unclear if these participants were aware of the contradiction between their expressed beliefs about learning and their teaching practices.</p> <hd id="AN0186283846-24">Discussion</hd> <p>Among the myriad challenges to promoting change in STEM education is that instructors need effective professional development opportunities and models of student-centered teaching. Understanding the structure and types of professional development approaches that can promote pedagogical change can allow better support of STEM faculty in their development as educators.</p> <p>In evaluating the "Promoting Student Learning in Large STEM Classrooms" course, we find at least some course participants reported making changes toward using student-centered pedagogies. Some participants reflected on their teaching practices and/or the effects of these practices on students. Some course participants reported a newfound awareness and appreciation of education literature, which appeared to validate those interested in incorporating student-centered pedagogies. All course participants began to overcome obstacles and implement student-centered pedagogies new to them.</p> <p>In addition to reported changes to their thinking and teaching practice, some course participants described the importance of community in supporting their use of student-centered pedagogies. These participants indicated being affected by both feedback received in the course and discussions with course instructors and classmates. Many remarked on the connections they formed and their appreciation for opportunities to speak with people across different disciplines. Thus, the course was at least partially successful at breaking down silos that can prevent faculty from interacting with others with similar interests in teaching (Keeling, Underhile, and Wall [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref100">31</reflink>]; Trust, Carpenter, and Krutka [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref101">68</reflink>]).</p> <p>While most participants expressed a focus on student-centered pedagogies after the course, a minority were still more focused on traditional, lecture-based, instruction. These participants were clearly exposed to student-centered teaching concepts through the course but were resistant to changing their teaching. Reluctance to "give up" on lecture-based teaching came from a perception that students are not receptive to work required of them in student-centered classrooms. There was concern about moving away from memorization in teaching. There also seemed to be lack of understanding that student-centered pedagogies are not merely intended to make learning entertaining. Finally, at least one participant did not appreciate being told how to teach. Of note, these participants were not completely resistant to course concepts, as both were using active learning pedagogies and described the importance of actively engaging students. Instead, these participants demonstrated a conflicted understanding of student-centered teaching and its use. On the Diffusion of Innovation scale, these individuals are on the more skeptical side, and may benefit from additional contextual examples and evidence (E. Rogers [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref102">52</reflink>]; Rogers and Shoemaker [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref103">53</reflink>]). Additional, targeted professional development may allow these course participants to make additional progress in their understanding and practice.</p> <p>It is worth noting that course participants were selected for different reasons, including receptivity to student-centered teaching, demographic and disciplinary diversity, and specific requests from Department Heads. These differences in selection strategy led to selection of faculty who were skeptical versus more receptive to change. Course instructors hoped to promote change by selecting some individuals more receptive to change and providing them with support in changing their practice and collecting evidence to compel others to change their practice. This approach was validated when course instructors consistently found that participants were largely unfamiliar with terminology associated with student-centered teaching, even when they were using these pedagogies. Providing these faculty with key information and support allowed them to continue learning about these pedagogies, validated their interest, and supported their understanding of why these approaches work (Bathgate et al. [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref104">5</reflink>]; Renninger and Hidi [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref105">51</reflink>]). We do not yet know if supporting course participants propagated change through Diffusion of Innovation, which requires additional data collection.</p> <p>Further work is also needed to understand whether receptivity to change should be part of a selection strategy for engagement in similar professional development strategies. It is possible that the described course has greater benefit for those already receptive to change, though we cannot determine this from our data. Less receptive faculty may need to create situational interest in student-centered teaching before they can benefit from a course like this (Hidi and Renninger [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref106">27</reflink>]). Alternatively, these faculty may instead need additional support after a course like this to allow them to move from partial to more complete understanding of learning and student-centered instruction.</p> <hd id="AN0186283846-25">Conclusions</hd> <p>To offer a similar professional development strategy, here are key factors to consider based on the literature and outcomes from this study. A longer-term experience is critical, as short-term workshops are not effective in promoting pedagogical change (Borrego and Henderson [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref107">7</reflink>]; Dancy and Henderson [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref108">12</reflink>]). Community building is important, as communities of practice can promote adoption of effective pedagogies (Kezar and Gehrke [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref109">32</reflink>]; Lave and Wenger [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref110">36</reflink>]; National Research Council [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref111">42</reflink>]; Sirum, Madigan, and Klionsky [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref112">60</reflink>]; Sturm [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref113">62</reflink>]; Tomkin et al. [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref114">66</reflink>]; Wenger, McDermott, and Snyder [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref115">72</reflink>]). Here we found that community building allowed faculty to identify like-minded individuals, outside of their silos, who provided essential support. Mentorship provides faculty with examples from their own campus (Bathgate et al. [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref116">5</reflink>]; Foote et al. [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref117">19</reflink>]; Laursen et al. [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref118">35</reflink>]; Shadle, Marker, and Earl [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref119">57</reflink>]; Sirum, Madigan, and Klionsky [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref120">60</reflink>]; Trust, Carpenter, and Krutka [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref121">68</reflink>]). "Change leaders" teaching the course can provide necessary support that promotes change (Dancy, Henderson, and Turpen [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref122">13</reflink>]; Wieman [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref123">73</reflink>]). Opportunities for reflection allow faculty to make connections between teaching and learning and how this applies to their courses. Finally, faculty need opportunities to build confidence with using student-centered pedagogies. Many faculty have not seen these approaches in practice (Wieman [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref124">73</reflink>]). Our data suggest that some faculty are interested in using these approaches but are resistant due to lack of confidence. Confidence building can come from community support, opportunities to observe, and/or opportunities to experience learning from student-centered teaching.</p> <p>Future studies should further develop these conjectures. Beginning to define the continuum of faculty receptivity to, and interest in, student-centered pedagogical practice may allow understanding of whether specific professional development strategies are better suited for faculty who are skeptical or more receptive to innovation. Further study of whether putting faculty into the student position allows them to reflect on how they position their own students would allow us to understand whether this approach is effective for teaching professional development. Expanding this work to other types of institutions would help in understanding the generalizability of this work. Finally, there is a rich K-12 professional development literature that could inform future approaches to promote student-centered instruction in higher education. There is a strong tradition of addressing questions about student-centered teaching in K-12, and much work has been done to develop professional development around these ideas (Holzberg, Clark, and Morningstar [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref125">28</reflink>]; Moore et al. [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref126">40</reflink>]; Scher and O'Reilly [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref127">54</reflink>]). This work could be important to draw from in considering how to promote student-centered teaching in STEM higher education environments.</p> <hd id="AN0186283846-26">Acknowledgements</hd> <p>The authors thank Alisa Morss Clyne and Mary Jo Grdina for initial ideas in creating the course; the course participants; Alistar Erikson-Ludwig for supporting the initial course offering; the CASTLE community for providing support for participants; and the Drexel administration for their support allowing this course to be offered.</p> <hd id="AN0186283846-27">Disclosure statement</hd> <p>No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).</p> <ref id="AN0186283846-28"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref9" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> These authors contributed equally to this work.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref18" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Supplemental data for this article can be accessed online at https://doi.org/10.1080/87567555.2023.2246618.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0186283846-29"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibtext> Addy, T. M., and M. R. Blanchard. 2010. " The Problem with Reform from the Bottom up: Instructional Practises and Teacher Beliefs of Graduate Teaching Assistants following a Reform‐Minded University Teacher Certificate Programme." International Journal of Science Education 32 (8): 1045 – 1071. doi: 10.1080/09500690902948060</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Andrews, T. C., and P. P. Lemons. 2015. " It's Personal: Biology Instructors Prioritize Personal Evidence over Empirical Evidence in Teaching Decisions." CBE—Life Sciences Education 14 (1): Ar7. doi: 10.1187/cbe.14-05-0084</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref19" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Auerbach, A. J. J., and T. C. Andrews. 2018. " Pedagogical Knowledge for Active-Learning Instruction in Large Undergraduate Biology Courses: A Large-Scale Qualitative Investigation of Instructor Thinking." International Journal of STEM Education 5 (1): 19. doi: 10.1186/s40594-018-0112-9</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref10" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Austin, A. E. 2011. Promoting Evidence-Based Change in Undergraduate Science Education. Washington, DC: National Academies National Research Council Board on Science Education.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref104" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Bathgate, M. E., O. R. Aragón, A. J. Cavanagh, J. K. Waterhouse, J. Frederick, and M. J. Graham. 2019. " Perceived Supports and Evidence-Based Teaching in College STEM." International Journal of STEM Education 6 (1): 11. doi: 10.1186/s40594-019-0166-3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref34" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Bok, D. 2009. " Our Underachieving Colleges: A Candid Look at How Much Students Learn and Why They Should Be Learning More – New Edition." In Our Underachieving Colleges. Princeton : Princeton University Press. doi: 10.1515/9781400831333</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref76" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Borrego, M., and C. Henderson. 2014. " Increasing the Use of Evidence-Based Teaching in STEM Higher Education: A Comparison of Eight Change Strategies." Journal of Engineering Education 103 (2): 220 – 252. doi: 10.1002/jee.20040</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref3" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Brownell, S. E., and 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 – 346. doi: 10.1187/cbe.12-09-0163</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref29" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Chi, M. T. H., and R. Wylie. 2014. " The ICAP Framework: Linking Cognitive Engagement to Active Learning Outcomes." Educational Psychologist 49 (4): 219 – 243. doi: 10.1080/00461520.2014.965823</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cobb, P., Q. Zhao, and C. Dean. 2009. " Conducting Design Experiments to Support Teachers' Learning: A Reflection from the Field." Journal of the Learning Sciences 18 (2): 165 – 199. doi: 10.1080/10508400902797933</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Corbin, J. M., and A. Strauss. 1990. " Grounded Theory Research: Procedures, Canons, and Evaluative Criteria." Qualitative Sociology 13 (1): 3 – 21. doi: 10.1007/BF00988593</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dancy, M., and C. Henderson. 2010. " Pedagogical Practices and Instructional Change of Physics Faculty." American Journal of Physics 78 (10): 1056 – 1063. doi: 10.1119/1.3446763</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dancy, M., C. Henderson, and C. Turpen. 2016. " How Faculty Learn about and Implement Research-Based Instructional Strategies: The Case of Peer Instruction." Physical Review Physics Education Research 12 (1): 010110. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.12.010110</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> D'Avanzo, C. 2013. " Post–Vision and Change: Do We Know How to Change? " CBE—Life Sciences Education 12 (3): 373 – 382. doi: 10.1187/cbe.13-01-0010</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> D'Avanzo, Charlene, Charles W. Anderson, Laurel M. Hartley, and Nancy Pelaez. 2012. " A Faculty-Development Model for Transforming Introductory Biology and Ecology Courses." BioScience 62 (4): 416 – 427. doi: 10.1525/bio.2012.62.4.12</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Deslauriers, L., L. S. McCarty, K. Miller, K. Callaghan, and G. Kestin. 2019. " Measuring Actual Learning versus Feeling of Learning in Response to Being Actively Engaged in the Classroom." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 116 (39): 19251 – 19257. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1821936116</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ebert-May, D., C. Brewer, and S. Allred. 1997. " Innovation in Large Lectures: Teaching for Active Learning." BioScience 47 (9): 601 – 607. doi: 10.2307/1313166</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Felder, R. M., and R. Brent. 1996. " Navigating the Bumpy Road to Student-Centered Instruction." College Teaching 44 (2): 43 – 47. doi: 10.1080/87567555.1996.9933425</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Foote, K. T., X. Neumeyer, C. Henderson, M. H. Dancy, and R. J. Beichner. 2014. " Diffusion of Research-Based Instructional Strategies: The Case of SCALE-UP." International Journal of STEM Education 1 (1): 10. doi: 10.1186/s40594-014-0010-8</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 of the United States of America 111 (23): 8410 – 8415. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1319030111</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Garet, M. S., A. C. Porter, L. Desimone, B. F. Birman, and K. S. Yoon. 2001. " What Makes Professional Development Effective? Results from a National Sample of Teachers." American Educational Research Journal 38 (4): 915 – 945. doi: 10.3102/00028312038004915</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gehlbach, H., M. E. Brinkworth, and M.-T. Wang. 2012. " The Social Perspective Taking Process: What Motivates Individuals to Take Another's Perspective? " Teachers College Record 114 (1): 1 – 29. doi: 10.1177/016146811211400108</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gormally, C., M. Evans, and P. Brickman. 2014. " Feedback about Teaching in Higher Ed: Neglected Opportunities to Promote Change." CBE Life Sciences Education 13 (2): 187 – 199. doi: 10.1187/cbe.13-12-0235</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Halpern, D. F., and M. D. Hakel. 2003. " Applying the Science of Learning to the University and beyond: Teaching for Long-Term Retention and Transfer." The Magazine of Higher Learning 35 (4): 36 – 41. doi: 10.1080/00091380309604109</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Henderson, C., A. Beach, and N. Finkelstein. 2011. " Facilitating Change in Undergraduate STEM Instructional Practices: An Analytic Review of the Literature." Journal of Research in Science Teaching 48 (8): 952 – 984. doi: 10.1002/tea.20439</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Henderson, C., and M. H. Dancy. 2007. " Barriers to the Use of Research-Based Instructional Strategies: The Influence of Both Individual and Situational Characteristics." Physical Review Special Topics 3 (2): 020102. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.3.020102</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hidi, S., and K. A. Renninger. 2006. " The Four-Phase Model of Interest Development." Educational Psychologist 41 (2): 111 – 127. doi: 10.1207/s15326985ep4102_4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Holzberg, D. G., K. A. Clark, and M. E. Morningstar. 2018. " Transition-Focused Professional Development: An Annotated Bibliography of Essential Elements and Features of Professional Development." Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals 41 (1): 50 – 55. doi: 10.1177/2165143417742362</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Horn, I. S., and J. W. Little. 2010. " Attending to Problems of Practice: Routines and Resources for Professional Learning in Teachers' Workplace Interactions." American Educational Research Journal 47 (1): 181 – 217. doi: 10.3102/0002831209345158</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Katkin, W. 2003. " The Boyer Commission Report and Its Impact on Undergraduate Research." New Directions for Teaching and Learning 2003 (93): 19 – 38. doi: 10.1002/tl.86</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Keeling, R. P., R. Underhile, and A. F. Wall. 2007. " Horizontal and Vertical Structures: The Dynamics of Organization in Higher Education." Liberal Education 93 (4): 22 – 31.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kezar, A., and S. Gehrke. 2017. " Sustaining Communities of Practice Focused on STEM Reform." The Journal of Higher Education 88 (3): 323 – 349. doi: 10.1080/00221546.2016.1271694</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kuh, G. D. 2005. " Putting Student Engagement Results to Use: Lessons from the Field." https://scholarworks.iu.edu/dspace/handle/2022/24182.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lakoff, G., and M. Johnson. 1980. " Conceptual Metaphor in Everyday Language." The Journal of Philosophy 77 (8): 453 – 486. doi: 10.2307/2025464</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Laursen, S., T. Andrews, M. Stains, C. J. Finelli, M. Borrego, D. McConnell, E. Johnson, K. Foote, B. Ruedi, and S. Malcom. 2019. " Levers for Change: An Assessment of Progress on Changing STEM Instruction." American Association for the Advancement of Science. https://www. Aaas. Org/Sites/Default/Files/2019-07/Levers-for-Change-WEB100_2019. Pdf.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lave, J., and E. Wenger. 1991. Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lortie, D. C. 1975. Schoolteacher: A Sociological Study. Chicago : The University of Chicago Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marbach-Ad, G., and J. R. McGinnis. 2009. " Beginning Mathematics Teachers' Beliefs of Subject Matter and Instructional Actions Documented over Time." School Science and Mathematics 109 (6): 338 – 351. doi: 10.1111/j.1949-8594.2009.tb18103.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mazur, E. 2009. " Farewell, Lecture? " Science 323 (5910): 50 – 51. doi: 10.1126/science.1168927</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Moore, M., H. Robinson, A. Sheffield, and A. Phillips. 2017. " Mastering the Blend: A Professional Development Program for K-12 Teachers." Journal of Online Learning Research 3 (2): 145 – 173.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Research Council. 2012. Discipline-Based Education Research: Understanding and Improving Learning in Undergraduate Science and Engineering. Washington, DC : National Academies Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Research Council. 2015. Guide to Implementing the Next Generation Science Standards. Washington, DC : National Academies Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Oleson, A., and M. T. Hora. 2014. " Teaching the Way They Were Taught? Revisiting the Sources of Teaching Knowledge and the Role of Prior Experience in Shaping Faculty Teaching Practices." Higher Education 68 (1): 29 – 45. doi: 10.1007/s10734-013-9678-9</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Olmstead, A., A. Beach, and C. Henderson. 2019. " Supporting Improvements to Undergraduate STEM Instruction: An Emerging Model for Understanding Instructional Change Teams." International Journal of STEM Education 6 (1): 20. doi: 10.1186/s40594-019-0173-4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Olson, S., and D. G. Riordan. 2012. " Engage to Excel: Producing One Million Additional College Graduates with Degrees in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. Report to the President." In Executive Office of the President. Executive Office of the President. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED541511.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pascarella, E. T., and P. T. Terenzini. 2005. " How College Affects Students: A Third Decade of Research." In Jossey-Bass, an Imprint of Wiley, Volume 2. San Francisco : Jossey-Bass, An Imprint of Wiley.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Piaget, J. 1980. "The Constructivist Approach: Recent Studies in Genetic Epistemology." Cahiers de la Fondation Archives Jean Piaget. No. 1., Geneva, Switzerland, 1 – 7.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Piaget, J. 1985. The Equilibration of Cognitive Structures: The Central Problem of Intellectual Development. Chicago : University of Chicago Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Prosser, M., and K. Trigwell. 2014. " Qualitative Variation in Approaches to University Teaching and Learning in Large First-Year Classes." Higher Education 67 (6): 783 – 795. doi: 10.1007/s10734-013-9690-0</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reddy, M. 1979. " The Conduit Metaphor." Metaphor and Thought 2 : 285 – 324.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Renninger, K. A., and S. E. Hidi. 2015. The Power of Interest for Motivation and Engagement. Milton Park : Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9781315771045</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rogers, E. 2003. Diffusion of Innovation Fifth Edition. New York, NY : Free Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rogers, E. M., and F. F. Shoemaker. 1971. Communication of Innovations; A Cross-Cultural Approach. New York, NY: The Free Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Scher, Lauren, and Fran O'Reilly. 2009. " Professional Development for K–12 Math and Science Teachers: What Do We Really Know? " Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness 2 (3): 209 – 249. doi: 10.1080/19345740802641527</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Seymour, E., and N. M. Hewitt. 1997. " Talking About Leaving: Why Undergraduates Leave the Sciences." Westview Press. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&amp;as_sdt=0%2C39&amp;q=seymour+1997+leave&amp;btnG=#d=gs_cit&amp;u=/scholar%3Fq%3Dinfo%3AEwcSLv79tiQJ%3Ascholar.google.com/%26output%3Dcite%26scirp%3D0%26hl%3Den.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sfard, A. 2008. Thinking as Communicating: Human Development, the Growth of Discourses, and Mathematizing. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shadle, S. E., A. Marker, and B. Earl. 2017. " Faculty Drivers and Barriers: Laying the Groundwork for Undergraduate STEM Education Reform in Academic Departments." International Journal of STEM Education 4 (1): 8. doi: 10.1186/s40594-017-0062-7</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Silverthorn, D. U. 2006. " Teaching and Learning in the Interactive Classroom." Advances in Physiology Education 30 (4): 135 – 140. doi: 10.1152/advan.00087.2006</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Singer, S., and K. A. Smith. 2013. " Discipline‐Based Education Research: Understanding and Improving Learning in Undergraduate Science and Engineering." Journal of Engineering Education 102 (4): 468 – 471. doi: 10.1002/jee.20030</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sirum, K. L., D. Madigan, and D. J. Klionsky. 2009. " Enabling a Culture of Change: A Life Science Faculty Learning Community Promotes Scientific Teaching." Journal of College Science Teaching 38 (3): 38 – 44.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stains, M., J. Harshman, M. K. Barker, S. V. Chasteen, R. Cole, S. E. DeChenne-Peters, M. K. Eagan, et al. 2018. " Anatomy of STEM Teaching in North American Universities." Science 359 (6383): 1468 – 1470. doi: 10.1126/science.aap8892</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sturm, S. 2007. Gender Equity as Institutional Transformation, 262 – 279. Advancing Academic Women. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Swap, R. J., and J. A. Walter. 2015. " An Approach to Engaging Students in a Large-Enrollment, Introductory STEM College Course." Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning 15 (5): 1 – 21. doi: 10.14434/josotl.v16i5.18910</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tanner, K., and D. Allen. 2006. "Approaches to Biology Teaching and Learning: On Integrating Pedagogical Training into the Graduate Experiences of Future Science Faculty." CBE—Life Sciences Education 5 (1): 1–6.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Teo, P. 2019. " Teaching for the 21st Century: A Case for Dialogic Pedagogy." Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 21 : 170 – 178. doi: 10.1016/j.lcsi.2019.03.009</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tomkin, J. H., S. O. Beilstein, J. W. Morphew, and G. L. Herman. 2019. " Evidence That Communities of Practice Are Associated with Active Learning in Large STEM Lectures." International Journal of STEM Education 6 (1): 1. doi: 10.1186/s40594-018-0154-z</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Toropova, A., S. Johansson, and E. Myrberg. 2019. " The Role of Teacher Characteristics for Student Achievement in Mathematics and Student Perceptions of Instructional Quality." Education Inquiry 10 (4): 275 – 299. doi: 10.1080/20004508.2019.1591844</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Trust, T., J. P. Carpenter, and D. G. Krutka. 2017. " Moving beyond Silos: Professional Learning Networks in Higher Education." The Internet and Higher Education 35 : 1 – 11. doi: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2017.06.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Van Horne, S., and C. T. Murniati. 2016. "Faculty Adoption of Active Learning Classrooms." Journal of Computing in Higher Education 28 (1): 72–93.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Weinert, F. E., F.-W. Schrader, and A. Helmke. 1989. " Quality of Instruction and Achievement Outcomes." International Journal of Educational Research 13 (8): 895 – 914. doi: 10.1016/0883-0355(89)90072-4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wenger, E. 1998. "Communities of Practice: Learning as a Social System." Systems Thinker 9 (5): 2–3.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wenger, E., R. McDermott, and W. M. Snyder. 2002. " Cultivating Communities of Practice: A Guide to Managing Knowledge." Harvard Business School Publishing. https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&amp;lr=&amp;id=m1xZuNq9RygC&amp;oi=fnd&amp;pg=PR9&amp;dq=wenger+2002+communities+of+practice&amp;ots=ZW5alJbgdS&amp;sig=4z_r07_LVJIr0PTdZaCWp4rG22k#v=onepage&amp;q=wenger%202002%20communities%20of%20practice&amp;f=false.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wieman, C. 2012. " Applying New Research to Improve Science Education." Issues in Science and Technology 29 (1): 25 – 32.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wieman, C., K. Perkins, and S. Gilbert. 2010. " Transforming Science Education at Large Research Universities: A Case Study in Progressxs." The Magazine of Higher Learning 42 (2): 6 – 14. doi: 10.1080/00091380903563035</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Wesley Shumar; Jason Silverman; Alison E. Moyer; Meredith Casino; Brett Condon; Donna Murasko; Daniel King and Jennifer S. Stanford</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib73" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib74" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref64"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref68"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib71" firstref="ref69"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref70"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref72"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref73"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib72" firstref="ref75"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref81"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref86"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref87"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref88"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref90"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref91"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref92"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref93"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref96"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib70" firstref="ref97"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref98"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref100"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref101"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref102"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref106"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref108"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref110"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl61" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref113"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl62" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref122"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl63" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref125"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl64" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref126"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl65" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref127"></nolink> |
|---|---|
| Header | DbId: eric DbLabel: ERIC An: EJ1494136 AccessLevel: 3 PubType: Academic Journal PubTypeId: academicJournal PreciseRelevancyScore: 0 |
| IllustrationInfo | |
| Items | – Name: Title Label: Title Group: Ti Data: Use of a Professional Development Course to Promote Student-Centered Teaching in Large STEM Courses – Name: Language Label: Language Group: Lang Data: English – Name: Author Label: Authors Group: Au Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Wesley+Shumar%22">Wesley Shumar</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Jason+Silverman%22">Jason Silverman</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Alison+E%2E+Moyer%22">Alison E. Moyer</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Meredith+Casino%22">Meredith Casino</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Brett+Condon%22">Brett Condon</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Donna+Murasko%22">Donna Murasko</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Daniel+King%22">Daniel King</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1086-4833">0000-0003-1086-4833</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Jennifer+S%2E+Stanford%22">Jennifer S. Stanford</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0546-8046">0000-0002-0546-8046</externalLink>) – Name: TitleSource Label: Source Group: Src Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22College+Teaching%22"><i>College Teaching</i></searchLink>. 2025 73(3):145-159. – 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: 15 – Name: DatePubCY Label: Publication Date Group: Date Data: 2025 – 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="%22STEM+Education%22">STEM Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Large+Group+Instruction%22">Large Group Instruction</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Faculty+Development%22">Faculty Development</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Centered+Learning%22">Student Centered Learning</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22College+Faculty%22">College Faculty</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Science+Instruction%22">Science Instruction</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teaching+Methods%22">Teaching Methods</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Private+Colleges%22">Private Colleges</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Urban+Universities%22">Urban Universities</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Research+Universities%22">Research Universities</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Attitudes%22">Teacher Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Lecture+Method%22">Lecture Method</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Undergraduate+Study%22">Undergraduate Study</searchLink> – Name: Subject Label: Geographic Terms Group: Su Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Pennsylvania+%28Philadelphia%29%22">Pennsylvania (Philadelphia)</searchLink> – Name: DOI Label: DOI Group: ID Data: 10.1080/87567555.2023.2246618 – Name: ISSN Label: ISSN Group: ISSN Data: 8756-7555<br />1930-8299 – Name: Abstract Label: Abstract Group: Ab Data: Undergraduate courses in science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) disciplines are predominantly taught via traditional lecture, despite evidence that student-centered instruction is more effective at supporting student learning. To improve STEM instruction, we developed a professional development course promoting use of student-centered pedagogies in large STEM classes. Through semi-structured interviews analyzed by modified grounded theory approach, we found that all participants communicated changes in their thinking and practice post-course. A majority were focused on student-centered pedagogies, while a few remained focused on traditional lecture-based teaching. Observed differences may be due to varied understanding about how people learn or receptivity to effective pedagogies. Outcomes suggest important considerations in STEM professional development. – Name: AbstractInfo Label: Abstractor Group: Ab Data: As Provided – Name: DateEntry Label: Entry Date Group: Date Data: 2026 – Name: AN Label: Accession Number Group: ID Data: EJ1494136 |
| PLink | https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1494136 |
| RecordInfo | BibRecord: BibEntity: Identifiers: – Type: doi Value: 10.1080/87567555.2023.2246618 Languages: – Text: English PhysicalDescription: Pagination: PageCount: 15 StartPage: 145 Subjects: – SubjectFull: STEM Education Type: general – SubjectFull: Large Group Instruction Type: general – SubjectFull: Faculty Development Type: general – SubjectFull: Student Centered Learning Type: general – SubjectFull: College Faculty Type: general – SubjectFull: Science Instruction Type: general – SubjectFull: Teaching Methods Type: general – SubjectFull: Private Colleges Type: general – SubjectFull: Urban Universities Type: general – SubjectFull: Research Universities Type: general – SubjectFull: Teacher Attitudes Type: general – SubjectFull: Lecture Method Type: general – SubjectFull: Undergraduate Study Type: general – SubjectFull: Pennsylvania (Philadelphia) Type: general Titles: – TitleFull: Use of a Professional Development Course to Promote Student-Centered Teaching in Large STEM Courses Type: main BibRelationships: HasContributorRelationships: – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Wesley Shumar – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Jason Silverman – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Alison E. Moyer – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Meredith Casino – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Brett Condon – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Donna Murasko – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Daniel King – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Jennifer S. Stanford IsPartOfRelationships: – BibEntity: Dates: – D: 01 M: 01 Type: published Y: 2025 Identifiers: – Type: issn-print Value: 8756-7555 – Type: issn-electronic Value: 1930-8299 Numbering: – Type: volume Value: 73 – Type: issue Value: 3 Titles: – TitleFull: College Teaching Type: main |
| ResultId | 1 |
