Cited by 796Science Education and PedagogyInnovative Teaching MethodsEvaluation of Teaching Practices

Anatomy of STEM teaching in North American universities

Open access
Stains, M., Harshman, J., Barker, M. K., Chasteen, S. V., Cole, R., DeChenne-Peters, S. E., Eagan, M. K., Esson, J. M. +23 more·2018·Science

Abstract

Lecture is prominent, but practices vary

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1126/science.aap8892

Cites

21 of 21 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Passive lectures are among the least effective modes of instruction.

    “Although passive lectures are among the least effective modes of instruction, they remain in wide use in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) courses6–8.”

    From AI tutoring outperforms in-class active learning: an RCT introducing a novel research-based design in an authentic educational setting (2025) · cites this paper as [7]

    The paper’s concluding discussion (page unavailable) describes lecturing and other teacher-centered practices as having limited impact. That supports the claim’s general point, but the paper does not rank passive lectures among the least effective modes of instruction. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • In public university contexts with large-enrollment courses, it is difficult to provide first-year students with intimate experiences that inculcate traits leading to improved retention.

    “However, given the public university context, which often includes noninteractive, large-enrollment courses, it is difficult to provide first-year students with intimate experiences that inculcate student experiences and traits that lead to improved retention (Stains et al., 2018).”

    From Improving Academic Performance and Retention of First-Year Biology Students through a Scalable Peer Mentorship Program (2021) · cites this paper as Stains et al., 2018

    The classroom-observation findings (section labeled Abstract; page not provided) report that large STEM courses were more often didactic and less often student-centered than expected by chance. They do not establish that public universities have difficulty providing first-year students with intimate experiences, or that such experiences improve retention. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • National studies suggest STEM instructors continue to teach using undisrupted lecture rather than use evidence-based active learning strategies.

    “Rather, broad patterns of observations of teaching suggest STEM instructors continue to teach using undisrupted lecture rather than use evidence-based active learning strategies [57].”

    From "It let me merge my love of teaching with research": A qualitative investigation of the career pathways of biology education researchers. (2024) · cites this paper as [57]

    The instructional-profile passage (indexed under Abstract; no page given) reports that 55% of observed classes were didactic, with lecturing occupying at least 80% of class time. This supports the prevalence of lecture, but not uniformly undisrupted lecture: some didactic classes used clicker questions and group work, and other classes used interactive or student-centered strategies. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 11

  1. [2]National Research Council, Promising practices in undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education: Summary of two workshops (National Academies Press, 2011).
  2. [6]Henderson C, Dancy M, Niewiadomska-Bugaj M, Use of research-based instructional strategies in introductory physics: Where do faculty leave the innovation-decision process? Phys. Rev. Spec. Top. Phys. Educ. Res 8, 020104 (2012).
  3. [9]Prince M, Borrego M, Henderson C, Cutler S, Froyd J, Use of research-based instructional strategies in core chemical engineering courses. Chem. Eng. Educ 47, 27 (2013).
  4. [13]Teasdale R, A multidimensional assessment of reformed teaching practice in geoscience classrooms. Geoshpere 13, 608 (2017).
  5. [15]Ebert-May D, What We Say Is Not What We Do: Effective Evaluation of Faculty Professional Development Programs. Biosci 61, 550 (2011).
  6. [22]Lund TJ, Stains M, The importance of context: an exploration of factors influencing the adoption of student-centered teaching among chemistry, biology, and physics faculty. Int. J. STEM Educ 2, 1 (2015).
  7. [23]Stains M, Pilarz M, Chakraverty D, Short and Long-Term Impacts of the Cottrell Scholars Collaborative New Faculty Workshop. J. Chem. Educ 92, 1466 (2015).
  8. [25]Henderson C, Dancy MH, Barriers to the use of research-based instructional strategies: The influence of both individual and situational characteristics. Phys. Rev. Spec. Top. Phys. Educ. Res 3, 020102 (2007).
  9. [32]Fraley C, Raftery AE, Bayesian regularization for normal mixture estimation and model-based clustering. Journal of Classification 24, 155 (2007).
  10. [34]Jaccard P, Étude comparative de la distribution florale dans une portion des Alpes et des Jura. Bull Soc Vaudoise Sci Nat 37, 547 (1901).
  11. [39]Moog RS, Spencer JN, Straumanis AR, Process oriented guided inquiry learning: POGIL and the POGIL project. Metro. Univ 17, 41 (2006).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Stains, M., Harshman, J., Barker, M. K., Chasteen, S. V., Cole, R., DeChenne-Peters, S. E., Eagan, M. K., Esson, J. M., Knight, J. K., Laski, F. A., Levis-Fitzgerald, M., Lee, C. J., Lo, S. M., McDonnell, L. M., McKay, T. A., Michelotti, N., Musgrove, A., Palmer, M. S., Plank, K. M., Rodela, T. M., Sanders, E. R., Schimpf, N. G., Schulte, P. M., Smith, M. K., Stetzer, M., Van Valkenburgh, B., Vinson, E., Weir, L. K., Wendel, P. J., Wheeler, L. B., & Young, A. M.
Affiliations
The list of author affiliations is provided in the supplementary materials.
Corresponding author
Stains, M.
Venue
Science
Published
2018-03-30
Volume
359
Issue
6383
Pages
1468-1470
ISSN
  • 0036-8075 (ISSN-L)
  • 1095-9203
OpenAlex
W2794769810
Cited by
772
References
20
Citations by year
2026: 59 · 2025: 78 · 2024: 115 · 2023: 63 · 2022: 106 · 2021: 122 · 2020: 123 · 2019: 80 · 2018: 26
FWCI
285.14
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Science (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Digital Commons - Otterbein (Otterbein University) (submittedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Howard Hughes Medical Institute
  • National Institute of General Medical Sciences (R25GM114822)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Science Education and Pedagogy
  • Social Sciences › Education › Innovative Teaching Methods
  • Social Sciences › Education › Evaluation of Teaching Practices
Keywords
STEM education, university teaching, lecture method, teaching practice, North American universities

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review