CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 159Innovative Teaching MethodsEvaluation of Teaching PracticesScience Education and Pedagogy

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 37 of the 38 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

It’s Personal: Biology Instructors Prioritize Personal Evidence over Empirical Evidence in Teaching Decisions

Open access
Andrews, Tessa C., Lemons, Paula P.·2015·CBE—Life Sciences Education
DOI 10.1187/cbe.14-05-0084PMC PMC4353082
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Despite many calls for undergraduate biology instructors to incorporate active learning into lecture courses, few studies have focused on what it takes for instructors to make this change. We sought to investigate the process of adopting and sustaining active-learning instruction. As a framework for our research, we used the innovation-decision model, a generalized model of how individuals adopt innovations. We interviewed 17 biology instructors who were attempting to implement case study teaching and conducted qualitative text analysis on interview data. The overarching theme that emerged from our analysis was that instructors prioritized personal experience—rather than empirical evidence—in decisions regarding case study teaching. We identified personal experiences that promote case study teaching, such as anecdotal observations of student outcomes, and those that hinder case study teaching, such as insufficient teaching skills. By analyzing the differences between experienced and new case study instructors, we discovered that new case study instructors need support to deal with unsupportive colleagues and to develop the skill set needed for an active-learning classroom. We generated hypotheses that are grounded in our data about effectively supporting instructors in adopting and sustaining active-learning strategies. We also synthesized our findings with existing literature to tailor the innovation-decision model.

Overview

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 · 10.1187/cbe.14-05-0084

Cites

37 of 37 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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?

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 38 references

1 of the 38 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 9

  1. American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2011, Vision and Change in Undergraduate Biology Education: A Call to Action
  2. Boyer Commission on Education Undergraduates in the Research University, 1998, Reinventing Undergraduate Education: A Blueprint for America’s Research Universities
  3. Dinan F, 2002, J Coll Sci Teach, 32, 36
  4. Mazur E, 1997, Peer Instruction
  5. McAlpine L, 2000, Instr Sci, 28, 363
  6. National Research Council (NRC), 1997, Science Teaching Reconsidered: A Handbook
  7. NRC, 2012, Discipline-based Education Research: Science and Engineering
  8. President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, 2012, Engage to Excel: Producing One Million Additional College Graduates with Degrees in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics
  9. Winter D, 2001, J Scholarship Teach Learn, 2, 15

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–159 of 159

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Andrews, T. C., & Lemons, P. P.
Affiliations
University of Georgia (US)
Corresponding author
Lemons, Paula P.
ORCID
Venue
CBE—Life Sciences Education
Publisher
American Society for Cell Biology (ASCB)
Published
2015-03-02
Volume
14
Issue
1
Pages
ar7
ISSN
1931-7913 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1187/cbe.14-05-0084
PMC
PMC4353082
OpenAlex
W2139787198
Cited by
159
References
38
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 7
FWCI
53.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc-sa
Locations
  • CBE—Life Sciences Education (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
University of Georgia
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Innovative Teaching Methods
  • Social Sciences › Education › Evaluation of Teaching Practices
  • Social Sciences › Education › Science Education and Pedagogy
Keywords
active learning, case-based teaching, instructor decision-making, personal experience, empirical evidence, instructor support, teaching skills, coworker support, undergraduate biology education
MeSH terms
Biology, Curriculum, Decision Making, Faculty, Humans, Learning, Personal Satisfaction, Teaching, Universities, Cohort Studies, Models, Educational, Problem-Based Learning

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