Cited by 182Innovative Teaching MethodsEvaluation of Teaching PracticesProblem and Project Based Learning

PORTAAL: A Classroom Observation Tool Assessing Evidence-Based Teaching Practices for Active Learning in Large Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Classes

Open access
Eddy, Sarah L., Converse, Mercedes, Wenderoth, Mary Pat·2015·CBE—Life Sciences Education

Abstract

There is extensive evidence that active learning works better than a completely passive lecture. Despite this evidence, adoption of these evidence-based teaching practices remains low. In this paper, we offer one tool to help faculty members implement active learning. This tool identifies 21 readily implemented elements that have been shown to increase student outcomes related to achievement, logic development, or other relevant learning goals with college-age students. Thus, this tool both clarifies the research-supported elements of best practices for instructor implementation of active learning in the classroom setting and measures instructors’ alignment with these practices. We describe how we reviewed the discipline-based education research literature to identify best practices in active learning for adult learners in the classroom and used these results to develop an observation tool (Practical Observation Rubric To Assess Active Learning, or PORTAAL) that documents the extent to which instructors incorporate these practices into their classrooms. We then use PORTAAL to explore the classroom practices of 25 introductory biology instructors who employ some form of active learning. Overall, PORTAAL documents how well aligned classrooms are with research-supported best practices for active learning and provides specific feedback and guidance to instructors to allow them to identify what they do well and what could be improved.

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.14-06-0095

Cites

70 of 70 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?

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

15 of the 85 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Eddy, S. L., Converse, M., & Wenderoth, M. P.
Affiliations
University of Washington (US)
Corresponding author
Eddy, Sarah L.
Venue
CBE—Life Sciences Education
Published
2015-06
Volume
14
Issue
2
Pages
ar23
ISSN
1931-7913 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2307728084
Cited by
182
References
85
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 24 · 2020: 24 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 3
FWCI
70.04
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
National Science Foundation (1118890)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Innovative Teaching Methods
  • Social Sciences › Education › Evaluation of Teaching Practices
  • Social Sciences › Education › Problem and Project Based Learning
Keywords
active learning, evidence-based teaching practices, classroom observation tools, instructor feedback, adult learners, discipline-based education research
MeSH terms
Engineering, Humans, Logic, Mathematics, Science, Students, Teaching, Technology, Universities, Reproducibility of Results, Program Development, 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