Cited by 68Evaluation of Teaching PracticesInnovative Teaching MethodsScience Education and Pedagogy

A Faculty Professional Development Model That Improves Student Learning, Encourages Active-Learning Instructional Practices, and Works for Faculty at Multiple Institutions

Open access
Pelletreau, Karen N., Knight, Jennifer K., Lemons, Paula P., McCourt, Jill S., Merrill, John E., Nehm, Ross H., Prevost, Luanna B., Urban-Lurain, Mark +1 more·2018·CBE—Life Sciences Education

Abstract

Helping faculty develop high-quality instruction that positively affects student learning can be complicated by time limitations, a lack of resources, and inexperience using student data to make iterative improvements. We describe a community of 16 faculty from five institutions who overcame these challenges and collaboratively designed, taught, iteratively revised, and published an instructional unit about the potential effect of mutations on DNA replication, transcription, and translation. The unit was taught to more than 2000 students in 18 courses, and student performance improved from preassessment to postassessment in every classroom. This increase occurred even though faculty varied in their instructional practices when they were teaching identical materials. We present information on how this faculty group was organized and facilitated, how members used student data to positively affect learning, and how they increased their use of active-learning instructional practices in the classroom as a result of participation. We also interviewed faculty to learn more about the most useful components of the process. We suggest that this professional development model can be used for geographically separated faculty who are interested in working together on a known conceptual difficulty to improve student learning and explore active-learning instructional practices.

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.17-12-0260

Cites

56 of 56 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?

  • The FOLC model has been used in other STEM disciplines as well.

    “This model has been used in other STEM disciplines as well [61].”

    From Faculty online learning communities: A model for sustained teaching transformation (2019) · cites this paper as [61]

    The Faculty Participants section says all participants in this project taught large-enrollment biology courses. The Introduction describes faculty learning communities, but neither it nor the other passages found establishes that this model has been used in other STEM disciplines (searched: FOLC and other disciplines). (LLM, conf=0.75)

    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

1 of the 57 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Beach A. L. Cox M. D. (2009). The impact of faculty learning communities on teaching and learning. Learning Communities Journal, (1), 7– 27.
  2. Haudek K. C. Moscarella R. A. Weston M. Merrill J. Urban-Lurain M. (2015). Construction of rubrics to evaluate content in students’ scientific explanation using computerized text analysis. National Association for Research in Science Teaching conference 1– 30.
  3. Mazur E. (1997). Peer instruction: A user’s manual. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Higher Education.
  4. Ortquist-Ahrens L. Torosyan R. (2009). The role of the facilitator in faculty learning communities: Paving the way for growth, productivity, and collegiality. Learning Communities Journal, (1), 29– 62.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Pelletreau, K. N., Knight, J. K., Lemons, P. P., McCourt, J. S., Merrill, J. E., Nehm, R. H., Prevost, L. B., Urban-Lurain, M., & Smith, M. K.
Affiliations
  • Stony Brook University (US)
  • Department of Molecular, Cellular, and Developmental Biology, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80309
  • University of Georgia (US)
  • Michigan State University (US)
  • University of South Florida (US)
  • CREATE for STEM Institute, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824
Corresponding author
Smith, Michelle K.
Venue
CBE—Life Sciences Education
Published
2018-06
Volume
17
Issue
2
Pages
es5
ISSN
1931-7913 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2801685042
Cited by
66
References
57
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 1
FWCI
18.64
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)
  • Digital Commons - University of South Florida (University of South Florida) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • CU Scholar (University of Colorado Boulder) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
National Science Foundation (1347578, 1322851)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Evaluation of Teaching Practices
  • Social Sciences › Education › Innovative Teaching Methods
  • Social Sciences › Education › Science Education and Pedagogy
Keywords
faculty professional development, active learning, learning outcomes, conceptual difficulties, instructional unit design
MeSH terms
Base Sequence, Faculty, Humans, Students, Teaching, 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