12
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Postsecondary Faculty Attitudes and Beliefs about Writing-Based Pedagogies in the STEM Classroom

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Writing is an important skill for communicating knowledge in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) and an aid to developing students’ communication skills, content knowledge, and disciplinary thinking. Despite the importance of writing, its incorporation into the undergraduate STEM curriculum is uneven. Research indicates that understanding faculty beliefs is important when trying to propagate evidence-based instructional practices, yet faculty beliefs about writing pedagogies are not yet broadly characterized for STEM teaching at the undergraduate level. Based on a nationwide cross-disciplinary survey at research-intensive institutions, this work aims to understand the extent to which writing is assigned in undergraduate STEM courses and the factors that influence faculty members’ beliefs about, and reported use of, writing-based pedagogies. Faculty attitudes about the effectiveness of writing practices did not differ between faculty who assign and do not assign writing; rather, beliefs about the influence of social factors and contextually imposed instructional constraints informed their decisions to use or not use writing. Our findings indicate that strategies to increase the use of writing need to specifically target the factors that influence faculty decisions to assign or not assign writing. It is not faculty beliefs about effectiveness, but rather faculty beliefs about behavioral control and constraints at the departmental level that need to be targeted.

          Related collections

          Most cited references76

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The theory of planned behavior

          Icek Ajzen (1991)
          Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179-211
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            The theory of planned behaviour: reactions and reflections.

            Icek Ajzen (2011)
            The seven articles in this issue, and the accompanying meta-analysis in Health Psychology Review [McEachan, R.R.C., Conner, M., Taylor, N., & Lawton, R.J. (2011). Prospective prediction of health-related behaviors with the theory of planned behavior: A meta-analysis. Health Psychology Review, 5, 97-144], illustrate the wide application of the theory of planned behaviour [Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179-211] in the health domain. In this editorial, Ajzen reflects on some of the issues raised by the different authors. Among the topics addressed are the nature of intentions and the limits of predictive validity; rationality, affect and emotions; past behaviour and habit; the prototype/willingness model; and the role of such background factors as the big five personality traits and social comparison tendency.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Generalized eta and omega squared statistics: measures of effect size for some common research designs.

              The editorial policies of several prominent educational and psychological journals require that researchers report some measure of effect size along with tests for statistical significance. In analysis of variance contexts, this requirement might be met by using eta squared or omega squared statistics. Current procedures for computing these measures of effect often do not consider the effect that design features of the study have on the size of these statistics. Because research-design features can have a large effect on the estimated proportion of explained variance, the use of partial eta or omega squared can be misleading. The present article provides formulas for computing generalized eta and omega squared statistics, which provide estimates of effect size that are comparable across a variety of research designs.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: Monitoring Editor
                Journal
                CBE Life Sci Educ
                CBE Life Sci Educ
                CBE-LSE
                lse
                CBE Life Sciences Education
                American Society for Cell Biology
                1931-7913
                Fall 2022
                : 21
                : 3
                : ar54
                Affiliations
                []Department of Chemistry, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109
                []Sweetland Center for Writing, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109
                [§ ]OnRamps, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78705
                []Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, Duke University, Minneapolis, MN 55455
                []Department of Biology, Duke University, Minneapolis, MN 55455
                [# ]Department of Microbiology and Immunology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455
                [@ ]Center for Writing, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455
                Author notes
                *Address correspondence to: Ginger V. Shultz ( gshultz@ 123456umich.edu ).
                Article
                CBE.21-09-0285
                10.1187/cbe.21-09-0285
                9582815
                35939528
                0133d032-972a-4440-8dae-9df4413e48fb
                © 2022 S. A. Finkenstaedt-Quinn et al. CBE—Life Sciences Education © 2022 The American Society for Cell Biology. “ASCB®” and “The American Society for Cell Biology®” are registered trademarks of The American Society for Cell Biology.

                This article is distributed by The American Society for Cell Biology under license from the author(s). It is available to the public under an Attribution–Noncommercial–Share Alike 4.0 Unported Creative Commons License.

                History
                : 27 September 2021
                : 24 May 2022
                : 16 June 2022
                Categories
                General Essays and Articles
                Articles

                Education
                Education

                Comments

                Comment on this article