Access to this full-text is provided by Springer Nature.
Content available from Innovative Higher Education
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
Evaluating Discipline-Based Education Research
for Promotion and Tenure
Erin L. Dolan
1
&Samantha L. Elliott
2
&
Charles Henderson
3
&Douglas Curran-Everett
4
&
Kristen St. John
5
&Phillip A. Ortiz
6
Published online: 29 May 2017
#The Author(s) 2017. This article is an open access publication
Abstract Discipline-based education research (DBER) is an emergent, interdisciplinary field
of scholarship aimed at understanding and improving discipline-specific teaching and learning.
The number of DBER faculty members in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics
(STEM) departments has grown rapidly in recent years. Because the interdisciplinary nature of
DBER involves social science, senior STEM faculty members may find it challenging to
evaluate the quality or impact of DBER scholarship. This essay aims to address this issue by
InnovHighEduc(2018)43:31–39
DOI 10.1007/s10755-017-9406-y
Erin L. Dolan (eldolan@uga.edu) is Professor of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology and Georgia Athletic
Association Professor of Innovative Science Education at the University of Georgia. She earned a Ph.D. in
Neuroscience from the University of California San Francisco and currently serves as Editor-in-Chief of CBE –
Life Sciences Education.
Samantha L. Elliott (slelliott@smcm.edu) is Associate Professor of Biology at St. Mary’s College of Maryland.
She earned her Ph.D. in Immunology from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and currently serves
as Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education. She is also a Fellow in the Partnership
for Undergraduate Life Sciences Education (PULSE).
Charles Henderson (charles.henderson@wmich.edu) is a professor at Western Michigan University with a joint
appointment between the Department of Physics and the Mallinson Institute for Science Education. He earned a
Ph.D. in Physics Education Research from the University of Minnesota Minneapolis and currently serves as
Senior Editor of Physical Review Physics Education Research.
*Erin L. Dolan
eldolan@uga.edu
1
Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, The University of Georgia, B210B Davison Life
Sciences, Athens, GA 30602, USA
2
St. Mary’s College of Maryland, St. Marys City, MD 20686, USA
3
Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, MI, USA
4
Colorado School of Public Health, University of Colorado Denver, Denver, CO 80204, USA
5
James Madison University, Harrisonburg, VA 22807, USA
6
State University of New York, Albany, NY, USA
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
providing guidance on evaluating the scholarly accomplishments of DBER faculty members in
a way that is useful to departmental colleagues and administrators during the tenure and
promotion evaluation process.
Keywords Discipline-based education research .Promotion .Tenure .Faculty evaluation
National efforts are underway to transform undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics (STEM) education by encouraging STEM faculty members to use instructional strat-
egies that improve the learning and success of all students (Freeman et al., 2014). One aspect of these
efforts is discipline-based education research(DBER),whichhasemergedwithintheSTEM
disciplines to investigate and improve undergraduate learning and development and inform teaching
reform efforts. As defined by the National Research Council (Singer, Nielsen, & Schweingruber,
2012), STEM DBER (referred to as BDBER^from here forward for succinctness) combines Bexpert
knowledge of a science or engineering discipline, of the challenges of learning and teaching in that
discipline, and of the science of learning and teaching generally^(p. 2) to address Bdiscipline-specific
problems and challenges^(p. 202). For example, the field of biology presents unique challenges for
learning because of the extensive use of acronyms, use of multiple terms to describe a single
phenomenon or physical entity (e.g., multiple names for the same protein), and evolution of the
meaning of terms over time (e.g., changing definitions of Bgene^or Bspecies^) (Tibell & Rundgren,
2010). Understanding biology also requires reasoning across orders of magnitude (atomic to
ecosystem) and ontological levels (e.g., DNA is information, a unit of inheritance, and a physical
entity) (Tsui & Treagust, 2003). Although topics of DBER are disciplinary in nature and therefore
familiar to STEM colleagues, the research questions and methods of DBER are often grounded in the
social sciences. As such, DBER is truly an interdisciplinary field of study (Fig. 1).
Education evaluation, scholarly teaching, and the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning
(SoTL) also aim to improve teaching and learning using educational data, but are distinct from
DBER. Education evaluation aims to determine the merit, worth, value, or impact of a program
or intervention (Scriven, 2003) with the goal of informing action rather than contributing to
understanding teaching and learning, as is the case for DBER. Scholarly teaching involves
teaching in ways that are consistent with research on learning, such as collecting assessment
data from students to inform instructional decision making (Angelo & Cross, 1993), but with
no intention of sharing the data beyond the classroom. SoTL extends scholarly teaching
beyond the private environment of the classroom to the public domain through sharing and
Douglas Curran-Everett (EverettD@NJHealth.org) is Professor and Head of the Division of Biostatistics and
Bioinformatics at National Jewish Health and Professor in the Department of Biostatistics and Informatics in the
Colorado School of Public Health at the University of Colorado Denver. He earned a Ph.D. in Physiology from
the State University of New York at Buffalo, is accredited as a Professional Statistician by the American
Statistical Association, and is a Fellow of the American Physiological Society. He is the current Editor-in-
Chief of Advances in Physiology Education.
Kristen St. John (stjohnke@jmu.edu) is a Professor of Geology at James Madison University. She earned a
Ph.D. in Geoscience from The Ohio State University and currently serves as the Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of
Geoscience Education.
Phillip A. Ortiz (Editor@BAMBEd.org) is Assistant Provost for Undergraduate and STEM Education and
Coordinator of the Empire State STEM Learning Network at the State University of New York. He earned a
Ph.D. in Physiology and Biophysics from the State University of New York at Stony Brook and currently serves
as Editor-in-Chief of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education.
32 Innov High Educ (2018) 43:31–39
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
peer critique, bringing a level of systematicity and professionalism to improving instruction
(Shulman, 2000). SoTL studies are typically descriptive and focus on innovations that
addresses learning goals. Data collection and analyses are generally limited to one’sclassroom
or program with the aim of making local improvements; when published following peer
review, SoTL can also serve as a tried-and-tested curriculum or instruction for other instructors
to adapt for use with their own students. In contrast, DBER pursues research questions and
hypotheses about teaching, learning, and ways of thinking in a discipline that extend beyond
single classrooms and programs in order to yield original, generalizable, and mechanistic
insights into educational processes and their effects.
1
DBER Positions: Development and Growth
There are multiple entry paths to DBER faculty positions. Some DBER faculty members have
doctoral degrees in traditional areas of STEM and have either completed postdoctoral training
in education research or developed education research programs through other mechanisms
(e.g., collaboration with social scientists, self-teaching by reading and professional develop-
ment). Other DBER faculty members have doctoral degrees in DBER or in educational
research from a college of education and have gained STEM disciplinary understanding
through their undergraduate STEM degrees or through collaborations, professional develop-
ment, and reading. Important to any path is gaining first-hand insight into both STEM theory
and practice and social science (e.g., education, cognitive science) theory and methodology.
Because DBER faculty members are recruited for and appointed in disciplinary depart-
ments, they are also uniquely positioned to help their STEM departmental colleagues apply
DBER results in their teaching to improve student learning and success. They can bring a
perspective to teaching and learning and to the study of education that reflects STEM
priorities, worldviews, understanding, and practices. This Binsider^status allows DBER
faculty members to study many issues related to postsecondary STEM education and STEM
faculty professional development, which are typically not a main focus of faculty members in
Colleges of Education but are essential to improving teaching and learning in STEM fields.
1
See also: http://www.unl.edu/dber/action-research-sotl-dber
Fig. 1 DBER is an
interdisciplinary field situated at the
nexus of science, social science, and
education (adapted from Lukes,
LaDue, Cheek, Ryker, & St. John,
2015)
InnovHighEduc(2018)43:31–39 33
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
The growth and productivity of DBER have prompted an increasing number of institutions
to establish tenure-track DBER positions in STEM departments. In 2014–2015 alone, there
were more than 25 active searches for tenure-track positions in biology education research.
Training programs in DBER at the undergraduate and graduate level are also growing. The
National Science Foundation (NSF) has funded DBER Research Experiences for Undergrad-
uates sites and included DBER as an area of scholarship for their prestigious graduate
fellowships. Although a handful of DBER doctoral programs have been in place for decades
(e.g., the Chemistry Education Research program at Purdue University has existed for
31 years), many more are emerging. For example, seven of the 15 geoscience education
research graduate programs in the U.S. were established since 2005 (Libarkin, 2015). The
work of DBER faculty members has resulted in a huge growth of understanding in under-
graduate education that can inform teaching and learning in STEM units and beyond (Singer
et al., 2012). For example, Freeman et al. (2014) conducted a widely recognized and influential
meta-analysis of 150 articles that demonstrated the effects of active learning for undergraduate
STEM students; 90 of the 150 articles (60%) were published in DBER journals.
The Challenge of Evaluating DBER Scholarship
Faculty members hired into DBER positions are expected to contribute to understanding
STEM education by establishing productive research programs, including publishing and
garnering extramural funding. However, because these positions are in units where the new
faculty member may be the only DBER scholar, the research programs must be evaluated by
non-DBER STEM colleagues. Although senior STEM faculty members are accustomed to
evaluating the teaching and service accomplishments of their junior colleagues, they may be
less familiar with evaluating scholarly work that makes use of social science theory and
methods to address questions about STEM teaching and learning. Traditional metrics for
evaluating the impact of STEM research, such as numbers of citations, may miss important
influences of DBER. This alone does not make DBER distinctive. In fact, DBER is similar to
other interdisciplinary or applied research fields, the impacts of which extend beyond standard
metrics such as citations. For instance, clinical biomedical research has been evaluated for its
impact on patient care (e.g., Cox et al., 2009); and agricultural and extension research has been
evaluated for its usefulness to the public (Weiser & Houglum, 1998). Scholars in these fields
have academic homes with a tradition of evaluating Bnontraditional^impact; that same
tradition now needs to expand to also include the impact of DBER. This essay aims to address
this issue by providing guidance on evaluating the scholarly accomplishments of DBER
faculty members in a way that is useful to their departmental colleagues and administrators
during the tenure and promotion evaluation process.
Recommendations for Evaluating DBER Scholarship
Nature of Specific DBER Positions
First and foremost, all evaluations must be conducted with the expectations of the DBER
faculty member’s position in mind, the conditions of which should have been articulated and
agreed upon at the time of hire. The faculty member, the administrators, and the members of
34 Innov High Educ (2018) 43:31–39
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
the promotion and tenure committee all need to be working from the same set of expectations
for what constitutes success in that position. For example, at the University of Georgia, DBER
faculty members have been hired into positions that varied significantly in their research and
teaching expectations. Some DBER faculty members have primarily teaching positions, with
responsibility for 0.625 instruction and 0.125 research of a standard nine-month or 0.75
position. Others have predominantly research positions, with responsibilities similar to most
STEM research faculty members, that is, 0.50 research and 0.25 instruction. The teaching
loads and research expectations of these positions differ accordingly. For example, a peer-
reviewed contribution to a widely-used and respected curriculum database such as the National
Center for Case Study Teaching in Science
2
would be a valued scholarly contribution for a
primarily teaching position, while peer-reviewed publications in respected journals would be
expected for a primarily research position.
Regardless of the distribution of responsibilities, DBER scholarship is evaluated based on
evidence of knowledge creation and impact. In the University of Georgia’s Department of
Plant Biology, a candidate being considered for promotion from assistant professor to associate
professor with tenure must have published a body of work sufficient to provide evidence of an
emerging national reputation for excellence in teaching and creative scholarship in the
pedagogy of the discipline.
3
For promotion from associate professor to full professor, the
candidate must have published a body of work sufficient to establish a national reputation for
excellence in teaching and creative scholarship in the pedagogy of the discipline. Publications
generally are expected to appear in appropriate peer-reviewed journals that have earned high
national and international status. United States Patents count as publications, and information
deposited in national databases or distributed on the web may count as a publication if these
are equivalent in impact to a standard peer-reviewed publication.
Examining where DBER Scholarship is Published
Although DBER is interdisciplinary, its primary impact is not. Rather, DBER aims to be
useful, valuable, and influential to other DBER scholars and to the faculty members who are
teaching in the discipline. Thus, one indicator of impact is the nature of the journals where
DBER faculty members publish their work. This can be determined by examining the mission
and readership of the journal and evaluating how specific papers contribute to the journal’s
mission and the work of its readership. DBER faculty members may publish education pieces
in STEM research journals; descriptions of instructional strategies in STEM teaching journals;
and scholarly reviews and original research in journals of education, social science, or DBER.
Each type of journal publishes articles that fit with their respective missions. For example, a
journal such as Science magazine publishes occasional education articles of unusually broad
relevance. Practice-oriented journals such as the Journal of College Science Teaching and The
Physics Teacher publish reports and discussions of innovative teaching materials and methods
for other instructors to adopt or adapt. DBER scholars may publish in education research
journals, such as the Journal of Research in Science Teaching,American Educational Re-
search Journal,Journal of Educational Psychology,andInstructional Science to reach readers
who are education researchers, education psychologists, and cognitive scientists.
2
See: http://sciencecases.lib.buffalo.edu/cs/
3
See the departmental bylaws at: http://www.plantbio.uga.edu/sites/default/files/March%202016%20
approved%20PBIO-Bylaws%20including%20P%26T%20-%20pdf%20for%20website.pdf
InnovHighEduc(2018)43:31–39 35
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
DBER journals, such as the ones we, the authors, represent, reach DBER faculty members
and their STEM colleagues. These journals publish research and evaluation studies of
discipline-specific teaching and learning, such as characterizations of how students think about
the transformation of matter and the extent to which their thinking aligns with experts’ideas.
This work can be translated into classroom interventions and studied for effectiveness, such as
whether an instructional strategy helps students develop more expert conceptions of how
matter is transformed. Most DBER journals aim to be understandable and applicable to both
education researchers and the thousands of scientists, engineers, and mathematicians who
teach. Some DBER fields, such as chemistry education research, have published community
rankings of top tier journals that can be used as an indicator of journal quality (e.g., Towns &
Kraft, 2012). In other DBER fields, such as biology education research, it may be more
important to publish in a society journal (e.g., the American Physiological Society’sAdvances
in Physiology Education) because it may be more widely read and thus influential among
colleagues teaching in a specific sub-discipline.
Examining the use of DBER Scholarship
The ultimate goal of DBER is the improvement of student learning. The extent to which this
occurred goes beyond counting citations (Feig, 2013;Singeretal.,2012). Therefore, using
multiple methods of evaluating the impact of scholarship becomes important. Two additional
metrics that can be useful are article views and downloads. For example, Hoskins and
colleagues (Hoskins, Lopatto, & Stevens, 2011) published a study of a method for teaching
undergraduates to read and evaluate primary scientific literature. The article has been cited
only 61 times (Google Scholar), but the full-text html has been accessed ~2000 times; and the
article PDF has been downloaded >2400 times at the time this piece was written. The most-
cited article in CBE - Life Sciences Education (LSE), the DBER journal published by the
American Society for Cell Biology, has been cited only 271 times (Google Scholar), but has
had >23,500 html visits and over 15,000 PDF downloads (Crowe, Dirks, & Wenderoth, 2008).
An article outlining new microbiology curriculum guidelines (Merkel, 2012) has been cited
only 18 times (Google Scholar), but has been implemented by more than 150 faculty members
(Horak, Merkel, & Chang, 2015), who in turn have the potential to influence hundreds of
students per year. These guidelines have also influenced microbiology textbook reform and
initiatives of the American Society for Microbiology (ASM) related to student assessment.
Citations of DBER scholarship can be limited not only by the practical nature of the
research, but also by characteristics of DBER fields, which are small with a fairly limited
number of journals (Harzing, 2012; Singer et al., 2012). For example, there is a single society-
sponsored geoscience education research journal, the Journal of Geoscience Education,which
limits opportunities for external citations within the field. The norms of citing prior work also
differ. For example, Cultural Studies of Science Education strongly discourages the citing of
more than one or two papers in support of a point (Tobin, 2008,2009).
Evaluating Contributions to the Field
Regardless of the DBER field, there should be evidence of innovative and novel contributions.
In this way, evaluating DBER is similar to evaluating scholarship in any sub-discipline; it must
rely heavily upon input from experts in the subfield or at least upon individuals who have
sufficient familiarity with and expertise in the discipline to determine what is novel. At
36 Innov High Educ (2018) 43:31–39
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
institutions where there are multiple DBER scholars, it is relatively straightforward to find
local experts. For example, Middle Tennessee State University (MTSU) evaluates the schol-
arship of DBER faculty members by including a representative from each of the focal areas in
the department on the promotion and tenure committee. If a DBER candidate is the first to be
considered for promotion and tenure in an MTSU department, a faculty member knowledge-
able about DBER scholarship is asked to serve in this role even though they are not producing
DBER scholarship themselves. The University of Arizona addresses the isolation of DBER
faculty members in their College of Science by soliciting evaluations not only from depart-
mental and college colleagues, but also from a separate Science Education Promotion and
Tenure Committee
4
comprised of science education researchers across campus. Individuals on
this committee bring expertise in education and social science research to the evaluation of
DBER contributions that may not be available within particular science departments.
At institutions where neither of these approaches is feasible, external reviews from DBER
scholars become even more critical. DBER experts can be identified in a variety of ways, such
as through their service on DBER journal editorial boards, their authorship of high profile
DBER publications, their role in DBER professional societies, and their roles as principal
investigators of DBER grants or regional or national education programs. These outside
experts can help disciplinary colleagues understand the nature of the journals where DBER
candidates are publishing as well as the specific impact of the candidates’scholarship on
research design and methods, elucidating student understanding, educational practice, pro-
gramming, and policy. Outside experts can also help disciplinary colleagues evaluate various
forms of scholarship. For example, conferences where DBER faculty members present their
work may employ a rigorous peer review process in selecting oral and poster presentations,
such as the annual meeting of the National Association of Research in Science Teaching,
which requires the submission of a five-page presentation that is reviewed through a double-
blind process resulting in ~50% acceptance rate. Some conferences publish peer-reviewed
proceedings (e.g., Physics Education Research Conference, Annual Conference on Research in
Undergraduate Mathematics Education). At the ASM Conference for Undergraduate Educa-
tors, peer-reviewed poster presentations (60% average acceptance rate for 2014–2015) require
extensive data on student learning, while peer-reviewed oral presentations have less stringent
requirements (referred to as Bmicrobrews;^85% average acceptance rate in 2014–2015). This
is distinctly different from many STEM meetings where most if not all poster presentations are
accepted and comparatively fewer oral presentations are accepted. As context for their
evaluations, both internal and external evaluators should identify their areas of expertise and
make explicit in writing their expertise in commenting on specific aspects of DBER
scholarship.
Examining Usefulness of DBER Scholarship
Whether effecting change at a local, regional, or national level, it is important to evaluate the
usefulness of DBER for improving STEM education. When relevant, feedback should be
solicited from instructors who have made use of a DBER faculty member’sresearchintheir
teaching, with the aim of describing how the research was translated into practice, its influence
4
For a description of the Science Education Promotion and Tenure Committee, see: http://www.biology.arizona.
edu/raire/septc.html. Associated policy can be found here: http://cos.arizona.edu/sites/cos.arizona.edu/media/fp_
personnel_policy_2008.doc
InnovHighEduc(2018)43:31–39 37
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
on faculty members, and its impact on student learning. When warranted, dossiers should
include narrative descriptions of any influences of DBER publications on programs and policy
accompanied by evidence. For example, DBER has led to the creation of effective professional
development for those who mentor scientists-in-training (e.g., Handelsman, 2005; Pfund,
Pribbenow, Branchaw, Lauffer, & Handelsman, 2006), tools for measuring student learning
(e.g., Nehm, Beggrow, Opfer, & Ha, 2012), and curriculum and textbooks designed to fit how
students learn (e.g., Reynolds, Johnson, Morin, & Carter, 2013). DBER has also been featured
in reports from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; NSF program
announcements; and policy recommendations and calls for action from other nationally
influential groups (e.g., White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, education
committees of scientific societies).
Conclusion
DBER faculty members are responsible for communicating and demonstrating the
excellence, relevance, and impact of their research; but it is the responsibility of
university administrators and the senior STEM faculty members to understand the
landscape in which DBER is conducted and its potential for transformative change in
disciplinary teaching and learning. As DBER positions grow in number and current
DBER faculty members mature into leadership positions, navigating the road to tenure
and promotion within DBER will become easier. We hope that this essay fills a
current gap in this process.
Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank the participants of the 2014 meeting of the Society for the
Advancement of Biology Education Research (SABER) for initial conversations that described the need for this
article. The authors would also like to thank Bruce Alberts, Andrew Brower, Michelle Momany, and Allen
Moore for critical review, feedback, and encouragement. Erin Dolan convened all the authors. Erin Dolan,
Samantha Elliott, and Charles Henderson drafted the manuscript. Douglas Curran-Everett, Kristen St. John, and
Phillip Ortiz contributed to the writing and provided ideas and examples that pertained to their disciplines.
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and repro-
duction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a
link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
References
Angelo, T. A., & Cross, K. P. (1993). Classroom assessment techniques: A handbook for college teachers.San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Cox,J.D.,Giralt,S.A.,Veazie,M.L.,Ajani,J.A.,Bruner,J.M.,Chan, K. W., et al. (2009). Evaluating
quality in clinical cancer research: The M.D. Anderson cancer center experience. Oncology, 77,
75–81. doi:10.1159/000226772
Crowe, A., Dirks, C.,& Wenderoth,M. P. (2008). Biology in bloom: Implementing Bloom’s taxonomy to enhance
student learning in biology. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 7,368–381. doi:10.1187/cbe.08-05-0024
Feig, A. D. (2013). The allochthon of misfit toys. Journal of Geoscience Education, 61, 306–317.
doi:10.5408/13-004.1
Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014).
Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences, 111, 8410–8415. doi:10.1073/pnas.1319030111
38 Innov High Educ (2018) 43:31–39
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Handelsman, J. (2005). Entering mentoring: A seminar to train a new generation of scientists.Madison,WI:
Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System.
Harzing, A.-W. (2012). A preliminary test of google scholar as a source for citation data: A longitudinal study of
Nobel prize winners. Scientometrics, 94, 1057–1075. doi:10.1007/s11192-012-0777-7
Horak, R. E., Merkel, S., & Chang, A. (2015). The ASM curriculum guidelines for undergraduate microbiology:
A case study of the advocacy role of societies in reform efforts. Journal of Microbiology & Biology
Education, 16,100–104.
Hoskins, S. G., Lopatto, D., & Stevens, L. M. (2011). The C.R.E.A.T.E. approach to primary literature shifts
undergraduates’self-assessed ability to read and analyze journal articles, attitudes about science, and
epistemological beliefs. CBE-life Sciences Education, 10,368–378. doi:10.1187/cbe.11-03-0027
Libarkin, J. (2015, June ). Alphabetical list of graduate programs in geocognition and geoscience education
research. Retrieved from https://geocognitionresearchlaboratory.wordpress.com/graduate-
study/geocognition-geoscience-education-research-programs/
Lukes, L., LaDue, N., Cheek, K., Ryker, K., & St. John, K. (2015). Creating a community of practice
around geoscience education research: NAGT-GER. Journal of Geoscience Education, 63,1–6.
doi:10.5408/1089-9995-63.1.1
Merkel, S. (2012). The development of curricular guidelines for introductory microbiology that focus on
understanding. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, 13,32–38. doi:10.1128/jmbe.v13i1.363
Nehm,R.H.,Beggrow,E.P.,Opfer,J.E.,&Ha,M.(2012).Reasoningaboutnaturalselection:
Diagnosing contextual competency using the ACORNS instrument. The American Biology
Teacher, 74,92–98. doi:10.1525/abt.2012.74.2.6
Pfund, C., Pribbenow, C. M., Branchaw, J., Lauffer, S. M., & Handelsman, J. (2006). The merits of training
mentors. Science, 311,473–474.
Reynolds, S., Johnson, J., Morin, J., & Carter, C. (2013). Exploring geology (3rd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-
Hill Science/Engineering/Math.
Scriven, M. (2003). Evaluation theory and metatheory. In T. Kellaghan & D. L. Stufflebeam (Eds.), International
handbook of ed ucational evaluation (pp. 15–30). Boston, MA: Kluwer.
Shulman, L. S. (2000). From Minsk to Pinsk: Why a scholarship of teaching and learning? Journal of
Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 1,48–53.
Singer, S. R., Nielsen, N. R., & Schweingruber, H. A. (Eds.). (2012). Discipline-based education research:
Understanding and improving learning in undergraduate science and engineering. Washington, DC:
National Academies Press. Retrieved from https://www.nap.edu/catalog/13362/discipline-based-education-
research-understanding-and-improving-learning-in-undergraduate
Tibell, L. A. E., & Rundgren, C.-J. (2010). Educational challenges of molecular life science:
Characteristics and implications for education and research. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 9,
25–33. doi:10.1187/cbe.08-09-0055
Tobin, K. G. (2008). Contributing to the conversation in science education. Cultural Studies of Science
Education, 3,535–540. doi:10.1007/s11422-008-9143-8
Tobin, K. G. (2009). Acknowledging and building on the work of others. Cultural Studies of Science Education,
4, 255–258. doi:10.1007/s11422-009-9181-x
Towns, M. H., & Kraft, A. (2012). The 2010 rankings of chemical education and science education
journals by faculty engaged in chemical education research. Journal of Chemical Education, 89,
16–20. doi:10.1021/ed100929g
Tsui, C.-Y., & Treagust, D. F. (2003). Genetics reasoning with multiple external representations. Research in
Science Education, 33,111–135. doi:10.1023/A:1023685706290
Weiser, C. J., & Houglum, L. (1998). Scholarship unbound for the 21st century. Journal of Extension, 36.
Retrieved from http://www.joe.org/joe/1998august/a1.php
InnovHighEduc(2018)43:31–39 39
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Terms and Conditions
Springer Nature journal content, brought to you courtesy of Springer Nature Customer Service Center
GmbH (“Springer Nature”).
Springer Nature supports a reasonable amount of sharing of research papers by authors, subscribers
and authorised users (“Users”), for small-scale personal, non-commercial use provided that all
copyright, trade and service marks and other proprietary notices are maintained. By accessing,
sharing, receiving or otherwise using the Springer Nature journal content you agree to these terms of
use (“Terms”). For these purposes, Springer Nature considers academic use (by researchers and
students) to be non-commercial.
These Terms are supplementary and will apply in addition to any applicable website terms and
conditions, a relevant site licence or a personal subscription. These Terms will prevail over any
conflict or ambiguity with regards to the relevant terms, a site licence or a personal subscription (to
the extent of the conflict or ambiguity only). For Creative Commons-licensed articles, the terms of
the Creative Commons license used will apply.
We collect and use personal data to provide access to the Springer Nature journal content. We may
also use these personal data internally within ResearchGate and Springer Nature and as agreed share
it, in an anonymised way, for purposes of tracking, analysis and reporting. We will not otherwise
disclose your personal data outside the ResearchGate or the Springer Nature group of companies
unless we have your permission as detailed in the Privacy Policy.
While Users may use the Springer Nature journal content for small scale, personal non-commercial
use, it is important to note that Users may not:
use such content for the purpose of providing other users with access on a regular or large scale
basis or as a means to circumvent access control;
use such content where to do so would be considered a criminal or statutory offence in any
jurisdiction, or gives rise to civil liability, or is otherwise unlawful;
falsely or misleadingly imply or suggest endorsement, approval , sponsorship, or association
unless explicitly agreed to by Springer Nature in writing;
use bots or other automated methods to access the content or redirect messages
override any security feature or exclusionary protocol; or
share the content in order to create substitute for Springer Nature products or services or a
systematic database of Springer Nature journal content.
In line with the restriction against commercial use, Springer Nature does not permit the creation of a
product or service that creates revenue, royalties, rent or income from our content or its inclusion as
part of a paid for service or for other commercial gain. Springer Nature journal content cannot be
used for inter-library loans and librarians may not upload Springer Nature journal content on a large
scale into their, or any other, institutional repository.
These terms of use are reviewed regularly and may be amended at any time. Springer Nature is not
obligated to publish any information or content on this website and may remove it or features or
functionality at our sole discretion, at any time with or without notice. Springer Nature may revoke
this licence to you at any time and remove access to any copies of the Springer Nature journal content
which have been saved.
To the fullest extent permitted by law, Springer Nature makes no warranties, representations or
guarantees to Users, either express or implied with respect to the Springer nature journal content and
all parties disclaim and waive any implied warranties or warranties imposed by law, including
merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose.
Please note that these rights do not automatically extend to content, data or other material published
by Springer Nature that may be licensed from third parties.
If you would like to use or distribute our Springer Nature journal content to a wider audience or on a
regular basis or in any other manner not expressly permitted by these Terms, please contact Springer
Nature at
onlineservice@springernature.com
Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
