Characteristics of departments with high-use of active learning in introductory STEM courses: implications for departmental transformation

International Journal of STEM Education

Table 3 Model components and examples

Component	Examples	Number of departments with component
Motivated people		16 overall
	Examples
	STEM Faculty (who are not education researchers)	16
	Department Chairs	14
	Education Researchers	9
	Institutional Leaders (e.g., Deans)	7
Knowledge about active learning		16 overall
	Gained from:
	Local education researchers or Teaching and Learning Ctr	11
	Published research and curricula materials	9
	Conferences/workshops run by Professional Societies	8
	Graduate School	4
Opportunities		16 overall
	Examples
	Funding opportunities, internal to institution	9
	Institutional Pressures (e.g., graduation rates/DFW)	9
	Hiring opportunities for active learning use	8
	Funding opportunities, external to institution	4
Cultures and Structures that support active learning		16 overall
	Institution-level
	DBER presence on campus	12
	Evaluation of teaching practices	9
	Teaching & Learning Center	7
	Type of students need/benefit from active learning	5
	Department-level
	Collaborative culture around teaching in department	16
	Culture of continual innovation and exploration (often supported by new faculty)	14
	Class layout and/or size conducive to active learning	13
	Send people to external professional development	8
	Hiring for commitment to teaching	7
	All faculty teach intro courses	5
	Common curriculum	5
	Class scheduling–large block of time	5
	Support for faculty autonomy	3
	Multi-level (arising from department and/or institution)
	Value undergraduate teaching	9

Examples of the four components in the model and the number of departments the example was present in. We include examples that were present in 3 or more departments. Total number of departments in our analysis set is 16