and Hogan, 2014). Therefore, the importance of teaching
STEM courses in this manner has been stressed in multiple
recent national reports (American Association for the Advancement
of Science, 2010; President’s Council of Advisors
on Science and Technology, 2012; Singer et al., 2012). Despite
these strong, evidence-based recommendations, higher education
institutions do not typically collect systematic data
on how many faculty members are teaching in an active-engagement
manner (Wieman and Gilbert, 2014).
The absence of such information can be a barrier to systematic
efforts to improve instruction. Indeed, the lack of robust
baseline data makes it difficult for faculty professional development
programs to optimize information to the actual,
rather than the suspected, needs of faculty. Without insight
into the strengths and weaknesses of faculty instructional
practices, such programs often focus on introducing instructional
strategies of which faculty members are often already
aware (Henderson and Dancy, 2008). Moreover, if professional
development leaders contrast different instructional
styles to lecture, there is a risk that participating faculty
members may feel they are being unfairly categorized as
traditional instructors who solely lecture. Such messages,