1. Improving undergraduate STEM education: The efficacy of discipline-based professional development
by Cathryn A. Manduca, Ellen R. Iverson, Michael Luxenberg, R. Heather Macdonald, David A. McConnell, David W. Mogk, and Barbara J. Tewksbury
Science
Volume 3(2):e
February 15, 2017
Copyright © 2017, The Authors

2. Fig. 1 Percentage of 2004, 2009, and 2012 survey respondents who report spending more than 20% of class time on student activities, questions, and discussions (light green bars) and percentage of respondents who report active learning (orange bars).
Percentage of 2004, 2009, and 2012 survey respondents who report spending more than 20% of class time on student activities, questions, and discussions (light green bars) and percentage of respondents who report active learning (orange bars).
Cathryn A. Manduca et al. Sci Adv 2017;3:e
Copyright © 2017, The Authors

3. Fig. 2 Pattern of cluster variable mean values for the three faculty types demonstrating strong differences in reported behavior between groups; data were combined across all three survey years (2004, 2009, and 2012).
Pattern of cluster variable mean values for the three faculty types demonstrating strong differences in reported behavior between groups; data were combined across all three survey years (2004, 2009, and 2012). The blue line represents education-focused faculty, the red line represents geoscience research–focused faculty, and the green line represents teaching faculty. Error bars represent 95% confidence interval (table S8).
Cathryn A. Manduca et al. Sci Adv 2017;3:e
Copyright © 2017, The Authors

4. Fig. 3 Percentage of 2012 survey respondents (n = 1642) within each cluster (education-focused faculty, geoscience research–focused faculty, and teaching faculty) classified as reporting traditional lecture (green), active lecture (yellow), and active learning teaching strategies (gray).
Percentage of 2012 survey respondents (n = 1642) within each cluster (education-focused faculty, geoscience research–focused faculty, and teaching faculty) classified as reporting traditional lecture (green), active lecture (yellow), and active learning teaching strategies (gray).
Cathryn A. Manduca et al. Sci Adv 2017;3:e
Copyright © 2017, The Authors

5. Fig. 4 RTOP scores obtained from observations of faculty who had (i) neither participated in a Cutting Edge workshop nor used the website, (ii) used the website only, or (iii) both used the website and participated in a Cutting Edge workshop.
RTOP scores obtained from observations of faculty who had (i) neither participated in a Cutting Edge workshop nor used the website, (ii) used the website only, or (iii) both used the website and participated in a Cutting Edge workshop. The full range of scores for each group is indicated by a thin vertical line. The interquartile range (approximately 50% of scores) is represented with a box with a horizontal line delineating the median. *Bonferroni post hoc tests from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) test (F = 22.6; P < 0.001) indicate a significant difference in mean RTOP scores between group 3 [those who use the Cutting Edge website and attend workshops (M = 48.2, SD = 16.2)] and the other two groups [group 1 (M = 33.1, SD = 13.6); P < 0.001; group 2 (M = 37.2, SD = 13.1); P < 0.001].
Cathryn A. Manduca et al. Sci Adv 2017;3:e
Copyright © 2017, The Authors