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). 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).
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. 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].
- Table 1 Interactive class time and teaching strategies versus survey year.
Survey year Class time spent on student
activities, questions,
and discussionsTeaching strategy Less than or equal
to 20% (n)More than
20% (n)Total (n) Traditional
lecture (n)Active
lecture (n)Active
learning (n)Total (n) 2004 1035 531 1566 300 611 657 1568 2009 1255 775 2030 256 816 945 2017 2012 873 893 1766 185 560 996 1741 - Table 2 Summary of qualitative interview cases sampled for the retrospective study.
Years Project Total number
of interviewsNumber of interviews
included in the
retrospective study2005 Phone interviews of 2002–2004
workshop participants about workshop impact54 34 2005–2009 Phone interviews of participants
and nonparticipants about website29 10 2007 Face-to-face interviews of both
Cutting Edge participants and nonparticipants37 27 Total 120 71
Supplementary Materials
Supplementary material for this article is available at http://advances.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/3/2/e1600193/DC1
fig. S1. Venn diagram showing survey year and number of participant responses for each survey.
fig. S2. Frequency by survey year of percentage spent on interactive class time.
table S1. Frequency by survey year of percentage spent on interactive class time.
table S2. Percentage of survey respondents reporting that more than 20% of class time is interactive by year.
table S3. Percentage of faculty group reporting that more than 20% of class time is interactive by year.
table S4. Percentage of responses reporting that more than 20% of class time is interactive for each teaching strategy by year.
table S5. Percentage of responses reporting that more than 20% of class time is interactive for each course level by year.
table S6. Spearman correlation between teaching strategy and other measures of engaged teaching.
table S7. Faculty types by survey year.
table S8. Cluster variables by faculty type: mean value of cluster variable (95% confidence interval).
table S9. Reporting of teaching strategy and interactive class time by faculty type.
table S10. Reporting of other measures of engaged teaching by faculty type.
table S11. Background and teaching characteristics by faculty types from the 2012 survey.
table S12. Relationship between faculty type and institution type in 2012 survey responses determined using cross-tabulation analysis in SPSS 22.
table S13. Engagement in learning about pedagogy characteristics by faculty type from the 2009 and 2012 surveys.
table S14. Logistic regression model for predicting more than 20% of class time on student activities, questions, and discussion.
table S15. Logistic regression results for predicting active learning (versus active lecture).
table S16. RTOP score ranges, quartiles, mean, and medians as reported for 203 observations.
table S17. Cutting Edge participation by faculty type.
table S18. Growth in Cutting Edge participants in U.S. geoscience faculty population and in survey sample.
Interview protocols
Coding book for qualitative analysis
Additional Files
Supplementary Materials
This PDF file includes:
- fig. S1. Venn diagram showing survey year and number of participant responses for
each survey.
- fig. S2. Frequency by survey year of percentage spent on interactive class time.
- table S1. Frequency by survey year of percentage spent on interactive class time.
- table S2. Percentage of survey respondents reporting that more than 20% of class time is interactive by year.
- table S3. Percentage of faculty group reporting that more than 20% of class time
is interactive by year.
- table S4. Percentage of responses reporting that more than 20% of class time is interactive
for each teaching strategy by year.
- table S5. Percentage of responses reporting that more than 20% of class time is interactive
for each course level by year.
- table S6. Spearman correlation between teaching strategy and other measures of engaged
teaching.
- table S7. Faculty types by survey year.
- table S8. Cluster variables by faculty type: mean value of cluster variable (95%
confidence interval).
- table S9. Reporting of teaching strategy and interactive class time by faculty type.
- table S10. Reporting of other measures of engaged teaching by faculty type.
- table S11. Background and teaching characteristics by faculty types from the 2012
survey.
- table S12. Relationship between faculty type and institution type in 2012 survey
responses determined using cross-tabulation analysis in SPSS 22.
- table S13. Engagement in learning about pedagogy characteristics by faculty type
from the 2009 and 2012 surveys.
- table S14. Logistic regression model for predicting more than 20% of class time on
student activities, questions, and discussion.
- table S15. Logistic regression results for predicting active learning (versus active
lecture).
- table S16. RTOP score ranges, quartiles, mean, and medians as reported for 203 observations.
- table S17. Cutting Edge participation by faculty type.
- table S18. Growth in Cutting Edge participants in U.S. geoscience faculty population
and in survey sample.
- Interview protocols
- Coding book for qualitative analysis
Files in this Data Supplement:
- fig. S1. Venn diagram showing survey year and number of participant responses for
each survey.
