creased by 0.47 SDs under active learning (n = 158 studies), and that the odds ratio for failing was 1.95 under traditional lecturing (n = 67 studies). These results indicate that average examination scores improved by about 6% in active learning sections, and that students in classes with traditional lecturing were 1.5 times more likely to fail than were students in classes with active learning. Heterogeneity analyses indicated that both results hold across the STEM disciplines, that active learning increases scores on concept inventories more than on course examinations, and that active learning appears effective across all class sizes—although the greatest effects are in small (n ≤ 50) classes. Trim and fill analyses and fail-safe n calculations suggest that the results are not due to publication bias. The results also appear robust to variation in the methodological rigor of the included studies, based on the quality of controls over student quality and instructor identity. This is the largest and most comprehensive metaanalysis of undergraduate STEM education published to date. The results raise questions about the continued use of traditional lecturing as a control in research studies, and support active learning as the preferred, empirically validated teaching practice in regular classrooms.

/pdf/active-learning-increases-student-performance-in-science-3j0c6wu4k5.pdf

Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics

A recursive analysis of network and institutional evolution is offered to account for the decentralized structure of the commercial field of the life sciences Four alternative logics of attachment—accumulative advantage, homophily, follow‐the‐trend, and multiconnectivity—are tested to explain the structure and dynamics of interorganizational collaboration in biotechnology Using multiple novel methods, the authors demonstrate how different rules for affiliation shape network evolution Commercialization strategies pursued by early corporate entrants are supplanted by universities, research institutes, venture capital, and small firms As organizations increase their collaborative activities and diversify their ties to others, cohesive subnetworks form, characterized by multiple, independent pathways These structural components, in turn, condition the choices and opportunities available to members of a field, thereby reinforcing an attachment logic based on differential connections to diverse partners

/pdf/network-dynamics-and-field-evolution-the-growth-of-516yrjpl9b.pdf

Network dynamics and field evolution : The growth of interorganizational collaboration in the life sciences

Bibliometric methods are used in multiple fields for a variety of purposes, namely for research evaluation. Most bibliometric analyses have in common their data sources: Thomson Reuters' Web of Science (WoS) and Elsevier's Scopus. The objective of this research is to describe the journal coverage of those two databases and to assess whether some field, publishing country and language are over or underrepresented. To do this we compared the coverage of active scholarly journals in WoS (13,605 journals) and Scopus (20,346 journals) with Ulrich's extensive periodical directory (63,013 journals). Results indicate that the use of either WoS or Scopus for research evaluation may introduce biases that favor Natural Sciences and Engineering as well as Biomedical Research to the detriment of Social Sciences and Arts and Humanities. Similarly, English-language journals are overrepresented to the detriment of other languages. While both databases share these biases, their coverage differs substantially. As a consequence, the results of bibliometric analyses may vary depending on the database used. These results imply that in the context of comparative research evaluation, WoS and Scopus should be used with caution, especially when comparing different fields, institutions, countries or languages. The bibliometric community should continue its efforts to develop methods and indicators that include scientific output that are not covered in WoS or Scopus, such as field-specific and national citation indexes.

The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: a comparative analysis

Stigmatization can give rise to belonging uncertainty. In this state, people are sensitive to information diagnostic of the quality of their social connections. Two experiments tested how belonging uncertainty undermines the motivation and achievement of people whose group is negatively characterized in academic settings. In Experiment 1, students were led to believe that they might have few friends in an intellectual domain. Whereas White students were unaffected, Black students (stigmatized in academics) displayed a drop in their sense of belonging and potential. In Experiment 2, an intervention that mitigated doubts about social belonging in college raised the academic achievement (e.g., college grades) of Black students but not of White students. Implications for theories of achievement motivation and intervention are discussed.

http://lmcreadinglist.pbworks.com/f/Walton+%26+Cohen+(2007).pdf

A question of belonging: race, social fit, and achievement.

The National Academy of Sciences founded The National Academies Press (NAP) with the goal of publishing reports of all four national academies. Annually, NAP publishes more than 200 books from the fields of science, engineering and medicine and offers more than 4000 titles in PDF on its website (http://www.nap.edu/) free of charge.

/pdf/the-national-academies-press-3oqc1apmt7.pdf

M Warren

Papers

Science and Engineering Indicators