The Big-Fish-Little-Pond Effect: What Do We Know and Where Do We Go from Here?

The big-fish-little-pond effect (BFLPE) refers to the theoretical prediction that equally able students will have lower academic self-concepts in higher-achieving or selective schools or programs than in lower-achieving or less selective schools or programs, largely due to social comparison based on local norms. While negative consequences of being in a more competitive educational setting are highlighted by the BFLPE, the exact nature of the BFLPE has not been closely scrutinized. This article provides a critique of the BFLPE in terms of its conceptualization, methodology, and practical implications. Our main argument is that the BFLPE, while having added to our understanding of the origins of self-concepts, disproportionately emphasizes one aspect of social comparison to the exclusion of many other intervening factors. In light of our critique, we suggest a broader conception of social comparison effects on academic self-concept that emphasizes a more active role of individuals in regulating their social cognition and motivation, as well as a more distinct effect of social-contextual influences. We also suggest alternative research designs that would incorporate contextual, developmental, and individual differences as potential moderators or mediators of the BFLPE.

Revitalizing the Physical Education Social-Justice Agenda in the Global Era: Where Do We Go From Here?

Critical theorists have called attention to the intensification of diversity that is now occurring inside and outside of school, while critically engaging with the detrimental effects of globalization on equity, diversity, and social justice. Globalization presents new challenges to education and to issues of social justice. In this article, we argue that there is a need for scholars in the field of physical education to re-think and re-frame the social-justice agenda to address current inequalities produced by globalization. To support this argument, we first reflect on the impact of global neoliberalism on physical education; second, we discuss the ways in which, as a result of global neoliberalism, public health discourses have an “othering” effect on ethnically diverse young people; third, we propose a theoretical shift from a focus on equality to a focus on difference; and finally, we conclude with considerations for future research and curricula in school physical education.     

Changing the Landscape of Social Emotional Learning in Urban Schools: What are We Currently Focusing On and Where Do We Go from Here?

The Urban Review - This study provides a systematic review of the use of social emotional learning (SEL) interventions in urban schools over the last 20 years. I summarize the types of...     

Instructional Design Paradigms: Is Object-Oriented Design Next?

The current systematic approaches taught to. and perhaps used by, instructional designer's share much in common with structured computer software design approaches. The computing field is currently undergoing major changes fostered by the growth of object-oriented (OO) analysis, design, and programming methods. The OO paradigm may also offer a revised focus for ID research. Several instructional design (ID) researchers are already adopting OO computing terminology. The suggested cross-over of OO from computing to instructional design is tied to design trends and ongoing research in II).     

Toward Adaptability: Where to from Here?

In this article, the collection of articles in this issue are synthesized to discuss conceptualizations of adaptive teaching as a means to foster spaces for adaptive teaching in today's complex educational system. Themes that exist across this collection of articles include adaptive teachers as constructivists, adaptive teachers as knowledgeable professionals, adaptive teachers as reflective educators, and contexts that support teacher adaptations. These themes are discussed with implications for teachers, teacher educators, administrators, and other educational stakeholders. Finally, the discussion shifts its focus to discuss future directions.     

Adult Jewish Learning: What Do We Know? What Do We Need to Know?

This article describes the emergence of the field of adult Jewish learning and the need for research in this burgeoning aspect of contemporary Jewish life. The authors describe the context in which the upsurge of adult Jewish learning has occurred, drawing attention to the absence of systematic data collection about programs, funding structures, or long-term impacts. They review existing research about adult Jewish learners, learning experiences, and teachers, and identify three categories (and numerous questions) for future research: (1) the purposes of adult Jewish learning; (2) adult Jewish learning settings, subject matter, and methods of instruction; and (3) underrepresented groups in adult Jewish learning programs.     

Can a Multiple-Choice Exam Discriminate Between Masters and Nonniasters of Instructional Design?

This study was conducted to determine if a norm-referenced test designed to assess instructional design competency could be statistically validated (i.e., confirmed statistically to discriminate between known masters and known nonmasters of instructional design). The test was composed of items written to assess verified competencies required of instructional design professionals. A total of 257 respondents participated in the study over the course of three stages: initial item bank construction, item analysis to determine those items with discrimination power, and the concurrent validity calculation, including determination of the mastery cut-off score. Mean scores of five groups of respondents were analyzed in the final stage. Statistically significant differences were found among the Professional Masters, Education Graduate Students and Undergraduates, Noneducation Graduate Students, and Noneducation Undergraduates. The article concludes with a discussion of the role of such an instrument in conducting research in the field.     

Special Education and Related Services: What Have We Learned From Meta-Analysis?

Although special education research has been subject to criticism in recent years, development of best practice continues to rely on accumulation of research findings. Meta-analysis allows interpretation of accumulated research in unique ways; some 24 meta-analyses, in or related to special education interventions, have become available over the years. The purpose of this article is to review each of them briefly and draw tentative conclusions about the relative power of interventions as determined by magnitude of mean effect size for each.     

Model-Based Teaching and Learning with BioLogica™: What Do They Learn? How Do They Learn? How Do We Know?

This paper describes part of a project called Modeling Across the Curriculum which is a large-scale research study in 15 schools across the United States. The specific data presented and discussed here in this paper is based on BioLogica, a hypermodel, interactive environment for learning genetics, which was implemented in multiple classes in eight high schools. BioLogica activities, data logging, and assessments were refined across this series of implementations. All students took a genetics content knowledge pre- and posttests. Traces of students' actions and responses to computer-based tasks were electronically collected (via a log file function) and systematically analyzed. An intensive 3-day field test involving 24 middle school students served to refine methods and create narrative profiles of students' learning experiences, outcomes, and interactions with BioLogica. We report on one high school implementation and the field test as self-contained studies to document the changes and the outcomes at different phases of development. A discussion of design changes concludes this paper.     

Post–Vision and Change: Do We Know How to Change?

The scale and importance of Vision and Change in Undergraduate Biology Education: A Call to Action challenges us to ask fundamental questions about widespread transformation of college biology instruction. I propose that we have clarified the “vision” but lack research-based models and evidence needed to guide the “change.” To support this claim, I focus on several key topics, including evidence about effective use of active-teaching pedagogy by typical faculty and whether certain programs improve students’ understanding of the Vision and Change core concepts. Program evaluation is especially problematic. While current education research and theory should inform evaluation, several prominent biology faculty–development programs continue to rely on self-reporting by faculty and students. Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) faculty-development overviews can guide program design. Such studies highlight viewing faculty members as collaborators, embedding rewards faculty value, and characteristics of effective faculty-development learning communities. A recent National Research Council report on discipline-based STEM education research emphasizes the need for long-term faculty development and deep conceptual change in teaching and learning as the basis for genuine transformation of college instruction. Despite the progress evident in Vision and Change, forward momentum will likely be limited, because we lack evidence-based, reliable models for actually realizing the desired “change.”

All members of the biology academic community should be committed to creating, using, assessing, and disseminating effective practices in teaching and learning and in building a true community of scholars. (American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS], 2011 , p. 49)

Realizing the “vision” in Vision and Change in Undergraduate Biology Education (Vision and Change; AAAS, 2011 ) is an enormous undertaking for the biology education community, and the scale and critical importance of this challenge prompts us to ask fundamental questions about widespread transformation of college biology teaching and learning. For example, Vision and Change reflects the consensus that active teaching enhances the learning of biology. However, what is known about widespread application of effective active-teaching pedagogy and how it may differ across institutional and classroom settings or with the depth of pedagogical understanding a biology faculty member may have? More broadly, what is the research base concerning higher education biology faculty–development programs, especially designs that lead to real change in classroom teaching? Has the develop-and-disseminate approach favored by the National Science Foundation''s (NSF) Division of Undergraduate Education (Dancy and Henderson, 2007 ) been generally effective? Can we directly apply outcomes from faculty-development programs in other science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) disciplines or is teaching college biology unique in important ways? In other words, if we intend to use Vision and Change as the basis for widespread transformation of biology instruction, is there a good deal of scholarly literature about how to help faculty make the endorsed changes or is this research base lacking?In the context of Vision and Change, in this essay I focus on a few key topics relevant to broad-scale faculty development, highlighting the extent and quality of the research base for it. My intention is to reveal numerous issues that may well inhibit forward momentum toward real transformation of college-level biology teaching and learning. Some are quite fundamental, such as ongoing dependence on less reliable assessment approaches for professional-development programs and mixed success of active-learning pedagogy by broad populations of biology faculty. I also offer specific suggestions to improve and build on identified issues.At the center of my inquiry is the faculty member. Following the definition used by the Professional and Organizational Development Network in Higher Education (www.podnetwork.org), I use “faculty development” to indicate programs that emphasize the individual faculty member as teacher (e.g., his or her skill in the classroom), scholar/professional (publishing, college/university service), and person (time constraints, self-confidence). Of course, faculty members work within particular departments and institutions, and these environments are clearly critical as well (Stark et al., 2002 ). Consequently, in addition to focusing on the individual, faculty-development programs may also consider organizational structure (such as administrators and criteria for reappointment and tenure) and instructional development (the overall curriculum, who teaches particular courses). In fact, Diamond (2002) emphasizes that the three areas of effort (individual, organizational, instructional) should complement one another in faculty-development programs. The scope of the numerous factors impacting higher education biology instruction is a realistic reminder about the complexity and challenge of the second half of the Vision and Change endeavor.This essay is organized around specific topics meant to be representative and to illustrate the state of the art of widespread (beyond a limited number of courses and institutions) professional development for biology faculty. The first two sections focus on active teaching and biology students’ conceptual understanding, respectively. The third section concerns important elements that have been identified as critical for effective STEM faculty-development programs.     

Software Engineering Design Principles Applied to Instructional Design: What can we Learn from our Sister Discipline?

The failure of many instructional design initiatives is often attributed to poor instructional design. Current instructional design models do not provide much insight into design processes for creating e-learning instructional solutions. Given the similarities between the fields of instructional design and software engineering, instructional designers could employ the ideas and techniques employed in software engineering to improve their design solutions. Software engineering development and project management methodologies can be employed to develop effective e-learning solutions. Furthermore, software engineering design principles used to develop high-quality software can be applied to planning and enhancing instruction. Fundamental software design concepts, such as abstraction, modularity, reusability, compatibility, extensibility, scalability, and maintainability are all important factors that can potentially lead to the development of high quality instructional solutions. This paper explores the possibility to integrate software engineering design principles into instructional design for e-learning solutions, which not only augment the generic instructional design approach with the best practices from the field of software engineering, but also make the development process more productive and efficient. Finally, this paper illustrates how all of the software engineering design principles are interrelated and can be realized in practice to enhance the quality of instruction.