Search bioRxivSearch

bioRxiv · 10.1101/785857

Longitudinal study of persistence in professional development outcomes of early career biology faculty

Abstract

The diversity of teaching professional development (PD) programs that occurred over the last few decades merits our collective attention to assess the impact of these programs over time. In general, the goal of PD programs is that participants continue to practice what they learn in the long term. However, we do not know the degree to which the outcomes of these programs were achieved and ultimately persist. We tracked postdoc participants from the Faculty Institutes for Reformed Science Teaching (FIRST) IV program into their current position as early-career faculty at institutions across the United States. We assessed their teaching approaches, practices, and student perceptions of the learning environment over 6-10 years. Additionally, the FIRST IV faculty were paired with colleagues of similar status in the same departments. We found that professional development outcomes from the FIRST IV program persisted over time and across a significant career transition, from postdoc to faculty. These participants not only maintained their student-centered practices, but were significantly more student-focused than their peers. Lastly, we found that faculty approaches to teaching were correlated with observed teaching practices in the classroom for both groups of faculty. These results provide compelling evidence for the success of the FIRST IV program and the long-term persistence of professional development outcomes.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Emery, N. C., Maher, J. M., Ebert-May, D.. 2019-10-05. Longitudinal study of persistence in professional development outcomes of early career biology faculty. https://doi.org/10.1101/785857

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related preprints

Evaluating Large Language Models as Tools to Navigate Researchers in Rapidly Evolving Research Landscapes: A Case Study in Cancer Drug Response Prediction

Large Language Models (LLMs) have emerged as promising tools for assisting researchers in automating and accelerating the synthesis of literature reviews. However, their reliability is a significant concern due to issues like factual inaccuracies and hallucinations. The key question is whether LLMs can reliably provide comprehensive, up-to-date overviews and analyses. This study evaluates the performance of three leading LLMs (OpenAI's ChatGPT, Google's Gemini, and DeepSeek) on the complex task of generating a comprehensive survey paper on deep learning for cancer Drug Response Prediction (DRP). By testing both standard and Deep Research (DR) / Deep Think (DT) modes of LLMs with prompts of varying detail, this paper assesses key academic dimensions, including reference management, content quality, and analytical depth. Key findings reveal that while DR modes of LLMs significantly improve reliability by eliminating hallucinations, performance variations exist across models and prompts. A trade-off between reference quantity and integration quality was observed, and even the best-performing models lacked the analytical depth of human experts, often requiring extensive human supervision. The study concludes that LLMs currently serve as powerful assistive tools but still cannot replace the critical validation and synthesis provided by human researchers. Choosing the best LLM to use depends on the task in hand, while several strategies can be implemented to improve the produced output.

scientific communication and education

Plagiarism in Brazil: A perspective of 25,000 PhD holders across the sciences

When it comes to ownership of ideas in science, Robert K. Merton (1957) observed in Priorities in Scientific Discovery: A Chapter in the Sociology of Science that "what is true of physics, chemistry, astronomy, medicine and mathematics is true also of all the other scientific disciplines, not excluding the social and psychological sciences". However, consensus over related issues, such as what constitutes plagiarism in these fields cannot be taken for granted. We conducted a comprehensive study on plagiarism views among PhD holders registered in the database of the Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq). We collected 25,157 valid responses encompassing views and attitudes toward plagiarism from a probability sample of PhD holders across the fields, including biologists, physicists, mathematicians, and engineers as well as linguists, philosophers and anthropologists. The results suggest that core principles about plagiarism are shared among this multidisciplinary community and that they corroborate Mertons observations. Before this study, we could only speculate that this is the case. With these data from a probability sample of Brazilian academia (PhD holders), this study offers insight into the way plagiarism is perceived across the sciences, including the literature and arts, and sheds light on the problem in the context of international collaborative research networks. The data focus on a young research system in Latin America, but, given the cultural similarities that bind most Latin-American nations, these results may be relevant to other PhD populations in the region and should provide a comparison with studies from other emerging, non-Anglophone regions.

scientific communication and education

Turn of Events: Academic events as a platform for preregistration

Prereg posters are conference posters that present planned scientific projects. We provide preliminary evidence for their value in receiving constructive feedback, promoting open science, and supporting early career researchers.View Full Text

scientific communication and education