- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review Physics Education Research

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Editors' Suggestion
  • Open Access

Navigating the adoption of research-based instructional strategies within the complex nature of higher education

Yessi Affriyenni1,*,†, Helen Georgiou2, and Noah Finkelstein3

  • *Contact author: y.affriyenni@unsw.edu.au
  • †Also at Department of Science Education, Universitas Negeri Malang, East Java 65145, Indonesia.
PDF

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 21, 020124 – Published 9 September, 2025

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/wvjk-8y8k

Abstract

Examining teaching practices in university physics is crucial for addressing the lack of student achievement in and engagement with the subject. Research-based instructional strategies (RBIS) offer evidence-based methods to enhance student engagement and learning outcomes, but face adoption challenges due to institutional, contextual, and individual barriers, particularly in higher-year courses. This case study investigates how second-year physics instructors at a research-intensive university within a trimester system engaged with RBIS, using the EPIC-implementation model to guide analysis. A case-study approach, using semistructured interviews and secondary data (e.g., course evaluations and materials), explored instructors’ decision making through the EPIC-implementation model (exposure, persuasion, identification, commitment, and implementation). The study reveals how individual motivation, peer influence, institutional constraints, and discipline-specific challenges shape RBIS adoption. While some instructors maintained commitment, others reverted to traditional methods due to systemic barriers. Co-teaching dynamics played a key role in influencing adoption, yielding mixed results. The findings contribute to the growing literature on instructional change by highlighting the importance of institutional support, peer mentorship, and alignment with teaching philosophies in sustaining RBIS adoption in major courses beyond the first year. They highlight the need for supportive institutional frameworks, discipline-specific strategies, and the alignment of teaching methods with instructors’ values. This study provides practical insights for educators, institutional leaders, and policymakers to encourage innovative teaching practices in higher education.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (66)

  1. T. C. Andrews and P. P. Lemons, It’s personal: Biology instructors prioritize personal evidence over empirical evidence in teaching decisions, CBE Life Sci. Educ. 14, ar7 (2015).
  2. N. S. Bidabadi, A. N. Isfahani, A. Rouhollahi, and R. Khalili, Effective teaching methods in higher education: Requirements and barriers, J. Adv. Med. Educ. Prof. 4, 170 (2016), https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5065908/.
  3. L. E. Strubbe, A. M. Madsen, S. B. McKagan, and E. C. Sayre, Beyond teaching methods: Highlighting physics faculty’s strengths and agency, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 020105 (2020).
  4. M. Dancy, C. Henderson, N. Apkarian, E. Johnson, M. Stains, J. R. Raker, and A. Lau, Physics instructors’ knowledge and use of active learning has increased over the last decade but most still lecture too much, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 20, 010119 (2024).
  5. M. E. Bathgate, O. R. Aragón, A. J. Cavanagh, J. Frederick, and M. J. Graham, Supports: A key factor in faculty implementation of evidence-based teaching, CBE Life Sci. Educ. 18, ar22 (2019).
  6. S. Freeman, S. L. Eddy, M. McDonough, M. K. Smith, N. Okoroafor, H. Jordt, and M. P. Wenderoth, Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 111, 8410 (2014).
  7. C. Henderson, A. Beach, and N. Finkelstein, Facilitating change in undergraduate STEM instructional practices: An analytic review of the literature, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 48, 952 (2011).
  8. C. H. Crouch and E. Mazur, Peer instruction: Ten years of experience and results, Am. J. Phys. 69, 970 (2001).
  9. M. Prince, Does active learning work? A review of the research, J. Eng. Educ. 93, 223 (2004).
  10. M. Prince, M. Borrego, C. Henderson, S. Cutler, and J. Froyd, Use of research-based instructional strategies in core chemical engineering courses, Chem. Eng. Educ. 47, 27 (2013), https://journals.flvc.org/cee/article/view/118512.
  11. E. J. Theobald, M. J. Hill, E. Tran, S. Agrawal, E. N. Arroyo, S. Behling, N. Chambwe, D. L. Cintrón, J. D. Cooper, G. Dunster et al., Active learning narrows achievement gaps for underrepresented students in undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and math, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 117, 6476 (2020).
  12. C. Henderson, M. Dancy, and M. Niewiadomska-Bugaj, Use of research-based instructional strategies in introductory physics: Where do faculty leave the innovation-decision process?, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 8, 020104 (2012).
  13. M. H. Dancy, C. Turpen, and C. Henderson, Why do faculty try research based instructional strategies?, AIP Conf. Proc. 1289, 117 (2010).
  14. M. Dancy, C. Henderson, and C. Turpen, How faculty learn about and implement research-based instructional strategies: The case of peer instruction, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 12, 010110 (2016).
  15. S. Tobias, From innovation to change: Forging a physics education reform agenda for the 21st century, J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 9, 1 (2000).
  16. C. Henderson and M. H. Dancy, Impact of physics education research on the teaching of introductory quantitative physics in the United States, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 5, 020107 (2009).
  17. M. H. Dancy and C. Henderson, Experiences of new faculty implementing research-based instructional strategies, AIP Conf. Proc. 1413, 163 (2012).
  18. C. Henderson and M. H. Dancy, Barriers to the use of research-based instructional strategies: The influence of both individual and situational characteristics, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 3, 020102 (2007).
  19. S. E. Brownell and K. D. Tanner, Barriers to faculty pedagogical change: Lack of training, time, incentives, and. tensions with professional identity?, CBE Life Sci. Educ. 11, 339 (2012).
  20. O. R. Aragón, S. L. Eddy, and M. J. Graham, Faculty beliefs about intelligence are related to the adoption of active-learning practices, CBE Life Sci. Educ. 17, ar47 (2018).
  21. C. Henderson and M. H. Dancy, Teaching, learning and physics education research: Views of mainstream physics professors, AIP Conf. Proc. 790, 109 (2005).
  22. C. Turpen and N. D. Finkelstein, The construction of different classroom norms during peer instruction: Students perceive differences, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 6, 020123 (2010).
  23. S. E. Bradforth, E. R. Miller, W. R. Dichtel, A. K. Leibovich, A. L. Feig, J. D. Martin, K. S. Bjorkman, Z. D. Schultz, and T. L. Smith, University learning: Improve undergraduate science education, Nature (London) 523, 282 (2015).
  24. A. C. Lau, C. Henderson, M. Stains, M. Dancy, C. Merino, N. Apkarian, J. R. Raker, and E. Johnson, Characteristics of departments with high-use of active learning in introductory STEM courses: Implications for departmental transformation, Int. J. STEM Educ. 11, 10 (2024).
  25. C. Wieman, Improving How Universities Teach Science: Lessons from the Science Education Initiative (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 2017).
  26. N. Budini, L. Marino, R. Carreri, C. Cámara, and S. Giorgi, Perceptions of students after implementing peer instruction in an introductory physics course, Smart Learn. Environ. 6, 1 (2019).
  27. M. Good, A. Maries, and C. Singh, Impact of traditional or evidence-based active-engagement instruction on introductory female and male students’ attitudes and approaches to physics problem solving, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 15, 020129 (2019).
  28. D. Knudson and B. Wallace, Student perceptions of low-tech active learning and mastery of introductory biomechanics concepts, Sports Biomech. 20, 1 (2021).
  29. N. Apkarian, C. Henderson, M. Stains, J. Raker, E. Johnson, and M. Dancy, What really impacts the use of active learning in undergraduate STEM education? Results from a national survey of chemistry, mathematics, and physics instructors, PLoS One 16, e0247544 (2021).
  30. C. Henderson, A. Beach, and M. Famiano, Promoting instructional change via co-teaching, Am. J. Phys. 77, 274 (2009).
  31. S. Chasteen, K. Perkins, P. Beale, S. Pollock, and C. Wieman, A thoughtful approach to instruction: Course transformation for the rest of us, J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 40, 24 (2011), https://www.academia.edu/download/84147700/A_Thoughtful_Approach_to_Instruction_Cou20220414- 1-cv46yf.pdf.
  32. O. Aragón and M. Graham, Census Survey Report for the Summer Institutes on Scientific Teaching (National Academies of Science, Washington, DC, 2015).
  33. R. K. Yin, Case Study Research: Design and Methods (Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, 2009), Vol. 5.
  34. R. Longhurst, Semi-structured interviews and focus groups, in Key Methods in Geography (SAGE Publications, London, UK, 2003), Vol. 3, p. 143.
  35. W. C. Adams, Conducting semi-structured interviews, in Handbook of Practical Program Evaluation (Jossey-Bass, San Fransisco, CA, 2015), p. 492.
  36. V. Braun and V. Clarke, One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in (reflexive) thematic analysis?, Qual. Res. Psychol. 18, 328 (2021).
  37. V. Braun and V. Clarke, Thematic Analysis (American Psychological Association, Washington, DC, 2012).
  38. N. Finkelstein, A. F. Greenhoot, G. Weaver, and A. E. Austin, A department-level cultural change project: Transforming evaluation of teaching, in Transforming Institutions: Accelerating Systemic Change in Higher Education (Pressbooks, 2020), Vol. 27.
  39. M. L. McHugh, Interrater reliability: The kappa statistic, Biochem. Med. 22, 276 (2012).
  40. M. Dancy and C. Henderson, Pedagogical practices and instructional change of physics faculty, Am. J. Phys. 78, 1056 (2010).
  41. H. Georgiou, M. Sharma, and A. Ling, Peer review of teaching: What features matter? A case study within stem faculties, Innov. Educ. Teach. Int. 55, 190 (2018).
  42. M. F. Durham, O. R. Aragón, M. E. Bathgate, A. Bobrownicki, A. J. Cavanagh, X. Chen, W. M. Trochim, J. K. Waterhouse, M. J. Graham, and B. A. Couch, Benefits of a college STEM faculty development initiative: Instructors report increased and sustained implementation of research-based instructional strategies, J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. 21, 21 (2020).
  43. A. Diery, F. Vogel, M. Knogler, and T. Seidel, Evidence-based practice in higher education: Teacher educators’ attitudes, challenges, and uses, in Frontiers in Education (Frontiers Media SA, Lausanne, Switzerland, 2020), Vol. 5, p. 62.
  44. T. J. Lund and M. Stains, The importance of context: An exploration of factors influencing the adoption of student-centered teaching among chemistry, biology, and physics faculty, Int. J. STEM Educ. 2, 1 (2015).
  45. M. C. Wright, I. Bergom, and T. Bartholomew, Decreased class size, increased active learning? Intended and enacted teaching strategies in smaller classes, Active Learn. Higher Educ. 20, 51 (2019).
  46. C. Turpen, M. Dancy, and C. Henderson, Perceived affordances and constraints regarding instructors’ use of peer instruction: Implications for promoting instructional change, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 12, 010116 (2016).
  47. P. J. White, I. Larson, K. Styles, E. Yuriev, D. R. Evans, P. Rangachari, J. L. Short, B. Exintaris, D. T. Malone, B. Davie et al., Adopting an active learning approach to teaching in a research-intensive higher education context transformed staff teaching attitudes and behaviours, Higher Educ. Res. Dev. 35, 619 (2016).
  48. M. H. Dancy and C. Henderson, Beyond the individual instructor: Systemic constraints in the implementation of research-informed practices, AIP Conf. Proc. 790, 113 (2005).
  49. K. VanWyngaarden, J. A. Pelton, P. M. Oquendo, and C. Moore, High-impact teaching practices in higher education: Understanding barriers, concerns, and obstacles to their adoption, Trends Higher Educ. 3, 105 (2024).
  50. M. T. Hora, Organizational factors and instructional decision-making: A cognitive perspective, Rev. High. Educ. (35, 207 (2012).
  51. S. E. Shadle, A. Marker, and B. Earl, Faculty drivers and barriers: Laying the groundwork for undergraduate STEM education reform in academic departments, Int. J. STEM Educ. 4, 1 (2017).
  52. G. Hampton, C. Rhodes, and M. Stokes, A Practical Guide to Mentoring, Coaching and Peer-Networking: Teacher Professional Development in Schools and Colleges (Routledge, London, UK, 2004).
  53. T. More, F. Goldberg, M. Basir, S. Maier, and E. Price, From implementation to reflection: Exploring faculty experiences in a curriculum-focused FOLC through multi-case analysis, Discip. Interdiscip. Sci. Educ. Res. 6, 7 (2024).
  54. S. Aslan, Investigating the relation between educational philosophies adopted by prospective teachers and their teaching-learning conceptions, Pegem J. Educ. Instr. 8, 307 (2018).
  55. J. M. Cruz-Bohorquez, S. G. Adams, and F. A. Bravo, The academic system influence on instructional change: A conceptual systems dynamics model of faculty motivation to adopt research-based instructional strategies (RBIS), Educ. Sci. 14, 544 (2024).
  56. J. Michael, Faculty perceptions about barriers to active learning, Coll. Teach. 55, 42 (2007).
  57. M. E. Bathgate, O. R. Aragón, A. J. Cavanagh, J. K. Waterhouse, J. Frederick, and M. J. Graham, Perceived supports and evidence-based teaching in college stem, Int. J. STEM Educ. 6, 1 (2019).
  58. J. J. Walczyk, L. L. Ramsey, and P. Zha, Obstacles to instructional innovation according to college science and mathematics faculty, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 44, 85 (2007).
  59. B. Craig and J. L. Hsu, A multi-year longitudinal study exploring the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on students’ familiarity and perceptions of active learning, Active Learn. Higher Educ. 26, 177 (2024).
  60. A. Maldonado-Trapp and C. Bruna, The evolution of active learning in response to the pandemic: The role of technology, in The COVID-19 Aftermath: Volume II: Lessons Learned (2024), p. 247, 10.1007/978-3-031-61943-4.
  61. J. Ametepe and N. Khan, Teaching physics during COVID-19 pandemic: Implementation and report of teaching strategies to support student learning, Phys. Educ. 56, 065030 (2021).
  62. A. Corrales, F. Goldberg, E. Price, and C. Turpen, Faculty persistence with research-based instructional strategies: A case study of participation in a faculty online learning community, Int. J. STEM Educ. 7, 1 (2020).
  63. A. M. Pallas, A. Neumann, and C. M. Campbell, Policies and Practices to Support Undergraduate Teaching Improvement (American Academy of Arts and Sciences, Cambridge, MA, 2017).
  64. J. C. Corbo, D. L. Reinholz, M. H. Dancy, S. Deetz, and N. Finkelstein, Framework for transforming departmental culture to support educational innovation, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 12, 010113 (2016).
  65. A. F. Greenhoot, C. Aslan, S. Chasteen, W. Code, and S. B. Sherman, Variations on embedded expert models: Implementing change initiatives that support departments from within, in Transforming Institutions: Accelerating Systemic Change in Higher Education, edited by K. White, A. Beach, N. Finkelstein, C. Henderson, S. Simkins, L. Slakey, M. Stains, G. Weaver, and L. Whitehead (Pressbooks, 2020), http://openbooks.library.umass.edu/ascnti2020/.
  66. C. Pfund, S. Miller, K. Brenner, P. Bruns, A. Chang, D. Ebert-May, A. P. Fagen, J. Gentile, S. Gossens, I. M. Khan et al., Summer institute to improve university science teaching, Science 324, 470 (2009).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 21, 020124– Published 9 September, 2025
  • Received 11 March 2025
  • Accepted 15 August 2025
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article’s title, journal citation, and DOI.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation