Abstract
In professional development (PD), who the learners are becomes a central feature that influences not only their learning, but also that of those around them. Participant identities, expectations, and teaching philosophies all influence the success of PD. In 2019, Zagallo and colleagues developed a set of personas to characterize how instructors show up in these settings. We are expanding on this prior study to include instructors from diverse institution types participating in a different PD context. To validate the existing personas and generate potential new personas, we followed Zagallo's stepwise procedure that included the collection of multiple types of data (interview transcripts, PD observations, meeting observations) over a 2-y period, qualitative analysis and triangulation of data, creation of skeletons that could be further developed into personas, description and refinement of skeletons into personas, and validation of the personas. Themes from the original study were also captured in this study: knowledge of students, teaching values, approaches to innovations, and perceived barriers. Four personas from the original paper were refined, and two new personas (Riley the Rookie and Ash the Advocate) were identified; both arose from institutional contexts not present in the prior research.
INTRODUCTION
You are leading professional development that will teach your colleagues about how to implement an evidence-based instructional practice. What considerations should you take into account to be successful? How can you best support your colleagues in learning and implementing the evidence-based instructional practice?
Implementing evidence-based instructional practices (EBIP) in educational settings remains a persistent challenge despite the fact that research has shown a myriad of improved outcomes for STEM students who engage with such practices (Gardner et al., 2021; Miller et al., 2021). Barriers to utilizing EBIPs in college classrooms include lack of institutional or departmental support (Fairweather, 2008; Brownell and Tanner, 2012) and lack of instructor training and/or incentives for implementation (Brownell and Tanner, 2012; reviewed in Kranzfelder et al., 2019). Sansom et al., (2023) further report that personal, social, and contextual factors can impact faculty adoption of EBIPs in their science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) classrooms. As result, a plurality of faculty have continued to rely on lecturing for instruction (Eagan, 2016; Landrum et al., 2017; Stains et al., 2018), which is far less effective than the use of EBIPs (Graham et al., 2013; Miller et al., 2021; Stieha et al., 2024). Professional development (PD) has been recognized as an important component influencing college instructors’ adoption of EBIPs in the classroom and lab environment (Laursen et al., 2019; Hill et al., 2020; Archie et al., 2022; Yoshinobu et al., 2023). In general, PD provides multiple benefits for instructors that lead to better learning outcomes for students. In particular, training delivered through participation in faculty learning communities has been successful when it fosters instructional peer collaboration, improved relationships with other instructors and students, and resources for instructional use (Corwin et al., 2019; Tinnell et al., 2019). In a 2017 study by McCourt and colleagues, researchers also found that instructors need continued support during the adoption of new pedagogies, time to discuss teaching with their colleagues, and time to invest in PD/learning (McCourt et al., 2017). A meta-analysis of PD found that programs for instructional improvement led to gains for students when the programs focused on introduction to new curriculum materials, improving instructor pedagogical content knowledge, and debriefing and troubleshooting implementation successes and challenges (Hill et al., 2020). A common thread across all these studies is that instructor-learners were invited to interact with PD facilitators and peers and bring themselves and their needs into the PD.
However, PD is not effective for all learners. Instances in which PD is not effective include those in which learners do not feel that their needs are being met or their contexts are being taken into account. For example, when PD does not provide ongoing support or meet instructors’ specific, relevant content needs, they can be left feeling unsupported (Fairman et al., 2023). PD that does not consider individual needs and contexts of instructors can impact motivation for implementing new pedagogies (Postholm, 2018). The Learning Policy Institute issued guidance for effective PD that includes being content-focused, incorporating active learning, supporting collaboration, and providing ongoing feedback, support, and time for reflection (Hammond et al., 2017). However, certain institutional contexts do not receive the same amount of time and attention in PD. One study found that community colleges (CC) tended to have a majority of one-off PD meetings, while research-intensive universities had semester to year-long programs (Fortener et al., 2024). The participation of instructors in the PD programs studied was influenced by the prioritization of teaching or research at the institution (Fortener et al., 2024). Although the studies above point to several best practices for PD, they rarely dive deeper to investigate the nuances of why PD—even PD conducted with a multitude of best practices—works for some, but not other, instructors. We need to develop a more nuanced understanding of why PD implementation helps some instructors persist and adopt new pedagogies, while others depart or abandon the pedagogies.
In PD environments, who the learners are is a central feature that influences not only their learning, but also that of those around them. Thus, understanding aspects of who is showing up (as faculty learning about teaching) becomes critical. Notably, this parallels research on undergraduates regarding how student identities influence learning and research experiences (e.g., Le et al., 2019; McDonald et al., 2019; Frederick et al., 2021). The same is true and can be applied to faculty learning new pedagogies as well. PD should rely upon input from the instructor-learners it is intended to serve and take into consideration their unique needs and the contexts in which they teach. One way to make PD experiences more impactful may be to understand who learners are and their underlying instructional philosophies and motivations. This can be applied to understand how instructors interact and learn within a PD environment.
To better grapple with comprehending the complexities of who might participate in PD, we can use personas to simplify and summarize the dimensionality of instructor complexity. Personas help us engage with complexity in our learners by presenting relevant differences among potential participants in simple, digestible terms. Furthermore, personas can be useful tools for inspiring empathy (Nielsen, 2014; Zagallo et al., 2019) toward learners and can lead instructors to design curricula in a way that will be beneficial for the intended audience. Personas of students have been developed to support discipline-specific instructor training (e.g., mathematics instruction, Weinhandl et al., 2024) as they helped instructors to anticipate student needs and questions. The rapid shift to online instruction during the COVID pandemic also led to research in STEM student personas to support instructor design of curriculum to better engage students across STEM disciplines (Romick et al., 2022). Similar to the above studies on students, personas can be applied to STEM faculty when trying to understand instructor attitudes and beliefs about teaching practices. For example, instructor attitudes toward active learning pedagogies resulted in persona categorization of movers, shakers, planners, or feelers from the context of one institute of higher education (Guy, 2017). Instructors who engage with PD are seeking to make changes in their pedagogical practices, and PD designers can leverage this rationale and motivation to create a supportive environment. Personas can be a tool to help PD designers understand both the commonalities and differences among a large group of people in a particular context with a shared goal. Furthermore, personas can be used as a tool to help PD designers more directly plan for the needs and goals of their participants.
In 2019, Zagallo and colleagues proposed the use of personas to support the design of PD aimed at helping R1 instructors to adopt EBIPs in their instruction. They investigated how complex factors, including how instructors think about their students and the context in which they teach, impacted changes instructors are likely to make in their practices (Gess-Newsome et al., 2003; Zagallo et al., 2019). Using the technique of persona creation, they demonstrated that personas could a) illustrate important characteristics from a large pool of instructors, b) highlight the areas that need to be addressed for instructors to implement change as a result of focused PD, and finally, c) help with generating empathy in PD developers and users through the description of characters who have a shared goal of enacting EBIPs (Henderson and Dancy, 2011; Zagallo et al., 2019). This research led to the description of four personas: Emma the Expert, Carmen the Coach, Ray the Relator, and Beth the Burdened (Zagallo et al., 2019; Table 1).
TABLE 1.
Narrative description of the personas from Zagallo et al., 2019.
| Emma the Expert | Ray the Relater | Carmen the Coach | Beth the Burdened |
|---|---|---|---|
| Emma expects students to do their own learning but knows they learn better when they are enthused about the material. Crafts her lectures with engaging, memorable, real-world examples. Resists using evidence-based pedagogies because she already has a well-developed expertise as a lecturer. | Ray values relating to his students and stays tuned in to their perspectives. He enjoys engaging and connecting with students and tells interesting stories in lectures to be more relatable. Aims to make lifelong learners and cares about students' futures beyond class. Likes to administer in-class assessments to inform his teaching and promote student engagement. | Seeks to create opportunities in class for students to actively practice problem-solving and application tasks. Applies this pedagogy because of educational research reports. Enjoys seeing students thinking during class and monitoring students' learning through student-centered teaching. Is always searching for new practice problems to give students in class. | Possess a vast knowledge base about students, especially of their unproductive tendencies. Dedicates herself to helping students learn, in spite of themselves, often feeling at war with them. Engages with education literature and regularly implements best practices, but is unsure what more to do to improve student learning than what she is already implementing. Always searching for new, nuanced ways to promote learning. |
Here, we continue to develop personas to characterize and better understand instructors as learners, building on Zagallo et al’ (2019) work. We expand this work by exploring instructor-learner personas from different institution types and investigating instructors participating in a different EBIP PD context. The purpose of building out new personas and expanding upon existing personas is to provide PD designers with more information that they can use to build PD for various populations. Thus, we investigated
Which personas from the Zagallo et al., 2019 study can be used to describe instructor actions and interactions during a novel PD program, and
Whether new personas can be characterized that were not represented in the initial study, and how institutional contexts act to influence the development of any new personas.
As we investigated the above questions we aimed, also, to consider how each persona showed up in our PD setting. We considered how their values and interests might shape PD, both presenting them with challenges and imbuing them with unique strengths.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
This study was conducted with approval from the Internal Review Board for Human Subjects at the University of Colorado, Boulder, as exempt research, according to 45 CFR Part 690.101.
Positionality Statement
The authors are all discipline-based education researchers with backgrounds in ecology, evolution, microbiology, and STEM education. Our identities include cis-gendered females and males at different career stages within R1 institutions, including undergraduates, graduate students, postdoctoral researchers, teaching faculty, academic counselors, and tenured professors. Some of the researchers hold identities (e.g., first generation, queer, nontraditional) underserved within STEM environments. Each of the authors is committed to supporting and promoting science education and the inclusion of students in undergraduate research experiences, particularly those who have been historically excluded from research opportunities. These identities help to inform our positionality within biology education research, our values, and our priorities.
Authors ADW, LCW, TB, and DJ were involved in the design and implementation of the curriculum in this novel PD community of practice. Authors ADW and LC led the research and analysis in this study. AM, ZS, and EG contributed to the analysis of the data through multiple rounds of coding and thematic analysis. PZ provided consultation and validation of the analysis, while TB and DJ supported further validation through their knowledge of the underlying educational theory and participants involved. It was made clear to all research participants that ADW was conducting research, and she participated solely as a data collector and observer throughout PD to avoid potential conflicts of interest and to allow her to deeply engage with the participant experience.
Methodological Framework: Personas
Personas were conceived of to help product designers develop products that worked well for the intended user and not just the designer of the product (Cooper, 1999; Pruitt and Adlin, 2006). For years, personas have helped developers of products or services to understand the needs, experiences, behaviors, and goals of their intended users (Dreamson et al., 2023; Dam and Teo, 2025). Creation of personas as a methodology has been used in industry to describe archetypes of customers (An et al., 2018), voters (e.g., mobilizing support of desired voters; Wesley and Pawluk, 2023), learners (e.g., designing learning experiences for students; Kerr and Kelly, 2024), and employees (Kvale, 2021). The persona methodology draws upon ethnographic practices to create short but memorable descriptions of the types of users of a product/service that are informative but not overly detailed or constraining (Pruitt and Grudin, 2003; Pruitt and Adlin, 2006; Zagallo et al., 2019). Personas can aid designers of services or products when their idea of users’ identities and needs are vague or when the needs of the user change throughout the project or program (Cooper, 2004; Madsen et al., 2009). Personas should be continually reevaluated as more data are collected and retired once they are no longer applicable to the users or context (Flaherty, 2016), for example, as cultural norms and practices shift over time. Thus, personas become “living document” descriptions of participant archetypes that are useful in inspiring empathy and informing action.
Researchers have described how personas can be used in PD for “scaling and sustaining educational innovations” across instructor and institutional type (Madsen et al., 2009). Personas have been utilized by the Promoting Active Learning and Mentoring Network (PALM) to understand what components of the community support instructor change toward adopting and implementing active learning in their classrooms. The themes of awareness, desire, knowledge, ability, and reinforcement regarding change were used to identify three personas within the network (Prunuske et al., 2022). Zagallo and colleagues’ work uses the themes of instructor knowledge of students, teaching values, approaches to innovations, and perceived barriers to implementing EBIPs to characterize four personas (Zagallo et al., 2019). In line with best practices, these studies use qualitative data to support persona development and carefully construct personas using observations and data from real individuals in a particular context (Figure 1). Notably, when the personas are applied to a novel learning context, as in this study, more data should be collected and analyzed from participants, and this new data should be analyzed to update or retire personas for the given context.
FIGURE 1.
Simplified example of the process taken by researchers to develop personas from real-world data of individuals within a specific context of interest through qualitative analysis and thematic analysis.
Criticisms and limitations of personas should be considered when undertaking persona development. Importantly, designers and researchers should avoid collapsing personas into stereotypes instead of using them as archetypes (Wilson et al., 2018). Chapman and Milham (2006) describe the problem of validation when personas are “fictional” representations, not based on data, and therefore outside of the scientific method. This can be countered by using real-world data that can be deidentified, checking coding and classifications with experts, and evaluating whether personas need to be retired when they no longer match real-world data, as done here. It is critical that the personas not emerge from imagined spaces but from “models of real users” through data and analysis in line with Cooper et al. (2007) and Wilson and colleagues’ (2018) recommendations. Developers should begin with “values” as a starting point rather than the “needs” held by the users (Wilson et al., 2018). Researchers should be clear about the relationship of the data collected to the methods used for analysis to mitigate this criticism. Using experts to evaluate personas is another way to bolster validity for this methodology (Yström et al., 2009; Madsen et al., 2009).
Personas and Anonymity.
Beyond being a useful methodology to describe data, personas are also an ethical practice in studies of small populations. Ethical considerations when working with participants who could be easily identified, even with the use of pseudonyms (e.g., small community from a known area), must be carefully thought through (Huynh et al., 2021). Huynh et al. (2021) have used personas generated through phenomenographic methods to better anonymize study participants as a way to protect their identities. The choice to use personas was made by us from a perspective of respect and care for our participants. Our participants hail from a very specific community (introductory biology instructors who teach in a specific region). In this study, the use of personas supports the anonymization of participants when it is likely that knowledge of their institution and courses taught would reveal their identities. In using personas, the research team can better explore the instructor experience without revealing personally identifiable information or characteristics.
PD Context
Our context for this study, APPLE R Net, is a regional expansion of course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs) that were taught at University of Colorado and Front Range Community College in conjunction with the Boulder Apple Tree Project from 2018 to 2021 (Jaeger et al., 2024). It constitutes a community of practice (Lave and Wenger, 1991) that provided instructor training in field ecology techniques, CURE pedagogical practices (the EBIP focus), and data analysis instruction over two PD retreats (summers 2022 and 2023) and supported implementation of the CURE across four semesters (Fall 2022 to Spring 2023). In this work, our PD occurs within the APPLE R Net community of practice and is shaped by this context. When we refer to participants, we are referring to the faculty instructors engaged in the PD that our team is providing to help them transform their teaching. We are not referring to their students. The APPLE R Net PD and supported implementation took place from July 2022 through December 2023. Two, week-long, in-person PD training retreats occurred in July 2022 and May 2023. One-and-a-half-hour-long, preimplementation meetings took place at the beginning of each semester (Fall 2022, Spring 2023, and Fall 2023), and postimplementation debrief meetings (1 h) occurred at the end of each semester. Instructor participants had the opportunity to attend office hours and mid-semester check-in meetings for additional support in implementing the CURE module. The focus of the first (July, 2022) PD retreat was an introduction to CUREs, training in core and optional measures, pedagogical support, and time to adapt the CURE to their existing course structure. The focus of the second (May 2023) PD retreat was pedagogical support for culturally relevant curricula and quantitative analysis curricula. Both of these occurred in-person on the CU-Boulder campus with participants staying on-site. The format and curriculum of the CURE module were previously developed for a semester-long CURE taught at University of Colorado from 2018-2021 and was then condensed and taught as a module (2 wk of content) at Front Range Community College. Participants were supported in their adoption and adaptation of the CURE module, ensuring that both the pedagogical and scientific goals of the CURE could be met.
Instructor Recruitment
Introductory biology instructors at colleges across Colorado were emailed in Spring 2021 to inquire about their interest in implementing an Apple CURE module in their courses and attending the associated PD. Colleges with apple orchards within a 20-min drive of the institution were included in the recruitment. Instructors were encouraged to forward the email to others from their departments who might be interested in implementing an Apple CURE module in their courses. As a result, three institutions had multiple instructors participate (Table 2). As part of their participation, all instructors received curriculum kits with all instruments necessary for implementing the CURE module, a stipend, room and board during PD, and ongoing professional support throughout each semester of CURE module implementation.
TABLE 2.
Participant Position, Institution Classification, and Location Characteristics.
| Position | Carnegie classification | Institution location description |
|---|---|---|
| Senior Lecturer | Baccalaureate College, Diverse Fields | public liberal arts college |
| Professor | Baccalaureate/Associate's College | multi-campus, public, metropolitan area community college |
| Assistant Professor | Associate's College | public community college |
| Program Director | Associate's College | multi-campus, public, metropolitan area community college |
| Senior Instructor | R1-Basic, very high research activity | public research university |
| Tenured Professor | D/PU Doctoral Granting University | public university |
| Tenured Professor | Baccalaureate College | public liberal arts college |
| Biology Faculty | Baccalaureate/Associate's College | multi-campus, public, metropolitan area community college |
| Graduate Student | Doctoral Granting University | public university |
Data Collection
Researchers investigating complex social phenomena will often use qualitative methods to explore the perspectives and contextual factors that shape human experiences (Creswell and Poth, 2018). This study constituted a qualitative investigation of instructors who participated in PD with the goal of implementing a specific EBIPs. Qualitative data, including semistructured interview transcripts, observations of PD meetings, and artifacts generated by participants, were collected. Before collecting data, ADW and the core research team discussed who would be participating in PD (Table 2; Figure 3 step 1). All PD sessions (both retreats and individual meetings) were observed by ADW using a modified Teaching Dimensions Observation Protocol (TDOP) framework (Supplementary Materials, Modified TDOP) (Hora and Ferrare, 2014). Exit surveys were taken at the end of each day of PD (Supplementary Materials; Supplemental Table S1). Artifacts (e.g., posters, brainstorming notes) were collected and noted in the observations (Supplementary Materials; Supplemental Table S2). All group Zoom meetings (e.g., preimplementation and debrief meetings) were recorded and transcribed. All instructors were invited to participate in semistructured interviews with ADW each semester. Interviews were 60 min in length and followed the same interview protocol after the initial interview (Supplementary Materials, Document S1). Interviews focused on instructor experiences in the PD, implementation of the CURE, field-teaching self-efficacy, development of technical, pedagogical, and content knowledge (TPACK), and memorable experiences throughout network participation. Instructors also uploaded materials they had used to teach the CURE (Supplementary Materials; Supplemental Table S3). These materials were considered artifacts for the purposes of this study and were collected and analyzed. Method triangulation of data sources (Figure 2; e.g., interviews, surveys, and artifacts) was performed to provide a broad understanding of the participant experience in PD and credibility to the findings (Carter et al., 2014; Creswell and Poth, p.256, 2018).
FIGURE 3.
Overview of persona generation for APPLE R Net PD in six generalized steps (Zagallo et al., 2019; Adler, 2005; Adler and Pruitt, 2010; Prunkske et al., 2022) that includes thematic analysis of instructor interviews (Braun and Clarke, 2021). Nonbolded personas were first described by Zagallo (PZ) in 2019.
FIGURE 2.
Method triangulation of data sources used in the validation of existing personas and development of new personas for instructors in higher education STEM PD for CURE module implementation (Carter et al., 2014, Creswell and Poth, p. 256, 2018).
Qualitative Analysis and Persona Development
Overview.
A majority of personas used in this study were identified in work by Zagallo and colleagues in 2019. In this work, we elaborate upon Zagallo and colleagues’ personas and expand to include new personas. To validate the existing personas and generate potential new personas, we followed a stepwise procedure (Zagallo et al., 2019 (Figure 3). Step 1 involved discussion within the research team about the types of learners in our community of practice (Figure 3, step 1) (Zagallo et al., 2019). Step 2 involved collecting, processing, and analyzing data generated from participants in the community of practice (Zagallo et al., 2019). We used inductive qualitative analysis to make meaning of instructor data collected over 2-y (Bingham, 2023). Step 3 involved identifying and creating skeletons through identifying characteristics and themes unique to each skeleton (Zagallo et al., 2019). In generating new personas, we used gender-neutral names and strengths-based attributions to make the persona more relatable across contexts (Figure 3, step 5c). Step 4 involved evaluating and prioritizing skeletons for further development; it mirrored prior work by Zagallo and colleagues (2019) in that we also eliminated one skeleton as it was based on a single participant and that person would have been identifiable (Figure 3, step 4). In step 5, skeletons were described and refined into personas using direct quotes related to the themes (Zagallo et al., 2019). Artifacts were collected from the community of practice participants were also evaluated for confirming or disconfirming evidence (Figure 3, step 5). Step 6 involved the validation of the personas. We consulted with Dr. Zagallo (PZ) on multiple occasions regarding coding, thematic analysis, and skeleton refinement. Further validation of the coding summaries and persona classifications was performed by the research team's lab group (Figure 3, step 6). As our work builds directly on Zagallo and colleagues’, we have included a table (Table 3) that compares our context with theirs. This can help to illustrate contextual factors, such as an increased diversity of institution types and different data sources, that allowed us to expand upon this work. We elaborate on each step of our persona development process below.
TABLE 3.
Comparison of studies.
| Personas study (Zagallo et al., 2019) | APPLE R Net | |
|---|---|---|
| Participants | 19 individuals | 9 individuals |
| Participant Positions | Department chair, professor Attendant, Department head, Associate Professor, Professor, Senior Instructor, Lecturer, Visiting Assistant Professor, Academic Specialist | Senior Lecturer, Professor, Assistant Professor, Program Director, Senior Instructor, Tenured Professor, Biology Faculty, Graduate Student |
| Participant Institutions | Six R1 Univeristies | 1 R1 University; 2 Associates Colleges; 1 Baccalaureate/Associate's College; 1 Baccalaureate College, Diverse Fields; 1 D/PU Doctoral Granting University |
| Teaching Experience of Participants | ranges from 6 to 31 y | ranges from 2 to 25 y |
| PD Program | 5-y program for AACR assessments | 3-year program with supported CURE implementation |
| PD Goals | Formative assessment alternative to multiple choice questions with responses undergoing computer-automated analysis | implementation of a community-engaged, field-based CURE in collaboration with other institutions/classes |
| Data Sources | Reflect instructor's thinking about teaching and institutional barriers regarding the implementation of evidence-based practices | Reflect instructor's thinking in the context of teaching self-efficacy and technical pedagogical and content knowledge |
| Qualitative | Semistructured interviews | Semistructured interviews and PD Observations |
| Quantitative | Copus Data | NA |
| Persona Methodology follows Pruitt and Adlin (2006) |
|
|
Step 1: Discussion of Learners.
As described in Zagallo and colleagues (2019) and in alignment with Pruitt and Adlin (2006), we began our qualitative analyses with a discussion of the potential dimensions that might help us better understand users of PD. This discussion allowed us to voice and evaluate our assumptions before analysis, as well as bring our lived experiences as PD developers and implementors into the discussion early. The research team discussed instructional values and approaches to innovations we anticipated in our participants. Our discussion identified that there might be two broad categories that could influence the PD user experience: instructors’ hailing from diverse institutions with unique student populations and instructors with diverse teaching and research experience (Figure 3, step 1, a and b). Institutional and instructional contexts of participants are found in Table 1.
Step 2: Collect, Process, and Analyze Data.
Multiple Data Sources Collected Interview data were the primary source of data that generated information used to construct personas. PD observational data from each of the PD retreats and meetings were also collected (Figure 3, step 2a). These data were less central to the development of the personas and were primarily used to understand how instructor characteristics influenced their actions during PD and to triangulate the interpretation of interview data (Figure 3, step 2b). Instructor artifacts (Supplementary Materials; Supplemental Table S2) and exit survey data (Table SM1) generated during PD retreats, meetings, and curricula shared by participants were used in a similar manner to PD observational data.
Qualitative Analysis
Qualitative analysis is an iterative and reflective process with the goal of gaining understanding through “continuous meaning-making and progressive focusing inherent to the analysis process” (Srivastava and Hopwood, 2009). Within this iterative and reflective process, it is important to highlight the nonlinear nature and ‘messiness’ of the process when attempting to describe the process for a publication (Brennan, 2021). The prose below describes our iterative and reflective process of qualitative data collection, but due to the limitations inherent in written communication, we present these methods in a linear and narrative manner. Nonetheless, we wish to emphasize our iterative processes and stress that iterative qualitative analysis requires researchers to be flexible in their frameworks, methods, and questions as “any component of the design may need to be reconsidered or modified during the study in response to new developments” (p. 2; Maxwell, 2013). This flexibility will become more evident below in the description of the qualitative analysis performed for this study.
Interview Coding
All interviews were recorded via Zoom and transcribed using Rev.com human transcription services. Transcripts were analyzed using NVivo version 14.23.4. All coding was conducted by ADW, AM, ZS and EG over a 5-mo period using consensus coding (all codes defined and assigned collaboratively) (Figure 3, step 2b). Collaborative and iterative (three rounds) consensus coding (Delve Ho and Limpaecher, 2023) was conducted on pre-PD intake interviews and then on pre- and post-CURE implementation interviews (Supplementary Materials; Supplemental Table S4). Round one of coding utilized a priori codes generated from interview questions (institutional attributes, personal attributes, motivation to join PD, self-efficacy, teaching experience, teaching state of mind, and TPACK) by ADW, AM, and ZS with additional codes related to these ideas added through inductive coding (Saldaña, 2016). Greater familiarization with the data occurred through multiple close readings of all transcripts while applying and generating codes. Theme development of the first round codes began as memos with ADW reflecting upon the codes and consulting with LC. Round two of coding included reanalysis of transcripts to include any codes added in the first round of coding (Saldaña, 2016). The inductive codes added were focused on describing characteristics of the instructors participating in the PD as they learned to use new tools and techniques and applied them as they adopted and implemented the CURE module. Any disputes in coding were discussed and resolved through consensus of all four coders. If consensus could not be reached by all coders, then a code was not applied. Consultation with LC occurred after each round of coding for reliability.
Consultation with an Expert (PZ)
When we recognized that our early themes were similar to Zagallo et al., (2019), we consulted with Dr. Zagallo (PZ) regarding the codes and themes to assess the suitability of expanding upon their study. The Apple R Net codebooks were then compared with the codebook established by Zagallo and colleagues (Supplementary Materials; Supplemental Table S4). Over several consultations, PZ approved or contested codes between the two studies (Figure 3, step 2c). PZ read through one full instructor with potential similarities to “Emma the Expert” and coded this transcript using the codebook. PZ compared both codebooks, evaluated code overlap and appropriateness of code inclusion within themes, and made recommendations for the inclusion of several additional codes. Once the final code categorization was agreed upon by ADW and PZ, the final comparison codebook and code categorization were reviewed by EG and AM. Round three coding continued with only codes agreed upon between ADW and PZ with the purpose of making sure the codes and themes represented the patterns found in the data.
Step 3: Identify and Create Skeletons.
Thematic analysis began during the coding process and continued as an iterative and generative process throughout and after all coding was complete (Figure 3, step 3a). Codes were initially summarized into broader themes that pertained to teaching state of mind, technical and pedagogical content knowledge, instructor identity as scientist/researcher, personal thinking about students’ abilities, and hesitancy to try new things in the classroom after the first round of coding the pre-PD interview transcripts. Distinct educator personalities began to emerge after this first round of coding. This generated additional inductive codes mentioned above that played a role in further thematic analysis, in which we began to annotate instances in which we saw themes similar to those in Zagallo and colleagues’ work (2019). After all coding was complete, thematic analysis was conducted according to Braun and Clark (2021) with a focus on identifying patterns in the ways instructors showed up during PD and acted upon what they were learning. As the themes and personas from the Zagallo et al. (2019) study resonated with the data and our coding, we consulted with PZ regarding coding and then thematic analysis (Figure 3, step 3, b–d; Table 4). The codes we used to develop early themes corresponded well with the codes generated in the Zagallo and colleagues’ study and also with their themes: knowledge of students (16 codes), teaching values (25 codes), approaches to innovation (27 codes), and perceived barriers (23 codes) (Supplementary Materials; Supplemental Table S4). Skeletons were created that consisted of groups of codes that commonly co-occurred within and across each theme. Thus, each skeleton described patterns of behavior and/or ideas contributing to each of the four themes. This allowed us to begin to build personas in which knowledge of students, teaching values, approaches to innovations, and perceived barriers interacted and built on each other to form a whole.
TABLE 4.
Themes from Zagallo et al. (2019; Table 2) with description used in this study.
| Themesa | “Theme description: When instructors expressed…” | Theme application in this study: |
|---|---|---|
| Knowledge of students | “What they know and aim to know about their students, including conceptions, tendencies, habits of backgrounds” | instructors demonstrate knowledge of students in cognitive (student's biology concepts, quantitative aptitude, misconceptions) and affective areas (student backgrounds, frustrations, and tendencies) |
| Teaching values | “What is important to them as teachers and what they want students to get out of the classroom and college experience” | instructors state what is important to them in teaching (e.g. communicating clearly, engaging students, connecting with students, promoting peer-to-peer interactions, preparing students to be successful in their upper-level courses and professional careers) |
| Approaches to innovations | “An attitude or opinion regarding [introducing new assessment practices] questions and other innovative teaching practices” | reasons instructors do or don't use evidence-based teaching practices (e.g. backward design, formative assessment, active learning) |
| Percieved barriers | “Knowledge about local, departmental, or institutional norms and customs that they view as barriers” | instructor's perceived barriers in the classroom, department, institution, or academy |
aAdapted theme table from Zagallo et al., 2019 Table 2 p. 4.
Step 4: Evaluate and Prioritize Skeletons.
ADW, ZS, AM, and LC discussed that skeletons would be developed into personas based on themes and characteristics found in the data (Figure 4, step a). One skeleton was eliminated as it would have been too personally identifying of the single instructor who fit that skeleton (Figure 3, step 4b). All other skeletons were included as the data “fit” the skeletons well (i.e., patterns across themes were consistent within interviews and observational data on individual participants who displayed characteristics of a persona). One persona from the prior study (Ray the Relator, pg. 8, Zagallo et al., 2019) was absent after examining the skeletons in this study.
Step 5: Describe and Refine Skeletons into Personas.
All coded transcripts were summarized per instructor per semester of the CURE module offering. Direct quotes from instructors were used to support the related themes (Figure 3, step 5a). Supporting evidence from PD observations, meeting transcripts, and other artifacts were used to support or contradict persona generation through method triangulation (Figure 3, step 5b).
All observations of PD were de-identified and coded using the TDOP framework codes (Hora and Ferrare, 2014). Codes were assigned in real time by ADW. However, when codes could not be assigned quickly and accurately in real time, a statement of activities was recorded. A second round of coding was performed by EG and an additional undergraduate researcher to assign TDOP codes to the statements of activities. Information from the third round of coding involved ADW comparing instructor interactions, questions, and activities during “in situ” PD to persona characteristics seen in corresponding interviews to seek confirmation and contradiction of behavioral traits assigned to personas. Artifacts generated during PD (e.g., lesson plans, Google Slides, and posters) and throughout CURE implementation (e.g., curricula used, ecological data, and slide decks) were analyzed to understand instructor approaches to teaching and implementation of the CURE modules. Instructor thoughts and approaches to pedagogical innovation, perceived barriers, and teaching values were communicated in brainstorming sessions, lesson planning, and posters regarding implementation. Information from these artifacts was evaluated with regard to whether it corroborated or conflicted with information from semistructured interviews (Figure 3, step 5b).
Narrative summaries of traits and scenarios specific to college STEM teaching, specifically using EBIPs, were created for each persona (Figure 3, step 5c). These were created from a combination of interviews, observation, and artifact data. Quotes were selected to inform these summaries and assist with validation as described below.
Step 6: Validate the Personas.
The data and characteristics assigned to each persona were checked through consultation with PZ and the PD developers and implementers, and those involved in designing the APPLE R Net curricula (Figure 3, step 6a-b). Individual instructors could thematically align with different persona characteristics at different points during the CURE module implementation. Instructors could sometimes “switch” among personas depending on the needs and values of a particular instructor in a given institutional context. It was a methodological choice to not "assign" individuals to personas as it helped to build personas that PD developers could utilize that do not stereotype individuals. The coding summaries and persona classifications were reviewed by postdoctoral researchers (n = 3), graduate students (n = 2), an undergraduate student (n = 1), and one biology teaching faculty (n = 1) with various levels of DBER expertise and who all have familiarity with CUREs and PD in general, using a scoring rubric (see Supplementary Materials Scoring Rubric). All individuals involved with the validation were affiliated with LC's research group. One postdoctoral researcher had DBER experience with phenomenological and hermeneutic qualitative analysis. One postdoc had quantitative DBER experience, was learning qualitative coding and thematic analysis, and was involved in the PD design and implementation. Two graduate students had quantitative experience in ecology and were training in DBER qualitative methods. The undergraduate student was a past participant in the apple research, was familiar with the curriculum, and was training in DBER qualitative methods. The feedback from the scoring rubric, the core APPLE R Net research team (PD developers, implementers, and evaluators), PZ, and student researchers informed the quotes that were ultimately presented in this study and were used to create the general descriptions presented in the results (Figure 3, step 6b).
Limitations
This study represents one sample of instructors in a specific regional PD community of practice that contained a small number of participants. Due to the dispersed nature of the instructors and institutions, in-person class and field observations were not practical to carry out for each instructor. Some participants were only able to teach once due to changing jobs, the needs of the institution, and completion of graduate studies. This highlights the plasticity in the teaching schedules for instructors across institutions and why it can be challenging to plan for a CURE and then not be able to offer the course. As in Zagallo et al., (2019), the personas were constructed from instructors at various stages in their careers. Unlike Zagallo and colleagues’ work, this study did not include the use of COPUS observations or dendrogram creation due to the differences in teaching approaches and sample size. Instead, triangulation of multiple qualitative data sources was used in the construction of personas.
RESULTS
Broad Themes
We found all four themes from the original research by Zagallo and colleagues (Table 4) and subthemes that aligned with original personas were identified (Supplementary Materials; Supplemental Table S4). Two new personas were identified, and both arose from institutional contexts not present in the prior research. In the theme of knowledge of students, instructors demonstrate knowledge of students’ cognitive and affective abilities (e.g., concepts, aptitude, misconceptions, and backgrounds, frustrations, and tendencies). This information is useful to PD designers as it highlights areas of instructor knowledge and reveals areas where the instructor-learners need further support. For the theme of teaching values, instructors state what is important to them in teaching (e.g., communicating clearly, engaging students, connecting with students, promoting peer-to-peer interactions, preparing students to be successful in their upper-level courses and professional careers). This information is important to PD designers as it helps them to consider how to frame teaching changes in support of instructors’ values, such that instructors may be more receptive to making these changes in their instructional practices. Understanding instructor approaches to innovations, the reasons instructors do or don't use EBIPs (e.g., backward design, formative assessment, active learning), is valuable to PD developers as it will aid in providing direct support in pedagogical training, either by informing continuation of supports that have worked in the past or by informing changes to training. This pairs well with understanding instructor-perceived barriers in the classroom, department, institution, or academy (e.g., student absenteeism, large teaching load, lack of support, lack of resources) for using a particular EBIP. Although PD developers may not be able to directly support changes to the institution or academy, they can help provide training and support to instructors navigating challenges or seeking to be change agents in the classroom or department.
Our personas, like Zagallo et al’ (2019), are based on the themes above (Table 4). Below, we briefly describe the personas that aligned with Zagallo et al’ (2019) work, and then present detailed descriptions of the two new personas, followed by tables similar to the original Zagallo and colleagues’ (2019) work for ease of comparison. An overall comparison of all personas based upon the themes above is shown in Table 5. Supporting quotes for each theme by persona can be found below for the newly described personas and in the Supplementary Materials for the personas recognized from the original study (Supplementary Materials, Document S2).
TABLE 5.
Adpated from Zagallo et al., 2019, Figure 2, summaries of personas based on the four themes, including the original four personas and the two new personas(*).
| Emma the expert | Ray the relater | Carmen the coach | Beth the burdened | Riley the rookie* | Ash the advocate* | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Knowledge of Students |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Teaching Values |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Approaches to Innovations |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Perceived Barriers |
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is important to remember that personas are tools for quickly describing how an instructor shows up during PD, which is similar to how one would present a chart, graph, or schematic to support easier understanding of a concept. Each persona is an aggregate of multiple individuals. Personas themselves represent patterns observed across those engaged in PD; they are not meant to represent an individual or be assigned to any person for the duration of their career.
RQ1. Which Personas from the Zagallo et al., 2019 Study can be used to Describe Instructor Actions and Interactions During a Novel PD Program?
Three personas from the original study were present in the APPLE R Net PD program: Emma the Expert, Carmen the Coach, and Beth the Burdened. Narratives and tables displaying quotes corresponding to themes that describe each of these three personas and can be found in Supplemental Document S2. Here, we provide a brief summary of each and how they show up in our work.
As in Zagallo et al., (2019), Emma the Expert (Supplementary Materials, Document S2) is primarily a didactic instructor who is most excited to teach about her subject matter expertise. Regarding Emma's knowledge of students, she believes that many introductory biology students arrive unprepared for college-level science courses or are interested in other things. Emma mentions not wanting to generalize about students' level of preparedness coming into college. However, Emma frequently uses student performance in class to justify her assertion that students are unprepared if the students are failing, or her own teaching efficacy when students succeed. Overall, Emma is excited about science and science content and relating to students through that scientific content. She faces the greatest challenges in teaching when she perceives students to not be interested in the content or when students are nonscience majors. Instances of instructors showing up as “Emma” in our work aligned well with descriptions by Zagallo et al., (2019).
Carmen the Coach creates interactive learning environments with many opportunities for students to practice their science skills. In terms of Carmen's knowledge of students, she recognizes that students from the past several years have had multiple learning and assessment modalities that are different from previous cohorts of students due to the pandemic (Supplementary Materials, Document S2). Carmen finds that students are more willing to engage with the community and that they derive excitement from learning content out in the field and outside of the classroom. The barriers that Carmen perceives are a lack of time for implementation of new methods and technological difficulties, but she seeks ways to mitigate these challenges. Carmen models problem-solving for her students and sees problems as opportunities. Her greatest struggle is finding time to implement new pedagogical practices and evaluate their effectiveness in her classroom. In our work, we added depth to this persona by describing her excitement to not only use new techniques in the classroom, as described by Zagallo et al., (2019), but also to take students into new environments, such as the field.
Beth the Burdened shares many similar teaching strategies to Carmen the Coach, but also shares similar thoughts about students to Emma the Expert. Beth engages with student-centered pedagogical approaches but is exhausted by adapting to student needs. Beth has several students who take multiple attempts to pass a class and sees these students’ poor choices as the culprit for their not passing (Supplementary Materials, Document S2). Opposite to those students are the dual-enrollment students (in high school and CC concurrently), who Beth describes as having greater access to opportunities than other students. Beth pushes back on institutional attempts to overly generalize about the student population, which can be detrimental to students from nonmajoritarian backgrounds. Beth also questions the use of EBIPs that require student money, time, and/or travel above and beyond what is required in a typical class. She sees this as an equity issue and firmly believes that students should be able to succeed in STEM without having to put forth additional effort, time, or resources.
Instructors contributing to the Beth the Burdened persona in the Apple R Net context report barriers not seen in the original 2019 research. This is expected as the Beth in this scenario is not at an R1 institution. Similar to the original work, student absenteeism is a continuing problem faced by Beth. However, a unique barrier is the remoteness and need to commute some students face, which prevents them from showing up in-person. Similarly, internet connectivity necessary for completing assignments is not always reliable in the rural areas served by Beth's institution and this makes it challenging for students to complete homework assignments. Also, preparing students for transfer is a unique challenge. The textbook used by the department has a scope that is difficult to fit into the semester and, recently, the credits earned by students at this institution no longer transfer to the state 4-y institution. For “Beth” such challenges add to an internal struggle: although Beth recognizes the limitations that students’ contexts introduce in their academics, she also experiences frustration with students and anticipates their resistance to her pedagogical efforts.
As this study represents a smaller PD cohort than the initial study, it is expected that not all instructor personas will be present. Of the four previously identified personas, only Ray the Relator was not identified in this cohort. Ray and Carmen are similar in many respects with the main difference being that Ray wants to relate to students and understand their struggles, while Carmen seeks to “understand student thinking” and becomes frustrated with student disengagement since students learn best by doing (Zagallo et al., p. 8 Figure 2, 2019). Ray was described by Zagallo and colleagues to be more of a storyteller and constantly thinking of ways to scale up interactions for larger classes. This is less of an issue for the instructors in our APPLE R Net PD as they all teach smaller sized classes than what is typically offered at R1 institutions in introductory courses.
RQ2. What new Personas can be Characterized that were not Represented in the Initial Study, and how do Institutional Contexts act to Influence the Development of These new Personas?
Two new personas were identified using a similar framework to Zagallo et al., (2019). The new personas arose from CCs and predominantly undergraduate-serving institutions (PUI) in our sample. Although these personas may exist at other institution types, they are likely to represent characteristics that may more frequently occur at institution types not seen in the original study (as all participants were at an R1 institution). Below, we describe these personas, using our EBIP context—a field-based community-engaged CURE—to describe how they engage with educational innovations. It should be noted, however, that this EBIP could readily be exchanged for other innovations introduced through PD, and that these personas can be applied across contexts.
Riley the Rookie.
The first persona, called Riley the Rookie, is characterized by their status as an early-career educator. We use the term rookie to describe their novice status in teaching full-time. Riley's knowledge of students centers around their more recent experiences as a student themselves. Having more recently been a student, Riley sees themself as in touch with the educational goals and likes and dislikes of the students in their classes. Many of the students Riley teaches are nonmajors or taking their class for credit toward a credential, which means that they might not be interested in the specific content of the class (Table 6, quotes 1 and 3). Riley also understands that many students have not had much experience doing the type of evidence-based learning activities they use, but they maintain that “hands-on” experience is valuable no matter the students’ majors or backgrounds (Table 6, quote 2).
TABLE 6.
Overview of Riley the Rookie.
| RILEY THE ROOKIE |
|---|
|
Riley is within 5 y of the highest degree attainment. Sometimes courses they are scheduled to teach change within a month of the term beginning. Having only limited instructor training as a graduate student, Riley seeks out PD opportunities and wants to implement high-impact practices throughout their courses. Riley expresses empathy in regards to student mental health and often seeks ways to support student preparation to meet college-level study. Furthermore, Riley easily empathizes with different students to understand their interest levels, majors, and career directions. As an instructor, Riley values providing hands-on field experiences and getting students engaged. |
|
My Knowledge of Students (theme from Zagallo et al., 2019) |
|
|
My Teaching Values (theme from Zagallo et al., 2019) |
|
|
My Approaches to Innovations (theme from Zagallo et al., 2019) |
|
|
My Perceived Barriers (theme from Zagallo et al., 2019) |
|
Riley's teaching values include connecting directly with students through the application of concepts within evidence-based learning contexts. They enjoy connecting with students through the interactions afforded by active learning (Table 6, quote 4). Riley also sees the opportunities to apply EBIPs across multiple courses they might teach and sees their role as an instructor as instrumental in facilitating the success of the practices they use (Table 6, quote 5). Riley holds a strong commitment to EBIPs that emphasizes the impact of practical application and discovery over the memorization of facts (Table 6, quote 6).
Riley's approaches to innovation draw on their values, making Riley an active participant in PD and influential in the classroom. Riley recognizes that student engagement within evidence-based teaching contexts can be impactful across majors and provide students with transferable skills (Table 6, quote 7), therefore, they put their best foot forward to learn these techniques in PD. Riley also recounts feeling more confident in their teaching abilities and navigating their new role as faculty through the successful implementation of EBIPs, and they express a desire to continue to engage and refine EBIPs in their teaching as a result (Table 6, quote 8). As a new instructor striving to prove themselves and earn a full-time position, Riley is enthusiastic about training opportunities and participates in both their required institutional PD and also PD outside the institution (i.e., APPLE R Net PD). They go above and beyond in seeking training by engaging in multiple PD opportunities and even doing additional personal investigations (e.g., reading primary literature) that add fuel to their desire to use high-impact practices in all their classes (Table 6, quote 9).
Riley's perceived barriers arise as a result of their relatively early-career position and due to the hierarchies inherent in academia. As a very early-career member of the faculty, who is likely to be at a lower position in institutional hierarchies, Riley has very little autonomy over the content taught since they have to adhere to mandated content standards arising from either institutional or historical structures (Table 6, quote 10). Thus, finding the time and space to implement EBIPs requires Riley to be creative in when and how they implement them. Riley is also more likely to have to reapply for their position on a yearly basis (Table 6, quote 11). Balancing the stress of applying and interviewing for their current position affects Riley's focus and teaching, particularly if teaching and interviewing fall on the same day. Riley's biggest challenge is the course load and uncertainty in scheduling for planning purposes.
Ash the Advocate.
The second persona, called Ash the advocate, is characterized by extensive teaching experience with no contract time for research activities, and is a teaching professor. According to the Cambridge Dictionary, an advocate “speaks for, supports, or represents a person or group of people who may need extra help or protection.” This definition is apt for Ash as they focus on using student-centered instructional practices, accommodating student needs, and using culturally competent methods in their instruction.
Similar to Riley the Rookie, Ash the Advocate's knowledge of students is expansive and includes understanding what is required for various majors, but also what time constraints students face outside of class. Ash is likely to teach in a very diverse classroom in terms of majors and ages represented, and also to teach multiple courses within a year (Table 7, quote 1). Teaching in diverse courses and teaching over many years means that Ash has knowledge of the various challenges students might face, including both financial and with regard to available time and capacity, and how these challenges influence how they show up in class (Table 7, quote 2). Ash is also mindful of how any classroom activities, particularly those that take more time or require engagement beyond the classroom, can impact the students’ schedules. Ash is keenly aware of how classroom contexts and practices might serve to engage more (or fewer) students, and they strive to create equitable opportunities for all students using this knowledge (Table 7, quote 3). Ash also recognizes that macro-level contexts, such as the timing of courses or activities, can have an impact on student participation and understanding (Table 7, quote 4). Ash uses these context clues to better understand what might be happening to influence student engagement in the classroom.
TABLE 7.
Overview of Ash the Advocate.
| ASH THE ADVOCATE |
|---|
| Ash is an instructor with deep teaching experience (15+ y) and seeks out both internal and external PD opportunities. Ash is accommodating of student needs, uses student-centred instructional practices, and is culturally competent instructional practices. Ash is first and foremost an instructor with little to no contract time allowed for research activities (either pedagogical research or biological research). |
|
My Knowledge of Students (theme from Zagallo et al., 2019) |
|
|
My Teaching Values (theme from Zagallo et al., 2019) |
|
|
My Approaches to Innovations (theme from Zagallo et al., 2019) |
|
|
My Perceived Barriers (theme from Zagallo et al., 2019) |
|
Regarding teaching values, Ash is once again similar to Riley in that they both value student-centered teaching practices. Ash is unique in that they are also dedicated to using culturally competent practices because they value making experiences comfortable and accessible for all students. Ash makes sure to understand individual students’ needs, especially when those needs have an origin in a student's culture or background, and to make appropriate accommodations so that all students can access the same content but in an individualized and culturally competent way (Table 7, quote 5). Ash also values unexpected and unique opportunities for learning content during EBIPs, which, due to their active and experiential nature, have greater potential for unexpected events. For example, as seen in Table 7, quote 6, Ash was excited to tie in a plant physiology lesson, while students observed an orchardist conducting bridge grafting in an attempt to revive a tree that had been damaged from rodent girdling of the trunk. Ash values helping students make real connections among their peers, the site of learning, other people participating in the class (e.g., community members), and the biological content through interactions and experiences. Ash uses opportunities afforded by EBIPs and experiential learning to personally connect with students and better understand their motivations and interests (Table 7, quote 7). Ash is dedicated to personalizing the learning experience for as many students as possible, even when it is very difficult to do so.
Ash is a very reflective instructor when it comes to approaches to innovations. They think deeply about the ways in which they were initially trained and former teaching practices, making them a critical and helpful contributor to PD. Ash is similar to Carmen in that they create time and space for students to practice their skills and use active learning strategies in the classroom to help reveal misconceptions that need to be addressed (Table 7, quote 8). Ash also has similarities to Riley in feeling more confident in their teaching abilities through the successful implementation of novel EBIPs (Table 7, quote 9). Ash is enthusiastic about and very open to learning new pedagogical approaches and connecting with other instructors who are passionate about finding the best ways to support student learning (Table 7, quote 10). Ash's learning stance—that of always wanting to improve and recognizing how feedback can help them improve—makes them very amenable to receiving feedback, listening to others, and using that information in their own teaching. The peer instructor connection is very important to them and helps Ash learn new communication strategies for effective teaching (Table 7, quote 10).
The barriers that Ash experiences are different from the original study and also from Riley. Ash has demonstrated ability as an instructor that leads to institutions asking Ash to teach content outside of their area of expertise (Table 7, quote 11). Another barrier Ash faces as an instructor is educationally supporting students who are trying to manage work, school, and family commitments in ways that may not be faced by a majority of students at R1 institutions (Table 7, quote 12). Ash also recognizes student time commitment to work outside of school as a barrier. Ash meets this with empathy toward the student experience, noting that time management skills are needed and could potentially be addressed through the course by providing in-class time to complete assignments or tasks.
DISCUSSION
Personas are one tool that can help us to better understand instructor-learners within the context of PD (Pruitt and Adlin, 2006; Zagallo et al., 2019). The personas in our study are snapshots of typical instructor responses and behaviors as they engage in two rounds of PD followed by educational implementation. Below, we describe what we have learned while developing these personas. We hope that the findings below may help PD curriculum designers understand instructors’ perceptions of their students, teaching values, approaches to instructional innovation, and perceived barriers to adopting new teaching practices. Furthermore, we hope that this knowledge can support PD designers in providing targeted support and interventions relevant to PD participants’ personalities, traits, values, and needs.
Addressing Research Questions 1 and 2
PD Designers in Different Contexts can Expect to Work with Instructors Holding Different Backgrounds, Motivations, and Interests. We found that all but one of Zagallo et al.,’ (2019) described personas could be used to describe similar instructor responses and behaviors in our study. The fact that we found the majority (three out of four) of the original personas in Zagallo et al.,’ (2019) study is useful information in that we can expect to see the personas described in prior work showing up repeatedly in PD contexts. It adds weight to the reliability of these personas. Likewise, the fact that we did not observe one persona, Ray the Relator, points to the fact that not every PD implementation will represent all personas. Although we may not have seen Ray because several of Ray's attributes may arise from teaching large class sizes—that were absent from the courses our participants taught – it may be equally likely that we simply did not see Ray due to random chance. Thus, although we may anticipate seeing all personas, PD populations are likely to represent a subset, especially if they are small. We also described two new personas not represented in the initial study. This demonstrates that new PD contexts may give rise to new personas, as discussed in more detail below. These results point to an overarching finding: a diversity of instructors voluntarily participate in PD, and as indicated by variation across personas, PD designers and implementers can expect to work with instructors with different attributes, motivations, interests, and backgrounds.
Although this finding is not particularly surprising, it is nonetheless an important confirmation that we need to expect and be prepared for diverse views across our learners. Prior research has recognized that we need to know, incorporate, and honor different instructor attributes and motivations across various institutional contexts when conducting PD (Kazemi and Hubbard, 2008; Bouwma-Gearhart, 2012; Andrews and Lemons, 2015). The result of doing this is positive, particularly when multiple sources of instructor self-efficacy are engaged in the PD (Zhou et al., 2023), and it is collaborative and supported (e.g., see the exemplar teacher PD in Huang et al., 2022). A next step for studies in instructor PD may be to investigate how specific PD practices can be adjusted to leverage multiple motivations and interests common to PD participants. The personas generated here and in Zagallo and colleagues’ work can suggest a set of common motivations and inform the design of PD and associated educational research.
Addressing Research Question 2
Investigating a PD Context that Served Instructors from CCs, PUIs, and MSIs Helped to Further Develop and Elaborate Instructor Personas to Inform PD. This study engaged three instructors from public universities, four instructors from CCs, and two instructors from public liberal arts colleges. From the experiences of these participants, we saw two new personas emerge: Riley the Rookie and Ash the Advocate. Although we believe that both Riley and Ash may “be present” in R1 or R2 contexts as well, our study found these personas to be informed in-part by the institutions and situations in which participants found themselves and how they responded to PD. Riley the Rookie emerged from the experiences of new instructors at CCs, an institution type that frequently relies upon adjunct teaching positions (comprising nearly 65% of the CC workforce, Phillipe, 2024), which are frequently filled by early career instructors. As a “rookie,” Riley is constantly learning in both PD and through their teaching about important EBIPs and is internalizing why these practices are important. For example, engaging students in research is a broadly accepted EBIP because it interests and retains students across multiple STEM disciplines (Rodenbusch et al., 2016, Elgin et al., 2016). Riley is excited about these practices not only because of their general enthusiasm, having recently entered their profession, but also because they provide Riley with “cutting-edge” tools they can use to demonstrate their efficacy early on or access a permanent position. Ash the Advocate emerged from institutions that were CCs, PUIs and MSIs, which were also considered “noncompetitive,” admitting more than 90% of applicants. Such institutions serve students from a greater variety of racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic backgrounds, making it more likely that instructors will encounter students with unique life experiences, strengths, and challenges. This is reflected by Ash, who teaches a wide variety of students from differing backgrounds. Informed largely by their prior experiences teaching such students, they focus on teaching in a culturally informed and competent manner. Ash seeks ways in PD to support their peers in creating and delivering curriculum that respects the backgrounds and cultures of students. In alignment with work on culturally competent education (Gay, 2002; Bassey, 2016), Ash recognizes the importance of proactively designing instruction to honor and highlight the many cultures of their students.
Both of these personas broaden the originally developed set of personas (Zagallo et al., 2019) to include instructor behaviors and responses during PD that may be more common when working with instructors from MSIs, PUIs and CCs. For Riley, it is notable how a climate of newness and a need to prove oneself shapes both their challenges (i.e., stress and uncertainty) and their interests and enthusiasm for new pedagogical practices. This aligns with prior work describing how CC instructors are intrinsically motivated to improve their teaching because they feel that that is a mechanism for competence and autonomy, as they have little to no time devoted to research (Hardré, 2012). For Ash, it is particularly notable how years of working with students of diverse backgrounds helped to shape a deep understanding of and dedication to advocacy and culturally competent education. Although both personas are likely to exist across all institution types, we may be more likely to see new personas, such as Riley and Ash, emerge from different institutional contexts, which give rise to diverse instructor responses and priorities. Understanding and empathizing with these personas can help developers of PD better consider how they may support instructors from a variety of institutions and who work with different student populations and contexts during PD.
Furthermore, including instructors from different institution types in persona generation and considering how to support them is critical from an equity standpoint. Past work has demonstrated inequities in how PD is delivered, with lower-resourced institutions receiving what are known to be less effective forms of PD (e.g., Fortener et al. [2024] described how CC PD is typically only a one-off workshop, whereas university PD is longer). If we aim to decrease inequities in education across contexts, we must also consider the efficacy with which we conduct PD, to include tailoring PD to address the specific needs of the participants (Talafian et al., 2025). Considering personas that arise from multiple institutions can help us to better tailor PD, thereby potentially increasing teaching efficacy—along with inclusivity, access, and equity—for different student populations across institution types.
Despite our expansion into different institutional contexts, our dataset still has gaps (e.g., no HBCUs and no R2 participants) that would benefit from further investigation. Given this, we expect more useful “personas” might emerge if we were to expand this work. We encourage education researchers to consider this and continue to develop new personas and refine those here, possibly by considering how different MSI contexts, rural versus urban settings, and differently resourced schools might contribute to our better understanding of the needs, priorities, interests and views of instructors attending our PD.
Implication 1.
Engaging different personas during PD requires recognition of and emphasis on instructor-learners’ values and Interests. PD implementors, much like instructors, should consider diverse practices in their PD. College instruction has relied on lecture-based pedagogical techniques, and this remains a prominent form of instruction in undergraduate STEM courses despite evidence that it is not effective for many students (Stains et al., 2018). PD is needed to help instructors learn and utilize new EBIPs. However, instructors are unlikely to adopt EBIPs unless they feel some dissatisfaction with their existing practice as a motivation to change (Gess-Newsome et al., 2003; Bouwma-Gearhart, 2012; Andrews and Lemons, 2015). We found differing goals and motivations toward enacting EBIPs across our personas. Emma wants to engage students with exciting cutting edge content and skills; Carmen wants to provide students multiple opportunities to problem solve and develop competencies using EBIPs; Beth wants to improve curriculum so that students can have greater ownership and realize the benefits of EBIPs; Riley hopes to use high-impact practices across all courses they teach to prepare students for the career of their choice; and, Ash wants to meet students where they are using practices that are student centered and culturally competent. Conducting PD in a way that recognizes and honors these different priorities while coaching participants in how to use EBIPs in their classrooms requires consideration of how these priorities can be addressed.
There is sometimes tension between the PD learning goals (i.e., teaching how to conduct an EBIP) and designing learning to cater to instructor-learners’ agendas and contextual needs. For example, Emma wants to deeply engage with students about biology content, but using EBIPs may require some of the content to be cut to make space for other activities or deeper investigation of a subset of content (Peterson et al., 2020). This is a common challenge for many instructors (Sansom et al., 2023). This tension could dissuade Emma from using the EBIP from the PD. However, designers who consider and address these tensions may be better able to honor diverse participant priorities. In the case of Emma, designers could provide examples of how to address content while still implementing the EBIP. In our context, this involved structuring a field experience in which Emma can discuss biological concepts more informally with students while performing field measurements and then providing an assignment to students in which they reflect on the concepts, field experience, and potential experimental design in groups. Similarly, Riley felt tension between their desire to apply high-impact practices and the instability they experienced or that they had to teach multiple different courses (similar to challenges described in Aikens and Dolan, 2014). This made Riley feel like they constantly had too little time to implement the EBIPs well. Helping Riley to identify more easily implementable components or versions of an EBIP may be critical to their ability to persist in implementation. Instructors like Ash and Beth may be more attuned to student resistance to implementing EBIPs. Beth may need support with strategies to cope with resistance and view students through a growth-minded and constructive lens (Seidel and Tanner, 2013). Ash's challenge is that they are overwhelmed with the number of different ways they try to modify the class to accommodate various student needs and assuage resistance. They could benefit from help prioritizing which evidence-based and culturally competent strategies they choose or selecting universal designs (Seidel and Tanner, 2013) that create more equitable spaces for all students proactively. Anticipating areas of tension instructors encounter when participating in PD can help us to better design PD and maximize its efficacy by designing PD to address tensions as they arise. Using diverse PD approaches that maximize opportunities for instructor-learners to participate and bring their voices into the discussion can help us to identify and address tensions in a collaborative and developmental environment (Talafian et al., 2025).
Implication 2.
Each persona has strengths that they bring into the PD space that can enhance the space for all. It is important that educators view all learners (college students and instructor-learners) through a strengths-based lens. From the literature on student deficit thinking, Smit (2012) examines how instructors in higher education have framed students as missing academic or cultural resources necessary for success in college and how this deficit framing can alienate students from engagement with education. The same is true for instructor learners. PD designers should focus on using “practices that transform rather than improve” instructors (Zhou, p. 722, 2016) to avoid alienating our instructor-learners from engaging with PD, particularly around the use of EBIPs. To this end, we found that all personas bring with them particular strengths that can be leveraged to improve PD.
Emma can provide content knowledge legitimacy to what the PD team is providing and also support the PD designers with providing extra disciplinary content knowledge (Covay Minor et al., 2016). Carmen can innovate and share their knowledge of pedagogical practices as an ideator. Beth can lend support to the efficacy of EBIPs as a troubleshooter, drawing on her extensive experience with students (Lane et al., 2019). The support provided by these three personas can be seen in the data collected and shared in the Supplementary Materials and also in Zagallo and colleagues’ original work. We elaborate to a greater degree, the strengths of our two new personas: Riley can provide up-to-date training on technical skills to teaching peers who have been away from research or graduate school for a while. Recommendations from Layou et al. (2022) detail how early-career, adjunct instructors can be powerful agents of change within their institutions and be supporters of their peers within the PD community of practice. Riley can be an agent of change in leading by example and sharing their recently acquired skills with their teaching colleagues. Ash can demonstrate how to update and integrate EBIPs and culturally responsive pedagogies into classes that have been running for many years. Ash spends a lot of time thinking about culturally relevant pedagogy and place-based education (Gruenewald, 2008) and how these two frameworks can work together to enhance student understanding of biology concepts. Both Ash and Riley, who use EBIPs within their home departments, can leverage their status as experts in recent techniques (Riley) or as highly experienced instructors (Ash) to influence others in PD and to improve inclusion and promote equity among students who have been traditionally underrepresented in STEM (Wilton et al., 2024). Together, in an ideal scenario, leveraging all the different personas' strengths within a community of learners can help the community to support each other in implementing a new EBIPs.
CONCLUSION
This study builds on the work by Zagallo et al., (2019), further characterizing and elaborating upon the personas they observed and identifying two novel personas that may be present in PD contexts. These personas can be used to anticipate the values, needs, views, and challenges of instructors who we might encounter as we design and conduct PD. They can also help to inspire empathy and appreciation for the unique strengths and experiences that individuals may bring with them into PD settings. We hope that these personas can be used for just this, to help us better anticipate, understand, empathize with, and leverage the strengths of colleagues who attend our PD.
Importantly, however, personas are not meant to constrain, oversimplify, or essentialize an instructor's identity, and those we present here are limited by our data and the original data from which they arose. Personas, although helpful, cannot capture the diversity nor represent all perspectives we might see in PD. They are simply a tool to help us begin to consider what we might encounter. Furthermore, all individuals grow and change over time and will not remain static in their personal or professional competencies (Johnson-Ojeda et al., 2025). Thus, an instructor may display responses or thoughts from multiple personas or move through times in their career in which they think or act more similarly to different personas.
We encourage those who conduct or research PD to use the personas generated here as tools when considering how to design PD, as starting points from which to further elaborate on these personas, and as helpful examples when developing new personas. Creating tools and strategies that will support different types of instructors across diverse institutional contexts will allow PD designers to tailor experiences that will ultimately lead to more consistent and high-quality implementation of EBIPs.
Supporting information
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We wish to thank administrators at all partner institutions for their support of the CURE modules instruction and for supporting instructor participation in the PD. We also wish to thank Dr. Sandhya Krishnan, Manuela Mejia, Sam Ahler, and Sarah Elizabeth Stockman for providing thoughtful critiques and feedback on drafts of this manuscript. Finally, we wish to recognize all members of the APPLE R Net PD community of practice. This work was funded by the National Science Foundation Improving Undergraduate STEM Education Grant (#2141789) and the Graduate Research Fellowship Program (GRFP) for ADW.
REFERENCES
- Adler, P. J. (2005). Dealing with interviews when creating Personas: A practical approach. Design Res Tools, January, 84–88. Retrieved March 1, 2023, from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228824382. [Google Scholar]
- Adlin, T., & Pruitt, J. (2010). The essential persona lifecycle: Your guide to building and using personas. Morgan Kaufmann. [Google Scholar]
- Aikens, M. L., & Dolan, E. L. (2014). Teaching quantitative biology: Goals, assessments, and resources. Mol Biol Cell, 25(22), 3478–3481. 10.1091/mbc.E14-06-1045. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- An, J., Kwak, H., Soon-gyo, J., Salminen, J., & Jansen, B. J. (2018). Customer segmentation using online platforms: Isolating behavioral and demographic segments for persona creation via aggregated user data. Social Network Analysis and Mining, 8(1), 1–19. 10.1007/s13278-018-0531-0. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Andrews, T. C., & Lemons, P. P. (2015). It's personal: Biology instructors prioritize personal evidence over empirical evidence in teaching decisions. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 14(1), ar7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Archie, T., Hayward, C. N., Yoshinobu, S., & Laursen, S. L. (2022). Investigating the linkage between professional development and mathematics instructors’ use of teaching practices using the theory of planned behavior. PLoS ONE, 17(4 April), 1–19. 10.1371/journal.pone.0267097. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Bassey, M. O. (2016). Culturally responsive teaching: Implications for educational justice. Education Sciences, 6(4). 10.3390/educsci6040035. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Bingham, A. J. (2023). From Data Management to Actionable findings: A five-phase process of qualitative data analysis. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 22, 1–11. 10.1177/16094069231183620. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Bouwma-Gearhart, J. (2012). Research university STEM faculty members’ motivation to engage in teaching professional development: Building the choir through an appeal to extrinsic motivation and ego. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21, 558–570. [Google Scholar]
- Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021). Thematic Analysis: A Practical Guide. London: Sage. [Google Scholar]
- Brownell, S. E., & Tanner, K. D. (2012). Barriers to faculty pedagogical change: Lack of training, time, incentives, and...tensions with professional identity? CBE Life Sciences Education, 11(4), 339–346. 10.1187/cbe.12-09-0163. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Brennan, R. (2021). Reflections on methodological tensions in doing qualitative research at the science–policy–community interface. In White C.S. & Ounanian K. (Eds.), Researching People and the Sea. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1007/978-3-030-59601-9_14. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Carter, N., Bryant-Lukosius, D., Dicenso, A., Blythe, J., & Neville, A. J. (2014). The use of triangulation in qualitative research. Oncology Nursing Forum, 41(5), 545–547. 10.1188/14.ONF.545-547. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Chapman, C. N., & Milham, R. P. (2006). The personas’ new clothes: Methodological and practical arguments against a popular method. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 634–636. 10.1177/154193120605000503. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Cooper, A. (1999). The Inmates Are Running The Asylum. Indianapolis, IA: SAMS/Macmillan. [Google Scholar]
- Cooper, A. (2004). The Inmates Are Running The Asylum: Why High-Tech Products Drive Us Crazy And How To Restore The Sanity. Indianapolis: Sams–Pearson Education [Google Scholar]
- Cooper, A., Reimann, R., & Cronin, D. (2007). About Face 3: The Essentials of Interaction Design. Indianapolis: Wiley Publishing. [Google Scholar]
- Corwin, L. A., Kiser, S., Lore, S. M., Miller, J. M., & Aikens, M. L. (2019). Community college instructors’ perceptions of constraints and affordances related to teaching quantitative biology skills and concepts. CBE Life Sciences Education, 18(4), 1–13. 10.1187/cbe.19-01-0003. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Covay Minor, E., Desimone, L., Caines Lee, J., & Hochberg, E. D. (2016). Insights on how to shape teacher learning policy: The role of teacher content knowledge in explaining differential effects of professional development. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 24, 61. 10.14507/epaa.24.2365. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Inc. [Google Scholar]
- Dam, R. F., & Teo, Y. S. (2025). Personas—A Simple Introduction. Interaction Design Foundation–IxDF. Retrieved March 1, 2024, from https://www.interaction-design.org/literature/article/personas-why-and-how-you-should-use-them. [Google Scholar]
- Delve Ho, L., & Limpaecher, A. (2023). What Is Consensus Coding and Split Coding in Qualitative Research? Retrieved March 1, 2024, from https://delvetool.com/blog/consensus-coding-split-coding.
- Dreamson, N., Rhee, J., Han, J., Lee, M., & Ro, Y. (2023). Persona design: Representativeness and empathy through cultural integration. International Journal of Art and Design Education, 42(2), 246–260. 10.1111/jade.12455. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Eagan, K. (2016). Becoming more student-centered? An examination of faculty teaching practices across STEM and non-STEM disciplines between 2004 and 2014. Alfred P. Sloan Foundation. Retrieved March 1, 2024, from https://sloan.org/storage/app/media/files/STEM_Higher_Ed/STEM_Faculty_Teaching_Practices.pdf. [Google Scholar]
- Elgin, S. C. R., Bangera, G., Decatur, S. M., Dolan, E. L., Guertin, L., Newstetter, W. C., ... Labov, J. B. (2016). Insights from a convocation: Integrating discovery-based research into the undergraduate curriculum. CBE Life Sciences Education, 15(2). 10.1187/cbe.16-03-0118. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Fairman, J. C., Smith, D. J., Pullen, P. C., & Lebel, S. J. (2023). The challenge of keeping teacher professional development relevant. Professional Development in Education, 49(2), 197–209. 10.1080/19415257.2020.1827010. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Fairweather, J. (2008). Linking Evidence and Promising Practices in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Undergraduate Education: A Status Report for The National Academies National Research Council Board of Science Education. Workshop on Linking Evidence and Promising Practices in STEM Undergraduate Education, 1–31. Retrieved March 1, 2024, from http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bose/Fairweather_CommissionedPaper.pdf. [Google Scholar]
- Flaherty, Kim (2016). Are Your Personas Outdated? Know When It's Right To Revise. Last accessed March 21, 2025. Retrieved March 1, 2024, from https://www.nngroup.com/articles/revising-personas.
- Fortener, H., Arthurs, L. A., Shabram, P., Lu, P., Cheng, C.-L., Plaza-Torres, S., & Flaagan, C. (2024). A multiple case study of teaching-focused professional development programs offered at three different types of us institutions of higher education. Higher Education Studies, 14(3), 170. 10.5539/hes.v14n3p170. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Frederick, A., Grineski, S. E., Collins, T. W., Daniels, H. A., & Morales, D. X. (2021). The emerging STEM paths and science identities of hispanic/latinx college students: Examining the impact of multiple undergraduate research experiences. CBE Life Sciences Education, 20(2), 1–10. 10.1187/cbe.20-08-0191. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Gardner, G. E., Brown, E., Grimes, Z., & Bishara, G. (2021). Exploring barriers to the use of evidence-based instructional practices. Journal of College Science Teaching, 51(2), 56–66. 10.1080/0047231X.2021.12290550. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Gay, G. (2002). Preparing for culturally responsive teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(2), 106–116. [Google Scholar]
- Gess-Newsome, J., Southerland, S. A., Johnston, A., & Woodbury, S. (2003). Educational reform, personal practical theories, and dissatisfaction: The anatomy of change in college science teaching. American Educational Research Journal, 40(3), 731–767. [Google Scholar]
- Graham, M. J., Frederick, J., Byars-Winston, A., Hunter, A.-B., & Handelsman, J. (2013). Increasing persistence of college students in STEM. Science, 341(6153), 1455–1456. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Gruenewald, D. A. (2008). Place-based education: Grounding culturally responsive teaching in geographical diversity. Place-Based Education in the Global Age: Local Diversity. 137–154. New York, NY: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315769844. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Guy, B. R. (2017). Movers, shakers, & everyone in between: Faculty personas surrounding active learning in the undergraduate STEM classroom. I.E.: Inquiry in Education, 9(2), 10. Retrieved March 1, 2024, from http://proquest.com. [Google Scholar]
- Hammond, L. D., Hyler, M. E., & Gardner, M. (2017). Effective Teacher Professional Development in the evolution of human and non-human animals. Learning Policy Institute, June. [Google Scholar]
- Hardré, P. L. (2012). Community college faculty motivation for basic research, teaching research, and professional development. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 36(8), 539–561. 10.1080/10668920902973362. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Henderson, C., & Dancy, M. H. (2011). Increasing the impact and diffusion of STEM education innovations. Center for the Advancement of Scholar- ship on Engineering Education Forum. Retrieved June 11, 2018, from www.nae.edu/File.aspx on March 1, 2024. [Google Scholar]
- Hill, H. C., Lynch, K., Gonzalez, K. E., & Pollard, C. (2020). Professional development that improves STEM outcomes. Phi Delta Kappan, 101(5), 50–56. 10.1177/0031721720903829. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Hora, M. T., & Ferrare, J. J. (2014). Teaching Dimensions Observation Protocol (Tdop) 2. 0. Madison: Wisconsin Center for Education Research, February, 1–9. [Google Scholar]
- Huang, B., Siu-Yung Jong, M., Tu, Y. F., Hwang, G. J., Chai, C. S., & Yi-Chao Jiang, M. (2022). Trends and exemplary practices of STEM teacher professional development programs in K-12 contexts: A systematic review of empirical studies. Computers and Education, 189(January), 104577. 10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104577. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Huynh, T., Madsen, A., McKagan, S., & Sayre, E. (2021). Building personas from phenomenography: A method for user-centered design in education. Information and Learning Science, 122(11–12), 689–708. 10.1108/ILS-12-2020-0256. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Jaeger, D. M., Bilinski, T., Dunbar-Wallis, A., Alam, I., & Corwin, L. A. (2024). The Power of Place: A Course-Based Undergraduate Research Experience Studying Urban Ecology, Local Apple Trees and Disease Susceptibility. 11. [Google Scholar]
- Johnson-Ojeda, V., Hill, L. B., Shin, S. Y., York, A. M., & Frey, R. F. (2025). Measuring STEM instructors’ learning of and growth in inclusive teaching: Development and evaluation of the STEM Faculty Inclusive Teaching Survey (FITS). CBE Life Sciences Education, 24(1), ar13. 10.1187/cbe.24-01-0016. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Kazemi, E., & Hubbard, A. (2008). New directions for the design and study of professional development: Attending to the coevolution of teachers’ participation across contexts. Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5), 428–441. 10.1177/0022487108324330. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Kerr, J., & Kelly, N. (2024). Use of personas in co-designing learning experiences with teachers: An exploratory case study. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 35, 189–207. 10.1007/s10798-024-09900-x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Kranzfelder, P., Lo, A. T., Melloy, M. P., Walker, L. E., & Warfa, A. R. M. (2019). Instructional practices in reformed undergraduate STEM learning environments: A study of instructor and student behaviors in biology courses. International Journal of Science Education, 41(14), 1944–1961. 10.1080/09500693.2019.1649503. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Kvale, L. H. (2021). Using personas to visualize the need for data stewardship. College and Research Libraries, 82(3), 332–351. 10.5860/crl.82.3.332. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Landrum, R. E., Viskupic, K., Shadle, S. E., & Bullock, D. (2017). Assessing the STEM landscape: The current instructional climate survey and the evidence-based instructional practices adoption scale. International Journal of STEM Education, 4(1), 1–10. 10.1186/s40594-017-0092-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Lane, A. K., Skvoretz, J., Ziker, J. P., Couch, B. A., Earl, B., Lewis, J. E., ... Stains, M. (2019). Investigating how faculty social networks and peer influence relate to knowledge and use of evidence-based teaching practices. International Journal of STEM Education, 6(1). 10.1186/s40594-019-0182-3. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Laursen, S., Andrews, T., Stains, M., Finelli, C. J., Borrego, M., McConnell, D., ... Malcom, S. (2019). Levers for Change: An Assessment of Progress onChanging STEM Instruction. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science. Retrieved March 1, 2024, from https://www.aaas.org/resources/levers-change-assessment-progress-changing-stem-instruction. [Google Scholar]
- Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation . Cambridge [England]; New York: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511815355. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Layou, K. M., Goering, A. E., James, B. R., Morales, M., Nagy, R., Rosas Alquicira, E. F., & Macdonald, R. H. (2022). Power and potential: Engaging adjunct faculty as leaders and agents of change. New Directions for Community Colleges, 2022(199), 133–147. 10.1002/cc.20529. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Le, P. T., Doughty, L., Thompson, A. N., & Hartley, L. M. (2019). Investigating undergraduate biology students’ science identity production. CBE Life Sciences Education, 18(4), 1–16. 10.1187/cbe.18-10-0204. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Madsen, A., Mckagan, S. B., Association, A., Park, C., & Sayre, E. C. (2009). Personas as a Powerful Methodology to Design Targeted Professional Development Resources Methodology: Creation of Personas. Retrieved March 1, 2024, from www.perusersguide.org.
- Maxwell, J. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. [Google Scholar]
- McCourt, J. S., Andrews, T. C., Knight, J. K., Merrill, J. E., Nehm, R. H., Pelletreau, K. N., ... Lemons, P. P. (2017). What motivates biology instructors to engage and persist in teaching professional development? CBE Life Sciences Education, 16(3), 1–14. 10.1187/cbe.16-08-0241. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- McDonald, M. M., Zeigler-Hill, V., Vrabel, J. K., & Escobar, M. (2019). A Single-Item Measure for Assessing STEM Identity. Frontiers in Education, 4(July), 1–15. 10.3389/feduc.2019.00078. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Miller, D., Deshler, J., McEldowney, T., Stewart, J., Fuller, E., Pascal, M., & Michaluk, L. (2021). Supporting student success and persistence in STEM with active learning approaches in emerging scholars classrooms. Frontiers in Education, 6(August), 1–8. 10.3389/feduc.2021.667918. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Nielsen, L. (2014). Personas. Interaction Design Foundation - IxDF. Retrieved March 1, 2024, from https://www.interaction-design.org/literature/book/the-encyclopedia-of-human-computer-interaction-2nd-ed/personas. [Google Scholar]
- Postholm, M. B. (2018). Teachers’ professional development in school: A review study. Cogent Education, 5(1), 1–22. 10.1080/2331186X.2018.1522781. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Pruitt, J., & Adlin, T. (2006). The persona lifecycle: Keeping people in mind throughout product design. Amsterdam: Elsevier. [Google Scholar]
- Pruitt, J., & Grudin, J. (2003). Personas: Practice and theory. Proceedings of the 2003 Conference on Designing for User Experiences, DUX ’03, 1–15. 10.1145/997078.997089. [DOI]
- Prunuske, A. J., Evans-Anderson, H. J., Furniss, K. L., Goller, C. C., Mirowsky, J. E., Moore, M. E., ... Wolyniak, M. J. (2022). Using personas and the ADKAR framework to evaluate a network designed to facilitate sustained change toward active learning in the undergraduate classroom. Discover Education, 1(1). 10.1007/s44217-022-00023-w. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Rodenbusch, S. E., Hernandez, P. R., Simmons, S. L., & Dolan, E. L. (2016). Early engagement in course-based research increases graduation rates and completion of science, engineering, and mathematics degrees. CBE Life Sciences Education, 15(2). 10.1187/cbe.16-03-0117. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Romick, C., Weliweriya, N., & Cotten, T. (2022). Personas of stem students completing online instructions during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Science of the University of Kelaniya, 15(2), 132–146. 10.4038/josuk.v15i2.8066. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Saldaña, J. (2016). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (3rd ed.). London [England]: Sage. [Google Scholar]
- Sansom, R. L., Winters, D. M., Clair, B. E., West, R. E., & Jensen, J. L. (2023). Factors that influence STEM faculty use of evidence-based instructional practices: An ecological model. PLoS ONE, 18(1 January), 1–21. 10.1371/journal.pone.0281290. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Seidel, S. B., & Tanner, K. D. (2013). “What if students revolt?”—considering student resistance: Origins, options, and opportunities for investigation. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 12(4), 586–595. 10.1187/cbe-13-09-0190. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Smit, R. (2012). Towards a clearer understanding of student disadvantage in higher education: Problematising deficit thinking. Higher Education Research and Development, 31(3), 369–380. 10.1080/07294360.2011.634383. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Srivastava, P., & Hopwood, N. (2009). A practical iterative framework for qualitative data analysis. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 8(1), 76–84. 10.1177/160940690900800107. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Stains, M., Harshman, J., Barker, M. K., Chasteen, S. V., Cole, R., DeChenne-Peters, S. E., ... Young, A. M. (2018). Anatomy of STEM teaching in North American universities. Science, 359(6383), 1468–1470. 10.1126/science.aap8892. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Stieha, V., Earl, B., Hagens, H., Haynes, M., Ulappa, A., Bond, L., & Oxford, J. T. (2024). An exploration of the relationship between active learning and student motivation in STEM: A mixed methods study. Advances in Physiology Education, 48(3), 621–638. 10.1152/ADVAN.00247.2022. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Talafian, H., Lundsgaard, M., Mahmood, M., Shafer, D., Stelzer, T., & Kuo, E. (2025). Responsive professional development: A facilitation approach for teachers’ development in a physics teaching community of practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 153(May 2024), 104812. 10.1016/j.tate.2024.104812. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Tinnell, T. L., Ralston, P. A., Tretter, T. R., & Mills, M. E. (2019). Sustaining pedagogical change via faculty learning community. International Journal of STEM Education, 6(297), 1–16. 10.1186/s40594-019-0180-5. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Weinhandl, R., Mayerhofer, M., Große, C. S., & Anđić, B. (2024). Employing a multi-layered approach for validating mathematics student personas in technology-enhanced learning environments. Cogent Education, 11(1). 10.1080/2331186X.2024.2389361. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Wesley, J. J., & Pawluk, M. (2023). The role of personas in political marketing in Canada. Persona Studies, 9(3). 10.21153/psj2023vol9no3art1906. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Wilson, A., De Paoli, S., Forbes, P., & Sachy, M. (2018). Creating personas for political and social consciousness in HCI design. Persona Studies, 4(2), 25–46. 10.21153/psj2018vol4no2art736. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Wilton, M., Maloy, J., Beaster-Jones, L., Sato, B. K., Lo, S. M., & Grunspan, D. Z. (2024). Instructional influencers: Teaching professors as potential departmental change agents in diversity, equity, and inclusion. CBE Life Sciences Education, 23(3), 1–13. 10.1187/cbe.24-03-0102. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Yoshinobu, S., Jones, M. G., Hayward, C. N., Schumacher, C., & Laursen, S. L. (2023). A broad doorway to the big tent: A four-strand model for discipline-based faculty development on inquiry-based learning. Primus, 33(4), 329–354. 10.1080/10511970.2022.2072427. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Yström, A., Peterson, L., Sydow, B. Von, & Malmqvist, J. (2009). Using personas as a mediating tool in the development of engineering programs. In: Proceedings 2: A Utvecklingskonferensen för Sveriges ingenjörsutbildningar. Retrieved March 1, 2024, from https://www.lth.se/fileadmin/lth/genombrottet/natutvkonferens2009/proceedings/33Ystrom_etal.pdf.
- Zagallo, P., McCourt, J., Idsardi, R., Smith, M. K., Urban-Lurain, M., Andrews, T. C., ... Lemons, P. P. (2019). Through the eyes of faculty: Using personas as a tool for learner-centered professional development. CBE Life Sciences Education, 18(4). 10.1187/cbe.19-06-0114. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Zhou, X., Shu, L., Xu, Z., & Padrón, Y. (2023). The effect of professional development on in-service STEM teachers’ self-efficacy: A meta-analysis of experimental studies. International Journal of STEM Education, 10(1). 10.1186/s40594-023-00422-x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.