The purpose of this study was to examine the pattern of postnatal brain growth in two wild canid species: the coyote (Canis latrans) and gray wolf (Canis lupus). Adult regional and total brain volume differences were also compared between the two species as well as within each species by sex. Three-dimensional virtual endocasts of endocranial airspace were created from computed tomography scans of 52 coyote skulls (28 female, 24 male; 1 day to 13.4 years) and 46 gray wolf skulls (25 female, 21 male; 1 day to 7.9 years). Age was known in coyotes or estimated from dentition patterns in wolves. The 95% asymptotic growth of the endocranium is completed by 21 weeks in male and 17.5 weeks in female coyotes and by 27 weeks in male and 18.5 weeks in female wolves. These ages are well before age at first reproduction (coyote – 40.4 weeks; wolf – 91.25 weeks). Skull growth as measured by centroid size lags behind endocranial growth but is also completed before sexual maturity. Intra- and interspecific comparisons of brain volumes in the adult wolves and coyotes revealed that relative anterior cerebrum (AC) volume was greater in males than females in both species. Relative brain size was greater in the coyote than in the wolf as was relative cerebrum volume. However, relative AC volume and relative cerebellum and brainstem volume was greater in the wolf than coyote. One explanation for the increased AC volume in males compared to females may be related to the role of social information processing. However, additional data are needed to determine the correspondence between regional volumes and functional differences either between or within these species. Nonetheless, these findings provide important baseline data for further studies on wild canid brain variations and development.

Instructional reform in STEM aims for the widespread adoption of evidence based instructional practices (EBIPS), practices that implement active learning. Research recognizes that faculty social networks regarding discussion or advice about teaching may matter to such efforts. But teaching is not the only priority for university faculty – meeting research expectations is at least as important and, often, more consequential for tenure and promotion decisions. We see value in understanding how research networks, based on discussion and advice about research matters, relate to teaching networks to see if and how such networks could advance instructional reform efforts. Our research examines data from three departments (biology, chemistry, and geosciences) at three universities that had recently received funding to enhance adoption of EBIPs in STEM fields. We evaluate exponential random graph models of the teaching network and find that (a) the existence of a research tie from one faculty member $$i$$ i to another $$j$$ j enhances the prospects of a teaching tie from $$i$$ i to $$j$$ j , but (b) even though faculty highly placed in the teaching network are more likely to be extensive EBIP users, faculty highly placed in the research network are not, dimming prospects for leveraging research networks to advance STEM instructional reforms.

Supporting changes in undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) instruction requires an understanding of the relationship between STEM instructors' conceptions and practices. In this study, the authors used the Teacher‐Centered Systematic Reform (TCSR) model as a framework to understand how instructors' conceptions are related to their instructional practices. This multiple methods study included interviews and classroom observations of 22 STEM instructors. We used qualitative methods to describe instructors' conceptions of how students learn and quantitative methods, including a hierarchical cluster analysis, to analyze the types of relationships that exist between their conceptions and practices. Results indicated instructors had a wide range of conceptions that exist along a continuum from teacher‐centered to student‐centered. While many faculty members perceived student‐centered practices as valuable, they conceptualized these practices in different ways. Instructors implemented a wide range of instructional practices, and these practices varied independently of conceptions. We identified three distinct clusters of participants based on the relationships between instructors' conceptions and practices: congruent lecturers, congruent active learning facilitators, and incongruent lecturers. In the first two clusters, instructors' conceptions were aligned with their instructional practices. However, incongruent lecturers thought that students learn through active learning approaches but primarily lectured in their courses. Instructors in this group described several personal and contextual factors that influenced the relationship between their conceptions and practices. The results include an in‐depth portrayal of one participant in each cluster. We found that student‐centered conceptions may be necessary but are not sufficient for instructors to implement active learning. Implications focus on instructional and institutional change efforts. To promote instructional change most effectively, it is important to address each component of the TCSR model, including personal and contextual factors. A focus on conceptions and practices alone may not sufficiently support faculty members in overcoming barriers that limit active learning instruction.

Instructors’ interactions can foster knowledge sharing around teaching and the use of research-based instructional strategies (RBIS). Coordinated teaching presents an impetus for instructors’ interactions and creates opportunities for instructional improvement but also potentially limits an instructor’s autonomy. In this study, we sought to characterize the extent of coordination present in introductory undergraduate courses and to understand how departments and instructors implement and experience course coordination. We examined survey data from 3,641 chemistry, mathematics, and physics instructors at three institution types and conducted follow-up interviews with a subset of 24 survey respondents to determine what types of coordination existed, what factors led to coordination, how coordination constrained instruction, and how instructors maintained autonomy within coordinated contexts. We classified three approaches to coordination at both the overall course and course component levels: independent (i.e., not coordinated), collaborative (decision-making by instructor and others), controlled (decision-making by others, not instructor). Two course components, content coverage and textbooks, were highly coordinated. These curricular components were often decided through formal or informal committees, but these decisions were seldom revisited. This limited the ability for instructors to participate in the decision-making process, the level of interactions between instructors, and the pedagogical growth that could have occurred through these conversations. Decision-making around the other two course components, instructional methods and exams, was more likely to be independently determined by the instructors, who valued this autonomy. Participants in the study identified various ways in which collaborative coordination of courses can promote but also inhibit pedagogical growth. Our findings indicate that the benefits of collaborative course coordination can be realized when departments develop coordinated approaches that value each instructor’s autonomy, incorporate shared and ongoing decision-making, and facilitate collaborative interactions and knowledge sharing among instructors.