Skip to main content

Marcus D. Strum

Title: Teaching Fellow

Department: Behavior Analysis

College: College of Health and Public Service

Curriculum Vitae

Curriculum Vitae Link

Current Scheduled Teaching

BEHV 3550.001Behavior Change TechniquesSpring 2026
BEHV 3660.001Survey of Applied Behavior Analysis LiteratureSpring 2026
BEHV 3660.001Survey of Applied Behavior Analysis LiteratureFall 2025 Syllabus
Texas Education Code 51.974 (HB 2504) requires each institution of higher education to make available to the public, a syllabus for undergraduate lecture courses offered for credit by the institution.

Previous Scheduled Teaching

BEHV 2300.001Behavior Principles ISummer 5W1 2023 Syllabus SPOT
BEHV 3660.001Survey of Applied Behavior Analysis LiteratureSpring 2023 Syllabus SPOT
BEHV 3550.001Behavior Change TechniquesFall 2022 Syllabus SPOT
BEHV 3550.001Behavior Change TechniquesSpring 2022 Syllabus SPOT
BEHV 3550.001Behavior Change TechniquesFall 2021 Syllabus SPOT
Texas Education Code 51.974 (HB 2504) requires each institution of higher education to make available to the public, a syllabus for undergraduate lecture courses offered for credit by the institution.

Published Intellectual Contributions

    Journal Article

  • Bergmann, S.C., Long, B.P., St. Peter, C.C., Brand, D., Strum, M.D., Han, J.B., Wallace, M.D. (2023). A detailed examination of reporting procedural fidelity in the Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis.
,
Overall
Summative Rating		 Challenge and
Engagement Index		 Response Rate

out of 5
out of 7		 %
of
students responded
  • Overall Summative Rating (median):
    This rating represents the combined responses of students to the four global summative items and is presented to provide an overall index of the class’s quality. Overall summative statements include the following (response options include a Likert scale ranging from 5 = Excellent, 3 = Good, and 1= Very poor):
    • The course as a whole was
    • The course content was
    • The instructor’s contribution to the course was
    • The instructor’s effectiveness in teaching the subject matter was
  • Challenge and Engagement Index:
    This rating combines student responses to several SPOT items relating to how academically challenging students found the course to be and how engaged they were. Challenge and Engagement Index items include the following (response options include a Likert scale ranging from 7 = Much higher, 4 = Average, and 1 = Much lower):
    • Do you expect your grade in this course to be
    • The intellectual challenge presented was
    • The amount of effort you put into this course was
    • The amount of effort to succeed in this course was
    • Your involvement in course (doing assignments, attending classes, etc.) was
CLOSE