skip to main content

Title: Reducing Student Resistance to Active Learning: Development and Validation of a Measure.
The goal of the study presented here was to test the reliability and validity of faculty responses to the Strategies to Reduce Student Resistance (SRSR) a measure of Science, Engineering, and Mathematics university faculty use and motivation (self-efficacy and value) for using instructional strategies to reduce student resistance to active learning. The development of this measure will support research and interventions designed to support faculty implementation of active learning strategies. The scale examined here was adapted from a student version, developed and tested as part of a national study on student resistance to active learning in engineering programs. This project reveled a set of faculty behaviors which supported students’ positive response to active learning strategies (Authors, 2017). Although student perspectives on faculty behavior is important, we felt it was necessary to adapt the scale to measure faculty’s perspectives on the strategies they use and their motivation to use those strategies as part of their use of active learning in their classroom.
Authors:
; ; ; ; ;
Award ID(s):
1821488
Publication Date:
NSF-PAR ID:
10163846
Journal Name:
CANCELLED: American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, San Francisco, CA
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. Establishing and sustaining a sense of belonging is a necessary human motivation with particular implications for student learning, including in engineering. Students who experience a sense of belonging are more likely to display intrinsic motivation and establish a stronger sense of identity and persistence. It is important, however, to distinguish different domains of belonging, such as belonging to one’s university, belonging to a major, and belonging in the classroom setting. Our study examines if and how faculty support efforts contribute to diverse students’ sense of belonging in the classroom setting. Specifically, we sought to answer the following research questions: Which faculty support efforts promote a sense of classroom belongingness? Do faculty support efforts differentially promote a sense of classroom belongingness for students based on their demographic characteristics? Data for this study was collected in the Fall of 2018, across ten institutions, n = 819. We used the Faculty Support items from the STEM Student Perspectives of Support Instrument developed from Lee’s model of co-curricular support to answer our research questions. Demographic categories were created to understand if and how faculty support efforts differentially promote a sense of belonging for minoritized students compared to their counterparts. Multiple regression analysis was conductedmore »to examine the faculty support efforts that fostered a sense of belonging in the classroom. Interaction effects were included to understand how faculty support efforts affected classroom belongingness for the students in the demographic groups we identified. Minoritized women were less likely to feel a sense of belonging in the classroom when compared to majoritized men. Neither groups of women believed that their instructors wanted them to succeed, thus negatively impacting their classroom belongingness. There were, however, faculty support efforts that positively contributed to a sense of belonging in the classroom for minoritized women, including instructors’ availability, knowing that they could ask instructors for help in course-related material, and when instructors fostered an atmosphere of mutual respect. Additionally, minoritized women felt a sense of classroom belonging when they could capitalize on their previous experiences to scaffold their learning. Our findings highlight classroom practices and strategies faculty can use in the classroom to support minoritized women’s sense of belonging. These practices and strategies will be a crucial resource for engineering educators and administrators who seek to improve the field’s retention of minoritized and women students. Whereas efforts have been made to recruit minoritized students into engineering, our study points to a clear and crucial role for faculty to play: they can support minoritized students by fostering a sense of belonging in engineering classrooms.« less
  2. Who and by what means do we ensure that engineering education evolves to meet the ever changing needs of our society? This and other papers presented by our research team at this conference offer our initial set of findings from an NSF sponsored collaborative study on engineering education reform. Organized around the notion of higher education governance and the practice of educational reform, our open-ended study is based on conducting semi-structured interviews at over three dozen universities and engineering professional societies and organizations, along with a handful of scholars engaged in engineering education research. Organized as a multi-site, multi-scale study, our goal is to document differences in perspectives and interest the exist across organizational levels and institutions, and to describe the coordination that occurs (or fails to occur) in engineering education given the distributed structure of the engineering profession. This paper offers for all engineering educators and administrators a qualitative and retrospective analysis of ABET EC 2000 and its implementation. The paper opens with a historical background on the Engineers Council for Professional Development (ECPD) and engineering accreditation; the rise of quantitative standards during the 1950s as a result of the push to implement an engineering science curriculum appropriate tomore »the Cold War era; EC 2000 and its call for greater emphasis on professional skill sets amidst concerns about US manufacturing productivity and national competitiveness; the development of outcomes assessment and its implementation; and the successive negotiations about assessment practice and the training of both of program evaluators and assessment coordinators for the degree programs undergoing evaluation. It was these negotiations and the evolving practice of assessment that resulted in the latest set of changes in ABET engineering accreditation criteria (“1-7” versus “a-k”). To provide an insight into the origins of EC 2000, the “Gang of Six,” consisting of a group of individuals loyal to ABET who used the pressure exerted by external organizations, along with a shared rhetoric of national competitiveness to forge a common vision organized around the expanded emphasis on professional skill sets. It was also significant that the Gang of Six was aware of the fact that the regional accreditation agencies were already contemplating a shift towards outcomes assessment; several also had a background in industrial engineering. However, this resulted in an assessment protocol for EC 2000 that remained ambiguous about whether the stated learning outcomes (Criterion 3) was something faculty had to demonstrate for all of their students, or whether EC 2000’s main emphasis was continuous improvement. When it proved difficult to demonstrate learning outcomes on the part of all students, ABET itself began to place greater emphasis on total quality management and continuous process improvement (TQM/CPI). This gave institutions an opening to begin using increasingly limited and proximate measures for the “a-k” student outcomes as evidence of effort and improvement. In what social scientific terms would be described as “tactical” resistance to perceived oppressive structures, this enabled ABET coordinators and the faculty in charge of degree programs, many of whom had their own internal improvement processes, to begin referring to the a-k criteria as “difficult to achieve” and “ambiguous,” which they sometimes were. Inconsistencies in evaluation outcomes enabled those most discontented with the a-k student outcomes to use ABET’s own organizational processes to drive the latest revisions to EAC accreditation criteria, although the organization’s own process for member and stakeholder input ultimately restored much of the professional skill sets found in the original EC 2000 criteria. Other refinements were also made to the standard, including a new emphasis on diversity. This said, many within our interview population believe that EC 2000 had already achieved much of the changes it set out to achieve, especially with regards to broader professional skills such as communication, teamwork, and design. Regular faculty review of curricula is now also a more routine part of the engineering education landscape. While programs vary in their engagement with ABET, there are many who are skeptical about whether the new criteria will produce further improvements to their programs, with many arguing that their own internal processes are now the primary drivers for change.« less
  3. The Academy of Engineering Success (AcES) program, established in 2012 and supported by NSF S-STEM award number 1644119 throughout 2016-2021, employs literature-based, best practices to support and retain underprepared and underrepresented students in engineering through graduation with the ultimate goal of diversifying the engineering workforce. A total of 71 students, including 21 students supported by S-STEM scholarships, participated in the AcES program between 2016-2019 at a large R1 institution in the mid-Atlantic region. All AcES students participate in a common program during their first year, comprised of: a one-week summer bridge experience, a common fall professional development course and spring “Engineering in History” course, and a common academic advisor. These students also have opportunities for: (1) faculty-student, student-student, and industry mentor-student interaction, (2) academic support and student success education, and (3) major and career exploration – all designed to help students develop feelings of institutional inclusion, engineering self-efficacy and identity, and academic and professional success skills. They also participate in the GRIT, Longitudinal Assessment of Engineering Self-Efficacy (LAESE), and the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ) surveys plus individual and focus group interviews at the start, midpoint, and end of each fall semester and at the end of the springmore »semester. The surveys provide a measure of students’ GRIT, their beliefs related to the intrinsic value of engineering and learning, their feelings of inclusion and test anxiety, and their self-efficacy related to engineering, math, and coping skills. The interviews provide information related to the student experience, feelings of inclusion, and program impact. Institutional data, combined with the survey and interview responses, are used to examine four research questions designed to examine the relationship of the elements of the AcES program to participants’ academic success and retention in engineering. Early analyses of the student retention data and survey responses from the 2017 and 2018 cohorts indicated students who ultimately left engineering before the start of their second year initially scored higher in areas of engineering self-efficacy and test anxiety, than those who stayed in engineering, while those who retained to the second year began their engineering education with lower self-efficacy scores, but higher scores related to the belief in the intrinsic value of engineering, learning strategy use, and coping self-efficacy. These results suggest that students who start with unrealistically high expectations of their performance leave engineering at higher rates than students who start with lower personal performance expectations, but have stronger value of the field and strategies for meeting challenges. These data appear to support the Kruger-Dunning effect in which students with limited knowledge of a specific field overestimate their abilities to perform in that area or underestimate the level of effort success may require. This paper will add an analysis of the academic success and retention data from 2019 cohort to this research, discuss the impact of COVID-19 to this program and research, as well as illuminate the quantitative results with the qualitative data from individual and focus group interviews regarding the aspects of the AcES program that impact student success, their expectations and methods for overcoming academic challenges, and their feelings of motivation and inclusion.« less
  4. The development of tools that promote active learning in engineering disciplines is critical. It is widely understood that students engaged in active learning environments outperform those taught using passive methods. Previously, we reported on the development and implementation of hands-on Low-Cost Desktop Learning Modules (LCDLMs) that replicate real-world industrial equipment which serves to create active learning environments. Thus far, miniaturized venturi meter, hydraulic loss, and double-pipe and shell & tube heat exchanger DLMs have been utilized by hundreds of students across the country. It was demonstrated that the use of DLMs in face-to-face classrooms results in statistically significant improvements in student performance as well as increases in student motivation compared to students taught in a traditional lecture-only style classroom. Last year, participants in the project conducted 45 implementations including over 600 DLMs at 24 universities across the country reaching more than 1,000 students. In this project, we report on the significant progress made in broad dissemination of DLMs and accompanying pedagogy. We demonstrate that DLMs serve to increase student learning gains not only in face-to-face environments but also in virtual learning environments. Instructional videos were developed to aid in DLM-based learning during the COVID-19 pandemic when instructors were limited tomore »virtual instruction. Preliminary results from this work show that students working with DLMs even in a virtual setting significantly outperform those taught without DLM-associated materials. Significant progress has also been made on the development of a new DLM cartridge: a see-through 3D-printed miniature fluidized bed. The new 3D printing methodology will allow for rapid prototyping and streamlined development of DLMs. A 3D-printed evaporative cooling tower DLM will also be developed in the coming year. In October 2020, the team held a virtual implementers workshop to train new participating faculty in DLM use and implementation. In total, 13 new faculty participants from 10 universities attended the 6-hour, 2-day workshop and plan to implement DLMs in their classrooms during this academic year. In the last year, this project was disseminated in 8 presentations at the American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) Virtual Conference (June 2020) and American Institute of Chemical Engineers Annual Conference (November 2019) as well as the AIChE virtual Community of Practice Labs Group and a seminar at a major university, ultimately disseminating DLM pedagogy to approximately 200 individuals including approximately 120 university faculty. Further, the former group postdoc has accepted an instructor faculty position at University of Wisconsin Madison where she will teach unit operations among other subjects; she and the remainder of the team believe the LCDLM project has prepared her well for that position. In the remaining 2.5 years of the project, we will continue to evaluate the effectiveness of DLMs in teaching key heat transfer and fluid dynamics concepts thru implementations in the rapidly expanding pool of participating universities. Further, we continue our ongoing efforts in creating the robust support structure necessary for large-scale adoption of hands-on educational tools for promotion of hands-on interactive student learning.« less
  5. The purpose of this study is to re-examine the validity evidence of the engineering design self-efficacy (EDSE) scale scores by Carberry et al. (2010) within the context of secondary education. Self-efficacy refers to individuals’ belief in their capabilities to perform a domain-specific task. In engineering education, significant efforts have been made to understand the role of self-efficacy for students considering its positive impact on student outcomes such as performance and persistence. These studies have investigated and developed measures for different domains of engineering self-efficacy (e.g., general academic, domain-general, and task-specific self-efficacy). The EDSE scale is a frequently cited measure that examines task-specific self-efficacy within the domain of engineering design. The original scale contains nine items that are intended to represent the engineering design process. Initial score validity evidence was collected using a sample consisting of 202 respondents with varying degrees of engineering experience including undergraduate/graduate students and faculty members. This scale has been primarily used by researchers and practitioners with engineering undergraduate students to assess changes in their engineering design self-efficacy as a result of active learning interventions, such as project-based learning. Our work has begun to experiment using the scale in a secondary education context in conjunction with anmore »increased introduction to engineering in K-12 education. Yet, there still is a need to examine score validity and reliability of this scale in non-undergraduate populations such as secondary school student populations. This study fills this important gap by testing construct validity of the original nine items of the EDSE scale, supporting proper use of the scale for researchers and practitioners. This study was conducted as part of a larger, e4usa project investigating the development and implementation of a yearlong project-based engineering design course for secondary school students. Evidence of construct validity and reliability was collected using a multi-step process. First, a survey that includes the EDSE scale was administered to the project participating students at nine associated secondary schools across the US at the beginning of Spring 2020. Analysis of collected data is in progress and includes Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) on the 137 responses. The evidence of score reliability will be obtained by computing the internal consistency of each resulting factor. The resulting factor structure and items will be analyzed by comparing it with the original EDSE scale. The full paper will provide details about the psychometric evaluation of the EDSE scale. The findings from this paper will provide insights on the future usage of the EDSE scale in the context of secondary engineering education.« less