This paper will highlight a small subsection of a larger scale project that focuses on increasing the use of active learning in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) classrooms. Our overall project goals seek to expand the adoption of active learning in STEM classrooms. Active learning has been shown to improve student grades, retention rates, and overall understanding of course material. We define active learning as any time an instructor goes beyond lecturing to their students (e.g., think-pair-shares, class discussions). Research has shown adoption of active learning in STEM courses has been slow with one common cited reason for not implementing active learning in their courses is the fear of student resistance. Student resistance can be defined as any negative student reaction to active learning (e.g., distracting others, giving lower course evaluations, or refusing to participate in the activity).
For this study, we recruited instructors from across the nation in the Summer of 2021 and collected data from instructors and students from Fall 2021-Winter 2022. During recruitment, we paid particular attention on ensuring we were recruiting instructors from a broad swath of institution types, including doctoral granting institutions, community colleges, and everything in between. While much of the research on active learning has focused on 4-year schools, this research aims to elucidate what active learning looks like in community colleges, as well as community college student perspectives on these activities. Additional data will share common strategies used for implementing active learning that differ between community college and four-year settings.
This paper focuses on how instructors teaching at community colleges are using active learning in their classrooms and their attitudes towards active learning. Additionally, we will explore the instructor’s self-efficacy towards using active learning in the hopes of having a better overall understanding of what is occurring in STEM community college classrooms and where potential improvements can be made in terms of faculty development.
more »
« less
Explanation and Facilitation Strategies Reduce Student Resistance to Active Learning
Active learning increases student learning, engagement, and interest in STEM and subsequently, the number and diversity of graduates. Yet, its adoption has been slow, partially due to instructors’ concerns about student resistance. Consequently, researchers proposed explanation and facilitation instructional strategies designed to reduce this resistance. Using surveys from 2-year and 4-year institutions including minority-serving institutions, we investigate the relationship between students’ affective and behavioral responses to active learning, instructors’ use of strategies, and active learning type. Analyses revealed low levels of student resistance and significant relationships between both explanation and facilitation strategy use and positive student responses.
more »
« less
- NSF-PAR ID:
- 10351979
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- College Teaching
- ISSN:
- 8756-7555
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- 1 to 11
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Despite many studies confirming that active learning in STEM classrooms improves student outcomes, instructors;' adoption of active learning has been surprisingly slow. This work-in-progress paper describes our broader research study in which we compare the efficacy of a traditional active learning workshop (AL) and an extended version of this workshop that also specifically highlights instructor strategies to reduce resistance (AL+) on instructors' beliefs about and actual adoption of active learning in undergraduate STEM classrooms. Through a randomized control trial (RCT), we aim to understand the ways in which these workshops influence instructors' motivation to adopt and the actual use of active learning. This RCT involves instructors and students at a large number of institutions including two-year college, four-year college, and large research institutions in three regions of the country and strategies to reduce student resistance to active learning. We have developed and piloted three instruments, which allow for triangulation of classroom data: an instructor survey, a student survey, and a classroom observation protocol. This work-in-progress paper will cover the current progress of our research study and present our research instruments.more » « less
-
Despite many studies confirming that active learning in STEM classrooms improves student outcomes, instructors’ adoption of active learning has been surprisingly slow. This work-in-progress paper describes our broader research study in which we compare the efficacy of a traditional active learning workshop (AL) and an extended version of this workshop that also specifically highlights instructor strategies to reduce resistance (AL+) on instructors’ beliefs about and actual adoption of active learning in undergraduate STEM classrooms. Through a randomized control trial (RCT), we aim to understand the ways in which these workshops influence instructors’ motivation to adopt and the actual use of active learning. This RCT involves instructors and students at a large number of institutions including two-year college, four-year college, and large research institutions in three regions of the country and strategies to reduce student resistance to active learning. We have developed and piloted three instruments, which allow for triangulation of classroom data: an instructor survey, a student survey, and a classroom observation protocol. This work-in-progress paper will cover the current progress of our research study and present our research instruments.more » « less
-
Despite many studies confirming that active learning in STEM classrooms improves student outcomes, instructors’ adoption of active learning has been surprisingly slow. This work-in-progress paper describes our broader research study in which we compare the efficacy of a traditional active learning workshop (AL) and an extended version of this workshop that also specifically highlights instructor strategies to reduce resistance (AL+) on instructors’ beliefs about and actual adoption of active learning in undergraduate STEM classrooms. Through a randomized control trial (RCT), we aim to understand the ways in which these workshops influence instructors’ motivation to adopt and the actual use of active learning. This RCT involves instructors and students at a large number of institutions including two-year college, four-year college, and large research institutions in three regions of the country and strategies to reduce student resistance to active learning. We have developed and piloted three instruments, which allow for triangulation of classroom data: an instructor survey, a student survey, and a classroom observation protocol. This work-in-progress paper will cover the current progress of our research study and present our research instruments.more » « less
-
his work-in-progress paper expands on a collaboration between engineering education researchers and machine learning researchers to automate the analysis of written responses to conceptually challenging questions in statics and dynamics courses (Authors, 2022). Using the Concept Warehouse (Koretsky et al., 2014), written justifications of ConcepTests (CTs) were gathered from statics and dynamics courses in a diverse set of two- and four-year institutions. Written justifications for CTs have been used to support active learning pedagogies which makes them important to investigate how students put together their problem-solving narratives of understanding. However, despite the large benefit that analysis of student written responses may provide to instructors and researchers, manual review of responses is cumbersome, limits analysis, and can be prone to human bias. In efforts to improve the analysis of student written responses, machine learning has been used in various educational contexts to analyze short and long texts (Burstein et al., 2020; Burstein et al., 2021). Natural Language Processing (NLP) uses transformer-based machine learning models (Brown et al., 2020; Raffel et al., 2019) which can be used through fine-tuning or in-context learning methods. NLP can be used to train algorithms that can automate the coding of written responses. Only a few studies for educational applications have leveraged transformer-based machine learning models further prompting an investigation into its use in STEM education. However, work in NLP has been criticized for heightening the possibility to perpetuate and even amplify harmful stereotypes and implicit biases (Chang et al., 2019; Mayfield et al., 2019). In this study, we detail the aim to use NLP for linguistic justice. Using methods like text summary, topic modeling, and text classification, we identify key aspects of student narratives of understanding in written responses to mechanics and statics CTs. Through this process, we seek to use machine learning to identify different ways students talk about a problem and their understanding at any point in their narrative formation process. Thus, we hope to help reduce human bias in the classroom and through technology by giving instructors and researchers a diverse set of narratives that include insight into their students’ histories, identities, and understanding. These can then be used towards connecting technological knowledge to students’ everyday lives.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Journal Article:
- https://doi.org/10.1080/87567555.2021.1987183
