skip to main content

Explore Research Products in the NSF-PAR

  • Home
  • Search Results
  • Page 1 of 1

Search for: All records

Award ID contains: 1821092

Note: When clicking on a Digital Object Identifier (DOI) number, you will be taken to an external site maintained by the publisher. Some full text articles may not yet be available without a charge during the embargo (administrative interval).
What is a DOI Number?

Some links on this page may take you to non-federal websites. Their policies may differ from this site.

  1. ; ; ; ; ; ; ( , Journal of Engineering Education)
    Abstract Background

    Despite well‐documented benefits, instructor adoption of active learning has been limited in engineering education. Studies have identified barriers to instructors’ adoption of active learning, but there is no well‐tested instrument to measure instructors perceptions of these barriers.

     Purpose

    We developed and tested an instrument to measure instructors’ perceptions of barriers to adopting active learning and identify the constructs that coherently categorize those barriers.

     Method

    We used a five‐phase process to develop an instrument to measure instructors’ perceived barriers to adopting active learning. In Phase 1, we built upon the Faculty Instructional Barriers and Identity Survey (FIBIS) to create a draft instrument. In Phases 2 and 3, we conducted exploratory factor analysis (EFA) on an initial 45‐item instrument and a refined 21‐item instrument, respectively. We conducted confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) in Phases 4 and 5 to test the factor structure identified in Phases 2 and 3.

     Results

    Our final instrument consists of 17 items and four factors: (1) student preparation and engagement; (2) instructional support; (3) instructor comfort and confidence; and (4) institutional environment/rewards. Instructor responses indicated that time considerations do not emerge as a standalone factor.

     Conclusions

    Our 17‐item instrument exhibits a sound factor structure and is reliable, enabling the assessment of perceived barriers to adopting active learning in different contexts. The four factors align with an existing model of instructional change in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). Although time is a substantial instructor concern that did not comprise a standalone factor, it is closely related to multiple constructs in our final model.

     
    more » « less
  2. ; ; ; ; ; ; ( , International Journal of Science Education)
    Free, publicly-accessible full text available October 13, 2024
  3. ( , American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference)
    In this paper we provide an update in our research studying science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) instructor development in classrooms. Our overarching goal is to expand the adoption of active learning in STEM classrooms. For this study, we created a workshop to educate STEM instructors on what active learning is and ways to implement it into their classrooms. Additionally, this workshop sought to provide instructors with evidence-based strategies that focused on reducing student resistance to active learning. This study used a conducted randomized control trial to investigate the impact of this workshop on: (1) how this workshop impacted STEM instructors’ attitudes towards using active learning, (2) their behaviors in using active learning, and (3) their use of strategies for reducing student resistance to active learning. We collected data from 173 instructors and 1676 students. This paper focuses on our preliminary results as well as next steps for the project. Thus far, we have analyzed the impact of the workshop on our instructor’s use of active learning, and the student responses to these changes. 
    more » « less
    Free, publicly-accessible full text available June 23, 2024
  4. ( , American Society for engineering Education Annual Conference)
    Free, publicly-accessible full text available June 20, 2024
  5. ( , International Journal of Engineering Education)
    Wedeveloped an instructional development workshop for science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) instructors in higher education to promote their adoption of active learning. Our workshop design was based on a proposed framework for motivating adult learners consisting of five elements: (1) expertise of presenters, (2) relevance of content, (3) choice in application, (4) praxis, and (5) group work. We assessed the participating instructors’ attitudes (i.e., motivation to use active learning and intentions and motivation to use strategies to reduce student resistance to active learning) immediately before and after the workshop and again five to six months later. We also assessed participants’ satisfaction with the workshop. Analyses of our data provided evidence of a change in participants’ motivation to use active learning and both their intentions and motivation to use strategies to reduce student resistance to active learning following the workshop. Our quantitative findings and thematic analysis of survey results support the use of the proposed framework for designing instructional development workshops for STEM faculty. The results also show short-term instructional development workshops can be effective and suggest caution in extrapolating immediate post-workshop assessment to the longer-term. 
    more » « less
    Accepted Manuscript Full Text Available
  6. ; ; ; ; ; ( , College Teaching)
    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
    Full Text Available 
  7. ; ; ; ; ; ; ( , ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition)
    Accepted Manuscript Full Text Available
  8. ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ( , ASEE Annual Conference proceedings)
    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
    Full Text Available 
  9. ; ; ; ; ; ( , Australasian Journal of Engineering Education)
    null (Ed.)
    Full Text Available