Search for: All records

In this study, we examined the relation between students’ affective and behavioral response to active learning, the influence of students’ belongingness and their self-efficacy on these responses, and the moderating influence of students’ gender-identity. We found that, despite mean differences in value, positivity, and distraction, there were not gender differences in the pattern of relations between variables. For both groups, belongingness and self-efficacy independently predicted students’ affective response and their evaluation of the class. Belongingness also predicted students’ participation in class. These findings suggest that student-level factors play an important role in how students respond to active learning and that fostering an atmosphere that supports both self-efficacy and belongingness may be beneficial for all students.

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.

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.

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.

Abstract: Our research has identified strategies instructors can use to reduce student resistance to active learning, and we are developing a workshop intervention to change instructors’ motivation and behaviour related to adoption of active learning and of these strategies. We are using a randomized control trial to assess the impact of the workshop on instructors’ value, self-efficacy, and actual adoption of both active learning and the strategies to reduce resistance. In this paper, we describe our processes for recruiting workshop participants and for developing an instructor survey to assess the impact of the workshop.