Search for: All records

Abstract BackgroundDespite 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. PurposeWe developed and tested an instrument to measure instructors’ perceptions of barriers to adopting active learning and identify the constructs that coherently categorize those barriers. MethodWe 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. ResultsOur 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. ConclusionsOur 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. 

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.