2007 O’Brocta and Swigart 2013 Reddy 2000 Richardson and Birge 1995), there are counterbalancing studies which show mixed student responses (Bacon et al. 2009 Carlson and Winquist 2011 Hoffman 2001 Leckie 2001 Oakley et al. Although much of the published literature suggests that students often respond positively to active learning strategies (Arce 1994 Armbruster et al. While most of these concerns have been sufficiently addressed through the existing literature (in addition to the previously cited resources, see also Felder 1992, 1994 Felder and Brent 2009), relatively little research addresses student resistance and how to mitigate it. These barriers include concerns about (a) the effectiveness of these new methods, (b) preparation time, (c) the class time required to implement active learning and instructors’ consequent ability to cover the syllabus, and (d) student resistance, which includes any number of possible negative responses to the new teaching methods. 2017 Lund and Stains 2015 Dancy and Henderson 2012 Finelli, Daly, & Richardson 2014 Froyd, Borrego, Cutler, Henderson, & Prince 2013 Henderson and Dancy 2009 Prince, Borrego, Henderson, Cutler, & Froyd 2013). Past surveys of STEM instructors indicate a number of specific barriers that hinder their use of active learning strategies (Shadle et al. However, the adoption of these evidence-based instructional strategies into actual classroom practice has been slow (National Research Council 2012 American Society of Engineering Education 2012 Friedrich et al. These strategies should be considered as a starting point for instructors seeking to better incorporate the use of active learning strategies into their undergraduate engineering classrooms.Įxtensive research has shown that active learning strategies are generally more effective than traditional lecture for promoting a wide range of desirable educational outcomes, including increased student learning and better retention in STEM programs (Freeman et al. Importantly, effective use of strategies requires some degree of intentional course planning. There is a variety of strategies to reduce student resistance to active learning, and there are multiple successful ways to implement the strategies. The findings of this study have practical implications for instructors wishing to implement active learning. Four of the strategies emerged from our analysis and were previously unstudied in the context of student resistance. Facilitation strategies include the following: (a) approach non-participants, (b) assume an encouraging demeanor, (c) grade on participation, (d) walk around the room, (e) invite questions, (f) develop a routine, (g) design activities for participation, and (h) use incremental steps. Explanation strategies consist of the following: (a) explain the purpose, (b) explain course expectations, and (c) explain activity expectations. Our data reveal that instructor strategies for reducing student resistance generally fall within two broad types: explanation and facilitation strategies. We present an analysis of interview data from 17 engineering professors across the USA about the ways they use strategies to reduce student resistance to active learning in their undergraduate engineering courses. This paper addresses this issue by building on our prior work which demonstrates that certain instructor strategies can positively influence student responses to active learning. Yet, instructors are reluctant to change their teaching approaches for several reasons, including a fear of student resistance to active learning. Research has shown that active learning promotes student learning and increases retention rates of STEM undergraduates.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |