Students’ expectations, types of instruction, and instructor strategies predicting student response to active learning

• Autores: Kevin Nguyen, Jenefer Husman, Cynthia Waters, Charles Henderson, Cynthia J. Finelli, Matt Demonbrun, Michael Prince, Prateek Shekhar, Maura Borrego
• Localización: The International journal of engineering education, ISSN-e 0949-149X, Vol. 33, no. 1 (Parte A), 2017, págs. 2-18
• Idioma: inglés
• Texto completo no disponible (Saber más ...)
• Resumen

  • Engineering instructors’ adoption of active learning has been slow, despite significant evidence supporting its efficacy. Acommon instructor concern is that students will respond negatively. This study measures the relationship between studentresponse to instruction and 1) students’ expectations for types of instruction, 2) students’ experiences of different types ofinstruction, and 3) instructor strategies for using in-class activities. Student Response to Instructional Practices (StRIP)survey data from 179 students at three U.S. institutions were analyzed using hierarchical linear regression modeling.Significant predictors in the final models of student response were student expectations of active learning lecture andpassive lecture, experiences of group based activities, and instructor strategies for explaining and facilitating activelearning. These empirical results support recommendations in prior literature about best practices for reducing studentresistance and demonstrate that instructors have great power to influence student reactions to active learning andultimately reduce student resistance. There was no evidence in this data set to support the common concern that instructoror course evaluations are negatively affected by adopting active learning strategies.