View in EDS

Students' Expectations, Types of Instruction, and Instructor Strategies Predicting Student Response to Active Learning.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Students' Expectations, Types of Instruction, and Instructor Strategies Predicting Student Response to Active Learning.
Authors: NGUYEN, KEVIN1 kevin.a.nguyen@utexas.edu, HUSMAN, JENEFER2 jen.husman@gmail.com, BORREGO, MAURA3 maura.borrego@austin.utexas.edu, SHEKHAR, PRATEEK4 pshekhar@umich.edu, PRINCE, MICHAEL5 prince@bucknell.edu, DEMONBRUN, MATT6 mdemonbr@umich.edu, FINELLI, CYNTHIA7 cfinelli@umich.edu, HENDERSON, CHARLES8 Charles.Henderson@wmich.edu, WATERS, CYNTHIA9 kwaters@ncat.edu
Source: International Journal of Engineering Education. 2017, Vol. 33 Issue 1A, p2-18. 17p.
Subject Terms: *Active learning, *Student response systems, *Teaching methods, *Engineering teachers, *Engineering students, *Higher education
Abstract: Engineering instructors' adoption of active learning has been slow, despite significant evidence supporting its efficacy. A common instructor concern is that students will respond negatively. This study measures the relationship between student response to instruction and 1) students' expectations for types of instruction, 2) students' experiences of different types of instruction, 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 and passive lecture, experiences of group based activities, and instructor strategies for explaining and facilitating active learning. These empirical results support recommendations in prior literature about best practices for reducing student resistance and demonstrate that instructors have great power to influence student reactions to active learning and ultimately reduce student resistance. There was no evidence in this data set to support the common concern that instructor or course evaluations are negatively affected by adopting active learning strategies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Copyright of International Journal of Engineering Education is the property of Tempus Publications and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Database: Education Research Complete
FullText Text:
  Availability: 0
Header DbId: ehh
DbLabel: Education Research Complete
An: 121562464
AccessLevel: 6
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Students' Expectations, Types of Instruction, and Instructor Strategies Predicting Student Response to Active Learning.
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22NGUYEN%2C+KEVIN%22">NGUYEN, KEVIN</searchLink><relatesTo>1</relatesTo><i> kevin.a.nguyen@utexas.edu</i><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22HUSMAN%2C+JENEFER%22">HUSMAN, JENEFER</searchLink><relatesTo>2</relatesTo><i> jen.husman@gmail.com</i><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22BORREGO%2C+MAURA%22">BORREGO, MAURA</searchLink><relatesTo>3</relatesTo><i> maura.borrego@austin.utexas.edu</i><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22SHEKHAR%2C+PRATEEK%22">SHEKHAR, PRATEEK</searchLink><relatesTo>4</relatesTo><i> pshekhar@umich.edu</i><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22PRINCE%2C+MICHAEL%22">PRINCE, MICHAEL</searchLink><relatesTo>5</relatesTo><i> prince@bucknell.edu</i><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22DEMONBRUN%2C+MATT%22">DEMONBRUN, MATT</searchLink><relatesTo>6</relatesTo><i> mdemonbr@umich.edu</i><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22FINELLI%2C+CYNTHIA%22">FINELLI, CYNTHIA</searchLink><relatesTo>7</relatesTo><i> cfinelli@umich.edu</i><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22HENDERSON%2C+CHARLES%22">HENDERSON, CHARLES</searchLink><relatesTo>8</relatesTo><i> Charles.Henderson@wmich.edu</i><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22WATERS%2C+CYNTHIA%22">WATERS, CYNTHIA</searchLink><relatesTo>9</relatesTo><i> kwaters@ncat.edu</i>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="JN" term="%22International+Journal+of+Engineering+Education%22">International Journal of Engineering Education</searchLink>. 2017, Vol. 33 Issue 1A, p2-18. 17p.
– Name: Subject
  Label: Subject Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: *<searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Active+learning%22">Active learning</searchLink><br />*<searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+response+systems%22">Student response systems</searchLink><br />*<searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teaching+methods%22">Teaching methods</searchLink><br />*<searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Engineering+teachers%22">Engineering teachers</searchLink><br />*<searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Engineering+students%22">Engineering students</searchLink><br />*<searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Higher+education%22">Higher education</searchLink>
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Engineering instructors' adoption of active learning has been slow, despite significant evidence supporting its efficacy. A common instructor concern is that students will respond negatively. This study measures the relationship between student response to instruction and 1) students' expectations for types of instruction, 2) students' experiences of different types of instruction, 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 and passive lecture, experiences of group based activities, and instructor strategies for explaining and facilitating active learning. These empirical results support recommendations in prior literature about best practices for reducing student resistance and demonstrate that instructors have great power to influence student reactions to active learning and ultimately reduce student resistance. There was no evidence in this data set to support the common concern that instructor or course evaluations are negatively affected by adopting active learning strategies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
– Name: AbstractSuppliedCopyright
  Label:
  Group: Ab
  Data: <i>Copyright of International Journal of Engineering Education is the property of Tempus Publications and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract.</i> (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=ehh&AN=121562464
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Languages:
      – Code: eng
        Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 17
        StartPage: 2
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Active learning
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student response systems
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teaching methods
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Engineering teachers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Engineering students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Higher education
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Students' Expectations, Types of Instruction, and Instructor Strategies Predicting Student Response to Active Learning.
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: NGUYEN, KEVIN
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: HUSMAN, JENEFER
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: BORREGO, MAURA
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: SHEKHAR, PRATEEK
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: PRINCE, MICHAEL
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: DEMONBRUN, MATT
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: FINELLI, CYNTHIA
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: HENDERSON, CHARLES
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: WATERS, CYNTHIA
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Text: 2017
              Type: published
              Y: 2017
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0949149X
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 33
            – Type: issue
              Value: 1A
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: International Journal of Engineering Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1