Development of an observation protocol to study undergraduate engineering student resistance to active learning

International Journal of Engineering Education

Volumn 31, Issue 2, 2015, Pages 597-609

  Shekhar, Prateek ^a   Demonbrun, Matt ^b   Borrego, Maura ^a   Finelli, Cynthia ^b   Prince, Michael ^c   Henderson, Charles ^d   Waters, Cynthia ^e  

^a The University of Texas at Austin   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

^c BUCKNELL UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d WESTERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^e NORTH CAROLINA A AND T STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Active learning; Instructional strategies; Observation; Student resistance

Indexed keywords

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE; EDUCATION; ENGINEERING EDUCATION; TEACHING;

ACTIVE LEARNING; ENGINEERING COURSE; ENGINEERING INSTRUCTORS; INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGY; OBSERVATION; OBSERVATION PROTOCOL; STUDENT RESPONSE; UNDERGRADUATE ENGINEERING STUDENTS;

STUDENTS;

EID: 84924985490     PISSN: 0949149X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. M. Prince, Does Active Learning Work? A Review of the Research, Journal of Engineering Education, 93(3), 2004, pp. 223-231.
2. S. Freeman, S. L. Eddy, M. McDonough, M. K. Smith, N. Okoroafor, H. Jordt and M. P. Wenderoth, Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics, National Academy of Sciences, 2014.
3. D. W. Johnson, R. T. Johnson and K. A. Smith, Active learning: Cooperation in the college classroom, 1991, Interaction Book Co.: Edina, MN.
4. K. Friedrich, S. Sellers and J. Burstyn, Thawing the chilly climate: Inclusive teaching resources for science, technology, engineering, and math, in D. Robertson and L. Nilson, Editors, To Improve the Academy: Resources for Faculty, Instructional, and Organizational Development, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, 2009.
5. J. Handelsman, D. Ebert-May, R. Beichner, P. Bruns, A. Chang, R. DeHaan, J. Gentile, S. Lauffer, J. Stewart, S. M. Tilghman and W. B. Wood, Scientific Teaching, Science, 304(5670), 2004, pp. 521-522.
6. American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE), Innovation with Impact: Creating a Culture for Scholarly and Systematic Innovation in Engineering Education, 2012, Author: Washington, DC.
7. National Research Council, Discipline-based educational research: Understanding and improving learning in undergraduate science and engineering, 2012, National Academies Press: Washington, DC.
8. President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, Engage to excel: Producing one million additional college graduates with degrees in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, 2012: Washington, DC.
9. M. T. Hora, J. J. Ferrare and A. Oleson, Findings from classroom observations of 58 math and science faculty, 2012; Available from: http://tdop.wceruw.org/Document/ Research-report-Observations-of-STEM-Faculty-Spring2012. pdf.
10. M. Dancy and C. Hendersen, Pedagogical practices and instructional change of physics faculty, American Journal of Physics, 78(10), 2010, pp. 1056-1063.
11. C. J. Finelli, K. M. Richardson and S. R. Daly, Factors that influence faculty motivation to adopt effective teaching practices in engineering, 2013 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Atlanta, GA, 2013.
12. J. Froyd, M. Borrego, S. Cutler, M. Prince and C. Hendersen, Use of Research-Based Instructional Strategies in Core Electrical or Computer Engineering Courses, IEEE Transactions on Education, 2014.
13. C. Hendersen and M. H. Dancy, Barriers to the Use of Research-Based Instructional Strategies: The Influence of Both Individual and Situational Characteristics, Physical Review Special Topics: Physics Education Research, 3(2), 2007. pp. 020102-1 to 020102-14.
14. M. Prince, M. Borrego, C. Hendersen, S. Cutler and J. Froyd, Use of Research-Based Instructional Strategies in Core Chemical Enginering Courses, Chemical Engineering Education, 2014.
15. R. Felder, How about a quick one, Chemical Engineering Education, 26(1), 1992. pp. 18-19.
16. R. M. Felder, Any questions? Chemical Engineering Education, 28(3), 1994, pp. 174-175.
17. R. M. Felder and R. Brent, FAQs-2. Chemical Engineering Education, 33(4), 1999, pp. 276-277.
18. R. M. Felder and R. Brent, Active Learning: An Introduction, ASQ Higher Education Brief, 2(4), 2009, pp. 122-127.
19. G. S. Akerlind and A. C. Trevitt, Enhancing Self-Directed Learning through Educational Technology: When Students Resist the Change, Innovations in Education and Training International, 36(2), 1999. pp. 96-105.
20. B. Alpert, Students' resistance in the classroom. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 22(4), 1991, pp. 350-366.
21. R. M. Felder, Sermons for grumpy campers, Chemical Engineering Education, 41(3), 2007, pp. 183.
22. S. M. Keeley, K. M. Shemberg, B. S. Cowell and B. J. Zinnbauer, Coping with student resistance to critical thinking: What the psychotherapy literature can tell us, College Teaching, 43(4), 1995, pp. 140-145.
23. M. Weimer, Learner-Centered Teaching: Five Key Changes to Practice, Jossey-Bass. San Francisco, 2013, pp.1
24. M. Prince and R. M. Felder, The many faces of inductive teaching and learning, Journal of College Science Teaching, 36(5), 2007, pp. 14.
25. R. M. Felder, Hang in there! Dealing with student resistance to learner-centered teaching, Chemical Engineering Education, 43, 2011, pp. 131-132.
26. A. K. Goodboy, Instructional dissent in the college classroom, Communication Education, 60(3), 2011. pp. 296-313.
27. S. B. Seidel and K. D. Tanner, What if students revolt?-Considering Student Resistance: Origins, Options, and Opportunities for Investigation, CBE-Life Sciences Education, 12(4), 2013. pp. 586-595.
28. A. H. Harris and M. F. Cox, Developing an Observation System to Capture Instructional Differences in Engineering Classrooms, Journal of Engineering Education, 94(4), 2003. pp. 329-336.
29. P. D. Leedy and J. Omrod, Qualitative Research Prentice Hall, 2005.
30. M. Patton, Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods, Sage, 2002, pp. 2
31. J. W.Creswell, Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches, Sage Publishing. Thousand Oaks, CA, 2009, pp. 1
32. D. Sawada, M. D. Piburn, E. Judson, J. B. Turley, K. Falconer, R. Benford and I. Bloom, Measuring reform practices in science and mathematics classrooms: The Reformed Teaching Observation Protocol, School Science and Mathematics, 102(6), 2002, pp. 245-252.
33. D. MacIsaac and K. Falconer, Reforming Physics Instruction via RTOP, The Physics Teacher, 40(8), 2002, pp. 479-485.
34. E. Judson and A. E. Lawson, What is the role of constructivist teachers within faculty communication networks? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(3), 2007, pp. 490-505.
35. S. L. Adamson, D. Banks, M. Burtch, F. Cox III, E. Judson, J. B. Turley, R. Benford and A. E. Lawson, Reformed Undergraduate Instruction and Its Subsequent Impact on Secondary School Teaching Practice and Student Achievement, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(10), 2003, pp. 939-957.
36. C. L. Wainwright, L. Flick and P. Morrell, The development of Instruments for Assessment of Instructional Practices in Standards-Based Teaching, The Journal of Mathematics and Science: Collaborative Explorations, 6(1), 2003, pp. 21-46.
37. M. T. Hora and J. J. Ferrare, Instructional Systems of Practice: A Multidimensional Analysis of Math and Science Undergraduate Course Planning and Classroom Teaching, Journal of the Learning Sciences, 22(2), 2012, pp. 212-257.
38. C. Walkington, P. Arora, S. Ihorn, J. Gordon, M. Walker, L. Abraham and M. Marder, Development of the UTeach Observation Protocol: A Classroom Observation Instrument to Evaluate Mathematics and Science Teachers from the UTeach Preparation Program, in UTeach Technical Report 2011-01. 2011, University of Texas, UTeach Natural Sciences: Austin, TX.
39. S. Erdle and H. G. Murray, Interfaculty differences in classroom teaching behaviors and their relationship to student instructional ratings, Research in Higher Education, 24(2), 1986, pp. 115-127.
40. M. Smith, F. Jones, S. Gilbert and C. Wieman, The Classroom Observation Protocol for Undergraduate STEM (COPUS): a New Instrument to Characterize University STEM Classroom Practices, CBE-Life Sciences Education, 12(4), 2013, pp. 618-627.
41. C. Walkington and M. Marder, Classroom Observation and Value-Added Models Give Complementary Information about Quality of Mathematics Teaching, 2013.
42. C. L. Wainwright, P. Morrell, L. Flick and A. Schepige, Observation of reform teaching in undergraduate level mathematics and science courses, School Science and Mathematics, 104(7), 2004, pp. 322-335.
43. M. F. Cox and D. S. Cordray, Assessing Pedagogy in Bioengineering Classrooms: Quantifying Elements of the "How People Learn" Model Using the VaNTH Observation System (VOS), Journal of Engineering Education, 97(4), 2008, pp. 413-431.
44. C. J. Finelli and S. R. Daly, Teaching practices of engineering faculty: Self-reported behavior and actual practice, 2011 International Research in Engineering Education Symposium. Madrid, Spain, 2011.
45. J. D. H. Gaffney, A. L. H. Gaffney and R. J. Beichner, Do they see it coming? Using expectancy violation to gauge the success of pedagogical reforms. Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research, 6(1), 2010.
46. M. Borrego, M. Prince, C. Nellis, P. Shekhar, C. Waters and C. J. Finelli, Student Perceptions of Instructional Change in Engineering Courses: A Pilot Study, in ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition. 2014: Indianapollis, IN.
47. C. J. Finelli, M. DeMonbron, P. Shekhar, M. Borrego, P. Michael, C. Hendersen and C. Waters,AClassroom Observation Instrument to Assess Student Response to Active Learning, in Frontiers in Education, 2014, IEEE: Madrid, Spain.
48. A. L. Rudolph, E. E. Prather, G. Brissenden, D. Consiglio and V. Gonzaga,Anational study assessing the teaching and learning of introductory astronomy part II: The connection between student demographics and learning, Astronomy Education Review, 9(1), 2010.
49. R. Felder, Reaching the second tier, Journal of College Science Teaching, 23(5), 1993, pp. 286-290.