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

International Journal of Engineering Education

Volumn 33, Issue 1, 2017, Pages 2-18

  Nguyen, Kevin ^a   Husman, Jenefer ^b   Borrego, Maura ^c   Shekhar, Prateek ^d   Prince, Michael ^e   DeMonbrun, Matt ^d   Finelli, Cynthia ^d   Henderson, Charles ^f   Waters, Cynthia ^g  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF OREGON   (United States)

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

^d UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

^e BUCKNELL UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^f WESTERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^g North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University   (United States)

Author keywords

Active learning; Engagement; Instructional methods; Regression modeling

Indexed keywords

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE; EDUCATION;

ACTIVE LEARNING; ACTIVE LEARNING STRATEGIES; ENGAGEMENT; ENGINEERING INSTRUCTORS; INSTRUCTIONAL METHODS; INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES; LINEAR REGRESSION MODELS; REGRESSION MODEL;

STUDENTS;

EID: 85015157040     PISSN: 0949149X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. M. Prince, Does active learning work? A review of the research, Journal of Engineering Education, 93, 2004, pp. 223-232.
2. D. W. Johnson, R. T. Johnson and K. A. Smith, Active learning: Cooperation in the college classroom, Interaction Book Co., Edina, MN, 1991.
3. 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.
4. C. J. Finelli, S. R. Daly and K. M. Richardson, Bridging the Research-to-Practice Gap: Designing an Institutional Change Plan Using Local Evidence, Journal of Engineering Education, 103(2), 2014, pp. 331-361.
5. M. Prince and R. M. Felder, The many faces of inductive teaching and learning, Journal of College Science Teaching, 36(5), 2007, p. 14.
6. R. Felder, Hang in there: Dealing with student resistance to learner-centered teaching, Chemical Engineering Education, 45(2), 2011, pp. 131-132.
7. J. D. 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, p.010102.
8. C. D. Koermer and J. L. Petelle, Expectancy violation and student rating of instruction, Communication Quarterly, 39(4), 1991, pp. 341-350.
9. M. DeMonbrun, C. J. Finelli, M. Borrego, P. Shekhar, M. Prince, C. Hendersen and C. Waters, Creating anInstrument to Measure Student Response to Instructional Practices. Journal of Engineering Education, In Review.
10. P. Arce, The colloquial approach: an active learning technique, Journal of Science Education and Technology, 3(3), 1994, pp. 145-160.
11. K. A. Carlson and J. R. Winquist, Evaluating an active learning approach to teaching introductory statistics: A classroom workbook approach, Journal of Statistics Education, 19(1), 2011, pp. 1-23.
12. P. Armbruster, M. Patel, E. Johnson and M. Weiss, Active learning and student-centered pedagogy improve student attitudes and performance in introductory biology, CBE-Life Sciences Education, 8(3), 2009, pp. 203-213.
13. E. A. Hoffman, Successful application of active learning techniques to introductory microbiology, Journal of Micro-biology & Biology Education, 2(1), 2001.
14. R.O'Brocta and S. Swigart, Student perceptionsofaTop 200 Medication Course utilizing active learning techniques, Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning, 5(1), 2013, pp. 49-53. e2.
15. B. A. Oakley, D. M. Hanna, Z. Kuzmyn and R. M. Felder, Best practices involving teamwork in the classroom: Results from a survey of 6435 engineering student respondents, Education, IEEE Transactions, 50(3), 2007, pp. 266-272.
16. I. K. Reddy, Implementation of a pharmaceutics course in a large class through active learning using quick-thinks and case-based learning, American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 64(4), 2000, p. 348.
17. D. Richardson and B. Birge, Teaching physiology by com-bined passive (pedagogical) and active (andragogical) methods, The American journal of physiology, 268(6 Pt 3), 1995, pp. S66-74.
18. M. H. Dancy, C. Henderson, N. S. Rebello, P. V. Engelhardt and C. Singh. Experiences of new faculty implementing research-based instructional strategies. in AIP Conference Proceedings-American Institute of Physics, 2012. p. 163.
19. R. M. Felder and R. Brent, Navigating the bumpy road to student-centered instruction, College teaching, 44(2), 1996, pp. 43-47.
20. C. Henderson 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, p. 020102.
21. D. A. Lake, Student performance and perceptions of a lecture-based course compared with the same course utilizing group discussion, Physical Therapy, 81(3), 2001, pp. 896-902.
22. A. Yadav, D. Subedi, M. A. Lundeberg and C. F. Bunting, Problem-based learning: Influence on students' learning in an electrical engineering course, Journal of Engineering Education, 100(2), 2011, p. 253.
23. D. R. Bacon, K. A. Stewart and W. S. Silver, Lessons from the best and worst student team experiences: How a teacher can make the difference, Journal of Management Education, 23(5), 1999, pp. 467-488.
24. R. Brent and R. M. Felder, Analysis of fifteen years of the national effective teaching institute. in Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) Annual Conference and Exposition 2009, 2009, pp. 114-148.
25. L. Goodwin, J. E. Miller and R. D. Cheetham, Teaching Freshmen to Think: Does Active Learning Work? BioScience, 41(10), 1991, pp. 719-722.
26. S. R. Hall, I. Waitz, D. R. Brodeu, D. H. Soderholm and R. Nasr, Adoption of active learning in a lecture-based engineering class, Frontiers in Education 32nd Annual Conference, 2002. pp. T2A-9-T2A-15 vol. 1.
27. P. H. Kvam, The effect of active learning methods on student retention in engineering statistics, The American Statistician, 54(2), 2000, pp. 136-140.
28. P. Rangachari, Design of a problem-based undergraduate course in pharmacology: implications for the teaching of physiology, The American journal of physiology, 260(6 Pt 3), 1991, pp. S14-21.
29. R. R. Wilke, The effect of active learning on student characteristics in a human physiology course for nonma-jors, Advances in physiology education, 27(4), 2003, pp. 207-223.
30. A. J. Welsh, Exploring undergraduates' perceptions of the use of active learning techniques in science lectures, Journal of College Science Teaching, 42(2), 2012, pp. 80-87.
31. A. Van Barneveld and J. Strobel, Reports from teaching practice: experiences and management of tensions encountered with PBL implementations in the early years of undergraduate engineering education. in Research in Engineering Education Symposium. 2011. pp.
32. F. J. B. Bentley, S. Kennedy and K. Semsar, How not to lose your students with concept maps, Journal of College Science Teaching, 41(1), 2011, pp. 61-68.
33. P. Shekhar, M. Demonbrun, M. Borrego, C. Finelli, M. Prince, C. Henderson and C. Waters, Development of an observation protocol to study undergraduate engineering student resistance to active learning, International Journal of Engineering Education, 31(2), 2015, pp. 597-609.
34. K. A. Nguyen, M. Borrego, C. J. Finelli, P. Shekhar, M. DeMonbron, C. Hendersen, M. Prince and C. Waters, Measuring Student Response to Instructional Practices (StRIP) in Traditional and Active Classrooms, 2016 ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, New Orleans, Louisiana, 2016.
35. L. J. Cronbach, Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests, psychometrika, 16(3), 1951, pp. 297-334.
36. H. W. Marsh and L. A. Roche, Making students' evaluations of teaching effectiveness effective: The critical issues of validity, bias, and utility, American Psychologist, 52(11), 1997, p. 1187.
37. G. S. Stump, J. C. Hilpert, J. Husman, W.-T. Chung and W. Kim, Collaborative learning in engineering students: Gender and achievement, Journal of Engineering Education, 100(3), 2011, p. 475.
38. B. G. Tabachnick, L. S. Fidell and S. J. Osterlind, Using multivariate statistics, 2001.
39. K. A. Nguyen, P. Shekhar, J. Husman, M. Borrego, M. Prince, C. Finelli, C. Waters, M. DeMonbrun and C. Henderson, Extended Abstract-Students' Expectations and Responses to Active Learning in Undergraduate Engineering Courses, 2016 Mid Years Engineering Education Con-ference, College Station, Texas, 2016.