This research was motivated by the persistent belief that use of active learning approaches engenders student resistance. Despite the well-documented benefits of active learning, students don’t always endorse these approaches with enthusiasm and that makes faculty reluctant to use these approaches. Up to this point evidence of student resistance has been more anecdotal than actual. This research begins empirical exploration of student resistance, including a focus on strategies instructors can use to reduce it.
Finelli, C. J., Nguyen, K., DeMonbrun, M., Borrego, M., Prince, M., Husman, J., . . . Waters, C. K. (2018). Reducing student resistance to active learning: Strategies for instructors. Journal of College Science Teaching, 47(5), 80–91. [PDF available here]
Many faculty still rely on lecture although now most use what’s being called “interactive” lecture. For example, teachers engage students with questions, in large courses often using clickers, or they may encourage students to talk to each other about an aspect of the content. Wider use of these engagement strategies has decreased reports of student resistance to them. But with other active learning strategies like having student work together in groups, faculty are still seeing strong student resistance. Students don’t want to learn with other students and believe the teacher ought to be the one offering explanations and answering questions. There are reports in the literature that initial student resistance tends to diminish as they gain more experience with active learning approaches.
One thousand fifty-one undergraduate students, enrolled in 18 different engineering courses, each taught by a different instructor and at a different US institution, participated in the study.
The research team developed a “Student Responses to Instructional Practices” instrument that solicited students’ assessments of a collection of strategies known to reduce resistance and noted their emotional and behavioral response to those strategies. The collected responses were analyzed with descriptive statistical tests for significance and correlations, as well as hierarchical linear regression models.
There are several concerns to keep in mind when considering these findings. First, actual student behavior was not observed. Students reported their perceptions of their behavior. The cohort was not cross-disciplinary. All the students in the study were taking engineering courses. Also, the instructors volunteered their classes for this study which means they were likely teachers who used active learning approaches and had experience dealing with student resistance. Researchers did find significant variation between the individual courses which means students had different understandings of how their instructors used strategies to reduce resistance. The study did not explore what might have caused those differences.
The findings should encourage faculty to begin or make further use of active learning approaches. These students did not report a wholesale negative response to strategies designed to engage them, quite the opposite. This research is also useful in that it identifies concrete ways to respond when students resist and includes evidence that these responses diminished the resistance. Teachers could use the Student Response to Instructional Practices instrument developed for this research (and included in the article) to solicit input from students on their perceptions of resistance and teacher responses to it.
Nguyen, K., Husman, J., Borrego, M., Shekhar, P., Prince, M., DeMonbrun, M., . . . Waters, C. (2017). Students’ expectations, types of instruction, and instructor strategies predicting student response to active learning. International Journal of Engineering Education, 33(1A), 2–18.