Barriers Instructors Experience in Adopting Active Learning: Instrument Development
Saved in:
| Title: | Barriers Instructors Experience in Adopting Active Learning: Instrument Development |
|---|---|
| Language: | English |
| Authors: | Carroll, Laura J. (ORCID |
| Source: | Journal of Engineering Education. 2023 112(4):1079-1108. |
| Availability: | Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us |
| Peer Reviewed: | Y |
| Page Count: | 30 |
| Publication Date: | 2023 |
| Sponsoring Agency: | National Science Foundation (NSF), Division of Undergraduate Education (DUE) |
| Contract Number: | 1821092 1821036 1821488 1821277 |
| Document Type: | Journal Articles Reports - Research |
| Descriptors: | Active Learning, Engineering Education, Barriers, Teaching Methods, Test Construction, Teacher Attitudes, Time Factors (Learning), Readiness, Learner Engagement, Teacher Role, Educational Environment, Test Reliability, STEM Education |
| DOI: | 10.1002/jee.20557 |
| ISSN: | 1069-4730 2168-9830 |
| Abstract: | Background: Despite well-documented benefits, instructor adoption of active learning has been limited in engineering education. Studies have identified barriers to instructors' adoption of active learning, but there is no well-tested instrument to measure instructors perceptions of these barriers. Purpose: We developed and tested an instrument to measure instructors' perceptions of barriers to adopting active learning and identify the constructs that coherently categorize those barriers. Method: We used a five-phase process to develop an instrument to measure instructors' perceived barriers to adopting active learning. In Phase 1, we built upon the Faculty Instructional Barriers and Identity Survey (FIBIS) to create a draft instrument. In Phases 2 and 3, we conducted exploratory factor analysis (EFA) on an initial 45-item instrument and a refined 21-item instrument, respectively. We conducted confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) in Phases 4 and 5 to test the factor structure identified in Phases 2 and 3. Results: Our final instrument consists of 17 items and four factors: (1) student preparation and engagement; (2) instructional support; (3) instructor comfort and confidence; and (4) institutional environment/rewards. Instructor responses indicated that time considerations do not emerge as a standalone factor. Conclusions: Our 17-item instrument exhibits a sound factor structure and is reliable, enabling the assessment of perceived barriers to adopting active learning in different contexts. The four factors align with an existing model of instructional change in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). Although time is a substantial instructor concern that did not comprise a standalone factor, it is closely related to multiple constructs in our final model. |
| Abstractor: | As Provided |
| Entry Date: | 2023 |
| Accession Number: | EJ1396511 |
| Database: | ERIC |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| Abstract: | Background: Despite well-documented benefits, instructor adoption of active learning has been limited in engineering education. Studies have identified barriers to instructors' adoption of active learning, but there is no well-tested instrument to measure instructors perceptions of these barriers. Purpose: We developed and tested an instrument to measure instructors' perceptions of barriers to adopting active learning and identify the constructs that coherently categorize those barriers. Method: We used a five-phase process to develop an instrument to measure instructors' perceived barriers to adopting active learning. In Phase 1, we built upon the Faculty Instructional Barriers and Identity Survey (FIBIS) to create a draft instrument. In Phases 2 and 3, we conducted exploratory factor analysis (EFA) on an initial 45-item instrument and a refined 21-item instrument, respectively. We conducted confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) in Phases 4 and 5 to test the factor structure identified in Phases 2 and 3. Results: Our final instrument consists of 17 items and four factors: (1) student preparation and engagement; (2) instructional support; (3) instructor comfort and confidence; and (4) institutional environment/rewards. Instructor responses indicated that time considerations do not emerge as a standalone factor. Conclusions: Our 17-item instrument exhibits a sound factor structure and is reliable, enabling the assessment of perceived barriers to adopting active learning in different contexts. The four factors align with an existing model of instructional change in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). Although time is a substantial instructor concern that did not comprise a standalone factor, it is closely related to multiple constructs in our final model. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1069-4730 2168-9830 |
| DOI: | 10.1002/jee.20557 |
