Background: Research has shown that active learning promotes student learning and increases retention rates of STEM undergraduates. Yet, instructors are reluctant to change their teaching approaches for several reasons, including a fear of student resistance to active learning. This paper addresses this issue by building on our prior work which demonstrates that certain instructor strategies can positively influence student responses to active learning. We present an analysis of interview data from 17 engineering professors across the USA about the ways they use strategies to reduce student resistance to active learning in their undergraduate engineering courses. Results: Our data reveal that instructor strategies for reducing student resistance generally fall within two broad types: explanation and facilitation strategies. Explanation strategies consist of the following: (a) explain the purpose, (b) explain course expectations, and (c) explain activity expectations. Facilitation strategies include the following: (a) approach non-participants, (b) assume an encouraging demeanor, (c) grade on participation, (d) walk around the room, (e) invite questions, (f) develop a routine, (g) design activities for participation, and (h) use incremental steps. Four of the strategies emerged from our analysis and were previously unstudied in the context of student resistance. Conclusions: The findings of this study have practical implications for instructors wishing to implement active learning. There is a variety of strategies to reduce student resistance to active learning, and there are multiple successful ways to implement the strategies. Importantly, effective use of strategies requires some degree of intentional course planning. These strategies should be considered as a starting point for instructors seeking to better incorporate the use of active learning strategies into their undergraduate engineering classrooms.

Background Despite the evidence supporting the effectiveness of active learning in undergraduate STEM courses, the adoption of active learning has been slow. One barrier to adoption is instructors’ concerns about students’ affective and behavioral responses to active learning, especially student resistance. Numerous education researchers have documented their use of active learning in STEM classrooms. However, there is no research yet that systematically analyzes these studies for strategies to aid implementation of active learning and address students’ affective and behavioral responses. In this paper, we conduct a systematic literature review and identify 29 journal articles and conference papers that researched active learning, affective and behavioral student responses, and recommended at least one strategy for implementing active learning. In this paper, we ask: (1) What are the characteristics of studies that examine affective and behavioral outcomes of active learning and provide instructor strategies? (2) What instructor strategies to aid implementation of active learning do the authors of these studies provide? Results In our review, we noted that most active learning activities involved in-class problem solving within a traditional lecture-based course (N = 21). We found mostly positive affective and behavioral outcomes for students’ self-reports of learning, participation in the activities, and course satisfaction (N = 23). From our analysis of the 29 studies, we identified eight strategies to aid implementation of active learning based on three categories. Explanation strategies included providing students with clarifications and reasons for using active learning. Facilitation strategies entailed working with students and ensuring that the activity functions as intended. Planning strategies involved working outside of the class to improve the active learning experience. Conclusion To increase the adoption of active learning and address students’ responses to active learning, this study provides strategies to support instructors. The eight strategies are listed with evidence from numerous studies within our review on affective and behavioral responses to active learning. Future work should examine instructor strategies and their connection with other affective outcomes, such as identity, interests, and emotions.

No abstract

No abstract

Oxathiapiprolin is highly effective in the management of Phytophthora root rot of citrus, however, its uptake into plants after soil application is not known. This was investigated and compared with mefenoxam using potted citrus seedlings sampled 7, 10, 13, and 16 days after soil treatments. Bioassays and liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectroscopy (HPLC-MS/MS) were used to quantify fungicide amounts in plant extracts. Distinct inhibition zones of mycelial growth of Phytophthora citrophthora were observed in bioassays when root, stem, or leaf extracts were added to filter paper disks on agar plates. Based on the two quantification methods, concentrations of both fungicides in the three tissue types and at all sampling times were above the mean EC50 values of the baseline sensitivities. Relative concentrations at the four sampling times sometimes varied between the two methods, but for both methods, concentrations of oxathiapiprolin were significantly higher in roots and leaves as compared with stems 10 days after treatment and statistically similar in the three tissues after 7 days. For mefenoxam, concentrations significantly increased in roots between 7 and 16 days after treatment and were significantly the highest in roots as compared with stems or leaves 16 days after treatment. Regressions of oxathiapiprolin and mefenoxam concentrations using HPLC-MS/MS on those calculated from bioassay standard curves indicated that the bioassays over-estimated fungicide amounts in the extracts. The bioassay, however, can be considered a comparable alternative option to costly residue analyses in fungicide mobility studies in plants. Uptake of oxathiapiprolin at sufficient, but low concentrations into plant roots provides an explanation for its long-lasting high activity in the management of Phytophthora root rot.

Kevin Nguyen is currently a doctoral student in the Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Education program at University of Texas at Austin. He has a B.S. and M.Eng in Environmental Engineering both from Texas Tech University. As an engineering and STEM education researcher, he draws on a variety of social science research methods from ethnography to regression modeling. He is currently working on two projects: engineering faculty's use of active learning and an ethnographic study of a citizen science student community. Mr. Robert Matthew DeMonbrun, University of MichiganMatt DeMonbrun is a Ph.D. Candidate at the Center for the Study of Higher and Postsecondary Education (CSHPE) in the School of Education at the University of Michigan. His research interests include college student development theory, intergroup interactions, and teaching and learning practices and how they relate to student learning outcomes in engineering education. Dr. Michael Prince is a professor of chemical engineering at Bucknell University and co-director of the National Effective Teaching Institute. His research examines a range of engineering education topics, including how to assess and repair student misconceptions and how to increase the adoption of researchbased instructional strategies by college instructors and corporate trainers. He is actively engaged in presenting workshops on instructional design to both academic and corporate instructors. Dr. Charles Henderson, Western Michigan UniversityCharles Henderson is a Professor at Western Michigan University (WMU), with a joint appointment between the Physics Department and the WMU Mallinson Institute for Science Education. He is the co-founder and co-director of the WMU Center for Research on Instructional Change in Postsecondary Education (CRICPE). His research program focuses on understanding and promoting instructional change in higher education, with an emphasis on improving undergraduate STEM instruction. Dr. Henderson's work has been supported by over $7M in external grants and has resulted in a many publications (see http://homepages.wmich.edu/˜chenders). He is a Fulbright Scholar and a Fellow of the American Physical Society. Dr. Henderson is the senior editor for the journal "Physical Review Physics Education Research" and has served on two National Academy of Sciences Committees: Undergraduate Physics Education Research and Implementation, and Developing Indicators for Undergraduate STEM Education. Dr. Cindy Waters, North Carolina A&T State UniversityHer research team is skilled matching these newer manufacturing techniques to distinct material choices and the unique materials combination for specific applications. She is also renowned for her work in the Engineering Education realm working with faculty motivation for change and re-design of Material Science courses for more active pedagogies c American Society for Engineering Education, 2017 The Variation of Nontraditional Teaching Methods Across 17 Undergraduate Engineering Classrooms AbstractThis r...

No abstract

This full "research" paper presents an overview of results of a systematic literature review of students' affective responses to active learning in undergraduate STEM courses. We considered 2,364 abstracts of conference papers and journal articles published since 1990, and 412 studies met our inclusion criteria. The studies span the STEM disciplines and report various types of active learning. Their research designs include primarily quantitative methods (especially instructor-designed surveys and course evaluations), and they find that students' affective responses are overwhelmingly positive. Few studies excelled on our quality score metric, and there few statistically significant differences by discipline (but biology studies and chemistry studies scored significantly higher in quality than electrical engineering studies). We include several possible directions for future work.