Abstract
Despite positive evidence for active learning (AL), lecturing dominates science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) higher education. Though instructors acknowledge AL to be valuable, many resist implementing AL techniques, citing an array of barriers including a perceived lack of student buy-in. However, few studies have explored student perceptions of specific AL teaching practices, particularly the perceptions of graduate students. We explored student-reported instructional strategies and student perceptions of and preferences for a variety of teaching practices in graduate and undergraduate classrooms across three STEM colleges at a large, public, research university. We found that both graduate and undergraduate students desired more time for AL and wanted less lecturing than they were currently experiencing. However, there was no single universally desired or undesired teaching practice, suggesting that a variety of AL teaching practices should be employed in both graduate and undergraduate courses.
Highlights
Science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) higher education is undergoing rapid change, driven by an increase in the number and diversity of students, digitalization and globalization, and shifting demands from policymakers and society at large (Brewer & Smith, 2011; Graham et al, 2013; Olson & Riordan, 2012; Shin & Harman, 2009)
Survey instrument Because we were interested in student perceptions of and preferences for specific teaching practices and active learning in general, we combined items from several existing survey instruments (DeMonbrun et al, 2017; Miller & Metz, 2014; Patrick et al, 2016)
Frequency options were: Never or almost never (0–10% of the time); Seldom (11–30% of the time); Sometimes (31–50% of the time); Often (51–70% of the time); Very often (71–100% of the time). These options differed from those in the original Student Response to Instructional Practices (StRIP) to better align with the question about how much class time they think is and should be devoted to active learning included in our study
Summary
Technology, engineering, and math (STEM) higher education is undergoing rapid change, driven by an increase in the number and diversity of students, digitalization and globalization, and shifting demands from policymakers and society at large (Brewer & Smith, 2011; Graham et al, 2013; Olson & Riordan, 2012; Shin & Harman, 2009). Instructors are encouraged to teach using evidence-based approaches that increase student motivation, collaboration, and metacognition, all of which influence students’ learning and course performance in STEM (Council, 2003; Glynn et al, 2011; Tanner, 2013). These challenges and expectations directly impact instructors, who may lack the time, funds, and extrinsic motivators to think deeply and scientifically about teaching (Gormally et al, 2016; Miller & Metz, 2014; Patrick et al, 2016).
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary Science Education Research
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
