Barriers Instructors Experience in Adopting Active Learning: Instrument Development

Autor/inn/en	Carroll, Laura J.; Reeping, David; Finelli, Cynthia J.; Prince, Michael J.; Husman, Jenefer; Graham, Matthew; Borrego, Maura J.
Titel	Barriers Instructors Experience in Adopting Active Learning: Instrument Development
Quelle	In: Journal of Engineering Education, 112 (2023) 4, S.1079-1108 (30 Seiten)Infoseite zur Zeitschrift PDF als Volltext Verfügbarkeit
Zusatzinformation	ORCID (Carroll, Laura J.) ORCID (Reeping, David) ORCID (Finelli, Cynthia J.) ORCID (Husman, Jenefer) ORCID (Graham, Matthew) ORCID (Borrego, Maura J.)
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; online; Zeitschriftenaufsatz
ISSN	1069-4730
DOI	10.1002/jee.20557
Schlagwörter	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 + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? Aktives Lernen; Ingenieurausbildung; Teaching method; Lehrmethode; Unterrichtsmethode; Testaufbau; Lehrerverhalten; Lehrerrolle; Lernumgebung; Pädagogische Umwelt; Schulumwelt; Testreliabilität; STEM
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. (As Provided).
Anmerkungen	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
Erfasst von	ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC
Update	2024/1/01