Characteristics of departments with high-use of active learning in introductory STEM courses: implications for departmental transformation

• Published in: International journal of STEM education 2024-12, Vol.11 (1), p.10-21, Article 10
• Main Authors: Lau, Alexandra C., Henderson, Charles, Stains, Marilyne, Dancy, Melissa, Merino, Christian, Apkarian, Naneh, Raker, Jeffrey R., Johnson, Estrella
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Active learning; Departmental change; Departments; Education; Educational Technology; Feedback; Feedback (Response); Feedback loops; Grounded Theory; Instructional change; Introductory Courses; Learning; Mathematics Education; Model development; National Surveys; Organic Chemistry; Outcomes of Education; Physics; Positive feedback; Robustness (mathematics); Science Education; State Surveys; STEM education; Teachers; Undergraduate education
• ISSN: 2196-7822; 2196-7822
• DOI: 10.1186/s40594-024-00470-x

Background It is well established in the literature that active learning instruction in introductory STEM courses results in many desired student outcomes. Yet, regular use of high-quality active learning is not the norm in many STEM departments. Using results of a national survey, we identified 16 departments where multiple instructors reported using high levels of active learning in their introductory chemistry, mathematics, or physics courses. We conducted interviews with 27 instructors in these 16 departments to better understand the characteristics of such departments. Results Using grounded theory methodology, we developed a model that highlights relevant characteristics of departments with high use of active learning instruction in their introductory courses. According to this model, there are four main, interconnected characteristics of such departments: motivated people, knowledge about active learning, opportunities, and cultures and structures that support active learning. These departments have one or more people who are motivated to promote the use of active learning. These motivated people have knowledge about active learning as well as access to opportunities to promote the use of active learning. Finally, these departments have cultures and structures that support the use of active learning. In these departments, there is a positive feedback loop that works iteratively over time, where motivated people shape cultures/structures and these cultures/structures in turn increase the number and level of commitment of the motivated people. A second positive feedback loop was found between the positive outcome of using active learning instruction and the strengthening of cultures/structures supportive of active learning. Conclusions According to the model, there are two main take-away messages for those interested in promoting the use of active learning. The first is that all four components of the model are important. A weak or missing component may limit the desired outcome. The second is that desired outcomes are obtained and strengthened over time through two positive feedback loops. Thus, there is a temporal aspect to change. In all of the departments that were part of our study, the changes took at minimum several years to enact. While our model was developed using only high-use of active learning departments and future work is needed to develop the model into a full change theory, our results do suggest that change efforts may be made more e