Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

What Discourages Students from Engaging with Innovative Instructional Methods: Creating a Barrier Framework

Innovative Higher Education volume 40, pages 111–125 (2015)Cite this article

Abstract

When faculty members choose to implement instructional methods that are learning-centred, this may represent a change for students; and some resist engaging. In this exploratory case study research, 172 students shared what discourages them from being willing to engage with these innovative methods that aim to facilitate their learning. Questionnaire and interview responses revealed eight key themes that are used to create a comprehensive barrier framework, and comparative analyses assist in reducing the findings. A fishbone diagram provides a possible planning tool for practitioners, and theoretical connections to the Reasoned Action Approach model are explored to further distill the findings.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Figure 1

References

  • Abedor, A. J., & Sachs, S. G. (1978). The relationship between faculty development (FD), organizational development (OD) and instructional development (ID): Readiness for instructional innovation in higher education. In R. K. Bass, C. R. Dills, & D. B. Lumsden (Eds.), Instructional development: The state of the art (pp. 2–19). San Diego, CA: Collegiate Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Albers, C. (2009). Teaching: From disappointment to ecstasy. Teaching Sociology, 37, 269–282. doi:10.1177/0092055X0903700305

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allen, G. K., Wedman, J. F., & Folk, L. C. (2001). Looking beyond the valley: A five-year case study of course innovation. Innovative Higher Education, 26, 103–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alessio, H. (2004). Student perceptions about and performance in problem-based learning. Journal of Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 4(1), 23–34. Retrieved from http://josotl.indiana.edu/article/view/1607/1606

    Google Scholar 

  • Barr, R. B., & Tagg, J. (1995). From teaching to learning – A new paradigm for undergraduate education. Change, 27(6), 13–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charmaz, K. (2004). Grounded theory. In S. Hesse-Biber & P. Leavy (Eds.), Approaches to qualitative research: A reader on theory and practice (pp. 496–521). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. London, United Kingdom: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christensen Hughes, J., & Mighty, J. (2010). A call to action: Barriers to pedagogical innovation and how to overcome them. In J. Christensen Hughes & J. Mighty (Eds.), Taking stock: Research on teaching and learning in higher education (pp. 261–277). Kingston, ON: The School of Policy Studies, Queen’s University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Durrheim, K., & Foster, D. (1997). Tolerance of ambiguity as a content specific construct. Personality and Individual Differences, 22, 741–750. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(96)00207-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elen, J., & Lowyck, J. (2000). Instructional metacognitive knowledge: A qualitative study on conceptions of freshmen about instruction. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 32, 421–444. doi:10.1080/002202700182637

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ellis, D.E. (2013). Students’ responses to innovative instructional methods: Exploring learning-centred methods and barriers to change (Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis). University of Waterloo. Retrieved from https://uwspace.uwaterloo.ca/handle/10012/7414

  • Erwin, D. G., & Garman, A. N. (2010). Resistance to organizational change: Linking research and practice. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 31, 39–56. doi:10.1108/01437731011010371

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Felder, R. M., & Brent, R. (1996). Navigating the bumpy road to student-centered instruction. College Teaching, 44(2), 43–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fink, L. D. (2003). Creating significant learning experiences. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (2010). Predicting and changing behavior: The reasoned action approach. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghosh, D., & Ray, M. R. (1992). Risk attitude, ambiguity intolerance and decision making: An exploratory investigation. Decision Sciences, 23, 431–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hockings, C. (2005). Removing the barriers? A study of the conditions affecting teaching innovation. Teaching in Higher Education, 10, 313–326. doi:10.1080/13562510500122149

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ishikawa, K. (1982). Guide to quality control. Tokyo, Japan: Asian Productivity Organization.

    Google Scholar 

  • Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Pucik, V., & Welbourne, T. M. (1999). Managerial coping with organizational change: A dispositional perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 107–122. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.84.1.107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kearney, P., & Plax, T. G. (1992). Student resistance to control. In V. P. Richmond & J. C. McCroskey (Eds.), Power in the classroom: Communication, control, and concern (pp. 85–100). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keeney-Kennicutt, W., Gunersel, A. B., & Simpson, N. (2008). Overcoming student resistance to a teaching innovation. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 2(1). Retrieved from http://academics.georgiasouthern.edu/ijsotl/issue_v2n1.htm

  • Lewin, K. (1999). Group decision and social change. In M. Gold (Ed.), The complete social scientist: A Kurt Lewin reader (pp. 265–284). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association (Original work published in 1948).

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, L. K., & Hayward, P. A. (2003). Choice-based learning: Student reactions in an undergraduate organizational communication course. Communication Education, 52, 148–156. doi:10.1080/03634520302467

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Messineo, M., Gaither, G., Bott, J., & Ritchey, K. (2007). Inexperienced versus experienced students’ expectations for active learning in large classes. College Teaching, 55, 125–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michael, J. (2007). Faculty perceptions about barriers to active learning. College Teaching, 55, 42–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oreg, S. (2006). Personality, context, and resistance to organizational change. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 15, 73–101. doi:10.1080/13594320500451247

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluative methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pepper, C. (2010). ‘There’s a lot of learning going on but NOT much teaching!’: Student perceptions of problem-based learning in science. Higher Education Research & Development, 29, 693–707. doi:10.1080/07294360.2010.501073

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perry, C., & Jensen, O. (2001, December). Approaches to combining induction and deduction in one research study. Paper presented at the annual Australian & New Zealand Marketing Academy Conference, Auckland, NZ. Retrieved from http://anzmac.org/conference_archive/2001/anzmac/AUTHORS/pdfs/Perry1.pdf

  • Reid, S. (2009, October). Teaching risk-taking in college classrooms. In M. Weimer (Ed.), The Teaching Professor, 3.

  • Reimann, N. (2011). To risk or not to risk it: Student (non-)engagement with seen examination questions. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 36, 263–279. doi:10.1080/02602930903311716

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York, NY: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thorn, P.M. (2003). Bridging the gap between what is praised and what is practiced: Supporting the work of change as anatomy & physiology instructors introduce active learning into their undergraduate classroom (Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis). University of Texas at Austin.

  • Trowler, P., & Cooper, A. (2002). Teaching and learning regimes: Implicit theories and recurrent practices in the enhancement of teaching and learning through educational development programmes. Higher Education Research & Development, 21, 221–240. doi:10.1080/0729436022000020742

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wanberg, C. R., & Banas, J. T. (2000). Predictors and outcomes of openness to changes in a reorganizing workplace. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 132–142. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.85.1.132

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weimer, M. (2002). Learner-centered teaching: Five key changes to practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

The author wishes to thank Kenneth McKay for his insights and contributions to the research study as well as colleagues Julie Timmermans and Veronica Brown at the University of Waterloo’s Centre for Teaching Excellence for their editorial contributions.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Teaching Excellence, EV1, University of Waterloo, 200 University Avenue West, Waterloo, N2L 3G1, Ontario, Canada

    Donna E. Ellis

Authors
  1. Donna E. Ellis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Donna E. Ellis.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ellis, D. What Discourages Students from Engaging with Innovative Instructional Methods: Creating a Barrier Framework. Innov High Educ 40, 111–125 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-014-9304-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-014-9304-5

Keywords

search

Navigation