Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Student Motivation from and Resistance to Active Learning Rooted in Essential Science Practices

  • Published:
Research in Science Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Several studies have found active learning to enhance students’ motivation and attitudes. Yet, faculty indicate that students resist active learning and censure them on evaluations after incorporating active learning into their instruction, resulting in an apparent paradox. We argue that the disparity in findings across previous studies is the result of variation in the active learning instruction that was implemented. The purpose of this study was to illuminate sources of motivation from and resistance to active learning that resulted from a novel, exemplary active-learning approach rooted in essential science practices and supported by science education literature. This approach was enacted over the course of 4 weeks in eight sections of an introductory undergraduate biology laboratory course. A plant concept inventory, administered to students as a pre-, post-, and delayed-posttest indicated significant proximal and distal learning gains. Qualitative analysis of open-response questionnaires and interviews elucidated sources of motivation and resistance that resulted from this active-learning approach. Several participants indicated this approach enhanced interest, creativity, and motivation to prepare, and resulted in a challenging learning environment that facilitated the sharing of diverse perspectives and the development of a community of learners. Sources of resistance to active learning included participants’ unfamiliarity with essential science practices, having to struggle with uncertainty in the absence of authoritative information, and the extra effort required to actively construct knowledge as compared to learning via traditional, teacher-centered instruction. Implications for implementation, including tips for reducing student resistance to active learning, are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Akerson, V. L., Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). Influence of a reflective explicit activity-based approach on elementary teachers’ conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 295–317.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alfieri, L., Brooks, P. J., Aldrich, N. J., & Tenenbaum, H. R. (2011). Does discovery-based instruction enhance learning? Journal of Educational Psychology, 103, 1–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allen, D., & Tanner, K. (2005). Infusing active learning into the large enrollment biology class: seven strategies, from the simple to complex. CBE Life Sci Educ, 4, 262–268.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allen, D., & Tanner, K. D. (2006). Rubrics: tools for making learning goals and evaluation criteria explicit for both teachers and learners. CBE Life Sci Educ, 5, 197–203.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andrews, T. M., Leonard, M. J., Colgrove, C. A., & Kalinowski, S. T. (2011). Active learning not associated with student learning in a random sample of college biology courses. CBE Life Sci Educ, 10, 394–405.

    Google Scholar 

  • Armbruster, P., Patel, M., Johnson, E., & Weiss, M. (2009). Active learning and student-centered pedagogy improve student attitudes and performance in introductory biology. CBE Life Sci Educ, 8, 203–213.

    Google Scholar 

  • Austin, A. W., Parrot, S. A., Korn, W. S., & Sax, L. J. (1997). The American freshman: thirty-year trends. Los Angeles: Higher Education Research Institute, University of California.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37, 122.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barab, S. A., Barnett, M. G., & Squire, K. (2002). Smart people or smart contexts? Cognition, ability and talent development in an age of situated approaches to knowing and learning. Educational Psychologist, 37, 165–182.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bargh, J. A., & Schul, Y. (1980). On the cognitive benefits of teaching. Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 593.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benware, C. A., & Deci, E. L. (1984). Quality of learning with an active versus passive motivational set. American Educational Research Journal, 21, 755–765.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonwell, C. C., & Eison, J. A. (1991). Active learning: creating excitement in the classroom. 1991 ASHE-ERIC higher education reports (pp. 20036–21183). Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education, The George Washington University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyer, E. L. (1998). The Boyer commission on educating undergraduates in the research university, reinventing undergraduate education: a blueprint for America’s research universities. New York: Stony Brook.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bransford, J., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). Committee on developments in the science of learning. How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brewer, C. A., & Smith, D. (2011). Vision and change in undergraduate biology education: a call to action. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bunce, D. M., Flens, E. A., & Neiles, K. Y. (2010). How long can students pay attention in class? A study of student attention decline using clickers. Journal of Chemical Education, 87, 1438–1443.

    Google Scholar 

  • Choi, Y., & Anderson, W. J. (2016). Self-directed learning with feedback. Journal of College Science Teaching, 46, 32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chory-Assad, R. M. (2002). Classroom justice: perceptions of fairness as a predictor of student motivation, learning, and aggression. Communication Quarterly, 50, 58–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Colburn, A. (2000). An inquiry primer. Sci Scope, 23, 42–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Connell, G. L., Donovan, D. A., & Chambers, T. G. (2016). Increasing the use of student-centered pedagogies from moderate to high improves student learning and attitudes about biology. CBE Life Sci Educ, 15, 1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cortright, R. N., Collins, H. L., & DiCarlo, S. E. (2005). Peer instruction enhanced meaningful learning: ability to solve novel problems. Advances in Physiology Education, 29, 107–111.

    Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry & research design: choosing among five approaches (3rd ed.). Los Angeles: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crouch, C. H., & Mazur, E. (2001). Peer instruction: ten years of experience and results. American Journal of Physics, 69, 970–977.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum.

  • DeHaan, R. L. (2009). Teaching creativity and inventive problem solving in science. CBE Life Sci Educ, 8, 172–181.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, J. (1944). Democracy and education. New York: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dirks, C. (2011). The current status and future direction of biology education research. In Second Committee Meeting on the Status, Contributions, and Future Directions of Discipline-Based Education Research. Available: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.675.6018&rep=rep1&type=pdf.

  • Dori, Y. J., & Herscovitz, O. (1999). Question-posing capability as an alternative evaluation method: analysis of an environmental case study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 411–430.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A socio-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95, 256–273.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ebert-May, D., Derting, T. L., Hodder, J., Momsen, J. L., Long, T. M., & Jardeleza, S. E. (2011). What we say is not what we do: effective evaluation of faculty professional development programs. Bioscience, 61, 550–558.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elliot, A. J., & Murayama, K. (2008). On the measurement of achievement goals: critique, illustration, and application. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 613–628.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellis, A. (1985). Overcoming resistance: rational-emotive therapy with difficult clients. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Epstein, D. (2006). So that's why they're leaving. Inside Higher Education. Retrieved December 2, 2016, from http://insidehighered.com/news/2006/07/26/scipipeline.

  • Felder, R. M. (2011). Hang in there! Dealing with student resistance to learner-centered teaching. Chemical Engineering Education, 43, 131–132.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Felder, R. M., & Brent, R. (2004). The intellectual development of science and engineering students. Part 1: models and challenges. Journal of Engineering Education, 93, 269–277.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, S., O’Connor, E., Parks, J. W., Cunningham, M., Hurley, D., Haak, D., Dirks, C., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2007). Prescribed active learning increases performance in introductory biology. CBE Life Sci Educ, 6, 132–139.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, S., Haak, D., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2011). Increased course structure improves performance in introductory biology. CBE Life Sci Educ, 10, 175–186.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014a). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111, 8410–8415.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, S., Quillin, K., & Allison, L. (2014b). Biological science (5th ed.). New York: Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graham, M. J., Frederick, J., Byars-Winston, A., Hunter, A. B., & Handelsman, J. (2013). Increasing persistence of college students in STEM. Science, 341, 1455–1456.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haak, D. C., HilleRisLambers, J., Pitre, E., & Freeman, S. (2011). Increased structure and active learning reduce the achievement gap in introductory biology. Science, 332, 1213–1216.

    Google Scholar 

  • Handelsman, J., Ebert-May, D., Beichner, R., Bruns, P., Chang, A., DeHaan, R., et al. (2004). Scientific teaching. Science, 304, 521–522.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huba, M. E., & Freed, J. E. (2000). Learner-centered assessment on college campuses: shifting the focus from teaching to learning. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hulleman, C. S., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2009). Promoting interest and performance in high school science classes. Science, 326, 1410–1412.

    Google Scholar 

  • Katz, I., Assor, A., Kanat-Maymon, Y., & Bereby-Meyer, Y. (2006). Interest as a motivational resource: feedback and gender matter, but interest makes the difference. Social Psychology of Education, 9, 27–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keller, C., Finkelstein, N., Perkins, K., Pollock, S., Turpen, C., & Dubson, M. (2007). Research-based practices for effective clicker use. AIP Conference Proceedings, 951, 128–131.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klahr, D., & Nigam, M. (2004). The equivalence of learning paths in early science instruction effects of direct instruction and discovery learning. Psychological Science, 15, 661–667.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klionsky, D. J. (2004). Points of view: lectures: can’t learn with them, can’t learn without them talking biology: learning outside the book—and the lecture. CBE Life Sci Educ, 3, 204–211.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kloss, R. J. (1994). A nudge is best: helping students through the Perry scheme of intellectual development. College Teaching, 42, 151–158.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kracauer, S. (1952). The challenge of qualitative content analysis. Public Opin Q, 16, 631–642.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: an overview. Theory Into Practice, 41, 215.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kroll, B. M. (1992). Teaching hearts and minds: college students reflect on the Vietnam War in literature. Carbondale: SIU Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuh, G. D. (2005). Student engagement in the first year of college. In M. L. Upcraft, J. N. Gardner, & B. O. Barefoot (Eds.), Challenging and supporting the first-year student: a handbook for improving the first year of college (pp. 86–107). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77, 319–337.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lave, J. (1991). Situating learning in communities of practice. In L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine, & S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lemke, J. (1990). Talking science. Norwood: Ablex.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewin, J. D., Vinson, E. L., Stetzer, M. R., & Smith, M. K. (2016). A campus-wide investigation of clicker implementation: the status of peer discussion in STEM classes. CBE Life Sci Educ, 15, 1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marbach-Ad, G., & Sokolove, P. G. (2000a). Can undergraduate biology students learn to ask higher level questions? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 854–870.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marbach-Ad, G., & Sokolove, P. (2000b). Good science begins with good questions. Journal of College Science Teaching, 30, 192–201.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martyn, M. (2007). Clickers in the classroom: an active learning approach. Educause Quarterly, 30, 71–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mazur, E. (1996). Peer instruction: a user’s manual. Upper Saddle River: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • McComas, W. F. (1996). Ten myths of science: reexamining what we think we know about the nature of science. School Science and Mathematics, 96, 10.

    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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Momsen, J. L., Long, T. M., Wyse, S. A., & Ebert-May, D. (2010). Just the facts? Introductory undergraduate biology courses focus on low-level cognitive skills. CBE Life Sci Educ, 9, 435–440.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morse, J. M. (1991). Approaches to qualitative-quantitative methodological triangulation. Nursing Research, 40, 120–123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moseley, D. V., Baumfield, V., Elliott, J., Gregson, M., Higgins, S. E., Miller, J., & Newton, D. P. (2005). Frameworks for thinking: a handbook for teachers and learners. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (NRC). (1997). Science teaching reconsidered: a handbook. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newton, D. P., & Newton, L. D. (2009). Some student teachers’ conceptions of creativity in school science. Res Sci Technol Educ, 27, 45–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Novak, A. (1964). Scientific inquiry. Bioscience, 14, 25–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • NRC. (2000). How people learn: brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • NRC. (2003). Improving undergraduate instruction in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics: report of a workshop. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • NRC. (2004). BIO2010: Transforming Undergraduate Education for Future Research Biologists. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • NRC. (2007). Rising above the gathering storm: energizing and employing America for a brighter economic future. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • NRC. (2012). A framework for K–12 science education: practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orr, H. A. (1999). An evolutionary dead end? Science, 285, 343–344.

    Google Scholar 

  • Owens, D. C. (2017). Issues with tissues: a tale of gameful learning in an introductory undergraduate biology laboratory course. Journal of College Science Teaching, 47, 38–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patterson, C. H. (1984). Empathy, warmth, and genuineness in psychotherapy: a review of reviews. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 21, 431–438.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perry, W. G. (1970). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years: a scheme. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piaget, J. (1970). Genetic epistemology. (E. Duckworth, Trans.). New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education, 93, 223–231.

    Google Scholar 

  • Project Kaleidoscope. (2006). Recommendations for urgent action in support of undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Washington, DC: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scheyvens, R., Griffin, A. L., Jocoy, C. L., Liu, Y., & Bradford, M. (2008). Experimenting with active learning in geography: dispelling the myths that perpetuate resistance. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 32, 51–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schilling, K. M., & Schilling, K. L. (1999). Increasing expectations for student effort. About Campus, 4, 4–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, A. L. (2011). Creativity in science: tensions between perception and practice. Creative Education, 2(5), 435.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, L. D., & Strong, S. R. (1970). “Expert” and “inexpert” counselors. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 17, 115–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seidel, S. B., & Tanner, K. D. (2013). “What if students revolt?”—considering student resistance: origins, options, and opportunities for investigation. CBE Life Sci Educ, 12, 586–595.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seymour, E., & Hewett, N. M. (1997). Talking about leaving: why undergraduates leave the sciences. Boulder: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shekhar, P., Demonbrun, M., Borrego, M., Finelli, C., Prince, M., Henderson, C., & Waters, C. (2015). Development of an observation protocol to study undergraduate engineering student resistance to active learning. International Journal of Engineering Education, 31, 597–609.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shodell, M. (1995). The question-driven classroom: student questions as course curriculum in biology. The American Biology Teacher, 57, 278–281.

    Google Scholar 

  • Silverthorn, D. U., Thorn, P. M., & Svinicki, M. D. (2006). It's difficult to change the way we teach: lessons from the integrative themes in physiology curriculum module project. Advances in Physiology Education, 30, 204–214.

  • Slavin, R. E. (1987). Cooperative learning: student teams. Washington, D.C.: National Education Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, M. K., Wood, W. B., Adams, W. K., Wieman, C., Knight, J. K., Guild, N., & Su, T. T. (2009). Why peer discussion improves student performance on in-class concept questions. Science, 323, 122–124.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sousa, D. A. (2006). How the brain learns (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Springer, L., Stanne, M., & Donovan, S. (1999). Effects of small-group learning on undergraduates in science, mathematics, engineering and technology: a meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 69, 21–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turpen, C., & Finkelstein, N. D. (2009). Not all interactive engagement is the same: variations in physics professors’ implementation of peer instruction. Phys Rev PER, 5, 020101-1-18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turpen, C., & Finkelstein, N. D. (2010). The construction of different classroom norms during peer instruction: students perceive differences. Phys Rev PER, 6, 0201231–0201222.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Department of Education, Office of Innovation and Improvement. (2016). STEM 2026: a vision for innovation in STEM education. Washington, DC: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vaughan, M. (2014). Flipping the learning: an investigation into the use of the flipped classroom model in an introductory teaching course. Educ Res Perspect (Online), 41, 25–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vodopich, D. S., & Moore, R. (2014). Biology laboratory manual (10th ed.). New York: McGraw Hill Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiss, I. R., Pasley, J. D., Smith, P. S., Banilower, E. R., & Heck, D. J. (2003). Looking inside the classroom: a study of K–12 mathematics and science education in the United States. Chapel Hill: Horizon Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Wieman, C. E. (2014). Large-scale comparison of science teaching methods sends clear message. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111, 8319–8320.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright, R., & Boggs, J. (2002). Learning cell biology as a team: a project-based approach to upper-division cell biology. CBE Life Sci Educ, 1, 145–153.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Learning, Teaching, & Curriculum, University of Missouri, 303 Townsend Hall, Columbia, MO, 65211, USA

    David C. Owens & Troy D. Sadler

  2. Department of Mathematics and Science Education, Middle Tennessee State University, MTSU Box 76, Murfreesboro, TN, 37132, USA

    Angela T. Barlow

  3. Department of Biology, Middle Tennessee State University, MTSU Box 60, Murfreesboro, TN, 37132, USA

    Cindi Smith-Walters

Authors
  1. David C. Owens
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Troy D. Sadler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Angela T. Barlow
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Cindi Smith-Walters
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David C. Owens.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Owens, D.C., Sadler, T.D., Barlow, A.T. et al. Student Motivation from and Resistance to Active Learning Rooted in Essential Science Practices. Res Sci Educ 50, 253–277 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-017-9688-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-017-9688-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation