Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Student Motivation and Resistance in Active Learning Classrooms

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Active Learning in College Science

Abstract

Although the positive effects of active learning (AL) on students’ learning and attitudes are well documented, there seems to be an equally large amount of evidence suggesting that students resist AL. In this chapter, we explore this AL paradox by describing a study that employed a novel AL approach aligned with reform documents and a consensus definition of AL in order to uncover sources of motivation from and resistance to AL. The purpose of the chapter is to aid college science instructors in recognizing these sources of motivation and resistance in their own classrooms so that they are able to emphasize the former and address the latter.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 219.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 279.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 279.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

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.

    Article  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.

    Article  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 Sciences Education, 10, 394–405.

    Article  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 Sciences Education, 8, 203–213.

    Article  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bonwell, C. C., & Eisen, 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 

  • Brewer, C. A., & Smith, D. (2011). Vision and change in undergraduate biology education: A call to action. Washington, DC: AAAS.

    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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chang, C. Y., & Mao, S. L. (1999). The effects on students’ cognitive achievement when using the cooperative learning method in earth science classrooms. School Science and Mathematics, 99(7), 374–379.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chin, C., & Osborne, J. (2008). Students’ questions: A potential resource for teaching and learning science. Studies in Science Education, 44, 1–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.

    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 Sciences Education, 15, 1–15.

    Article  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cuccio-Schirripa, S., & Steiner, H. E. (2000). Enhancement and analysis of science question level for middle school students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 210–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Flannery, M. C. (1987). In the flower garden. The American Biology Teacher, 49, 310–312, 314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg, J., & Welsh, K. M. (2009). Community and inquiry: Journey of a science teacher. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 4, 713–732.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grant, M. M., & Hill, J. R. (2006). Weighing the risks with the rewards: Implementing student centered pedagogy within high-stakes testing. In R. Lambert & C. McCarthy (Eds.), Understanding teacher stress in an age of accountability (pp. 19–42). Greenwich: Information Age Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gross, D., Pietri, E. S., Anderson, G., Moyano-Camihort, K., & Graham, M. J. (2015). Increased preclass preparation underlies student outcome improvement in the flipped classroom. CBE Life Sciences Education, 14, ar36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hidi, S. (1990). Interest and its contribution as a mental resource for learning. Review of Educational Research, 60, 549–571.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, M. (1992). Situational interest: Its multifaceted structure in the secondary mathematics classroom. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 424–436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, C. E. (2008). Teaching evolution (and all of biology) more effectively: Strategies for engagement, critical reasoning, and confronting misconceptions. American Zoologist, 48(2), 213–225.

    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.

    Article  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Owens, D. C., Sadler, T. D., Barlow, A. T., & Smith-Walters, C. (2017). Student motivation from and resistance to active learning rooted in essential science practices. Research in Science Education, 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-017-9688-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogoff, B. (1994). Developing understanding of the idea of communities of learners. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 1, 209–229.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schacter, J., Thum, Y. M., & Zifkin, D. (2006). How much does creative teaching enhance elementary school students’ achievement? Journal of Creative Behavior, 40, 47–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schussler, E. E., & Olzak, L. A. (2008). It’s not easy being green: Student recall of plant and animal images. Journal of Educational Research, 42, 112–118.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  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.

    Article  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Sternberg, R. J. (2003). Creative thinking in the classroom. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 47, 325–338.

    Article  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 

  • 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 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Education, Georgia Southern University, Savannah, GA, USA

    David C. Owens

  2. Department of Mathematics, University of Central Arkansas, Conway, AR, USA

    Angela T. Barlow

  3. Department of Biological Sciences and Center for Environmental Education, Middle Tennessee State University, Murfreesboro, TN, USA

    Cindi Smith-Walters

Authors
  1. David C. Owens
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Angela T. Barlow
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Cindi Smith-Walters
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David C. Owens .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Departments of Biological Sciences and Science Education, California State University, Chico, CA, USA

    Joel J. Mintzes

  2. Science Learning Associates, Wrightsville Beach, NC, USA

    Joel J. Mintzes

  3. Department of Biological Sciences and Center for STEM Education, California State University, Fresno, CA, USA

    Emily M. Walter

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Owens, D.C., Barlow, A.T., Smith-Walters, C. (2020). Student Motivation and Resistance in Active Learning Classrooms. In: Mintzes, J.J., Walter, E.M. (eds) Active Learning in College Science. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-33600-4_57

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-33600-4_57

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-33599-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-33600-4

  • eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation