Search

Inquiry-Based learning (IBL) is a fairly well-known term in the United States (US) describing a range of student-centered or active pedagogical approaches in mathematics. However, the 'big tent' definitions of IBL mean that there is much variation in IBL users' instructional practices, variation which we set out to codify. Cluster analysis of self-reported data from a survey of postsecondary calculus instructors across the US reveals three instructional profiles among self-declared users of IBL: (a) heavy users of group work; (b) users of a variety of mixed approaches; and (c) heavy users of didactic lecture. The instructional profile of this third group is indistinguishable from that of calculus instructors who report never having heard of IBL. We further investigate the relationship of these instructional profiles to certain beliefs about teaching and learning. All groups agree that inquiry supports learning; the groups who spend a minority of time in didactic lecture disagree with statements that there are benefits to lecturing. Implications for research and adoption of IBL are discussed.

A survey of 722 physics faculty conducted in 2008 found that many physics instructors had knowledge of research-based instructional strategies (RBISs), were interested in using more, but often discontinued use after trying. Considerable effort has been made during the decade following 2008 to develop and disseminate RBISs in physics as well as change the culture within the physics community to value RBIS use and other forms of student-centered instruction. This paper uses data from a 2019 survey of 1176 physics instructors to understand the current state of RBIS use in college-level introductory physics, thus allowing us to better understand some of the impacts of these efforts on physics instruction. Results show that self-reported knowledge and use of RBISs has increased considerably and discontinuation is now relatively low. However, although the percentage of time lecturing is less than 10 years ago, many instructors still engage in substantial lecturing (i.e., more than one-third of class time). Relatedly, we find that the majority of RBIS use centers on pedagogies designed to supplement a primarily lecture-based classroom rather than pedagogies designed to support a primarily active learning classroom. This suggests that the physics education research community and beyond has done well promoting knowledge about RBISs and inspiring instructors to try RBISs in their courses. But, there is still room to improve. Based on available evidence about effective instructional practices, we recommend that change agents focus on supporting instructors to increase the percent of class time in active learning and to implement higher impact strategies.

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 effective by increasing the robustness of the four components and the connections between them.