College instructors are often afraid to use active learning instructional strategies because they fear that students may complain and/or give them lower evaluations of teaching. In this paper, we present data from a survey of 431 physics instructors who had attended the Physics and Astronomy New Faculty Workshop and who attempted to incorporate active learning into their introductory course. Nearly half of respondents (48%) felt that their student evaluations increased, one-third (32%) felt that their student evaluations had not been impacted, and one-fifth (20%) felt that their student evaluations decreased. Thus, contrary to common fears, for these instructors the most likely result from the incorporation of active learning was an increase in student evaluations.

1.
S.
Freeman
,
S. L.
Eddy
,
M.
McDonough
 et al, “
Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics
,”
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.
111
,
8410
8415
(
2014
)..
2.
C.
Henderson
,
M.
Dancy
, and
M.
Niewiadomska-Bugaj
, “
Use of research-based instructional strategies in introductory physics: Where do faculty leave the innovation-decision process?
,”
Phys. Rev. Spec. Top. - Phys. Educ. Res.
8
(
2
),
020104
(
2012
).
3.
L. E.
Patrick
,
L. A.
Howell
, and
W.
Wischusen
, “
Perceptions of active learning between faculty and undergraduates: Differing views among departments
,”
J. STEM Educ.
17
(
3
),
55
63
(
2016
).
4.
C. N.
Hayward
,
M.
Kogan
, and
S. L.
Laursen
, “
Facilitating instructor adoption of inquiry-based learning in college mathematics
,”
Int. J. Res. Undergrad. Math. Educ.
2
,
59
82
(
2016
).
5.
C.
Henderson
and
M. H.
Dancy
, “
Barriers to the use of research-based instructional strategies: The influence of both individual and situational characteristics
,”
Phys. Rev. Spec. Top.–Phys. Educ. Res.
3
(
2
),
020102
(
2007
).
6.
R. A.
Berk
, “
Survey of 12 strategies to measure teaching effectiveness
,”
Int. J. Teach. Learn. High Educ.
17
(
1
),
48
62
(
2005
).
7.
C.
Henderson
,
C.
Turpen
,
M.
Dancy
, and
T.
Chapman
, “
Assessment of teaching effectiveness: Lack of alignment between instructors, institutions, and research recommendations
,”
Phys. Rev. Spec. Top.–Phys. Educ. Res.
10
(
1
),
010106
(
2014
).
8.
National Academy of Engineering
,
Developing Metrics for Assessing Engineering Instruction: What Gets Measured Is What Gets Improved Report from the Steering Committee for
(
National Academy Press
,
Washington, DC
,
2009
).
9.
P.
Stark
,
K.
Ottoboni
, and
A.
Boring
, “
Student evaluations of teaching (mostly) do not measure teaching effectiveness
,”
Sci. Res.
2016
,
1
11
.
10.
S. E.
Carrell
and
J. E.
West
, “
Does professor quality matter? Evidence from random assignment of students to professors
,”
J. Polit. Econ.
118
(
3
),
409
432
(
2010
).
11.
K. A.
Feldman
, “
Reflections on the study of effective college teaching and student ratings: One continuing quest and two unresolved issues
,” in
Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research
, edited by
J. C.
Smart
(
Springer
, Netherlands,
1998
), Vol.
24
, pp.
35
74
.
12.
D. S.
Hamermesh
and
A.
Parker
, “
Beauty in the classroom: instructors' pulchritude and putative pedagogical productivity
,”
Econ. Educ. Rev.
24
(
4
),
369
376
(
2005
).
13.
L.
MacNell
,
A.
Driscoll
, and
A. N.
Hunt
, “
What's in a name: Exposing gender bias in student ratings of teaching
,”
Innov. High Educ.
40
(
4
),
291
303
(
2015
).
14.
C.
Henderson
, “
Promoting instructional change in new faculty: An evaluation of the physics and astronomy new faculty workshop
,”
Am. J. Phys.
76
(
2
),
179
–187 (
2008
).
15.
E.
Mazur
,
Peer Instruction: A User's Manual
(
Prentice Hall
,
Upper Saddle River, NJ
,
1997
).
16.
P.
Heller
and
K.
Heller
,
Cooperative Group Problem Solving in Physics
(
University of Minnesota preprint
,
MN
,
1999
).
17.
G. M.
Novak
,
E. T.
Patterson
,
A. D.
Gavrin
, and
W.
Christian
,
Just-in-Time Teaching: Blending Active Learning with Web Technology
(
Prentice Hall
,
Upper Saddle River, NJ
,
1999
).
18.
L.
McDermott
and
P. S.
Shaffer
,
Tutorials in Introductory Physics
, 1st ed. (
Prentice Hall
,
Upper Saddle River, NJ
,
2002
).
19.
R.
Ivie
,
S.
White
,
A.
Garrett
, and
G.
Anderson
,
Women among Physics and Astronomy Faculty: Results from the 2010 Survey of Physics Degree-Granting Departments
(
American Institute of Physics
,
College Park, MD
,
2013
).
20.
M.
Stains
,
J.
Harshman
,
M. K.
Barker
 et al, “
Anatomy of STEM teaching in North American universities
,”
Science (80-)
359
(
6383
),
1468
1470
(
2018
).
21.
J. W.
Creswell
,
Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches
(
Sage Publications
,
New York
,
2013
).
22.
R. M.
Felder
, “
Hang in there! Dealing with student resistance to learner-centered teaching
,”
Chem. Eng. Educ.
45
(
2
),
131
132
(
2011
).
23.
A.
Yadav
,
D.
Subedi
,
M. A.
Lundeberg
, and
C. F.
Bunting
, “
Problem-based learning: Influence on students' learning in an electrical engineering course
,”
J. Eng. Educ.
100
(
2
),
253
280
(
2011
).
24.
R. J.
Beichner
,
J. M.
Saul
,
D. S.
Abbott
 et al,
The Student-Centered Activities for Large Enrollment Undergraduate Programs (SCALE-UP) Project
, edited by
E. F.
Redish
and
P. J.
Cooney
(
American Association of Physics Teachers
,
College Park, MD
,
2007
).
25.
E. F.
Redish
,
Teaching Physics with the Physics Suite
(
John Wiley & Sons
,
Hoboken, NJ
,
2003
).
AAPT members receive access to the American Journal of Physics and The Physics Teacher as a member benefit. To learn more about this member benefit and becoming an AAPT member, visit the Joining AAPT page.