TABLE 3.
Moderating variables to the implementation of PIa
| Type | Affordances | Barriers |
|---|---|---|
| Conceptions of teaching | • Dissatisfaction with traditional lecture | • Requires too much time and energy |
| • Encourages student engagement | • Satisfaction with current practice | |
| • Easy to incorporate into existing paradigm | • Poor fit with personality | |
| • Intuitively value PI | • Intuitive disbelief in effectiveness of PI | |
| • Evidence of effectiveness from personal experience or published data | • Preference for other types of in-class assessments (e.g., open-ended questions) | |
| • Provides feedback | ||
| • Students learn by working together | ||
| • Promotes deep learning | ||
| Teaching context | • Departmental support or encouragement | • Class size (either too large or too small) |
| • Classroom layout | ||
| • External requirements for content coverage | ||
| • Lack of resources to educate themselves about PI | ||
| • Difficulty finding good questions | ||
| Student factors | • Buy-in | • Resistance |
| • Students lack necessary knowledge and skills to engage appropriately |
a
Only affordances and barriers that were reported by at least a quarter of the interviewees in the Turpen et al. study (2016) as well as in the workshop artifacts are included in this table.