Skip to main content


Table 1 Overview of research focused on faculty perceptions of barriers to implementing EBIPS

From: The STEM Faculty Instructional Barriers and Identity Survey (FIBIS): development and exploratory results

  Student characteristics Teacher characteristics Technical/pedagogical issues Departmental/Institutional
Michael, 2007 Don’t know how to do active learning, don’t come prepared for class, unwilling to engage, lack maturity, difficult due to student heterogeneity Too much prep time required, less control, colleague perceptions, risk of poor student evals, don’t know how to do it Inappropriate classroom design, too much time—can’t cover content needed, assessment difficult, class size challenges, hard to predict learning outcomes, hard to ensure quality in multiple sections, not enough learning resources, standard classroom periods Faculty reward structure favors research
Sunal et al., 2001 Time Resources, turf conflicts
Walder, 2015 Absenteeism, resistance, commitment Time constraints, fears, energy investment Need for TAs, problematic tech, class too large, technical complexity, organizational difficulties, in-class assignments, subject, discipline-specific issues Financial, national constraints
Brownell & Tanner, 2012 Lack of time and training, professional identity tensions Lack of incentives; professional identity as researcher preferred
Porter & Graham, 2016 Insufficient infrastructure availability, tech support, pedagogical support, evals Faculty and administrator goal alignment for adoption
Turpen et al., 2016 Time, content coverage loss, bad past experience with EBIPs
Dancy & Henderson, 2008 Resistance Content coverage expectations, lack of time Class size and room layout, time structure Departmental norms
Elrod & Kezar, 2017 Belief that change only happens at dept level or requires a grant, expecting an EBIP to work without tailoring to institution, faculty belief in their role as sage on the stage, lack of expertise in the EBIP, belief that more people have bought in than actually have, implicit theories about change; lack of consideration in informing students of change and rationale Lack of incentives, lack of support for data collection and analysis, inadequate planning for buy in, department tension for turf, resources, workload, shifts in leadership, changes in team membership
Henderson & Dancy, 2007 Attitudes to school/lack responsibility/only here for degree, student resistance/don’t like to interact/not prepared to think independently Lack of time/too busy teaching load and research Time structure/fixed semester length/limited class time, class size, room layout Expected content coverage, departmental norms
Hora, 2012 Type of course influences teaching by dictating feasible and appropriate course pedagogy Teaching loads (dictate time available for teaching-related activities), teaching evaluations because of their role in personnel policies (i.e., tenure and promotion)
Shadle, Marker, & Earl, 2017 Student resistance, unprepared students Loss of autonomy, resistance to change, competes with research, lack of pedagogical skills/information, lack of confidence in EBIPS Time constraints, instructional challenges, inadequate resources, rigid or ambitious nature of EBIPs, vague end state/process to get there Insufficient faculty assessment methods and processes, conflicts with institutional rewards/priorities, current culture is unsupportive, departmental divisions, misalignment with accreditation requirements
  1. – Not discussed in the article