It's not about what you offer, it's about what i buy

Reading Materials:

1. Cavanagh, A. J., Aragón, O. R., Chen, X., Couch, B. A., Durham, M. F., Bobrownicki, A., Hanauer, D. I., & Graham, M. J. (2016). Student Buy-In to Active Learning in a College Science Course. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 15(4), ar76. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-07-0212

2. Cavanagh, A. J., Chen, X., Bathgate, M., Frederick, J., Hanauer, D. I., & Graham, M. J. (2018). Trust, Growth Mindset, and Student Commitment to Active Learning in a College Science Course. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 17(1), ar10. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.17-06-0107

Active learning has been advocated for decades in and outside the United States. Although numerous empirical studies have shown the positive effects of active learning on student learning, there is still a debate regarding the effectiveness and efficiency of active learning.

In the above paper, Cavanagh et al. (2016) introduced the exposure-persuasion-identification-commitment (EPIC) process model (see Figure 1 below) to investigate the impact of active learning on student engagement and academic performance in a college science course, and supported the EPIC model with a sample of 245 undergraduates. 

Figure 1. A sketch of the EPIC process model (Cavanagh et al., 2016).

The four elements in the EPIC model represent the four steps of students' buy-in to active learning. Cavanagh et al. (2016) tested the EPIC model with serial mediation and confirmed that the EPIC model is a development model, which suggests that exposure led to persuasion, persuasion led to identification, which in turn led to commitment. The four elements in EPIC are important features of buy-in, and buy-in was positively associated with student engagement and desired academic outcomes. 

Interestingly, the EPIC model aligns with the internalization process of motivation proposed and confirmed by self-determination theory (SDT) researchers. Because of the consistency, the facilitators of internalization investigated by SDT might be potential variables that are able to foster students' buy-in to active learning.

Questions that need to be further addressed:
1. Is EPIC a development model? Do students have to go through each stage of the process sequentially?
Although Cavanagh et al. (2016) suggested that the EPIC model is a development model, students' responses to the EPIC items (see Table 2 in the paper) did not support the idea. For example, for many EPIC items, there were more students endorsed identification than persuasion.  

2. How do researchers quantify buy-in?
Cavanagh et al. (2016) exclaimed that buy-in incorporates four elements, including exposure, persuasion, identification, and commitment. Methodologically, it is not clear how to get a total score of buy-in. In Cavanagh et al.'s (2018) paper, Trust, Growth Mindset, and Student Commitment to Active Learning in a College Science Course, they stated that a total sum score aggregating across all four categories was computed to represent buy-in. This approach does not take the quality of buy-in features into account. Another possible way might be generating profiles of students based on the four components of EPIC.

3: How do we promote students' buy-in?
Cavanagh et al. (2016) called for more studies exploring the confluence of student-, classroom-, and instructor-level influences that may contribute to students' buy-in. Drawing from the interpersonal relationship theory (Reis & Clark, 2013) and the framework of mindset (Dweck & Leggett, 1988), Cavanagh et al. (2018) investigated the effects of trust and students' growth mindset on students commitment, engagement, and performance in an active learning context. The associations between trust, growth mindset and three outcome variables were tested with simple and multiple linear regressions. Results indicated that trust was significantly associated with all three outcomes, while growth mindset failed to predict any of the outcomes. The findings reaffirm the important role of instructors in active learning. 
But, in addition to building trust, are there other factors may impact students' buy-in to active learning? Research and findings in SDT might be able to shed some light on this. According to SDT, when instructors successfully satisfy students' needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness, students are likely to demonstrate adaptive learning outcomes.